HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 9265(ID # 9265)City of Palo Alto
City Council
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Report Type: Information Meeting Date: 5/22/2018
Summary Title: Revised Rail Corridor Circulation Study White Paper
Title: Revised Rail Corridor Circulation Study White Paper
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff is providing the attached Revised Rail Corridor Circulation Study White Paper (Attachment A) for
the Committee’s information. This revised report will be available to the new rail consultant team as
they conduct their analysis of grade separation alternatives. No Committee action is requested.
Executive Summary
The initial rail program consultant prepared a draft traffic circulation study to assess traffic conditions
along the rail corridor with and without various grade separations. The draft study was provided to the
Rail Committee and the public in late 2017 and staff received a number of comments and questions
which have been addressed in the attached, revised report. The report, now referred to as a “white
paper” will be available to the new rail consultant for their use as they conduct their analysis of grade
separation alternatives. This white paper supplements other white papers on (1) trenching and
tunneling; and (2) local financing.
Background and Discussion
The initial Rail Program Consultant was charged with completing a high-level circulation study. This
study included the following components:
1.Data assembly and review (complete)
2.Research existing documents (complete)
3.Collect and examine multimodal traffic counts (complete)
4.Validate base year in the regional and local travel demand models and adjust models to account
for increased rail service along the corridor (underway)
5.Collate and review any relevant development proposals within the study area (underway)
6.Model future traffic conditions under up to eight scenarios to include:
a.No build scenario with current rail corridor service
b.No build scenario with increased rail corridor service (CalMod and HSR)
c.Build scenario 1
d.Build scenario 2
e.Build scenario 3
f.Build scenario 4
g.Build scenario 5
City of Palo Alto Page 2
h. Build scenario 6
7. Conduct field observations on travel behavioral patterns
8. Assess the record of collision occurrences at the rail crossings and surrounding areas
9. Analyze grade crossing hazards and gate downtime
10. Quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate up to eight scenarios, using the following performance
measures:
a. Total vehicle miles travelled
b. Total vehicle hours consumed
c. Average trip length, trip duration time and highway network speed
d. Changes in modal choice
e. Total travel user benefits and collision savings benefits over a 20-year period
f. Motor vehicle level of service by intersection
g. LOS by movement at intersections
h. Changes in specific origin-destination journey times
i. Delays to transit services
j. Delays to pedestrians and bicycles
k. Motor vehicle queue lengths at intersections
l. Delays at individual intersections by movement
The intent of the Rail Corridor Circulation Study was to estimate the effect on traffic circulation under up
to eight different scenarios that were modeled using the regional and local travel demand model. These
scenarios included several variations of grade crossings and grade separations at each railroad corridor
crossing location. The first two scenarios did not include any new grade crossings, new grade
separations or modifications to existing crossings, and were considered “no build” scenarios. The other
six scenarios included varying collections of new multi-modal grade-separated crossings, new bicycle
and pedestrian only grade-separated crossings, new grade separations, modified grade crossings, and
closed grade crossings. The analysis of scenarios was intended to inform the selection of grade
separations alternatives for more in depth study and evaluation.
Scenarios that were not included in the initial study may still emerge via the community process and
those that were for study selected were chosen in part for their ability to inform the development of
grade separation alternatives, including their physical attributes and phasing.
Please also note that where the circulation study assumes grade separations, it does not differentiate
between the type of separation (underground, above ground, etc.). This is due to the nature of the
study and means that additional circulation analysis will likely be needed for grade separation
alternatives that emerge through the community process if, for example, the type of separation results
in local street closures in the vicinity.
.
At a high level, the study considers the impacts of potential future modifications to the current at-grade
and grade-separated crossings and its findings are intuitive. To construct a grade separation where
currently there is an existing at-grade crossing clearly reduces the interference or obstruction caused by
that crossing and therefore improves east/west access/capacity at that location. That may or may not
attract additional traffic to that crossing. Similarly, closing (i.e. eliminating) an existing at-grade crossing
will cause traffic to divert to other routes. The intent of this study is to estimate changes to motor
City of Palo Alto Page 3
vehicle and bicycle traffic circulation/demands with changes in accessibility/capacity caused by railroad
crossing-related infrastructure improvement scenarios. To the extent that it is possible with the
demand models, an order-of-magnitude quantification of those changes is described.
Even if no changes or modifications are made to the existing rail crossings, increases in traffic demands
driven by land use and population growth would occur between existing and future (2030) conditions.
Motor vehicle traffic is forecast to grow at a little over 1% per year. The Caltrain service modifications,
made possible by the electrification, are likely to double the number of trains in the peak periods
compared to now, when they are implemented. There is also the potential for having high-speed rail
services on this line, in addition to Caltrain. The combination of the increased frequency of gate closures
at the crossings and increased traffic flows will undoubtedly increase road congestion from what it is
now.
Two types of Year 2030 “No Build” scenarios were defined in the study. A Year 2030 “Business as Usual”
scenario was first developed that includes growth in traffic between current and Year 2030 conditions
while assuming no change to existing rail service frequencies, and no change in existing roadway
circulation conditions. Included in the Circulation Study tests, is another Year 2030 “No Build” scenario
where both the increased train frequencies and increased traffic growth (between existing and year
2030) are simulated within the demand models, while assuming no future construction occurs. The
second No Build scenario forms the ‘baseline’ from which comparisons against the scenario tests are
made.
Finally, conclusions are drawn from the series of “sensitivity” tests carried out for sample scenarios. It is
important to note what is forecast to happen if nothing is done to improve the crossings and not only
whether diversions will occur under various scenarios of infrastructure changes, but whether their
impact is likely to be significant or not.
On June 28, 2017, a staff report was presented to the City Council Rail Committee entitled “Draft Rail
Program Circulation Study Scenarios.” In this Staff Report, six (6) different scenarios were recommended
for study that were intended to support the identification and evaluation of grade separation
alternatives.
On November 29, 2017, the draft Rail Corridor Circulation Study White Paper, containing the outcomes
of those studies, was presented to the City Council Rail Committee. As a result, the City Council Rail
Committee requested the following modifications to the White Paper:
Fix the analysis of closing Churchill Avenue
Add a scenario including closures of the four at-grade crossings
Evaluate modeling a closure at Palo Alto Avenue
Utilize Stanford General Use Permit (GUP) data
Continue the bicycle and pedestrian discussion to a future meeting
Develop a seventh scenario including:
o Separation of the existing four at-grade crossing
o Updated data including Stanford GUP data
o Updated Churchill Avenue data
Develop an eight scenario with the only change being closing Churchill Avenue.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
The attached revised white paper includes the following modifications in response to the Committee
review and public comments/questions:
White paper was combined with the Existing Conditions and the Model Validation reports into
one document with a new Executive Summary;
Responses to comments from the public were incorporated into the model update, additional
model runs, and revised white paper;
Model loading and validation issues at Churchill Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue were fixed;
Data from Stanford GUP Application traffic study was incorporated;
New traffic counts (November 2017) replaced the February 2017 counts, which were done
during a non-standard school week;
The City’s CUBE model was refined to better fit the latest traffic count data using the MEOD
process within the CUBE suite of computer programs (the refined model shows a much better
degree of fit to counted traffic volumes at key intersections along Alma Street); and
Carried out an operational (Synchro) analysis with the November 2017 traffic data set, which
showed that with that data set there was a slight deterioration in the intersection levels-of-
service for less than one third of the intersections, as compared the analyses using the February
2017 traffic data set.
The following modifications were not completed at this time, but can be incorporated into future
studies if/as desired:
Run all six (6) scenarios again with validated model and new data;
Run new Scenario 7 with existing conditions plus Churchill Avenue crossing closed to motor
vehicles; or
Run new Scenario 8 with all at-grade crossings separated, including Churchill Avenue.
Like the other white papers we’ve prepared about local financing methods and trenching/tunneling
issues, this white paper is intended to support community discussions and City Council deliberations
about rail grade separation alternatives and will be supplemented with additional in-depth analysis
when four to eight grade-separation alternatives are advanced to the alternatives analysis phase of the
process.
The high-level conclusions in the Revised Rail Corridor Circulation Study White Paper are similar to those
of the draft paper. As this study represents a very high-level analysis, it is not anticipated that any of the
conclusions drawn from the draft paper would change if/when the validated model and the November
2017 traffic count data were to be used for Year 2030 model runs.
Timeline
The initial Rail Corridor Circulation Study model runs are complete and the draft paper has been revised
to reflect many of the comments received from the Rail Committee and the public. Additional model
runs are anticipated as part of the in depth analysis of alternatives selected for further study.
Resource Impact
Funding for the Revised Rail Corridor Circulation Study is included in the Fiscal Year 2018 Adopted
Capital Budget in CIP PL-17001, Railroad Grade Separation.
Policy Implications
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The Revised Rail Corridor Circulation Study is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals,
policies and programs:
Program T1.19.3 Increase the number of east-west pedestrian and bicycle crossings across Alma
Street and the Caltrain corridor, particularly south of Oregon Expressway.
Policy T-3.13 Work with Caltrans, Santa Clara County and VTA to improve east and west
connections in Palo Alto and maintain a circulation network that binds the city together in all
directions.
Policy T-3.15 Pursue grade separation of rail crossings along the rail corridor as a City priority.
Program T3.15.1 Undertake studies and outreach necessary to advance grade of Caltrain to
become a “shovel ready” project and strongly advocate for adequate State, regional and federal
funding for design and construction of railroad grade separations.
Program T3.15.2 Conduct a study to evaluate the implications of grade separation on bicycle
and pedestrian circulation.
Policy T-3.16 Keep existing at-grade rail crossings open to motor vehicles, pedestrians and
bicyclists, consistent with results of a focused circulation study and a context sensitive
alternatives analysis.
Policy T-3.17 Until grade separation is completed, improve existing at-grade rail crossings to
ensure the highest feasible level of safety along the corridor and provide additional safe,
convenient crossings.
Program T3.17.1 Complete a Palo Alto Avenue crossing study to identify potential near-term
safety and accessibility improvements.
Program T3.17.2 Work with Caltrain to ensure that the rail tracks are safe and secure with
adequate fencing and barriers.
Policy T-4.1 Keep all neighborhood streets open as a general rule.
Policy T-4.3 Identify specific improvements that can be used to discourage drivers from using
local, neighborhood streets to bypass traffic congestion on arterials.
Environmental Review
The Rail Corridor Circulation Study is a planning study and thus is not a “project” requiring
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
Revised Rail Corridor Circulation Study White Paper
Mr. Joshuah D. Mello, AICP
Chief Transportation Official
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
Transportation
City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Report No. 1 of the Rail Corridor Circulation Studies: Second Draft
January 20, 2018
1. Introduction
1.1 On 28 June 2017, a staff report was presented to the City Council Rail Committee entitled “Draft Rail
Program Circulation Study Scenarios.” In this Staff Report, six (6) different scenarios were
recommended for study that were intended to support the identification and evaluation of grade
separation alternatives. On the 29 November 2017, a White Paper, containing the outcomes of those
studies was presented. Subsequent to that presentation, modifications were requested to that White
Paper.
1.2 This document reports on the outcomes of the final studies. Also included are:
● An Executive Summary
● The Existing Conditions Report
● The Travel Demand Model Validation Report
● The Analysis of the Sample Scenarios 1-6
Each Section is written to be a free-standing Report.
DR
A
F
T
372569 1 1
C:\Users\GAL75108\Desktop\Palo Alto RPM files\done\City of Palo Alto Version Existing
Conditions Report_draft_Rev 1 nc.docx
Mott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald
4301 Hacienda Drive
Suite 300
Pleasanton CA 94588
United States of America
T +1 (925) 469 8010
F +1 (925) 469 8011
mottmac.com/americas
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Executive Summary
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
January 20, 2018
City of Palo Alto
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Executive Summary
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
1
This White Paper reports on the Traffic Circulation Studies and related planning work carried out to
date for grade-separation and other treatments of the existing roadways in the City of Palo Alto that
currently cross the Caltrain tracks at-grade.
The report covers three (3) major elements: Existing Conditions; the Travel Demand Model that
was used for a large part of the analyses, and the outcomes of six (6) sample scenarios of possible
alternative combinations of treatments and infrastructure proposals for the Caltrain crossings. The
study area is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 - Study Area Map
The Existing Conditions section of the report includes a description of the Study Area which
encompasses the Northwest/Southeast Caltrain corridor through the City of Palo Alto, and is
approximately four (4) miles in length. The focus of the report is the half-mile area centered around
the rail corridor with specific consideration of the four (4) existing at-grade crossings – Palo Alto
Avenue; Churchill Avenue; Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. There are three (3) Caltrain
Stations within the city -- Palo Alto; California Avenue and Stanford; the latter being an events-
related station only. The major arterial that runs parallel to the rail line is Alma Street. There are
also (4) four motor vehicle grade-separated crossings. These are University Avenue;
Embarcadero; Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road; the latter only being partially in the City
of Palo Alto.
Major Northwest/Southeast routes through the city and parallel to the Caltrain tracks include U.S.
Highway 101; Interstate 280 and El Camino Real.
In terms of commute percentage modes, the City of Palo Alto has over 15 percent (%) less car use
and over 10 percent (%) more bicycle and pedestrian use than Santa Clara County. It is forecast
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Executive Summary
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
2
that the current bicycle use which was at 9.2 percent (%) of all modes in 2015, will rise to 15
percent (%) by 2020.
The Existing Conditions report also describes the Policy Framework; Caltrain and other transit
Operations; road traffic operations and safety; land use demographics and bicycle and pedestrian
networks.
The Caltrain two-way service currently peaks at 10 trains per hour through the city. For the four (4)
hour peak periods however, the average is approximately six (6) for the AM and seven (7) for the
PM. The worst congestion is caused when the highest peak traffic flows coincide with the highest
frequency of rail-gate closures. Peak occurrences of both conditions do not necessarily coincide at
the at-grade crossings either by time or location, and are spread over the peak periods. To capture
all the impacts, the Demand Model uses an average hour for each of the four (4) hour peak
periods, AM and PM.
The overall current traffic conditions for the rail crossings average to a level-of-service E, with Palo
Alto Avenue and Charleston Road reaching a level-of-service F in the PM peak hour.
For the times in the peak hours when the traffic signals cycle do not include a rail-gate closure, the
level-of-service of the crossing routes intersecting with Alma Street range from C-D.
The Travel Demand Model Validation section of the report deals with the methodology employed
for the traffic impact appraisals within the circulation studies.
There are two (2) parts to the appraisal process. The first part estimates the likely impacts on road
traffic behavior generated by the various alternative sample scenarios in terms of growth in
demand and the route diversion effects. The second part carries out a more detailed assessment
of the traffic operational issues at the individual road intersections involved. In combination, these
two (2) types of appraisals can provide a comprehensive measure of the impacts of alternative
layouts and treatments of the Caltrain crossing facilities.
A Demand Model, the City’s own CUBE travel demand model, was the basis of the analyses. The
process, therefore, has compatibility with other similar exercises, such as evaluating the
transportation elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The first step in the process is to carry
out a validation of the base model against observations. This is a way of assessing how the model
can be used most beneficially. The City’s model is very large, covering the Peninsula and parts of
the Bay area. Large models, unless used in special locations (such as rural areas with sparse road
networks) are seldom reliable for traffic volume estimates at individual street level or for
intersection turning movements. The validation process is not a “pass or fail” exercise; it is done to
allow a judgment on how the model may be best used in the appraisal.
Model validations showed that the City’s base model could not be used alone for the full appraisal.
For the forecasts, the process used a combination of the model forecasts and the traffic count data
to estimate future traffic volumes. A second model was subsequently calibrated to local count data
along the Caltrain corridor in the City. This second model process used count data from the most
recent survey carried out in November 2017, and data from the Stanford General Use Permit
application. The volumes and local distribution of the trips within the base model were refined to
reflect the local traffic conditions as quantified by the traffic surveys. A second validation was then
carried out that showed a better fit for the second model. However, further use of the latest model
did not proceed and the results contained in this white paper for forecasts rely on the original
model. This model and the process used for forecasting are perfectly adequate for the analysis at
this stage. The updated model may be used for a more locally focused analysis at a later stage in
the project.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Executive Summary
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
3
The model was then used to estimate the impacts of the 2030 future year “No Build 1 and 2”
conditions and six (6) separate sample scenarios. The method used does not rely on the CUBE
Model alone, but combines the forecasts with the locally counted data. This method is called “the
Difference Method” and is fully described in Section 6.3 of the “National Cooperative Highway
Research Program – Report 765: Analytical Travel Forecasting Approaches for Project-Level
Planning and Design.” It is an industry standard method and has been used throughout the San
Francisco/San Jose region.
The initial modeling used traffic count data from February 2017. A second set of traffic count data
was collected in November 2017 as a verification process. This second data set showed a slightly
higher traffic volume for some of the movements. An existing year analysis was carried out to
measure the changes between the two (2) data sets. It was found to be marginal only. The
conclusions within the report rely on the February 2017 traffic count data and the original travel
demand model. It is not considered that using the second model and the November 2017 data set
for traffic counts would significantly alter the conclusion.
This appraisal was not intended to select any one layout of alternative treatments of the Caltrain
crossings. It was intended to provide decision makers with an informational background as to the
likely impacts of selecting a “short list” of scenarios for a more detailed analysis. It is essentially a
high-level planning study.
The six (6) sample scenarios are a “generic” selection from an almost infinite number of
possibilities. They range from almost a complete closure of all the at-grade crossing points
(minimum access) to a scenario where every at-grade crossing is grade separated apart from
Churchill Avenue (maximum access). In all 2030 tests described (As “No Build 2” and Sample
Scenarios 1-6), the train/gate closure frequency was assumed to be 20/hour for the total of two-
way operations.
The appraisal showed that although six (6) scenarios is only a fraction of the vast number of
possible combinations and permutations that exist for different layouts of crossings in the City, the
tests completed provide a reasonable picture of the likely outcomes of making different decisions
on the rail-crossing layouts.
In general, the outcomes of the tests are intuitive. As traffic demand grows and the capacity of the
at-grade crossings reduce due to increased rail gate closures, those crossings that remain at grade
shed traffic to either the existing grade-separated crossings or any that will be newly constructed
as grade separated.
If grade-separated crossings were to be constructed at a location where there was previously an
at-grade crossing, then some traffic would be attracted to that route from other routes, including
from existing grade-separated crossings. The extent to which this may happen in terms of
additional traffic volumes varies. Charleston Road is particularly likely to experience significant
additional traffic attraction, if it is grade separated. This is unsurprising as Charleston Road,
together with Arastradero Road, form one of the few easy connecting routes between the I-280 and
U.S. Highway 101.
The minimum access scenario test is likely to divert out of the City the 15 percent (%) growth in
traffic demand from 2017 to 2030, diverting the remaining traffic from the routes that are closed to
those that are grade separated.
The maximum access test (Sample Scenario 6) showed that an additional 5-plus percent (%) of
traffic crossing the Caltrain tracks in the City was likely to be attracted over and above the “No
Build 2” scenario. The table below was constructed to provide a summary assessment of the likely
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Executive Summary
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
4
effects of the different proposals for the at-grade treatments derived from the results of the model
analyses.
Table 1: Response of the at-grade intersections to change
Remain at-grade Closed Grade-separated
Palo Alto
Avenue / Alma
Street
Little effect Sheds traffic to
Ravenswood Avenue and
University Avenue
Significantly increases
traffic flows. (~30%)
Churchill
Avenue
Little effect Diversion to Embarcadero
Road, which if widened
could operate satisfactorily.
It is suspected that there
would be little effect on
other grade crossings, if
other separations are
implemented. Could attract
some traffic .
E/W Meadow
Drive
As traffic grows, will shed to
Oregon Expressway and
Charleston Road (if grade
separated).
Diversion to Charleston
Road; significant if
Charleston Road is grade-
separated.
Significantly increases
traffic flows. (~50%)
Charleston Road As traffic grows, will shed to
San Antonio Road.
Not tested but likely to
either shed significant traffic
to San Antonio Road or
reduce traffic overall.
Significant increases to
traffic flows (50+%). Some
diverts from San Antonio
Road.
Note: If the Caltrain tracks were to be in tunnel or entrenched throughout the City, the responses would be
similar to all four (4) at-grade intersections becoming grade separated.
The second part of the appraisal of the sample scenarios was to carry out traffic operational
analyses at the key individual intersections within the Caltrain rail corridor.
In total, 13 intersections were analyzed, between two (2) and four (4) on each of the currently at-
grade crossing routes. The 2030 forecast flows were estimated by the addition of the February
2017 traffic survey counts and the growth forecast by the Demand Model.
A comparison of the February 2017 and November 2017 analyses for existing conditions show
very little change in the outcomes. Almost seventy-five percent (75%) showed the same level-of-
service and of those that did change, in almost every case only a deterioration of one (1) level
resulted. This means that although at a detailed level there could be a slight underestimation of the
severity of congestion in less than one third of cases, the overall picture remains the same
irrespective of which traffic count data set is used.
The operational analyses were carried out under two (2) future conditions at the intersections:
First, when there were rail gate closures in some of the traffic signal cycles (for an overall average
condition) and second, when no gate closures were assumed to be in the signal cycle.
For the first condition, the levels-of-service were only estimated at the actual crossings for a “No
Build 2” scenario (e.g., if no infrastructure changes were made to any of the crossings but the
train/gate closure frequency grew to 20 per hour). The average condition at the at-grade crossings
for both peak hours (AM and PM) would be level-of-service F. It is estimated that the queues for
many of the movements would be unclearable, a condition where a greater volume of traffic joins
the queue than is released through the intersections for a given traffic signal cycle. The queue
accumulates with time until either the traffic demand and/or the frequency of the rail gate closure
reduces and the operational capacity is increased.
Condition
Location
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Executive Summary
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
5
The second part of the analyses was to assess operating conditions at the intersections, without
assuming a rail gate closure occurred in the traffic signal cycle. This showed that where a grade-
separated intersection was assumed constructed, resulting in an increase in traffic demand, the
level-of-service for all the intersections on that route would deteriorate.
For those crossing routes that remain at-grade, it is likely that the intersections will operate at level-
of-service F for the times when there is a rail gate-closure. However, that may also have the effect
of discouraging drivers from using that route. This would mean the level-of-service may improve for
the times when no gate closure occurred. Train frequencies of 20 per hour in peak periods by 2030
substantially increases the likelihood of a traffic signal cycle that includes a gate closure. Due to
the random nature of both traffic demand intensity and rail gate closures, very serious delays and
traffic disruptions are likely to occur.
For those routes that do have future grade separations, where none exists today, increased traffic
flows are likely to occur and thus the level-of-service at the intersections, if unmodified, on that
route may deteriorate.
A variety of bicycle and pedestrian measures were tested within the sample scenarios. Two (2)
grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian-only facilities currently exist at Homer Avenue and California
Avenue. Future potential grade separated bicycle/pedestrian-only crossings were tested at Everett
Avenue/Lytton Avenue; Churchill Avenue (close proximity to); Loma Verde Avenue/Arastradero
Creek and Meadow Drive (close proximity to).
Accessibility mapping was used to measure the impact for the different layout configurations in the
sample scenarios. The results showed that where an existing at-grade crossing is assumed closed
to all modes, then the bicycle/pedestrian accessibility across the Caltrain tracks would be seriously
reduced. Currently, there is a significant gap between Oregon Expressway and Meadow Drive.
If all the proposed bicycle/pedestrian grade-separations are implemented (whether as an all mode
facility or just for bicycles and pedestrians) then the level of accessibility across the Caltrain track
would be very high.
In terms of Road Safety, between 2011 and 2015, a total of 88 accident collisions were recorded of
which 32 involved injury and one (1) fatality. Although it may depend on the actual designs of
improvements to the at-grade crossings, new construction is likely to reduce this considerably. DR
A
F
T
372569 1 1
P:\372569 Palo Alto RPM\Combined reports 2018-02-08\Palo Alto Version Existing
Conditions Report_draft_Rev 1 nc.docx
Mott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald
4301 Hacienda Drive
Suite 300
Pleasanton CA 94588
United States of America
T +1 (925) 469 8010
F +1 (925) 469 8011
mottmac.com/americas
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
January 20, 2018
City of Palo Alto
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
i
Contents
1 Introduction vii
1.1 Purpose vii
2 Policy Framework 8
2.1 Palo Alto Policies 8
2.1.1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Element 8
2.1.2 Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 9
2.1.3 Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan 9
2.1.4 Palo Alto Municipal Code 10
2.1.5 Safe Routes to School 10
2.2 Stakeholder Agencies 12
3 Study Area 13
3.1 Land Use 13
3.2 Demographics 14
3.3 At-Grade Crossings 15
3.3.1 Palo Alto Avenue 15
3.3.2 Churchill Avenue 16
3.3.3 Meadow Drive 18
3.3.4 Charleston Road 19
3.4 Grade-Separated Crossings 21
3.4.1 Everett Avenue 22
3.4.2 University Avenue 22
3.4.3 Homer Avenue 23
3.4.4 Embarcadero Road 24
3.4.5 Seale Avenue 25
3.4.6 California Avenue 25
3.4.7 Oregon Expressway 25
3.4.8 Loma Verde Avenue 26
3.4.9 San Antonio Road 27
4 Caltrain 28
4.1 Caltrain Operations 28
4.1.1 Caltrain Stations 29
4.2 Grade Crossing Inventory Checklist from Caltrain Hazard Analysis 31
4.3 Caltrain Capital Projects 33
4.3.1 Signal Preemption Improvement Project 33
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
ii
4.3.2 CBOSS Positive Train Control System 33
4.3.3 Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) 33
4.3.4 PCEP Relation to the High-Speed Rail Project 34
5 Traffic Operational Analysis 35
5.1 Vehicular Level of Service Methodology and Standards 35
5.2 Significant Impact Criteria 36
5.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Criteria 37
5.4 Traffic Count Data 37
5.4.1 Intersection Traffic Operations 37
5.4.2 Roadway Traffic Counts and Traffic Operations 42
5.4.3 Roadway Intersection Collision Data 46
6 Other Transit Services 48
6.1 Overview 48
6.2 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 48
6.3 SamTrans 50
6.4 AC Transit 50
6.5 Shuttles 51
7 Bicycle and Pedestrian Network 52
7.1 Overview 52
7.2 2012 City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan 52
7.3 Safe Routes to Schools 53
7.4 Bicycle Facilities 53
Appendix A — Federal, State and Regional Policy and Framework Review 54
Americans with Disabilities Act 54
Federal Highway Administration 54
Federal Railroad Administration 54
Union Pacific Railroad 55
California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358) 55
California Department of Transportation 55
California Public Utilities Commission 56
California Transportation Commission 57
Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013) 57
Association of Bay Area Governments 57
Metropolitan Transportation Commission 57
Bay Area Air Quality Management District 58
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Congestion Management Plan58
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle Program 59
Santa Clara County 59
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
iii
Appendix B – Caltrain Weekday Train Schedule 61
Appendix C – Traffic Count Raw Data 62
Appendix D – Existing Traffic Turning Volumes at Key Intersections 63
Tables
Table 2-1: Summary of Transportation Goals from Comprehensive Plan 8
Table 2-2: SRTS Infrastructure Project Timeline 12
Table 3-1: Commute Modes 14
Table 3-2: Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes at Palo Alto Avenue Crossing 15
Table 3-3: Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes at Churchill Avenue Crossing 17
Table 3-4: Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes at Meadow Drive Crossing 18
Table 3-5: Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes at Charleston Road Crossing 20
Table 4-1: Caltrain Operations 29
Table 4-2: Average Weekday Ridership for Major Caltrain Stations 30
Caltrain produces inventory summaries of all rail crossings along their corridor. Table 4-3 and Table
4-4 present summary sheets for the grade crossings within the Study Area. Table 4-3: At-Grade
Crossing Intersection Inventory 31
Table 4-4: At-Grade Crossing Intersection Inventory 32
Table 4-5: Estimated Ridership with Proposed Caltrain Electrification Project 34
Table 5-1: LOS Definition for Intersection Control Delay (sec/veh) 36
Table 5-2: Existing Conditions: Intersections Level of Service – Typical Operations February 2017
and November 2017 38
Table 5-3: Alma Street Intersections AM Peak Hour Total Traffic Flows into the Intersection for
February and November 2017 39
Table 5-4: Alma Street Intersections PM Peak Hour Total Traffic Flows into the Intersection for
February and November 2017 39
Table 5-5: Peak Traffic Flow and Gate Closure Frequency Hours 40
Table 5-6: Level-of-Service of Rail Crossing Movements in 2017 42
Table 5-7: Palo Alto Avenue Railroad Crossing Traffic Volumes 45
Table 5-8: Churchill Avenue Railroad Crossing Traffic Volumes 45
Table 5-9: Meadow Drive Railroad Crossing Traffic Volumes 46
Table 5-10: Charleston Road Railroad Crossing Traffic Volumes 46
Table 5-11: Study Area Intersection Roadway Collision Data 2011-2015 47
Table 6-1: AC Transit - Line U Schedule 50
Table 7-1: City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan Objectives 53
Table 7-2: Bicycle Facilities 53
Figures
Figure 2-1: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan – Bikeways in Palo Alto 9
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
iv
Figure 2-2: Safe Routes to School Statistics 10
Figure 2-3: Walk and Roll Map Example – Hoover Elementary School 11
Figure 3-1: Study Area Map 13
Figure 3-2: Overall Land Use Map 14
Figure 3-3: Palo Alto Avenue At-Grade Crossing 15
Figure 3-4: Palo Alto Avenue Grade Crossing Land Use 16
Figure 3-5: Churchill Avenue At-Grade Crossing 16
Figure 3-6: Churchill Avenue Grade Crossing Land Use Map 17
Figure 3-7: Meadow Drive At-Grade Crossing 18
Figure 3-8: Meadow Drive Crossing Land Use Map 19
Figure 3-9: Charleston Road At-Grade Crossing 19
Figure 3-10: Charleston Road Crossing Land Use Map 20
Figure 3-11: Everett Avenue Planned Grade Separation 22
Figure 3-12: University Avenue Grade Separation 22
Figure 3-13: University Avenue Underpass, Looking West 23
Figure 3-14: University Avenue Underpass, Looking East 23
Figure 3-15: Homer Avenue Tunnel, Looking East 23
Figure 3-16: Homer Avenue and Alma Street Bike and Pedestrian Undercrossing 24
Figure 3-17: Homer Avenue Undercrossing Design 24
Figure 3-18: Embarcadero Grade Separation 24
Figure 3-19: Seale Ave Proposed Bike/Ped Crossing 25
Figure 3-20: California Ave Bike/Ped Crossing 25
Figure 3-21: Oregon Expressway Grade Separation 25
Figure 3-22: Oregon Expressway Underpass, Looking West 26
Figure 3-23: Oregon Expressway Underpass, Looking East 26
Figure 3-24: Loma Verde Avenue 26
Figure 3-25: San Antonio Road Grade Separation 27
Figure 4-1: Caltrain System Map 28
Figure 4-2: Change in Caltrain Average Weekday Ridership 1997-2016 29
Figure 4-3: Palo Alto Caltrain Station 30
Figure 4-4: California Ave Caltrain Station 31
Figure 4-5: Stanford Caltrain Station 31
Figure 5-1: Train and WB Traffic Daily Pattern at Alma St and Palo Alto Ave Caltrain Crossing 41
Figure 5-2: Vehicle Total Counts (Eastbound & Westbound) 43
Figure 5-3: FHWA Vehicle Classifications 44
Figure 6-1: Exiting Transit Services Map 48
Figure 6-2: VTA Bus Route Map - Palo Alto 49
Figure 6-3: AC Transit Line U 50
Figure 7-1: Existing Bicycle Network within Study Area 52
Figure 0-1: PTC Implementation for Caltrain 55
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
v
Abbreviations/Acronyms
ADA .................. American Disabilities Act
ADT .................. Average Daily Traffic
BAAQMD .......... Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BPTP ................ Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
BTG .................. Bicycle Technical Guidelines
CAP .................. Climate Action Plan
CBOSS ............. Communications Based Overlay Signal System
CHSRA ............. California High-Speed Rail Authority
CMP ................. Congestion Management Program
CPP .................. Climate Protection Plan
CTC .................. California Transportation Commission
EMU ................. Electrical Multiple Unit
FTA ................... Federal Transit Administration
GHG ................. Greenhouse Gas
HCM ................. Highway Capacity Manual
HSR .................. High-Speed Rail
LOS .................. Level of Service
MTC .................. Metropolitan Transportation Commission
PCEP ................ Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project
PTC .................. Positive Train Control
SCCBP ............. Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan
VTA .................. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
vi
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
vii
1 Introduction
The City of Palo Alto (referred to as the “City”) is preparing for increases in passenger rail service along
the existing Caltrain rail corridor and potential impacts to existing at-grade crossings associated with
service increases. Passenger rail service changes will be a result of the Peninsula Corridor Electrification
Project (PCEP) and potentially the California High-Speed Rail (HSR) project.
The City of Palo Alto is bisected by the Caltrain rail corridor and enjoys both the benefits as well as the
impacts associated with rail service: train noise and vibration, traffic congestion around grade crossings,
and community safety concerns. These impacts are expected to grow as train service in the corridor
increases regardless of whether or not the state’s HSR project comes to fruition. As a result, the City is
conducting a study to assess grade separation alternatives and minimize the impact of increased rail
services on local traffic, the basis of which is referred to as the “Rail Program” throughout this document.
In 2010, the City Council initiated the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study to evaluate land use, transportation,
and urban design elements of the rail corridor, particularly in response to potential improvements to
passenger rail service on the Caltrain corridor. The study report, as a result of a two-year process,
includes an analysis of those elements and their potential impacts from the range of possible rail
improvements, including Caltrain upgrades, such as electrification and/or grade separations, and/or the
potential options for the HSR project1. In early 2014, the City conducted a study for conceptual grade
separation alternatives for a portion of the Caltrain right-of-way encompassing three existing at-grade
crossings: Charleston Road, Meadow Drive, and Churchill Avenue2. This study provided preliminary
information on the potential impacts and costs of construction (by order of magnitude) for various
roadway depression and trenching of the railroad alternatives. A railroad trench alternative would place
the railroad tracks and rail operations below street-level, thus separating train traffic from motor vehicles,
pedestrian, and bicyclist activity at the street-level. The study was not definitive in determining an ultimate
configuration, but provided a starting point for dialogue on the issue, and indicated that roadway
depression alternatives would require significant property acquisitions, while trenching alternatives would
not. The study also concluded that while not all of the roadway depressions could maintain turning
movements along Alma Street, the trenching alternatives could do so.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this Existing Conditions report is to examine the current conditions relevant to the Palo
Alto Rail Corridor Circulation Study. This report includes sections on the policy framework for the Palo
Alto Rail Program, overview of the study area, bike and pedestrian access, transportation networks, traffic
conditions, and existing transit services in the City.
1 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, 2013 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/38025
2 Palo Alto Grade Separation and Trenching Study, 2014 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44211
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
8
2 Policy Framework
The City of Palo Alto is the lead agency for the Rail Program, and as such this section
summarizes City policies that govern the Rail Corridor Circulation Study. The purpose of this
review is to ensure that the Circulation Study is consistent with existing and planned future
transportation and development policies and strategies.
2.1 Palo Alto Policies
The Circulation Study process builds upon the City’s previous planning efforts to accommodate
future transit growth along the existing Caltrain corridor, brought about by the California High-
Speed Rail (HSR) project, the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP), and the
growing population of the San Francisco Bay Area. Existing plans, policies, and guidelines set
the foundation for the corridor planning process and the development of an implementable
document. Key City documents include the Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Plan, the Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan, the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Rail
Corridor Study, and the Transportation Element of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The Rail Corridor Study was developed by the Rail Corridor Task Force to generate a
community vision for land use, transportation, and urban design opportunities along the Caltrain
corridor. This policy document was incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan in 2013 and
provides land use and transportation policies under a variety of scenarios. It is the intention of
this study to build on the outcomes of the Rail Corridor Study.
2.1.1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Element
The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan was last revised in 2007 and is currently in the
process of being updated. It is the primary document guiding the City’s planning decisions. The
Transportation Element of the existing Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes 10 goals to guide
the development of the City’s transportation programs and facilities (see Table 2-1). A total of 57
policies and 58 programs are identified in the current Comprehensive Plan’s transportation
chapter to further focus and carry out these goals.
Table 2-1: Summary of Transportation Goals from Comprehensive Plan
Goal Number Transportation Goals
Goal T-1 Less reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles
Goal T-2 A convenient, efficient public transit system that provides a viable alternative to driving
Goal T-3 Facilities, services, and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling
Goal T-4 An efficient roadway network for all users
Goal T-5 A transportation system with minimal impact on residential neighbourhoods
Goal T-6 A high level of safety for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets
Goal T-7 Mobility for people with special needs
Goal T-8 Attractive, convenient public and private parking facilities
Goal T-9 An influential role in shaping and implementing regional transportation decisions
Goal T-10 A local airport with minimal off-site impacts
Source: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2007
The updated plan, Our Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan, will carry over and update the
current plan’s transportation goals and include an emphasis on reducing congestion. Related to
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
9
this study, the new Comprehensive Plan will include a policy supporting Caltrain modernization
and a policy identifying grade separations as a city priority.
Figure 2-1: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan – Bikeways in Palo Alto
Source
: City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Draft 2017
2.1.2 Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
The Palo Alto 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP 2012) was adopted in
July 2012 and builds upon the 2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan by adding coverage of
pedestrian issues, priorities, and design standards. The BPTP 2012 contains the policy vision,
design guidance, and specific recommendations to increase walking and biking rates over the
next decade and beyond – rates that will be instrumental in helping to address the impacts of
regional growth while maintaining mobility. Objective One in the BPTP 2012 aims to “double the
rate of bicycling for both local and total work commutes by 2020 (to 15 percent and 5 percent,
respectively.)” This objective supports Goals T-1 and T-3 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Objective Four, which aims to “plan, construct, and maintain ‘Complete Streets’ that are safe
and accessible to all modes and people of all ages and abilities,” supports and expands Goal T-
3 of the City’s current Comprehensive Plan.
2.1.3 Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan
The City of Palo Alto adopted a Climate Protection Plan (CPP) in December 2007. The City then
updated the mid-term and long-term Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals for both
municipal and community-wide GHG emissions in 2010. Overall GHG emissions in 2013 within
the City were estimated to have decreased 29 percent from 2005 levels, which exceeds the
City’s goal of 15 percent reduction below 2005 levels by 2020. The CPP contains a range of
goals and actions that target GHG emissions reductions from the transportation sector,
including measures to promote alternative fuels, facilitate increased biking and walking,
increase mass transit availability, and encourage electronic alternatives to travel. In 2015, the
City began the preparation of a Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) and adopted a
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
10
new GHG reduction goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, otherwise referred to as the
“80x30” goal.
2.1.4 Palo Alto Municipal Code
The purpose of the City’s Municipal Code is to protect and promote the public’s health and
safety through ordinances and regulations. Title 10 regulates vehicle and traffic operations
within the City, including traffic-control devices, pedestrian safety, bicycling safety and routes,
and general vehicle and traffic safety. For example, chapter 10.32 establishes pedestrian safety
regulations, such as the establishment and appropriate usage of crosswalks. Chapter 10.36
addresses general parking regulations, such as where parking is permitted.
2.1.5 Safe Routes to School
The Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) Program is a
collaborative effort between the City of Palo Alto and the
Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). Its goal is to
improve safety for school commuters and to reduce school
commute-related congestion on city streets. Approximately
14 percent of Palo Alto’s students walk to school daily,
while 4,000 students from the PAUSD bike to school, as
shown in Figure 2-2.
The program is consistent with key transportation goals
outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, including giving
priority to facilities, services, and programs that encourage
and promote walking and bicycling, and providing a high
level of safety for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
Specific policies and programs include3:
● Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to
and between local destinations, including public
facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment
districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit
stations.
● Policy T-39: To the extent allowed by law, continue to
make safety the first priority of citywide transportation
planning.
● Policy T-40: Continue to prioritize the safety and
comfort of children on school travel routes. This
includes program T-45, which calls for providing adult crossing guards at school crossings
that meet adopted criteria, and T-46, which encourages the City-sponsored bicycle
education programs in the public schools.
The SRTS Program produced 18 Walk and Roll maps that outline suggested bicycle and
pedestrian paths around a one-mile radius of a school within PAUSD. Among the 18 Walk and
Roll Maps, four maps designate suggested routes that cross two of the four identified at-grade
crossings within the Study Area. These four Walk and Roll Maps are:
● Briones Elementary School
3 https://paloaltocityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=30&ID=9461&MeetingID=2088
Figure 2-2: Safe Routes to
School Statistics
Source: City of Palo Alto, Safe Routes to
School
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
11
● Gunn High School
● Hoover Elementary School
● Terman Middle School
All four maps for the above schools suggest routes that cross both Meadow Drive and
Charleston Road railroad crossings, and crossing guards are assigned to these locations to help
ensure the safety of students and guardians on their routes to school. An example of one of the
Walk and Roll maps is shown in Figure 2-3.
Figure 2-3: Walk and Roll Map Example – Hoover Elementary School
The SRTS Program includes an ongoing, year-round program with both engineering and
programmatic elements. A timeline of recently completed and upcoming infrastructure projects,
as they relate to the four aforementioned schools, is presented in Table 2-2.
Source: City of Palo Alto, Safe Routes to School
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
12
`
Table 2-2: SRTS Infrastructure Project Timeline
Project School Routes to be
Improved
Completion Date or
Future Construction Start
Georgia Ave High Visibility
Crosswalk Terman MS, Gunn HS Completed Summer 2016
Los Robles Bikeway
Enhancements
Briones ES, Terman MS,
Gunn HS Completed Summer 2016
Donald/Arastradero Intersection
Spot Improvements Terman MS Summer 2017
Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard
Upgrade Gunn HS Summer 2017
Louis Road-Montrose Ave Bicycle
Boulevard Gunn HS Summer 2017
Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Gunn HS Summer 2017
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor
Plan
Briones ES, Hoover ES,
Terman MS, Gunn HS Winter 2017/2018
Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard
Extension Hoover ES, Gunn HS Summer 2018
Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Briones ES, Terman MS,
Gunn HS Summer 2018
Park Blvd/Wilkie Way Bicycle
Boulevard
Briones ES, Terman MS,
Gunn HS Summer 2018
East Meadow Drive and Fabian
Enhanced Bikeways Hoover ES, Gunn HS January 2020 (Pending
VERBS Funding)
Source: Planning and Community Environment Department, April 2017
2.2 Stakeholder Agencies
Stakeholder agencies with potential impact on the City’s Rail Program include:
○ Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
○ Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
○ California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
○ California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA)
○ California Transportation Commission (CTC)
○ California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
○ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
○ Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
○ Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
○ Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB), aka Caltrain (and Samtrans)
○ Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
○ Santa Clara County
○ Union Pacific Railroad
○ Other:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
California legislation, such as SB 743 (CEQA LOS Alternative) and AB 1358
(Complete Streets)
A summary review of applicable Federal, State, and Regional agency policies and stakeholders
is included in Appendix A — Federal, State and Regional Policy and Framework Review.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
13
3 Study Area
The study area is defined as the half-mile area centered around the rail corridor in the City,
including the four existing at-grade crossings. The rail corridor in the City spans approximately
four miles in length, and includes three train stations: Palo Alto Station, Stanford Station, and
California Ave Station. The major arterial that runs parallel to the rail line is Alma Street. There
are five existing grade separations in the City, including University Ave, Homer Ave (bike/
pedestrian undercrossing), Embarcadero Road, Oregon Expressway, and California Ave (bike/
pedestrian undercrossing), and a portion of the San Antonio Road separation touches the City
boundary as well. The study area map is shown in Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1: Study Area Map
3.1 Land Use
The existing land uses within the study area are shown in Figure 3-2. The updated
Comprehensive Plan will focus on ensuring that public services can adequately serve new
housing development and that sufficient land for neighborhood-serving retail uses is preserved.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
14
Figure 3-2: Overall Land Use Map
3.2 Demographics
The City of Palo Alto is located in the northwest portion of Santa Clara County in the San
Francisco Bay Area. The community is largely residential with sizeable employment in the
management, business, science, and arts industries. Approximately 65 percent of residents
commute to work by driving alone and almost six percent of residents take transit. In
comparison, 76 percent of Santa Clara County residents commute by driving alone and less
than four percent of residents take transit, as detailed in Table 3-1. The City is one of the most
bike-friendly cities in the nation, and this is reflected in the rate of residents who use bicycles as
their primary commute mode. Over nine percent of Palo Alto residents commute locally by
bicycle currently, and the BPTP 2012 seeks to increase this rate to 15 percent by 2020 under
the plan’s Objective One.
Table 3-1: Commute Modes
Commute Mode City of Palo Alto Santa Clara County
Drive Alone 64.6% 76.0%
Carpool 6.6% 10.4%
Transit 5.8% 3.9%
Walk 5.2% 2.0%
Bicycle 9.2% 1.9%
Taxi, Motorcycle, Other 0.9% 1.3%
Work at Home 7.8% 4.6%
Source: US Census ACS 5-Year, 2015
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
15
3.3 At-Grade Crossings
The following section presents each of the four at-grade crossings, with a discussion of physical
attributes and surrounding land uses. An at-grade crossing is an intersection of a roadway or
path and a railroad at the same level, as opposed to the railroad crossing over or under via a
bridge or tunnel. Information included in the following sections was sourced from the February
2016 Caltrain Grade Crossing Hazards Analysis.
3.3.1 Palo Alto Avenue
The Palo Alto Avenue at-grade crossing is the northernmost crossing within the City. Palo Alto
Avenue is a minor two-lane collector street that connects El Camino Real (State Route 82) with
Alma Street. The Palo Alto Avenue approach is stop-sign controlled at Alma Street, just east of
the railroad. Palo Alto Avenue extends northwest of Alma Street as an at-grade crossing over
the railroad tracks, and extends west to connect to form a signalized intersection at El Camino
Real/Sand Hills Road
approximately 300 feet west of
the railroad crossing. The Palo
Alto segment through the
railroad crossing has a general
two-lane cross-section, with
Class II bike lanes and a
sidewalk/pedestrian path on the
north side of the road. Class II
bike lanes are on-street marked
bike lanes for the exclusive use
of bicycles. Currently, Palo Alto
Avenue carried an average
weekday traffic volume of
approximately 16,200 vehicles
and 550 bicycles per day across
the at-grade crossing. Weekday pedestrian and bicycle volumes for this crossing are
summarized in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2: Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes at Palo Alto Avenue Crossing
Direction Pedestrians Bicycles
Total
Weekday
Peak Hour / Time Total
Weekday
Peak Hour / Time
Eastbound 152 12 08:00 –
09:00
276 40 17:00 – 18:00
Westbound 147 15 08:00 –
09:00
274 49 08:30 – 09:30
Source: Caltrain Grade Hazard Analysis Final Report, Feb 2016
Land Use
The Palo Alto Avenue at-grade crossing is in proximity to a few major landmark destinations
within the City, including El Palo Alto, the historic tree and City’s namesake shown in Figure 3-3.
To the southwest of the crossing is the mixed-use complex of Stanford Shopping Center, in
addition to the El Camino Park. The Palo Alto Transit Center is approximately 2,000 feet away
Source: Google Earth 2016
Figure 3-3: Palo Alto Avenue At-Grade Crossing
El Palo Alto
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
16
to the south of the crossing, and northeast of the transit center is the major commercial corridor
of Downtown Palo Alto along University Avenue.
Figure 3-4: Palo Alto Avenue Grade Crossing Land Use
3.3.2 Churchill Avenue
Churchill Avenue is an east-west
local collector street that provides
a connection between El Camino
Real (State Route 82) and
Embarcadero Road, through Old
Palo Alto. The roadway has a
general two-lane cross-section,
with Class II bike lanes and
sidewalks. Within the vicinity of
the Churchill Avenue crossing,
Churchill Avenue forms a
signalized intersection with Alma
Street, and unsignalized
intersections (i.e. side-street stop-
controlled) at Mariposa Avenue.
The Churchill Avenue/Alma Street intersection is an existing at-grade signalized intersection
located within close proximity (less than 50 feet) from the railroad crossing, and as such
represents the key intersection that influences at-grade railroad crossing operations. In 2015,
the City of Palo Alto, Caltrain, Caltrans Rail Division, and the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) met to review the Churchill Avenue crossing to determine possible funding
of safety improvements through the Federal Section 130 funds. Currently, Churchill Avenue
carried an average weekday traffic of approximately 9,200 vehicles and 1,020 bicycles per day
Figure 3-5: Churchill Avenue At-Grade Crossing
Source: Google Earth 2016
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
17
across the at-grade crossing4. Weekday pedestrian and bicycle volumes for this crossing are
summarized in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3: Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes at Churchill Avenue Crossing
Direction Pedestrians Bicycles
Total
Weekday
Peak Hour / Time Total
Weekday
Peak Hour / Time
Eastbound 139 36 13:45 – 14:45 541 202 13:45 – 14:45
Westbound 131 36 07:45 – 08:45 481 265 07:30 – 08:30
Source: Caltrain Grade Hazard Analysis Final Report, Feb 2016
Land Use
As shown in Figure 3-6, land use around the Churchill Avenue crossing is mostly residential,
except for the southwest corner which borders a stadium and school facilities owned by the Palo
Alto Unified School District. Nearby land uses are primarily comprised of low-density residential
communities and schools such as Palo Alto High School and the Castilleja School. The Stanford
Caltrain Station, is a special station only utilized during Stanford University special events and
football games. Access to these platforms is provided through the Embarcadero Road grade
separation structure.
Figure 3-6: Churchill Avenue Grade Crossing Land Use Map
4 Grade Crossing Hazard Analysis Final Report, Caltrain, 2016
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
18
3.3.3 Meadow Drive
The Meadow Drive at-grade
crossing is located approximately
1,200 feet north of the Charleston
Road arterial at-grade crossing.
Meadow Drive is an east-west
local street/collector that provides
local connection between El
Camino Way and Louis Road,
through the south-central part of
the City. The roadway has a
general two-lane cross-section,
with Class II bike lanes and
sidewalks. Within the
vicinity/influence of the Meadow
railroad crossing, Meadow Drive
forms a signalized intersection with Alma Street, and unsignalized intersections (i.e. side-street
stop-controlled) at Park Boulevard, Wilkie Way, and Ramona Street. The Meadow Drive/Alma
Street intersection is an existing at-grade signalized intersection located within close proximity
(less than 50 feet) from the railroad crossing, and as such represents the key intersection that
influences at-grade railroad crossing operations. Currently, Meadow Drive carried an average
weekday traffic of approximately 8,900 vehicles and 900 bicycles per day across the at-grade
crossing of the railroad. Weekday pedestrian and bicycle volumes for this crossing are
summarized in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4: Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes at Meadow Drive Crossing
Direction Pedestrians Bicycles
Total
Weekday
Peak Hour / Time Total
Weekday
Peak Hour / Time
Eastbound 93 15 07:45 – 08:45 413 38 17:15 – 18:15
Westbound 88 14 07:45 – 08:45 483 274 07:45 – 08:45
Source: Caltrain Grade Hazard Analysis Final Report, Feb 2016
Land Use
The designated land uses around Meadow Drive Crossing are primarily residential with nearby
schools and neighborhood-retail shops and public recreational facilities such as Mitchell Park
Library and the Magical Bridge Playground within Mitchell Park near JLS Middle School (see
Figure 3-8).
Figure 3-7: Meadow Drive At-Grade Crossing
Source: Google Earth 2016
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
19
Figure 3-8: Meadow Drive Crossing Land Use Map
3.3.4 Charleston Road
Charleston Road is an east-
west residential arterial
facility through the City, that
provides cross-town
circulation between the El
Camino Real (State Route
82) corridor to the west and
the US 101/Rengstorff
Avenue interchange to the
east. The roadway has a
general four-lane cross-
section with left-turn
channelization at key
intersections. Through the
crossing of the railroad,
Charleston Road has a
four-lane undivided section
with Class II bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides. The crossing is provided with
crossing/gate appurtenances and marked for 25 mph speed limit.
Within the vicinity/influence of the railroad crossing, Charleston Road forms a signalized
intersection with Alma Street, and unsignalized intersections (i.e. side-street stop-controlled) at
Park Boulevard, Wilkie Way and Wright Place. The Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection is
Figure 3-9: Charleston Road At-Grade Crossing
Source: Google Earth 2016
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
20
an existing at-grade signalized intersection located within close proximity (less than 50 feet)
from the railroad crossing, and as such represents the key intersection that influences at-grade
railroad crossing operations. In 2013, Charleston Road carried an average weekday traffic of
approximately 17,900 vehicles and 240 bicycles per day across the at-grade crossing of the
railroad5. Weekday pedestrian and bicycle volumes for this crossing are summarized in
Table 3-5.
Table 3-5: Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes at Charleston Road Crossing
Direction Pedestrians Bicycles
Total
Weekday
Peak Hour / Time Total
Weekday
Peak Hour / Time
Eastbound 61 8 12:00 – 13:00 105 25 08:15 – 09:15
Westbound 79 11 12:00 – 13:00 139 48 07:45 – 08:45
Source: Caltrain Grade Hazard Analysis Final Report, Feb 2016
Land Use
The land uses surrounding the Charleston Road crossing are illustrated in Figure 3-10. The
immediate surrounding area around Charleston Road crossing is predominantly residential,
similar to the area surrounding the Meadow Drive railroad crossing. It should be noted that
approximately half a mile north from the crossing is the Magical Bridge Playground, Mitchell
Park, and the Mitchell Park Library, which could attract traffic from beyond the immediate
5Grade Crossing Hazard Analysis Final Report, Caltrain, 2016
Figure 3-10: Charleston Road Crossing Land Use Map
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
21
surroundings.
3.4 Grade-Separated Crossings
There are eight existing or planned grade-separated crossings along the rail corridor within the
Study Area. This section describes the existing and future grade-separated crossings and
serves to provide context on rail improvements in the corridor to illustrate what has been
accomplished to date and what could be done in the future to improve safety and operability.
○ Everett Avenue – Planned bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing
○ University Avenue – Existing grade separation
○ Homer Avenue – Existing bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing
○ Embarcadero Road – Existing grade separation
○ Seale Avenue – Planned bicycle/pedestrian crossing
○ California Avenue – Existing bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing
○ Oregon Expressway – Existing grade separation
○ Loma Verde Avenue – Planned bicycle/pedestrian crossing
○ San Antonio Road – Existing grade separation
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
22
3.4.1 Everett Avenue
The planned grade separation of
Everett Avenue would connect Quarry
Road (at the north end of the Stanford
University campus) with the Bryant
Street bicycle boulevard and the Palo
Alto Caltrain Station. Everett Avenue is
one of 15 priority crossings identified by
the Palo Alto Rail Task Force. The Palo
Alto 2012 BPTP identified opportunities
to improve linkages to services and
enhance the bicycle and pedestrian
connections. The resulting
improvements that were proposed
include installing additional traffic circles
and wayfinding improvements along
Everett Avenue to designate it as a
“complete” bicycle boulevard. Bicycle
boulevards are signed, shared roadways with low vehicle volume which prioritize convenient
and safe bicycle travel through the use of traffic calming strategies.
Currently, the lack of a grade-separated crossing somewhat isolates the El Camino Park, shown
in Figure 3-11 from the Downtown North neighborhoods in Palo Alto. The nearest railroad
crossings are the Palo Alto Avenue grade crossing to the north and the University Avenue
grade-separated crossing to the south. By implementing a grade-separated crossing at Everett
Avenue, there could be opportunities to provide connections between the Park, the surrounding
communities, Stanford University, the Stanford University Medical Center, and the Stanford
Shopping Center.
Pedestrian and bicycle access will most likely be accomplished through a grade-separated
underpass where vehicles would be prohibited. Coordination between the City, Caltrain,
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, and other agencies would be required to implement this
project.
3.4.2 University Avenue
The existing University Avenue
grade-separated crossing allows for
vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle
connections between the commercial
corridor along University Avenue to
the Stanford University campus
southwest of the rail line. Sidewalks
under the tunnel are grade separated
from the street to offer more
protection to pedestrians and bicycles
are permitted in the underpass
alongside vehicles. The underpass
was constructed in 1936 in response
to public safety concerns. The
intersection itself, shown in
Figure 3-11: Everett Avenue Planned Grade
Separation
Source: Google Earth 2016
Figure 3-12: University Avenue Grade Separation
Source: Google Earth 2016
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
23
Source: Google Earth 2016 Source: Google Earth 2016
Figure 3-12, is complex due to the convergence of the multi-modal Palo Alto station, El Camino
Real, and the gateway to both the university and Downtown Palo Alto. This station is a critical
connection for transit vehicles and is served by VTA, SamTrans, and Stanford University
Marguerite shuttles.
The grade separation caters primarily to vehicular traffic, with four lanes and no Class II bicycle
lanes, however there is adequate pedestrian access through the underpass and cyclists are
permitted on University Avenue (Figure 3-13 and Figure 3-14). Currently, traffic volumes along
University Avenue remain relatively manageable at 19,000 ADT. Opportunities exist to improve
the underpass as “gateway” by enhancing wayfinding and placemaking strategies, as well as
creating safer bicyclist and pedestrian passage through the underpass.
3.4.3 Homer Avenue
Completed in 2005 for $4.1
million, the Homer Avenue
underpass (Figure 3-15 and
Figure 3-16) connects Homer
Avenue residential communities
to the Embarcadero bike path that
runs parallel to the Caltrain
tracks. The pedestrian and
bicycle underpass is a high-
quality and fully accessible
crossing. The Palo Alto Medical
Foundation is also located west of
the crossing, and thus the tunnel
was designed with ramp users in
mind (shown in Figure 3-17). There are minor opportunities for improvement, including
increasing visibility from the tunnel and enhancing the safety of Alma Street crossings.
Figure 3-15: Homer Avenue Tunnel, Looking East
Source: Google Earth 2016
Figure 3-14: University Avenue
Underpass, Looking East
Source: Google Earth 2016
Figure 3-13: University Avenue Underpass,
Looking West
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
24
Figure 3-16: Homer Avenue and Alma Street Bike and Pedestrian Undercrossing
Figure 3-17: Homer Avenue Undercrossing Design
3.4.4 Embarcadero Road
The Embarcadero Road grade-
separated crossing (shown in
Figure 3-18) allows for vehicular,
pedestrian, and bicycle access. Its
proximity to the Palo Alto High
School, the Palo Alto School
District, Stanford University, and
neighborhood retail center, Town &
Country Village, make it a popular
route for pedestrian and bicycle
traffic during peak hours. Currently,
average daily traffic volumes can
reach up to 25,000 vehicles per
day. While commuters see the
benefits of this safe railroad
underpass, some pedestrian and
vehicle conflicts in the Alma Street
interchange remain. At this point, Alma Street transitions from a high-speed arterial to a
neighborhood street.
Source: Steven Grover & Associates
Figure 3-18: Embarcadero Grade Separation
Source: Google Earth 2016
Source: Google Earth 2016
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
25
3.4.5 Seale Avenue
The Seale Avenue grade-separated
crossing was proposed by the
BPTP 2012 to connect Peers Park
with the northeastern
neighborhoods and create a link
between the east-west bikeways
along Park Boulevard and Stanford
Avenue across Caltrain. If
established, the connection could
trigger the implementation of Seale
Avenue as a bicycle boulevard and
further enhance safe access to the
schools and parks along these
routes.
3.4.6 California Avenue
The California Avenue grade-
separated pedestrian/bicycle
underpass allows for access under
the railroad just northwest of the
California Avenue Caltrain Station
(Figure 3-20). The existing tunnel is
not ADA accessible and the tunnel
itself is dark and narrow. Widening
the tunnel and improving the tunnel
lighting may increase visibility and
meet ADA standards while
potentially mitigating the risk of
bicycle-pedestrian conflicts.
3.4.7 Oregon Expressway
The existing Oregon Expressway grade
separation, shown in Figure 3-21, allows
for vehicular and bicycle crossings under
both the railroad and Alma Street. The
Oregon Expressway is a high-volume
arterial currently carrying an average daily
traffic volume of 31,000 vehicles per day,
and the Alma Street interchange poses
some minor pedestrian and vehicular
conflicts. In addition, this particular
underpass has been prone to flooding
during rainy seasons due to issues with the
drainage system.
Figure 3-21: Oregon Expressway Grade Separation
Source: Google Earth 2016
Figure 3-20: California Ave Bike/Ped Crossing
Source: Google Earth 2016
Figure 3-19: Seale Ave Proposed Bike/Ped Crossing
Source: Google Earth 2016
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
26
Bicycles are permitted to travel through
Oregon Expressway, but the fast-moving
traffic along Oregon Expressway and the
lack of Class II bicycle lanes within the 4-
lane underpass may encourage bicyclists
to seek an alternate route.
3.4.8 Loma Verde Avenue
The planned pedestrian and bicycle
underpass at Loma Verde Avenue is in
its early conceptual phase. It is
predominantly surrounded by residential
uses. The intersection at Alma Street is
unsignalized and crosswalks are not
marked. The nearest railroad crossing
is Meadow Drive to the south and
Oregon Expressway to the north.
Figure 3-24: Loma Verde Avenue
Source: Google Earth 2016
Figure 3-22: Oregon Expressway Underpass, Looking West
Source: Google Earth 2016
Source: Google Earth 2016
Figure 3-23: Oregon Expressway Underpass, Looking East
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
27
3.4.9 San Antonio Road
The San Antonio Road grade separation allows for vehicular travel over the railroad tracks.
Most of the separation falls within the City of Mountain View; however, a portion of the San
Antonio Road overpass falls within the City of Palo Alto, as shown in Figure 3-25. The San
Antonio Caltrain Station lies less than 500 feet southeast of the crossing and is surrounded by a
mix of commercial offices, educational facilities, and medium-density residential communities.
Pedestrians and bicyclists are prohibited on the San Antonio Road overpass; however, they
may access the opposite side of
the railroad tracks via the San
Antonio Caltrain Station. The
current high volume of average
daily traffic, approximately
36,000 vehicles per day, may be
intimidating to pedestrians and
bicyclists on the surrounding
streets. Opportunities exist to
improve connectivity at this
grade separation by adding a
new bicycle crossing, although
special attention should be paid
to conflicts between vehicles,
pedestrians, and bicycles in the
area.
Figure 3-25: San Antonio Road Grade Separation
Source: Google Earth 2016
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
28
4 Caltrain
4.1 Caltrain Operations
Since 1992, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers
Board (PCJPB) has provided commuter rail,
Caltrain service along the San Francisco
Peninsula, from San Francisco 4th and King to
San Jose Diridon and Gilroy stations, as
illustrated in Figure 4-1.
In 2016, Caltrain service carried 62,416 riders on
an average weekday, which represented a 7.2
percent increase from 2015 ridership, an 83
percent increase since 2010, and a 161 percent
increase compared to ridership in 2004. Most
riders continue to travel during peak commute
hours, with 9.6 percent increase from 29,143
riders in 2015 to 31,948 in 2016. Caltrain also
saw a 3.8 percent growth in reverse peak riders,
from 18,842 in 2015 to 19,564 in 2016. Since
2010, Caltrain has experienced significant
ridership growth, as seen in Figure 4-2.
Caltrain currently operates 92 weekday trains, 36
Saturday trains, and 32 Sunday trains. Palo Alto
has two Caltrain stations that operate seven
days per week: the Palo Alto station is located at
95 University Avenue, and the California Avenue
station is located at 101 California Avenue.
Additionally, there is a station at 100
Embarcadero Road for Stanford University
football games only.
There are a total of 42 rail and highway at-grade
crossings between Mission Bay Drive (San
Francisco) on the north and Virginia Ave (San
Jose) on the south. Caltrain operations are
summarized below.
Figure 4-1: Caltrain System Map
Source: Caltrain Website 2017
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
29
Table 4-1: Caltrain Operations
Trains Per Weekday 92 trains per weekday (46 trains in each direction)
Express Trains 22 express trains (11 trains in each direction)
Max Speed 79 mph
Termini San Francisco and San Jose
Special Event Trains Sporting events: Giants, Sharks, Stanford Football, etc.
Freight Union Pacific Railroad: up to 6 trains per day during non-peak
hours and evenings
Other Tenant Railroads Altamont Commuter Express, Capital Corridor, and Amtrak West
operate between Santa Clara and Tamien Stations
Figure 4-2: Change in Caltrain Average Weekday Ridership 1997-2016
Source: Caltrain Annual Ridership 1997-2016
4.1.1 Caltrain Stations
Within the City of Palo Alto, there are two Caltrain stations and one special event station. The
Palo Alto Caltrain Station has the second highest average weekday ridership (AWR) within the
Caltrain system, as shown Table 4-2. Between 2015 and 2016, ridership at the Palo Alto
Caltrain Station increased by over three percent over the same period.
Source: Caltrain Website 2017
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
30
Table 4-2: Average Weekday Ridership for Major Caltrain Stations
Station 2015 AWR % of Total
AWR 2016 AWR % of Total
AWR % Increase
San
Francisco* 13,571 23.3% 14,769 23.7% 8.8%
Palo Alto* 7,197 12.4% 7,424 11.9% 3.2%
San Jose
Diridon* 4,160 7.1% 4,712 7.5% 13.3%
Mountain
View* 4,570 7.8% 4,659 7.5% 1.9%
Redwood
City* 3,233 5.6% 3,814 6.1% 18.0%
Millbrae* 3,536 6.1% 3,606 5.8% 2.0%
Sunnyvale+ 2,881 4.9% 3,190 5.1% 10.7%
Hillsdale+ 2,706 4.6% 2,958 4.7% 9.3%
San Mateo+ 2,061 3.5% 2,179 3.5% 5.7%
Menlo Park+ 1,762 3.0% 1,796 2.9% 1.9%
Total 45,677 78.4% 49,107 78.7% 7.5%
Source: Caltrain Ridership Counts 2015-2016
*Baby Bullet station served by all express train service
+Served by some express trains
The Palo Alto Caltrain Station is served by 43 trains each weekday, with 11 of these being
“baby bullet” trains with limited stop service through the corridor. The Caltrain schedule for trains
stopping at the Palo Alto and California Ave Stations during in the northbound and southbound
directions is included in Appendix B – Caltrain Weekday Train Schedule.
Palo Alto Caltrain Station
The Palo Alto Caltrain Station
provides 178 bike racks and indoor
bicycle parking for up to 96 bikes at the
Bikestation, which offers 24-hour key
access, bike repairs, accessory sales,
and a changing room. Paid parking is
available for up to 389 vehicles.
Service headways vary during the
peak period with trains coming every
10-30 minutes, and Baby Bullet trains
every 20-30 minutes; off-peak service
is hourly. Transit connections from this
station can be made to SamTrans
(Lines ECR, 280, 281, 297, and 397),
shuttles (Deer Creek, Stanford
Marguerite, and Crosstown/
Embarcadero), and VTA (Routes 22, 35, 522, DB Express). The Palo Alto Station has the
second highest Caltrain ridership, following San Francisco, accounting for 11.9 percent in 2016.
Figure 4-3: Palo Alto Caltrain Station
Source: Jeremiah Cox, 2014
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
31
California Avenue Caltrain
Station
The California Ave Caltrain
Station provides 33 bike racks,
paid parking for up to 185 vehicles,
and 42 bike lockers, although
some lockers were removed
recently as part of the California
Avenue Streetscape Improvements
Project. There was an average of
1,628 weekday passenger
boardings at California Avenue
Caltrain Station in February 2016,
which represents an increase of
4.8 percent over the previous year
in the same period.6 Passengers
can connect to VTA bus route 89
at the station or walk ½-mile to El
Camino Real to connect with VTA routes 22, 522, and the Dumbarton (DB) Express.
Stanford Caltrain Station
The Stanford Caltrain Station is
located at Embarcadero Road and
Alma Street, in between Palo Alto
Station and California Ave Station,
and is utilized only during Stanford
football game days. There are two
side platforms with pedestrian
ramps leading below to
Embarcadero Road. The Stanford
Stadium is located within a ½-mile
walk from the station platform.
4.2 Grade Crossing Inventory Checklist from Caltrain Hazard Analysis
Caltrain produces inventory summaries of all rail crossings along their corridor.
Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 present summary sheets for the grade crossings within the Study Area.
6 Caltrain 2016 Annual Passenger Counts
Figure 4-4: California Ave Caltrain Station
Source: Jeremiah Cox, 2014
Source: Jeremiah Cox, 2014
Figure 4-5: Stanford Caltrain Station
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
32
Table 4-3: At-Grade Crossing Intersection Inventory
Street Name Palo Alto
Ave Churchill Ave Meadow Dr Charleston
Road
Milepost 29.76 31.01 33.00 33.33
Emergency Notification Sign Installed Yes Yes Yes Yes
Railroad Operating Company XTAS XTAS XTAS XTAS
Total Trains Per Day 91 96 94 93
Passenger Trains Per Day 92 92 92 92
Gate Down (secs) 43 (25-75) 39 (30-78) 39 (20-74) 40 (22-76)
Total Switching Trains 2 0 0 0
Total Daylight Trains (6AM-6PM) 65 65 65 65
Passenger Max Speed 79 79 79 79
Freight Max Speed 50 50 50 50
Typical Train Speed Range Over Crossing 40-79 mph 40-79 mph 40-79 mph 40-79 mph
Number of Tracks 2 2 2 2
Train Detection Constant
Warning Time
Constant
Warning Time
Constant
Warning Time
Constant
Warning Time
Roadway Classification Urban Other
Principal
Urban
Collector
Urban
Collector
Urban Minor
Arterial
Number of Traffic Lanes 2 2 2 2
Posted Speed Limit 25 mph 25 mph 25 mph 25 mph
2017 ADT (veh/day) 16,200 9,200 8,900 17,900
Transit Crossing Per Day 33 7 11 45
School Bus Crossing Per Day 0 64 48 20
2017 Heavy Trucks Percentage <1% <1% <1% <1%
Other RR Operators Over Track at Crossing Union Pacific Union Pacific Union Pacific Union Pacific
Source: 2017 ADT data from February 2017, as provided by City of Palo Alto; All other data from the Grade Crossing
Hazard Analysis Final Report, Caltrain, 2016
Table 4-4: At-Grade Crossing Intersection Inventory
Street Name Palo Alto Ave Churchill Ave Meadow Dr Charleston Road
# Existing # Existing # Existing # Existing
Vehicle Gates 2 2 2 2
Pedestrian Guardrails 2 4 4 4
Sidewalk - - - -
RR Advance Warning
Signs (W10-1) 4 3 3 3
24” Stopline Pavement
Markings 2 2 2 2
R&R Pavement
Markings 2 6 2 9
12” Pedestrian
Delineation Line - - - -
Advanced Signal
Preemption None Advanced
Preemption
Advanced
Preemption
Simultaneous
Preemption
Source: Grade Crossing Hazard Analysis Final Report, Caltrain, 2016
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
33
4.3 Caltrain Capital Projects
The information on the following Caltrain capital projects was primarily sourced from the
February 2016 Caltrain Grade Crossing Hazards Analysis.
4.3.1 Signal Preemption Improvement Project
The Signal Preemption Improvement Project will upgrade the interface between the Caltrain
grade crossing warning system and the traffic signal control system at five grade crossings in
three cities and the County of Santa Clara. New traffic signal equipment and roadway
improvements will be constructed at Brewster Avenue in Redwood City, and Rengstorff Avenue
and Castro Street in Mountain View. Electrical upgrades and improvements to the pedestrian
crossing system will be constructed at Churchill Avenue and East Meadow Drive in Palo Alto. At
all locations, the preemption interface between the grade crossing warning system and traffic
signal control system will be upgraded to a new 10-wire preemption circuit to provide improved
preemption safety at the grade crossings. The upgraded systems will provide increased
capability to clear vehicle traffic and exchange information between systems, in addition to
improving ADA access for pedestrians and normal traffic operation of the intersections.
4.3.2 CBOSS Positive Train Control System
Caltrain has developed specifications for an enhanced Positive Train Control (PTC) system,
referred to as Communications Based Overlay Signal System (CBOSS), which incorporate the
essential functions of positive train separation, over-speed enforcement, and roadway worker
protection, plus other capabilities specifically designed to improve grade crossing performance.
CBOSS is a vital overlay of the existing wayside signal system, providing a transition from
Caltrain’s Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) block signal system. In addition, CBOSS will allow
Caltrain to reduce the peak minimum operating headway to five minutes, greatly increasing
system capacity. CBOSS is specified to be compliant with the requirements of the Rail Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 and all relevant regulations provided by 49 CFR 236. Furthermore,
Caltrain is participating in discussions with the interchanging railroads to achieve a PTC system
solution that is interoperable with freight operator systems.
Caltrain has been working to implement PTC on its corridor for several years to achieve the
resulting safety and performance benefits. CBOSS will prevent over-speed-related derailments
and collisions between trains under normal “signaled moves”. When PTC enforcement cannot
be sustained, CBOSS provides contingency operating modes that allow operations to be
conducted with reduced risk by enabling the train engineer to revert to CTC operations through
the temporary use of the wayside signals. CBOSS also provides a “Restricted Manual”
operating mode to enhance safety when the wayside signal system is unable to display
permissive signals. While in Restricted Manual mode, CBOSS enforces the Restricted Speed to
ensure that collisions at elevated speed do not occur.
The CBOSS system will provide a crossing inhibit function, whereby a train which is making a
station stop will not activate the grade crossing warning system, including advance preemption,
as the train is approaching the station with an enforced stop short of the crossing. The CBOSS
system will then provide an operator initiated start to the crossing and traffic signal preemption
circuits prior to departing the station.
4.3.3 Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP)
The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) would electrify the Caltrain Corridor from
San Francisco’s 4th and King Station to the Tamien Station in San Jose, convert diesel-hauled
to Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) trains, and increase service to up to six Caltrain trains per peak
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
34
hour per direction by 2021. Initially, service between San Francisco and San Jose would
include a mixed fleet of EMU’s and diesel locomotives. Eventually diesel locomotives would be
replaced with EMUs over time as they reach the end of their service life. Caltrain’s diesel-
powered locomotive service would continue to be used to provide service between the San Jose
Diridon and Gilroy stations. The PCEP will allow Caltrain to operate quieter, cleaner, more
frequent train service to more riders. Increased capacity and improved service will help Caltrain
meet increasing ridership demand. Estimated ridership increases for 2020 and 2040 are shown
in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5: Estimated Ridership with Proposed Caltrain Electrification Project
Estimated Ridership with the Proposed Project
2013 2020 2040
Existing/No Project 47,000 57,000 84,000
With Project N/A 69,000 111,000
Source: Caltrain Ridership Technical Memorandum, 2014
4.3.4 PCEP Relation to the High-Speed Rail Project
The electrification system envisioned for the corridor would be configured in such a way that it
would support the future operation of California HSR. Twenty-five-kV, 60-Hz single-phase AC
electrification would be the power supply system of choice for a steel-wheel-on-steel-rail high-
speed train operation. The Caltrain corridor is currently only rated for a maximum of 79 mph
and, thus, there would be a need for track and other system upgrades to support higher speeds
than at present. The Proposed PCEP includes electrification infrastructure that would first be
used by Caltrain and could later be used for high-speed trains. However, the proposed project
does not include other improvements necessary for high-speed trains such as platform
improvements, high-speed rail maintenance facilities, passing tracks or other Core Capacity
projects. The proposed project does not include improvements to support speeds greater than
79 mph or high-speed rail operations on the Caltrain corridor at speeds up to 110 mph. High-
speed rail construction and operations would be the subject of a later, separate environmental
analysis to be conducted by CHSRA and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
35
5 Traffic Operational Analysis
This section describes the existing intersection and roadway traffic operating conditions at the
at-grade roadway crossings of the railroad, within the limits of the City of Palo Alto.
5.1 Vehicular Level of Service Methodology and Standards
Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative description of vehicular traffic operating conditions
ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed
conditions with excessive delays. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Congestion Management Program (CMP) guidelines dictate the use of the 2000 Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology to analyze intersections. The City of Palo Alto uses the
same methodology to evaluate its intersections. The 2000 HCM operations method evaluates
signalized intersection operations based on average control delay time for all vehicles at the
intersection.
Consistent with operations analysis software used in prior planning studies prepared for the
railroad corridor (such as the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Plan Environmental Impact
Report, Transportation Chapter, 2015) this study utilized Synchro/SimTraffic 8 software based
implementation of the more current 2010 HCM methods for purposes of quantifying traffic
operating conditions at the study intersections. Note that the Synchro/SimTraffic software is a
widely-recognized software (including by agencies such as Caltrans) that is relatively more
reliable for purposes of assessing operational characteristics of closely spaced intersections,
including signalized intersections located in close proximity to at-grade railroad crossings.
The City of Palo Alto LOS standard for signalized non-CMP intersections is LOS D or better. For
CMP intersections, the City’s LOS standard is LOS E or better, meaning that only LOS F is
considered unacceptable. The exception is the intersection of Foothill Expressway and Page
Mill Road, which has a grade of LOS F and is considered acceptable by VTA. This is because it
has operated at LOS F in the 1991 baseline conditions and thus the City of Palo Alto has not
adopted the CMP standards for that particular intersection.
The LOS definitions for signalized intersections are shown in table 5 , . Motor vehicle level of
service D and E are typical at intersections in many urban areas where a high volume of
vehicles pass through an intersection that is physically constrained by existing adjacent
structures.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
36
Table 5-1: LOS Definition for Intersection Control Delay (sec/veh)
LOS Description Signal
Control
2-Way Stop
or All-Way
Stop Control
A
Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive
during the green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle
length may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay.
10.0 or less 0 – 10
B
Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or
short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than LOS A, causing
higher levels of average vehicle delay.
10.1 to 20.0 > 10 – 15
C
Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or
longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to
appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is
significant, though may still pass through the intersection
without stopping.
20.1 to 35.0 > 15 – 25
D
The influence of congestion become more noticeable. Longer
delays may result from the same combination of unfavorable
signal progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many
vehicle stops and individual cycle failures are not noticeable.
35.1 to 55.0 > 25 – 35
E
This is considered the limit of acceptable delay. These high
delay values generally indicate poor signal progression, long
cycle lengths and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures occur
frequently.
55.1 to 80.0 > 35 – 50
F
This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers.
This condition often occurs without oversaturation, that is, when
arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor
progression and long cycle lengths may also be major
contributing causes of such delay levels.
Greater than
80.0 > 50
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 and 2010
The LOS descriptions in table 5 are framed entirely from the perspective of motor vehicle
drivers and their passengers. VTA’s Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines require the
consideration of other modes of travel when recommending changes to improve an
intersection’s motor vehicle level of service. Senate Bill 743 created a process to change the
way that transportation impacts are analyzed under CEQA and requires an alternative LOS for
evaluating transportation impacts. This is described in further detail in Appendix A — Federal,
State and Regional Policy and Framework Review.
5.2 Significant Impact Criteria
Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes an impact at an intersection. The City
of Palo Alto uses the same impact criteria as the CMP. A project is deemed to create a
significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in the City of Palo
Alto if for either peak hour:
a. the level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable level of service (LOS
D or better for non-CMP intersections, and LOS E or better for CMP intersections) to an
unacceptable level of service; and
b. the intersection is already operating at an unacceptable level of service (LOS E or F for
non-CMP intersections and LOS F for CMP intersections), and the project causes both
the average control delay for the critical movements at the intersection to increase by four
or more seconds and the critical volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) to increase by one
percent (0.01) or more.
For both CMP and non-CMP intersections, if an intersection is operating at an unacceptable
level of service and the change in critical delay is negative (i.e., decreases), a significant impact
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
37
is said to occur if the project causes the V/C ratio to increase by 0.01 or more. This can occur if
the critical movements at an intersection change.
5.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Criteria
A traffic signal warrant analysis was also completed per criteria contained in the California
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD, 2014 Edition, Chapter 4C). The peak-
hour volume Warrant 3 (urban areas) analysis was completed as a representative warrant
analysis to determine if “significance” should be associated with unsignalized operations. Other
signal warrant criteria, including Warrant 9: Intersection Near a Grade Crossing, will also be
evaluated for key study intersections where applicable. Note that the CA-MUTCD indicates that
“the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of
a traffic control signal.”
5.4 Traffic Count Data
Intersection turning movement and vehicular traffic volume counts were collected by the City on
Thursday, February 16, and November 30, 2017, under AM peak hour, mid-day peak hour, and
PM peak hour conditions, at key study intersections along each of the at-grade crossing
corridors. For the purposes of this study, AM peak hour is defined as one hour of peak traffic
flow between 7:30 and 9:30 AM on a typical weekday, mid-day peak hour is defined as one hour
of peak traffic flow between 2:30 and 4:30 PM on a typical weekday, and PM peak hour is
defined as one hour of peak traffic flow between 4:30 and 6:30 PM on a typical weekday.
The intersection traffic counts were obtained at a total of thirteen (13) study intersections listed
as follows:
1. Charleston Road / Alma Street
2. Charleston Road / Park Blvd.
3. Charleston Road / Wilkie Way
4. Charleston Road / Wright Place
5. Meadow Drive / Alma Street
6. Meadow Drive / Park Blvd.
7. Meadow Drive / Wilkie Way
8. Meadow Drive / Ramona St.
9. Churchill Avenue / Alma Street
10. Churchill Avenue / Mariposa Ave.
11. Churchill Avenue / Madrono Ave.
12. Palo Alto Avenue / Alma Street
13. Palo Alto Avenue / El Camino Real
Appendix C – Traffic Count Raw Data contains the raw traffic count data. For a graphical
illustration of the existing traffic volumes at the study intersections, refer to Appendix D –
Existing Traffic Turning Volumes.
5.4.1 Intersection Traffic Operations
The Existing Conditions delay and LOS operations for study intersections for both survey data
sets are summarized in Table 5-2. Note that this table summarizes traffic operating conditions
under normal/typical operating conditions within the typical weekday AM, midday and PM peak
hour periods at the study intersections when the railroad gates are “open”, meaning there is no
railroad-related interruption of vehicular traffic flow on the roadway crossings. There was a
possibility of some bias in the February traffic behavior and volume suggesting it was an
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
38
atypical day. To verify this, the traffic counting exercise was repeated at the same locations on
November 30, 2017.
In Table 5-3 and Table 5-4, the differences between the February data set and the November
data set are set out in summary for the key intersections.
The individual movement difference for the 13 intersections for both data sets are included in
Appendix D.
There could be a number of reasons for the differences. Firstly, there may have been a bias in
the demand volumes in the February data, that in general show lower values than the
November demand volumes. Secondly, with continued economic growth in this area, there may
have been some growth in traffic demand between February and November during 2017.
The PM peak hour, however, shows an overall 9.6% greater difference in volumes which tends
to suggest a higher demand than either a normal daily variation or nine (9) months of demand
growth would generate.
Table 5-2: Existing Conditions: Intersections Level of Service – Typical Operations
February 2017 and November 2017
Delay
(sec/veh)LOS Delay
(sec/veh)LOS Delay
(sec/veh)LOS Delay
(sec/veh)LOS Delay
(sec/veh)LOS Delay
(sec/veh)LOS
101 Charleston Rd / Alma St Signal 41.9 D 42.8 D 39.9 D 40.3 D 40.3 D 40.0 D
102 Charleston Rd / Park Blvd TWSC 28.4 D 25.6 D 23.0 C 13.9 B 10.4 B 11.8 B
103 Charleston Rd / Wilkie Way Signal 30.4 C 28.5 C 30.7 C 31.9 C 30.4 C 31.5 C
104 Charleston Rd / Wright Pl TWSC 15.6 C 17.6 C 16.1 C 15.2 C 18.6 C 16.4 C
105 Meadow Dr / Alma St Signal 35.6 D 34.4 C 36.4 D 34.2 C 31.3 C 33.0 C
106 Meadow Dr / Park Blvd TWSC 11.1 B 11.7 B 10.9 B 10.1 B 10.8 B 10.2 B
107 Meadow Dr / Wilkie Way AWSC 12.9 B 10.7 B 11.7 B 9.3 A 9.7 A 11.8 B
108 Meadow Dr / Ramona St TWSC 15.6 C 15.6 C 20.3 C 12.2 B 13.1 B 16.8 C
109 Churchill Ave / Alma St Signal 32.0 C 27.7 C 29.9 C 28.1 C 25.9 C 25.2 C
110 Churchill Ave / Mariposa Ave TWSC 13.3 B 11.6 B 15.0 C 11.9 B 12.4 B 12.9 B
111 Churchill Ave / Madrono Ave TWSC 9.9 A 13.9 B 12.9 B 10.0 B 13.3 B 11.8 B
112 Palo Alto Ave / Alma St TWSC 15.8 C 15.6 C 17.8 C 15.7 C 15.8 C 19.4 C
113 Palo Alto Ave / El Camino Real / Sand Hill Ave Signal 19.5 B 29.2 C 42.2 D 19.4 B 30.1 C 48.9 D
Palo Alto RPM ‐ Intersection Delays
Notes:
AWSC = All‐Way Stop Control, TWSC = Two‐Way Stop Control, MD = Mid‐day
Operating conditions indicated in this table refer to typical (non railroad pre‐empted) signal operations.
For TWSC intersections, worst‐case movement/approach delay are reported. For signalized and AWSC intersections, average control delays for the whole intersection are reported. All
reported delay and LOS values are computed values from Synchro 8 software.
Signal Warrant = California‐MUTCD (November 2014) Chapter 4C 'Peak Hour Warrant 3' (Urban/Rural Areas)
MD PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR#Study Intersection Control
Type
Nov‐17
Existing Conditions
AM PEAK HOUR
Feb‐17
Existing Conditions
AM PEAK HOUR MD PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Source: Mott MacDonald, 2017
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
39
Table 5-3: Alma Street Intersections AM Peak Hour Total Traffic Flows into the
Intersection for February and November 2017
Date/Location Palo Alto Ave Churchill Ave Meadow Dr Charleston Rd Total
Nov 17 1044 2551 2720 3140 9455
Feb 17 1076 2391 2550 3074 9091
% Change
from Feb 17
-3.0 +6.7 +6.7 +2.1 +4.0
Table 5-4: Alma Street Intersections PM Peak Hour Total Traffic Flows into the
Intersection for February and November 2017
Date/Location Palo Alto Ave Churchill Ave Meadow Dr Charleston Rd Total
Nov 17 1380 3283 3337 3737 11737
Feb 17 1428 2901 2906 3471 10706
% Change
from Feb 17
-3.4 +13.2 +14.8 +7.7 +9.6
It was therefore decided that the November 2017 data set was a better representation of
average week day traffic conditions in the City of Palo Alto. This was then used as the primary
observed data set in all the analyses.
Reviewing the results of the operational analyses in Table 5-2 for the key intersections (i.e.,
Alma Street with the rail crossing streets), shows that in terms of level-of-service the AM and
PM peak hour drops from C to D, for Meadow Drive, but remain the same for all other
intersections.
Intersection Operations during Railroad-Related Signal Pre-emption Cycles:
In Section 5.4.1 and Table 5-2, the road traffic signal operations are described that relate to the
times when the rail gate is open
The relationships between traffic volumes; traffic delays and queues and rail gate closure
frequencies is a complex one. A description of the characteristics is set out below.
The Caltrain schedule shows a morning highest peak of 10 trains an hour stopping at Palo Alto
Station two way, stopping between 7:00 am and 8:00 am; but six (6) stopping between 6:00 am
and 7:00 am and five (5) between 9:00 am and 10:00 am.
For the evening peak again there are 10 trains scheduled between 5:00 pm and 6:00 pm; but
seven (7) between both 4:00 pm and 5:00 pm and 7:00 pm and 8:00 pm.
The number of trains stopping at Palo Alto Station does not necessarily directly correlate with
the number of gate closures as some single gate closures may accommodate a train in each
direction. There are also trains that do not stop but pass through and cause rail gate closures.
The best data source on gate closures came from the document “Caltrain: Grade Crossing
Hazard Analysis – Final Report,” February 2016. The data showed all rail gate closures by time
of day and duration for an average weekday. This shows a maximum number in any one hour
of 10 in both the morning and evening peaks, but the average for the four (4)-hour peak periods
is six (6) for the AM and seven (7) for the PM.
The most congestion is caused when both the frequency of gate closures and traffic volumes
peak at the same time. However, in Table 5-5, a comparison of peak traffic flow times with peak
gate closure frequency is set out. What is clear is that although some “peaks” of both the
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
40
frequencies of gate closures and traffic volumes do coincide in time, many do not. Nor do the
peak times coincide by location.
Table 5-5 shows the peak hours for traffic flow crossing the Caltrain tracks and the peak hours
for the frequency of gate closures. As can be seen, these vary by each item and location.
Figure 5-1 depicts the situation at the Palo Alto Avenue rail crossing for westbound traffic. The
blue line represents the frequency of gate closures; the green line the traffic volumes and the
red line the length of highest queuing. These are normalized to compare these profiles. What
can be seen is that when traffic volume and gate closure frequencies peak together, so does the
queue length.
Table 5-5: Peak Traffic Flow and Gate Closure Frequency Hours
Location Item AM PM
Palo Alto Ave EB Traffic 8:00-9:00 5:00-6:00
WB Traffic 11:00-12:00 5:00-6:00
Gate Closure 8:00-9:00 6:00-7:00
Churchill Ave EB Traffic 8:00-9:00 3:00-4:00
WB Traffic 8:00-9:00 5:00-6:00
Gate Closure 7:00-9:00* 5:00-6:00
Meadow Dr EB Traffic 8:00-9:00 3:00-4:00
WB Traffic 8:00-9:00 5:00-6:00
Gate Closure 7:00-9:00* 5:00-7:00*
Charleston Rd EB Traffic 8:15-9:15 3:30-4:30
WB Traffic 8:30-9:30 5:15-6:15
Gate Closure 7:00-8:00 6:00-7:00
Both hours have peak values.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
41
Figure 5-1: Train and WB Traffic Daily Pattern at Alma St and Palo Alto Ave Caltrain
Crossing
Coincidence of “peaking” is evident in the PM peak period, although even then not exactly
(actual peak traffic demand is an hour earlier than peak gate closure frequency). However, it
can be seen that in the AM peak period, the queues at 8:00 am are less than those at 12:00 pm.
This is largely because the traffic demand is the dominant independent variable and is lower at
8:00 am than from 11:00 am onwards.
In order to capture the impacts of all these different variations, the model takes an average
condition over a four (4)-hour peak period from both AM and PM. The model is used to assess
growth in demand and likely traffic diversion effects.
For the more detailed hourly intersection operational analyses, an assumption of eight (8)
railgate closures an hour is used. It is general practice not to design infrastructure to the very
highest peak demand conditions but to normalize peak period conditions for design and
evaluation purposes.
In Table 5-6 the level-of-service for the actual rail crossing movements is shown for 2017. This
is a “weighted” average of times when the rail gates are closed and when they are open.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
42
Table 5-6: Level-of-Service of Rail Crossing Movements in 2017
Crossing Location Level-of-Service
AM PM
Palo Alto Ave E F
Churchill Ave E E
Meadow Dr D E
Charleston Rd E F
This shows that the crossings are currently subject to poor levels-of-service and generate
congestion within the road network.
5.4.2 Roadway Traffic Counts and Traffic Operations
The City of Palo Alto provided roadway traffic counts collected from Thursday, February 23,
2017 through Sunday, February 26, 2017 for the following four at-grade roadway crossing
segments:
● Charleston Road west of Alma Street
● Churchill Avenue west of Alma Street
● Meadow Drive west of Alma Street
● Palo Alto Avenue west of Alma Street
The count data included continuous 24-hour bi-directional counts recorded at 15-minute
intervals. FHWA-definitions based axle-classified count data were also provided for Palo Alto
Avenue, Churchill Avenue, and Meadow Drive segments.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
43
The roadway crossing traffic count data (total of eastbound and westbound directions) is
graphically illustrated by time-of-day from Thursday, February 23, 2017 through Sunday,
February 26, 2017 and is shown in Figure 5-2.
Figure 5-2: Vehicle Total Counts (Eastbound & Westbound)
T
The FHWA axle-classification definitions that were used in the traffic counts provided for this
study are illustrated in Figure 5-3.
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2017
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
44
Figure 5-3: FHWA Vehicle Classifications
For the purposes of this report, vehicle classes 5 through 7 are considered light trucks and
vehicle classes 8 through 13 are considered heavy trucks in Tables 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, and 5-10,
which depict average weekday and average weekend vehicle counts by type. Vehicle count
data by type was not available for the Charleston Road segment west of Alma Street (Table
5-10). Meadow Drive showed the highest rate of truck traffic out of the three (3) available data
sets of vehicle type counts despite not having the highest vehicle volume out of the three (3)
intersections. Heavy trucks are not permitted on Churchill Avenue, which shows the lowest rate
of truck volumes.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, DATE DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
45
Table 5-7: Palo Alto Avenue Railroad Crossing Traffic Volumes
Palo Alto Avenue
(west of Alma
Street)
FHWA
Axle-Class
Weekday ADT Weekend ADT
EB WB Total EB WB Total
Motorcycles 1 94 97 191 66 72 138
Passenger Cars 2 6,286 7,854 14,140 5,647 6,687 12334
Pick-up Trucks 3 736 964 1,700 507 532 1039
Buses 4 17 15 32 16 10 26
Light Trucks 5 thru 7 83 22 105 46 16 62
Heavy Trucks 8 thru 13 11 10 21 6 8 14
Total ADT 7,227 8,962 16,189 6,288 7,325 13,613
% Heavy Trucks 0.15% 0.11% 0.13% 0.10% 0.11% 0.10%
Notes:
ADT = Average Daily Traffic (estimated annual average) EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound
The weekday ADT reported herein are based on counts from Thursday, February 23, 2017
The weekend ADT reported herein are based on counts from Saturday, February 25, 2017
FHWA Axle-Class 3 includes Emergency Vans
Table 5-8: Churchill Avenue Railroad Crossing Traffic Volumes
Churchill Avenue
(west of Alma
Street)
FHWA
Axle-Class
Weekday ADT Weekend ADT
EB WB Total EB WB Total
Motorcycles 1 43 46 89 34 19 53
Passenger Cars 2 3,574 4,743 8,317 3,188 3,895 7,083
Pick-up Trucks 3 273 404 677 192 200 392
Buses 4 18 26 44 10 2 12
Light Trucks 5 thru 7 29 16 45 12 5 17
Heavy Trucks 8 thru 13 9 7 16 4 2 6
Total ADT 3,946 5,242 9,188 3,440 4,123 7,563
% Heavy Trucks 0.23% 0.13% 0.17% 0.12% 0.05% 0.08%
Notes:
ADT = Average Daily Traffic (estimated annual average) EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound
The weekday ADT reported herein are based on counts from Thursday, February 23, 2017
The weekend ADT reported herein are based on counts from Saturday, February 25, 2017
FHWA Axle-Class 3 includes Emergency Vans
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2017
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2017
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
46
Table 5-9: Meadow Drive Railroad Crossing Traffic Volumes
Meadow Drive
(west of Alma
Street)
FHWA
Axle-Class
Weekday ADT Weekend ADT
EB WB Total EB WB Total
Motorcycles 1 103 169 272 67 104 171
Passenger Cars 2 3,522 4,076 7,598 3,052 3,365 6,417
Pick-up Trucks 3 475 464 939 401 299 700
Buses 4 13 12 25 6 10 16
Light Trucks 5 thru 7 17 28 45 6 10 16
Heavy Trucks 8 thru 13 7 15 22 4 7 11
Total ADT 4,137 4,764 8,901 3,536 3,795 7,331
% Heavy Trucks 0.17% 0.31% 0.25% 0.11% 0.18% 0.15%
Notes:
ADT = Average Daily Traffic (estimated annual average) EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound
The weekday ADT reported herein are based on counts from Thursday, February 23, 2017
The weekend ADT reported herein are based on counts from Saturday, February 25, 2017
FHWA Axle-Class 3 includes Emergency Vans
Table 5-10: Charleston Road Railroad Crossing Traffic Volumes
Charleston Road
(west of Alma
Street)
FHWA
Axle-Class
Weekday ADT Weekend ADT
EB WB Total EB WB Total
Total ADT 9,258 8,603 17,861 7,325 6,617 13,942
Notes:
ADT = Average Daily Traffic (estimated annual average) EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound
The weekday ADT reported herein are based on counts from Thursday, February 23, 2017
The weekend ADT reported herein are based on counts from Saturday, February 25, 2017
FHWA Axle-classification data was not available for this segment.
5.4.3 Roadway Intersection Collision Data
For study intersections along Alma Street, roadway collision data from the Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database was compiled and provided by the City of Palo
Alto. The SWITRS is a statewide database maintained by the California Highway Patrol (CHP)
that collects and processes accident data for use by local and state agencies throughout the
state.7 Table 5-11: Study Area Intersection Roadway Collision Data 2011-2015 summarizes the
most recent collision reports from 2011 to 2015. While Palo Alto Avenue experiences relatively
high traffic volume, it shows the least number of collisions out of the four intersections.
7 California Highway Patrol, SWITRS
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2017
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2017
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
47
Table 5-11: Study Area Intersection Roadway Collision Data 2011-2015
Source: SWITRS data provided by City of Palo Alto, 2017
Alma St &
Palo Alto
Ave
Alma St &
Churchill
Ave
Alma St &
Meadow Dr
Alma St &
Charleston
Rd
Total
Collisions
6 30 25 27
Injury
Collisions 1 10 11 10
Fatal
Collisions 0 0 0 1
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
48
6 Other Transit Services
6.1 Overview
In addition to Caltrain, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), San Mateo County
Transit District (SamTrans), and Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (AC Transit) all provide transit
service to and from Palo Alto, as illustrated in Figure 6-1. Additionally, the City of Palo Alto
operates a free, public shuttle service to points throughout the City, and Stanford University's
Marguerite Shuttle provides free public bus service to destinations on the Stanford campus and
at the Stanford Shopping Center. Details of the service provided by each transit operator are
described below. Furthermore, the Palo Alto Transit Center, located on University Avenue
between El Camino Real and Alma Street, is a regional transit hub, providing numerous
connections to neighboring communities and the wider Bay Area.
Figure 6-1: Exiting Transit Services Map
6.2 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
The VTA provides bus service throughout the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Fremont, Gilroy,
Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, San
Martin, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, as well as Stanford. The VTA operates 14 bus
routes in Palo Alto as listed below, providing connections to VTA light rail, Caltrain, Altamont
Corridor Express (ACE), and AMTRAK Capitol Corridor. Times vary by weekday and weekend
on each route; however, each route generally operates from the early morning hours to evening
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
49
hours, with some routes operating overnight. A sample of the routes serving the City is
illustrated in Figure 6-2.
Figure 6-2: VTA Bus Route Map - Palo Alto
Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, 2017
● Line 22 provides service between the Palo Alto Transit Center and the Eastridge Transit
Center via El Camino Real
● Line 32 provides service between the San Antonio Shopping Center and the Santa Clara
Transit Center
● Line 35 provides service between Downtown Mountain View and the Stanford Shopping
Center
● Line 88/L/M provides varying service between the Palo Alto Veterans Hospital and
Middlefield & Colorado
● Line 89 currently provides service between the California Avenue Caltrain Station and the
Palo Alto Veterans Hospital, but will be eliminated due to duplicated service
● Line 101 provides express bus service between Camden & Highway 85 and Palo Alto
● Line 102 provides express bus service between South San Jose and Palo Alto
● Line 103 provides express bus service between the Eastridge Transit Center and Palo Alto
● Line 104 provides express bus service between the Penitencia Creek Transit Center and
Palo Alto
● Line 182 provides express bus service between Palo Alto and IBM & Bailey Avenue
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
50
● Line 522 provides limited stop bus service between the Palo Alto Transit Center and the
Eastridge Transit Center
● Line 824 provides service between the Great America ACE Station and Meadow Drive &
Meadow Circle
6.3 SamTrans
SamTrans operates 73 bus routes throughout San Mateo, San Francisco, and Santa Clara
counties, including parts of Palo Alto. SamTrans regularly provides more than 1,000 trips per
day using a fleet of 296 fixed-route revenue vehicles, comprised of 55 articulated coaches, 237
standard coaches, and 4 mini coaches. Additionally, SamTrans operates a fleet of 83
paratransit vehicles, including buses, vans, and sedans. SamTrans Lines 280, 281, 297, 397
provide service to Palo Alto residents. A description of each route is provided below.
● Line 280 provides eastbound and westbound service between the Stanford Shopping
Center, Palo Alto Transit Center, Manhattan Avenue/O’Conner Street, Wisteria
Drive/Camellia Drive, and Purdue Avenue/Fordham Street.
● Line 281 provides eastbound and westbound service between Onetta Harris
Community Center, Newbridge Street/Willow Road, Bay Road/University Avenue, University
Avenue/Woodland Avenue, Palo Alto Transit Center, and Stanford Shopping Center.
● Line 297 provides northbound and southbound service between Redwood Transit
Center, Middlefield Road/5th Avenue, Bay Road/University Avenue, and the Palo Alto Transit
Center.
● Line 397 provides northbound and southbound service to and from San Francisco,
including the San Francisco International Airport, as well as the Millbrae Transit Center,
Burlingame, Redwood City Transit Center, and the Palo Alto Transit Center.
● Line ECR provides northbound and southbound service between the Daly City
BART train station and the Palo Alto Transit Center along El Camino Real.
6.4 AC Transit
The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit)
provides weekday bus service on Line U between the
Fremont Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) train station
and Stanford University. Six weekday trips are offered
and Table 6-1 shows the times for only the major stops
along the route.
Table 6-1: AC Transit - Line U Schedule
Stanford
Oval
Stanford
Shopping Center
Embarcadero Road
& Wildwood Lane
Ardenwood
Park & Ride
Fremont/
Centerville Amtrak
Fremont
BART
245p 253p 304p 329p 342p 352p
345p 353p 404p 429p 442p 452p
415p 423p 434p 459p 512p 522p
445p 453p 504p 529p 542p 552p
515p 523p 534p 559p 612p 622p
555p 603p 614p 639p 652p 702p
Figure 6-3: AC Transit Line U
Source: AC Transit, 2017
Source: AC Transit, 2017
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
51
6.5 Shuttles
The City of Palo Alto, along with transit service providers such as VTA and Caltrain, and major
community stakeholders such as Stanford University and others, offer a range of shuttle
services within the City. All shuttles are wheelchair accessible, equipped with bicycle racks on
the exterior of the vehicle, and can accommodate up to two conventional bicycles.
The Embarcadero Shuttle
Operated by the Caltrain Commuter Shuttle Program, the Embarcadero Shuttle provides peak
hour service between the University Avenue Caltrain Station and the Baylands Business Parks
east of Highway 101/Embarcadero. Local schools and community facilities are also served
along the route including Palo Alto High School and Castilleja School. The Embarcadero Shuttle
runs approximately every 20 minutes, Monday through Friday from the Palo Alto Caltrain Station
to the Embarcadero/Baylands during peak commute hours and is coordinated with the Caltrain
schedule.
The Crosstown Shuttle
Operated by MV Transportation, Inc. and managed by the City of Palo Alto, the Crosstown
Shuttle connects the University Avenue/Downtown to South Palo Alto at Charleston Road. The
Crosstown Shuttle traverses several residential neighborhoods, schools, senior residences,
libraries, recreation centers, and commercial districts helping to link public service areas within
the community. A Special School run operates during the morning and afternoons to help
encourage alternative transportation options for students.
Marguerite Shuttle
Operated by Stanford University, the Marguerite Shuttle service is free and open to the public.
The main shuttle lines traverse the campus Monday through Friday all year (except university
holidays). Evening and weekend services are available from mid-September to mid-June with
Lines N, O, OCA, and Shopping Express. The Marguerite service to the Caltrain stations are
made possible, in part, by grants from the BAAQMD Transportation Fund for Clean Air and the
PCJPB. Local businesses and organizations also contribute financially to the service. DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
52
7 Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
7.1 Overview
In the 2000s, the City of Palo Alto released the 2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan, improvements
through the Safe Routes to School program, and land use planning reforms, which all
encouraged the creation of a bicycle and pedestrian friendly built environment. The existing
Bicycle and Pedestrian network in the City is largely based on of the recommendations of the
2012 City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
The existing bicycle network in the Study Area is shown in Figure 7-1. All four at-grade
crossings are currently connected to roadways with bike lanes.
Figure 7-1: Existing Bicycle Network within Study Area
7.2 2012 City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan
The 2012 City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) updates the
initiatives outlined in the 2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan and provides strategic guidance to
the public and private non-motorized transportation investment in facilities and related
programs. The Palo Alto BPTP not only reaffirms city-wide goals of increasing pedestrian and
bicycle usage over the next decade (see Table 7-1), it also takes into account relevant City
plans, surrounding community plans, and state and regional bicycle and pedestrian plans to
create a larger picture.
The Palo Alto BPTP includes five key objectives which are extensions of the transportation
element of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, to provide a focus on non-motorized
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
53
transportation modes. Each objective includes its rationale, consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, key strategies of implementation and benchmarks to measure progress.
Table 7-1: City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan Objectives
Objectives
1. Double the rate of bicycling for both local and total work commutes by 2020 (to 15% and 5%, respectively).
2. Convert discretionary vehicle trips into walking and bicycling trips in order to reduce City transportation-related
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% by 2020.
3. Develop a core network of shared paths, bikeways, and traffic-calmed streets that connects business and
residential districts, schools, parks, and open spaces to promote healthy, active living.
4. Plan, construct, and maintain ‘Complete Streets’ that are safe and accessible to all modes and people of all ages
and abilities.
5. Promote efficient, sustainable, and creative use of limited public resources through integrated design and
planning.
Source: 2012 City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan
7.3 Safe Routes to Schools
The Safe Routes to Schools program is a collaborative effort between the City of Palo Alto and
the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), with the goal to improve safety for school
commuters and to reduce school commute-related congestion on city streets. Approximately 14
percent of Palo Alto’s students walk to school daily, while 4,000 students from the PAUSD bike
to school. The Safe Routes to Schools program produced a series of Walk and Roll maps that
outline suggested bicycle and pedestrian paths around a one-mile radius around a school within
PAUSD, as described in Section 2.1.5.
7.4 Bicycle Facilities
The Palo Alto Caltrain Station has had a Bikestation since 2007 which utilizes a former baggage
building at the historical train depot. Bikestations offer 24-hour indoor, secure bike parking
facilities. Some locations include restrooms, showers, and/or changing rooms and repair and
rental services. The Palo Alto Bikestation provides bicycle parking for 96 bikes, recreational
rentals, bike repairs, accessory sales, a changing room, and an outdoor seating area with
concessions.
The Palo Alto Caltrain Station also has bikeshare, provided by Bay Area BikeShare. This is a
shared use service for passengers who wish to travel short distances with a bike. Bicycles can
be rented from this station and returned to another BikeShare dock within the area. This
program will soon transition into Ford GoBike, which is set to launch June 2017. The San
Antonio Caltrain Station is also a bikeshare station.
In addition, the three Caltrain stations in Palo Alto provide ample bicycle racks and locker
spaces (detailed in Table 7-2: Bicycle Facilities) which can be rented and reserved in advance.
The locker spaces at Palo Alto and California Ave Caltrain Stations are typically fully reserved.
Table 7-2: Bicycle Facilities
Palo Alto California Ave San Antonio
178 Bicycle Rack Spaces 33 Bicycle Rack Spaces 18 Bicycle Rack Spaces
94 Locker Spaces 42 Locker Spaces 38 Locker Spaces
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
54
Appendix A — Federal, State and Regional
Policy and Framework Review
Federal
Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 provides comprehensive rights and
protections to individuals with disabilities. The goal of the ADA is to assure equality of
opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for people with
disabilities. To implement this goal, the US Access Board, an independent federal agency
created in 1973 to ensure accessibility for people with disabilities, has created accessibility
guidelines for public rights-of-way. While these guidelines have not been formally adopted, they
have been widely followed by jurisdictions and agencies nationwide in the last decade. The
guidelines, last revised in July 2011, address various issues, including roadway design
practices, slope and terrain issues, and pedestrian access to streets, sidewalks, curb ramps,
street furnishings, pedestrian signals, parking, and other components of public rights-of-way.
These guidelines would apply to proposed roadways in Palo Alto.
Federal Highway Administration
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the agency of the United States (US)
Department of Transportation (DOT) responsible for the federally funded roadway system,
including the interstate highway network and portions of the primary State highway network,
such as Interstate 280 (I-280) and U.S Highway 101 (US 101).
Federal Railroad Administration
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) was created by the Department of Transportation
Act of 1966. The FRA’s mission is to enable the safe, reliable, and efficient movement of people
and goods for a strong America, now and in the future. In 2008, Congress required Class I
railroad main lines handling hazardous materials and railroad main lines with regularly
scheduled intercity and commuter rail passenger service to fully implement Positive Train
Control (PTC) by December 31, 2015. PTC uses communication-based/processor-based train
control technology that provides a system capable of reliably and functionally preventing train-
to-train collisions, overspeed derailments, incursions into established work zone limits, and the
movement of a train through a main line switch in the wrong position. The deadline was
extended to December 31, 2018, with the possibility for two additional years if certain
requirements are met. The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) is slated to
reaching full PTC implementation by the end of 2017.8 The PTC implementation status as of
December 2016 for PCJPB is shown in Figure 0-1.
8 FRA.dot.gov; https://www.fra.dot.gov/Media/File/1109
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
55
Figure 0-1: PTC Implementation for Caltrain
Union Pacific Railroad
The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) is a national freight hauling railroad and operates on the
largest railroad network in the county and one of the largest transportation companies in the
world. The UPRR does operate freight rail service through the Caltrain corridor, which is owned
by the PCJPB, and there are UPRR properties along the right-of-way within the City of Palo
Alto9.
State
California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358)
Originally passed in 2008, California’s Complete Streets Act came into force in 2011 and
requires local jurisdictions to plan for land use transportation policies that reflect a “complete
streets” approach to mobility as a result of Assembly Bill 1358. The Complete Streets approach
is essentially a suite of policies and street design guidelines which provide for the needs of all
road users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit operators and riders, children, the elderly,
and the disabled. From 2011 onward, any local jurisdiction—county or city—that undertakes a
substantive update of the circulation element of its general plan must consider complete streets
and incorporate corresponding policies and programs.
California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation, or Caltrans, is the primary State agency
responsible for transportation issues. One of its duties is the construction and maintenance of
the state highway system. Caltrans approves the planning, design, and construction of
improvements for all State-controlled facilities including I-280, US 101, and the associated
interchanges for these facilities located in Palo Alto. Caltrans’ jurisdiction includes State Route
82 (SR 82), El Camino Real, in Palo Alto. Caltrans has established standards for roadway traffic
flow and developed procedures to determine if state-controlled facilities require improvements.
For projects that may physically affect facilities under its administration, Caltrans requires
encroachment permits before any construction work may be undertaken. For projects that would
not physically affect facilities, but may influence traffic flow and levels of services at such
facilities, Caltrans may recommend measures to mitigate the traffic impacts of such projects.
The following Caltrans procedures and directives are relevant to the proposed Comprehensive
Plan update, particularly State roadway facilities:
9 Calhsr.com, Caltrain ROW Maps; http://calhsr.com/resources/caltrain-row-maps/
Source: FRA, 2016
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
56
LEVEL OF SERVICE TARGET. Caltrans maintains a minimum level of service (LOS) at
the transition between LOS C and LOS D for all of its facilities. Where an existing facility
is operating at less than the LOS C/D threshold, the existing measure of effectiveness
should be maintained.
CALTRANS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL. This manual outlines
pertinent statutory requirements, planning policies, and implementing procedures
regarding transportation facilities. It is continually and incrementally updated to reflect
changes in policy and procedures. For example, the most recent revision incorporates
the Complete Streets policy from Deputy Directive 64-R1, which is detailed below.
CALTRANS DEPUTY DIRECTIVE 64. This directive requires Caltrans to consider the
needs of non-motorized travelers, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with
disabilities, in all programming, planning, maintenance, construction. This includes
incorporation of the best available standards in all of Caltrans’ practices.
CALTRANS DEPUTY DIRECTIVE 64‐RI. This directive requires Caltrans to provide for
the needs of travelers of all ages and abilities in all planning, programming, design,
construction, operations, and maintenance activities and products on the State highway
system. Caltrans supports bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel with a focus on
“complete streets” that begins early in system planning and continues through project
construction and maintenance and operations.
CALTRANS DIRECTOR’S POLICY 22. This policy establishes support for balancing
transportation needs with community goals.
Caltrans seeks to involve and integrate community goals in the planning, design, construction,
and maintenance and operations processes, including accommodating the needs of bicyclists
and pedestrians.
California Public Utilities Commission
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) serves the public interest by protecting
consumers and ensuring the provision of safe, reliable utility service and infrastructure. The
CPUC regulates utility services, stimulates innovation, and promotes competitive markets,
where possible, in the communications, energy, transportation, and water industries. In addition,
the CPUC administers funding programs for railroad crossings: Section 130, Section 190, and
Maintenance Fund.
The Section 130 Grade Crossing Hazard Elimination Program provides federal funds to local
agencies (cities and counties) and railroads to eliminate hazards at existing at-grade public
highway-rail crossings.
The Section 190 Grade Separation Program provides state funds to local agencies to grade-
separate at-grade crossings, or to improve grade-separated crossings. The program typically
provides approximately $15 million distributed among three or four projects each fiscal year.10
Eligible projects include the alteration or reconstruction of existing separations and the
construction of new grade separations to eliminate existing grade crossings.
10 CPUC, Railroad Crossing Funding Programs; http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2722
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
57
The Railroad Crossing Automatic Warning Device Maintenance Fund provides funds to
railroads to pay for the local government’s share of the costs of maintaining automatic warning
devices at railroad crossings.
California Transportation Commission
The California Transportation Commission (CTC) administers the public decision-making
process that sets priorities and funds projects envisioned in long-range transportation plans.
The CTC’s programming includes the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a
multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects on and off the State highway
system, funded with revenues from the state highway account and other funding sources. The
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) manages the operation of state highways.
Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013)
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) requires the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
(OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS as the metric for
evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA. Particularly within areas served by transit, the
alternative criteria must promote the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
development of multimodal transportation networks, and diversity of land uses. Measurements
of transportation impacts may include VMT, VMT per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or
automobile trips generated. Once alternative criteria are incorporated into the CEQA Guidelines,
auto delay will no longer be considered a significant impact under CEQA. SB 743 also amended
State congestion management law to allow cities and counties to opt out of LOS standards in
certain infill areas.
Regional and Local
Association of Bay Area Governments
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is comprised of the Bay Area’s local
governments as a result of state legislation that would have supplanted local control over all
bridges, ports, and transit operations in the Bay Area. ABAG provides planning and research
resources related to land use, housing, environmental and water resource protection, disaster
resilience, energy efficiency and hazardous waste mitigation, risk management, financial
services and staff training to local cities, and towns. ABAG's planning and research programs
are committed to addressing sustainability, resilience and equity in the region.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the transportation planning, coordinating,
and financing agency for the nine-county Bay Area, including Santa Clara County. It also
functions as the federally mandated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the region. It
is responsible for regularly updating the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), a comprehensive
blueprint for the development of mass transit, highway, airport, seaport, railroad, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities. With the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions
Act of 2006, the State of California committed itself to reducing statewide GHG emissions to
1990 levels by 2020. Subsequent to adoption of AB 32, the State adopted Senate Bill 375 (SB
375) as the means for achieving regional transportation-related GHG targets. Among the
requirements of SB 375 is the adoption of targets to be met by 2020 and 2035 for each MPO in
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
58
the State, as well as the creation of a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that provides a
plan for meeting regional targets. The SCS and the RTP must be consistent with one other,
including action items and financing decisions. MPOs must use transportation and air emissions
modeling techniques consistent with guidelines prepared by the State CTC.
The current RTP, Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region, was adopted on July 18,
2013 and includes both the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy and the 2040 Regional
Transportation Plan. Plan Bay Area was prepared by MTC in partnership with the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and cities and counties throughout the region. Plan Bay Area is
an integrated long-range transportation and land-use/housing plan intended to support a
growing economy, provide more housing and transportation choices, and reduce transportation-
related pollution in the Bay Area. It also specifies a detailed set of investments and strategies to
maintain, manage, and improve the region’s transportation system, specifying how anticipated
federal, State, and local transportation funds will be spent.
The MTC has established its policy on Complete Streets in the Bay Area. The policy states that
projects funded all, or in part, with regional funds (e.g., federal, State Transportation
Improvement Program, bridge tolls) must consider the accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, as described in Caltrans Deputy Directive 64. These recommendations do not replace
locally adopted policies regarding transportation planning, design, and construction. Instead,
these recommendations facilitate the accommodation of pedestrians, including wheelchair
users, and bicyclists into all projects where bicycle and pedestrian travel is consistent with
current adopted regional and local plans.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The air quality district that addresses air pollution in the Plan Area is the BAAQMD. Since a
primary source of air pollution in the Palo Alto region is from motor vehicles, air district
regulations affect transportation planning in the Plan Area. The BAAQMD is a public agency
tasked with regulating air pollution in the nine-county Bay Area, including Santa Clara County.
The BAAQMD’s goals include reducing health disparities due to air pollution, achieving and
maintaining air quality standards, and implementing exemplary regulatory programs and
compliance of federal, State, and regional regulations.
California High-Speed Rail Authority
The California High Speed Rail Authority is responsible for the planning, designing, building and
operation of the nation’s first high-speed rail system. Their future corridor and planned service
along Caltrain right-of-way makes them a key stakeholder in future corridor improvements.
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain)
The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) is the governing body for the Caltrain
commuter rail service that operates in the counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa
Clara. The PCJPB was formed in 1987 to oversee the passenger rail service.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Congestion Management Plan
The MTC requires the local transportation authority, such as the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA), to establish transportation plans that can feed into the larger
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
59
RTP. In Santa Clara County, the VTA is the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) tasked
with preparing the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) that describes the strategies to
address congestion problems and monitoring compliance. The VTA works cooperatively with
the MTC, transit agencies, local governments, the Caltrans and the BAAQMD. The CMP
contains LOS standards for highways and arterials, multimodal performance standards, a
capital improvement program, a program for analyzing land use decisions, and a travel demand
management (TDM) program.
The minimum LOS standard for VTA-monitored CMP intersections is LOS E, except for facilities
grandfathered in at LOS F, which states that intersections operating at LOS F at the baseline
year for implementation of an LOS standard can be grandfathered in. The standards for Santa
Clara County were established in October of 1991; thus, any intersection operating at LOS F
prior to the established 1991 LOS standards are not held to the minimum standard of LOS E.3
Member Agencies, which include the cities and County of Santa Clara, must ensure that CMP
roadways operate at or better than the minimum LOS standard. The VTA monitors the
performance of CMP facilities at a minimum of every two years. If the minimum LOS standards
are not met, Member Agencies plan for improvements to address the congestion. Palo Alto uses
a minimum LOS standard of LOS D for its intersections not monitored as part of the VTA CPM
program.
To manage the transportation system and monitor performance in relation to established LOS
standards, the VTA has designated a CMP roadway system for Santa Clara County. The CMP
roadway system contains 434.5 miles of roadways, of which: 267.4 miles (61 percent) are State
highways, 58.7 miles (14 percent) are expressways, and 108.4 miles (25 percent) are
city/county arterials.5 If adopted standards are not being maintained on a specific roadway in
the designated system, actions must be taken to address problems on that facility or plans must
be developed to improve the overall LOS of the system and improve air quality. The CMP
roadway system is a subset of the broader Metropolitan Transportation System.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle Program
In 1998, the VTA implemented a comprehensive Bicycle Program to improve the bicycle
infrastructure throughout the Santa Clara County, and to encourage people to utilize biking as a
form of commute and recreation. The Bicycle Program provides facilities, services, and
programs to make provide bikes a safer option for residents and visitors in Santa Clara County.
Under the Bicycle Program, the VTA prepared a Countywide Bicycle Plan, and associated
Bicycle Technical Guidelines.
Santa Clara County
Bicycle Plan
In 2008, VTA completed the Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan (SCCBP), which provided a
foundation for maintaining and enhancing the countywide bicycle network. The vision of the
SCCBP is: To establish, protect and enhance bicycling as a viable transportation mode and to
assure that bicycling is a practical and safe mode of travel, by itself and in combination with
other modes. The SCCBP identifies existing and proposed cross county bicycle corridors,
some which pass through Palo Alto, such as the Dumbarton East-West Connector Corridor,
which stretches from North Palo Alto to Los Altos, and the Matadero Creek/Page Mill Trail,
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
60
which stretches from the southeast corner of the Foothill Expressway/Page Mill Road
intersection along Page Mill Road to Arastradero Road. The SCCBP establishes several goals,
and policies to achieve the vision through transportation planning and programming, land use
and transportation integration, local ordinance and guidelines development, and design and
construction. The VTA’s Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) was created to provide a funding
stream to implement the SCCBP.
Santa Clara County Bicycle Technical Guidelines
The VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines (BTG) establish standards and guidance for planning,
designing, operating, retrofitting and maintaining roadways and bikeways throughout Santa
Clara County, including parts of Palo Alto. The BTGs are intended to improve the quality of
bicycle facilities and to ensure countywide consistency in the design and construction of the
countywide bicycle network, including roadways. The BTGs apply to projects that are a part of
the countywide bicycle network. The BTGs are divided into the following four parts:
Part 1 provides an introduction and general guidance, including purpose and policy guidance, as
well as bicycle characteristics, such as bicyclist skill levels and facilities that best accommodate
them.
Part 2 includes the technical guidelines for roadways, including roadway design elements,
construction zones and maintenance, intersections and interchanges, and signalized
intersections.
Part 3 establishes technical guidelines for on-road bikeways, including bikeways on major rural
roads, and local roads.
Part 4 includes technical guidelines for bike-only facilities, including bike paths, and bike bridges,
as well as bike parking.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
Appendix B – Caltrain Weekday Train
Schedule
DR
A
F
T
AM Southbound - WEEKDAY SERVICE to SAN JOSE / GILROY
Train No.102 104 206 208 310 212 314 216 218 320 222 324 226 228 330 232 134 236 138 142
San Francisco 4:55 5:25 6:05 6:15 6:35 6:45 6:59 7:05 7:15 7:35 7:45 7:59 8:05 8:15 8:35 8:45 9:00 9:45 10:00 11:00
22nd Street 4:59 5:29 6:09 6:19 6:39 6:51 7:03 7:10 7:19 7:39 7:51 8:03 8:10 8:19 8:39 8:49 9:05 –10:04 11:04
Bayshore 5:04 5:34 –6:24 ––––7:24 ––––8:24 ––9:10 –10:09 11:09
So. San Francisco 5:10 5:40 –6:31 ––––7:31 ––––8:31 ––9:17 –10:16 11:16
San Bruno 5:14 5:44 –6:35 –––7:20 7:35 –––8:20 8:35 ––9:21 9:57 10:20 11:20
Millbrae 5:18 5:48 6:22 6:39 6:52 7:04 7:16 –7:39 7:52 8:04 8:16 –8:39 8:52 9:02 9:25 10:01 10:25 11:25
Burlingame 5:22 5:53 6:26 6:44 –––7:27 7:44 –––8:27 8:44 ––9:29 10:06 10:29 11:29
San Mateo 5:25 5:57 6:30 6:48 –7:11 –7:31 7:48 –8:11 –8:31 8:48 –9:09 9:32 10:10 10:32 11:32
Hayward Park 5:28 6:00 –6:51 ––––7:51 ––––8:51 ––9:36 –10:36 11:36
Hillsdale 5:32 6:03 6:34 6:54 ––7:24 7:35 7:54 ––8:24 8:35 8:54 –9:13 9:39 10:14 10:39 11:39
Belmont 5:35 6:07 –6:58 ––––7:58 ––––8:58 ––9:43 10:18 10:43 11:43
San Carlos 5:38 6:10 6:39 7:02 –7:18 –7:40 8:02 –8:18 –8:40 9:02 –9:18 9:46 10:21 10:46 11:46
Redwood City 5:41 6:15 6:44 7:06 7:11 7:23 7:31 –8:06 8:11 8:23 8:31 –9:06 9:11 9:23 9:51 10:26 10:51 11:51
Menlo Park 5:47 6:20 6:50 –7:17 7:29 –7:48 –8:17 8:29 –8:48 –9:17 9:29 9:56 10:31 10:56 11:56
Palo Alto 5:51 6:24 6:54 7:14 7:21 7:33 7:37 7:52 8:14 8:21 8:33 8:37 8:52 9:14 9:21 9:33 10:00 10:35 11:00 12:00
California Avenue 5:55 6:28 6:57 ––7:37 ––––8:37 ––––9:37 10:04 10:38 11:04 12:04
San Antonio 5:59 6:32 –––7:41 ––––8:41 ––––9:41 10:08 10:43 11:08 12:08
Mountain View 6:04 6:37 7:04 –7:28 7:46 7:50 7:59 –8:28 8:46 8:50 8:59 –9:28 9:46 10:13 10:47 11:13 12:13
Sunnyvale 6:10 6:42 –––7:51 ––––8:51 ––––9:51 10:18 10:52 11:18 12:18
Lawrence 6:15 6:46 7:09 ––7:56 –8:07 ––8:56 –9:07 ––9:56 10:22 10:56 11:22 12:22
Santa Clara 6:22 6:51 –7:27 –8:03 ––8:27 –9:03 ––9:27 –10:03 10:27 11:02 11:28 12:28
College Park –––––8:06 ––––––––––––––
San Jose Diridon 6:31 7:01 7:19 7:36 7:43 8:12 8:05 8:20 8:36 8:43 9:12 9:05 9:20 9:36 9:43 10:11 10:35 11:12 11:35 12:35
Tamien 7:06 7:48 8:48 9:48 11:17
Capitol
Blossom Hill
Morgan Hill
San Martin
GilroyPM Southbound - WEEKDAY SERVICE to SAN JOSE / GILROY
Train No.146 150 152 254 156 258 360 262 264 366 268 370 272 274 376 278 380 282 284 386 288 190 192 194 196 198
San Francisco 12:00 1:00 2:00 2:43 3:00 3:34 4:12 4:23 4:32 4:38 4:58 5:16 5:27 5:32 5:38 5:58 6:16 6:23 6:32 6:38 6:58 7:30 8:30 9:30 10:40 12:05
22nd Street 12:04 1:04 2:04 –3:04 –––4:36 ––––5:36 ––––6:36 ––7:34 8:34 9:34 10:44 12:10
Bayshore 12:09 1:09 2:09 –3:09 –––4:41 ––––5:42 ––––6:41 ––7:39 8:39 9:39 10:49 12:15
So. San Francisco 12:16 1:16 2:16 –3:16 –––4:52 –5:09 ––5:51 –6:09 ––6:52 –7:09 7:46 8:46 9:46 10:56 12:21
San Bruno 12:20 1:20 2:20 2:55 3:20 3:46 –4:36 4:55 –––5:40 5:55 –––6:36 6:55 ––7:50 8:50 9:50 11:00 12:25
Millbrae 12:25 1:25 2:25 2:59 3:24 3:51 4:27 –5:00 4:53 5:15 5:33 –6:00 5:53 6:15 6:33 –7:00 6:53 7:15 7:56 8:56 9:56 11:06 12:29
Burlingame 12:29 1:29 2:29 3:04 3:29 3:56 –4:42 5:05 –––5:46 6:05 –––6:42 7:05 ––8:01 9:01 10:01 11:11 12:33
San Mateo 12:32 1:32 2:32 3:07 3:32 3:59 –4:46 5:08 4:59 ––5:50 6:09 5:59 ––6:46 7:08 6:59 –8:04 9:04 10:04 11:14 12:36
Hayward Park 12:36 1:36 2:36 –3:36 –––5:12 ––––6:12 ––––7:12 ––8:08 9:08 10:08 11:18 12:40
Hillsdale 12:39 1:39 2:39 3:11 3:39 4:04 4:35 4:50 5:15 –5:23 5:43 5:54 6:15 –6:23 6:43 6:50 7:15 –7:23 8:11 9:11 10:11 11:21 12:43
Belmont 12:43 1:43 2:43 3:15 3:43 4:08 ––5:19 ––––6:19 ––––7:19 ––8:15 9:15 10:15 11:25 12:47
San Carlos 12:46 1:46 2:46 3:18 3:46 4:11 –4:56 5:22 –––6:00 6:22 –––6:56 7:22 ––8:18 9:18 10:18 11:28 12:50
Redwood City 12:51 1:51 2:51 3:23 3:51 4:16 ––5:28 5:08 5:33 ––6:28 6:08 6:33 ––7:28 7:08 7:33 8:23 9:23 10:23 11:33 12:55
Menlo Park 12:56 1:56 2:56 3:28 3:56 4:22 ––5:34 –5:39 ––6:34 –6:39 ––7:34 –7:39 8:28 9:28 10:28 11:38 1:00
Palo Alto 1:00 2:00 3:00 3:32 4:00 4:26 4:46 5:04 –5:15 5:43 5:55 6:08 –6:15 6:43 6:55 7:04 –7:15 7:43 8:32 9:32 10:32 11:42 1:04
California Avenue 1:04 2:04 3:04 3:36 4:04 4:29 –5:08 –5:18 5:46 –6:12 –6:18 6:46 –7:08 ––7:46 8:35 9:35 10:35 11:45 1:07
San Antonio 1:08 2:08 3:08 3:40 4:08 4:34 ––––5:50 ––––6:50 ––––7:50 8:39 9:39 10:39 11:49 1:11
Mountain View 1:13 2:13 3:13 3:45 4:13 4:38 4:55 5:15 5:42 –5:55 6:02 6:19 6:42 –6:55 7:02 7:15 7:43 –7:55 8:44 9:44 10:44 11:54 1:16
Sunnyvale 1:18 2:18 3:18 3:50 4:18 4:44 –5:20 5:47 5:29 6:00 –6:24 6:47 6:29 7:00 –7:20 7:48 7:28 8:00 8:49 9:49 10:49 11:59 1:21
Lawrence 1:22 2:22 3:22 3:54 4:23 4:48 ––––6:05+––6:51 –7:05+––––8:05 8:53 9:53 10:53 12:03 1:25
Santa Clara 1:28 2:28 3:28 3:59 4:28 4:53 –5:27 5:54 –6:12+–6:31 6:57 –7:12+––7:55 –8:10 8:58 9:58 10:58 12:08 1:30
College Park ––––4:31 –––––––––––––––––––––
San Jose Diridon 1:35 2:35 3:35 4:09 4:39 5:03 5:11 5:34 6:02 5:44 6:23 6:17 6:38 7:06 6:44 7:23 7:18 7:33 8:04 7:43 8:21 9:06 10:06 11:06 12:16 1:38
Tamien 4:14 4:43 5:08 5:49 6:27 7:10 6:49 7:28 7:48 8:26 10:11 11:11
Capitol 4:50 6:34 7:17
Blossom Hill 4:56 6:40 7:23
Morgan Hill 5:09 6:53 7:36
San Martin 5:15 6:59 7:42
Gilroy 5:28 7:12 7:55
ZO
N
E
6
ZO
N
E
4
ZO
N
E
3
ZO
N
E
2
ZO
N
E
1
ZO
N
E
5
ZO
N
E
6
ZO
N
E
4
ZO
N
E
3
ZO
N
E
2
ZO
N
E
1
ZO
N
E
5
PM
PMPM
AM
AM
AM
4/17 - 100M - DD - F
100 Local 200 Limited 300 Baby Bullet
+ Train may leave up to 5 minutes early. - Train bypasses station.Timed transfers for local service. 5:28 5:33
7:02 7:18
TIMETABLE
Effective April 10, 2017
Regional Rail Link
San Francisco — San Jose/Gilroy
www.caltrain.com
1.800.660.4287 • (TTY 650.508.6448)
1. Locate the box for weekday or weekend trains and the
direction you want to travel (northbound or southbound).
2. Find the station where you wish to board. Then read to the
right for departure times and choose when you wish to ride.
3. From the departure time you have chosen, read down the
column for the station where you wish to get off the train.
The time shown is when you will arrive.
Example: The 5:25 a.m. train leaving San Francisco on
weekdays arrives in San Carlos at 6:10 a.m.
Note: - (dash) means that the train bypasses the station.
HOLIDAY SERVICE
Caltrain operates the Sunday schedule on the following
holidays and observed holidays: New Year’s Day, Memorial
Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day
and Christmas Day. A Modified-Saturday schedule will be
operated on Presidents Day and Day after Thanksgiving.
Details are posted online two weeks in advance.
REMINDERS
• Remain behind the yellow line on the main platform until
the train comes to a complete stop.
• Smoking is not permitted on trains and station property.
• Bike riding on platforms and ramps is prohibited.
• Roller blades/skates may not be worn onboard trains or
on station property.
• All strollers must be folded/stored on the luggage rack.
• Personal items may be placed under the seat. Please
store luggage in the designated areas.
• Keep vestibule, aisles and stairs clear.
• Don’t put feet on the seats.
• Open alcoholic containers aren’t permitted on trains
beginning at 9 p.m. on special event nights.
• Keep cell phone use to a minimum and speak quietly
when in use.
• In case of onboard emergency, the conductor will
provide necessary instructions. Please follow these
instructions for safety reasons.
Caltrain – Regional Rail Link
Transit Police: 1.877.723.7245
Regional transit info: 511 or 510.817.1717 • www.511.org
Clipper Customer Service: 1.877.878.8883 • custserv@clippercard.com
Para traducción llama al 1.800.660.4287
如需翻譯,請電 1.800.660.4287
Connecting transit services
ACE: 1.800.411.7245
BART: 511
SamTrans: 1.800.660.4287
VTA: 408.321.2300 or
Amtrak: 1.800.872.7245
Dumbarton Express: 511
Marguerite shuttle: 650.723.9362
SFMTA (Muni): 415.673.6864
1.800.894.9908
(650 area code and South Santa Clara County)
facebook.com/caltrain @Caltrain
@GoCaltain
FARES READING THE TIMETABLE
Caltrain fares are based on the number of zones
that are partially or wholly traveled through by the customer.
Ticket
Type q
How to
Buy
Travel within
1 Zone 2 Zones 3 Zones 4 Zones 5 Zones 6 Zones
One-wayValid
4 hours from time of pur-chase
Ticket Machine
$3.75 $5.75 $7.75 $9.75 $11.75 $13.75
$1.75 $2.75 $3.75 $4.75 $5.75 $6.75
Clipper
Card
$3.20 $5.20 $7.20 $9.20 $11.20 $13.20
$1.60 $2.60 $3.60 $4.60 $5.60 $6.60
Day Pass
Valid the date of purchase, unlimited travel within zones indicated
Ticket
Machine
$7.50 $11.50 $15.50 $19.50 $23.50 $27.50
$3.75 $5.75 $7.75 $9.75 $11.75 $13.75
Zone
Upgrade
Ticket
Machine
$2.00 $1.00
Valid 4 hours from time of purchase, one way
when accompanying another valid ticket
(not valid with 8-ride Ticket)
8-rideValid
30 days from date of pur-chase
Clipper Card
$23.70 $38.50 $53.30 $68.10 $82.90 $97.70
$11.85 $19.25 $26.65 $34.05 $41.45 $48.85
Monthly Pass
Valid month ofpurchase
Clipper
Card
$84.80 $137.80 $190.80 $243.80 $296.80 $349.80
$42.40 $68.90 $95.40 $121.90 $148.40 $174.90
Eligible Discount Fare:
Seniors (65 years or older) and passengers with disabilities, who present
a Regional Transit Connection Discount Card or a current Disabled Person
Placard Identification card issued by the CA Department of Motor Vehicles or a valid transit discount card issued by another California transit agency which
is equivalent to the RTCDC, or those who are Medicare cardholders may
ride for a discounted fare. The conductor or fare inspector may ask to see a
valid ID to verify eligibility or identity. An attendant accompanying a person
with a disability also is eligible for this discount when indicated on the RTCDC. Passengers 18 years old and younger qualify for a discount fare. One child
four years old or younger may ride free when accompanied by a fare-paying
adult. Other children must travel with Eligible Discount tickets.
q Full description of ticket types is available in the Caltrain
Information Guide or at www.caltrain.com/tickettypes
Caltrain is a Proof-of-Payment sys-
tem. Tickets must be purchased
and/or tagged (Clipper) before
boarding the train. Tickets must be
presented for inspection on request.
Passengers who do not have a valid
ticket are subject to citation and fine.
DR
A
F
T
Southbound - WEEKEND SERVICE to SAN JOSE
SATURDAYONLY
Train No.422 424 426 428 802 430 432 434 436 438 440 442 804 444 446 448 450 454
San Francisco 8:15 9:15 10:15 11:15 11:59 12:15 1:15 2:15 3:15 4:15 5:15 6:15 6:59 7:15 8:15 9:15 10:15 12:01
22nd Street 8:20 9:20 10:20 11:20 –12:20 1:20 2:20 3:20 4:20 5:20 6:20 –7:20 8:20 9:20 10:20 12:06
Bayshore 8:25 9:25 10:25 11:25 –12:25 1:25 2:25 3:25 4:25 5:25 6:25 –7:25 8:25 9:25 10:25 12:11
So. San Francisco 8:31 9:31 10:31 11:31 –12:31 1:31 2:31 3:31 4:31 5:31 6:31 –7:31 8:31 9:31 10:31 12:17
San Bruno 8:35 9:35 10:35 11:35 –12:35 1:35 2:35 3:35 4:35 5:35 6:35 –7:35 8:35 9:35 10:35 12:21
Millbrae 8:39 9:39 10:39 11:39 12:15 12:39 1:39 2:39 3:39 4:39 5:39 6:39 7:15 7:39 8:39 9:39 10:39 12:25
Broadway 8:43 9:43 10:43 11:43 –12:43 1:43 2:43 3:43 4:43 5:43 6:43 –7:43 8:43 9:43 10:43 12:29
Burlingame 8:45 9:45 10:45 11:45 –12:45 1:45 2:45 3:45 4:45 5:45 6:45 –7:45 8:45 9:45 10:45 12:31
San Mateo 8:51 9:51 10:51 11:51 12:23 12:51 1:51 2:51 3:51 4:51 5:51 6:51 7:23 7:51 8:51 9:51 10:51 12:37
Hayward Park 8:54 9:54 10:54 11:54 –12:54 1:54 2:54 3:54 4:54 5:54 6:54 –7:54 8:54 9:54 10:54 12:40
Hillsdale 8:57 9:57 10:57 11:57 12:27 12:57 1:57 2:57 3:57 4:57 5:57 6:57 7:27 7:57 8:57 9:57 10:57 12:43
Belmont 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 –1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 –8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:46
San Carlos 9:03 10:03 11:03 12:03 –1:03 2:03 3:03 4:03 5:03 6:03 7:03 –8:03 9:03 10:03 11:03 12:49
Redwood City 9:09 10:09 11:09 12:09 12:35 1:09 2:09 3:09 4:09 5:09 6:09 7:09 7:35 8:09 9:09 10:09 11:09 12:55
Atherton 9:13 10:13 11:13 12:13 –1:13 2:13 3:13 4:13 5:13 6:13 7:13 –8:13 9:13 10:13 11:13 12:59
Menlo Park 9:16 10:16 11:16 12:16 –1:16 2:16 3:16 4:16 5:16 6:16 7:16 –8:16 9:16 10:16 11:16 1:02
Palo Alto 9:19 10:19 11:19 12:19 12:41 1:19 2:19 3:19 4:19 5:19 6:19 7:19 7:41 8:19 9:19 10:19 11:19 1:05
California Ave 9:23 10:23 11:23 12:23 –1:23 2:23 3:23 4:23 5:23 6:23 7:23 –8:23 9:23 10:23 11:23 1:09
San Antonio 9:27 10:27 11:27 12:27 –1:27 2:27 3:27 4:27 5:27 6:27 7:27 –8:27 9:27 10:27 11:27 1:13
Mountain View 9:31 10:31 11:31 12:31 12:49 1:31 2:31 3:31 4:31 5:31 6:31 7:31 7:49 8:31 9:31 10:31 11:31 1:17
Sunnyvale 9:36 10:36 11:36 12:36 12:54 1:36 2:36 3:36 4:36 5:36 6:36 7:36 7:54 8:36 9:36 10:36 11:36 1:22
Lawrence 9:40 10:40 11:40 12:40 –1:40 2:40 3:40 4:40 5:40 6:40 7:40 –8:40 9:40 10:40 11:40 1:26
Santa Clara 9:45 10:45 11:45 12:45 –1:45 2:45 3:45 4:45 5:45 6:45 7:45 –8:45 9:45 10:45 11:45 1:31
San Jose Diridon 9:53 10:53 11:53 12:53 1:05 1:53 2:53 3:53 4:53 5:53 6:53 7:53 8:05 8:53 9:53 10:53 11:53 1:39
Shuttle Bus
Departs SJ Diridon 10:00 11:00 12:00 –1:13 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 –8:13 9:00 10:00 –––
Arrives Tamien 10:10 11:10 12:10 –1:23 2:10 3:10 4:10 5:10 6:10 7:10 –8:23 9:10 10:10 –––
Northbound - WEEKEND SERVICE to SAN FRANCISCO
SATONLY SATONLY
Train No.421 423 425 427 801 429 431 433 435 437 439 441 803 443 445 447 449 *451
Shuttle Bus
Departs Tamien –7:33 8:33 9:33 10:10 10:33 11:33 12:33 1:33 2:33 3:33 4:33 5:10 5:33 6:33 7:33 8:33 –
Arrives SJ Diridon –7:45 8:45 9:45 10:22 10:45 11:45 12:45 1:45 2:45 3:45 4:45 5:22 5:45 6:45 7:45 8:45 –
San Jose Diridon 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 10:35 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 5:35 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:30
Santa Clara 7:05 8:05 9:05 10:05 –11:05 12:05 1:05 2:05 3:05 4:05 5:05 –6:05 7:05 8:05 9:05 10:35
Lawrence 7:10 8:10 9:10 10:10 –11:10 12:10 1:10 2:10 3:10 4:10 5:10 –6:10 7:10 8:10 9:10 10:40
Sunnyvale 7:14 8:14 9:14 10:14 10:45 11:14 12:14 1:14 2:14 3:14 4:14 5:14 5:45 6:14 7:14 8:14 9:14 10:44
Mountain View 7:19 8:19 9:19 10:19 10:50 11:19 12:19 1:19 2:19 3:19 4:19 5:19 5:50 6:19 7:19 8:19 9:19 10:49
San Antonio 7:23 8:23 9:23 10:23 –11:23 12:23 1:23 2:23 3:23 4:23 5:23 –6:23 7:23 8:23 9:23 10:53
California Ave 7:27 8:27 9:27 10:27 –11:27 12:27 1:27 2:27 3:27 4:27 5:27 –6:27 7:27 8:27 9:27 10:57
Palo Alto 7:31 8:31 9:31 10:31 10:58 11:31 12:31 1:31 2:31 3:31 4:31 5:31 5:58 6:31 7:31 8:31 9:31 11:01
Menlo Park 7:34 8:34 9:34 10:34 –11:34 12:34 1:34 2:34 3:34 4:34 5:34 –6:34 7:34 8:34 9:34 11:04
Atherton 7:37 8:37 9:37 10:37 –11:37 12:37 1:37 2:37 3:37 4:37 5:37 –6:37 7:37 8:37 9:37 11:07
Redwood City 7:41 8:41 9:41 10:41 11:04 11:41 12:41 1:41 2:41 3:41 4:41 5:41 6:04 6:41 7:41 8:41 9:41 11:11
San Carlos 7:45 8:45 9:45 10:45 –11:45 12:45 1:45 2:45 3:45 4:45 5:45 –6:45 7:45 8:45 9:45 11:15
Belmont 7:48 8:48 9:48 10:48 –11:48 12:48 1:48 2:48 3:48 4:48 5:48 –6:48 7:48 8:48 9:48 11:18
Hillsdale 7:51 8:51 9:51 10:51 11:10 11:51 12:51 1:51 2:51 3:51 4:51 5:51 6:10 6:51 7:51 8:51 9:51 11:21
Hayward Park 7:54 8:54 9:54 10:54 –11:54 12:54 1:54 2:54 3:54 4:54 5:54 –6:54 7:54 8:54 9:54 11:24
San Mateo 7:57 8:57 9:57 10:57 11:14 11:57 12:57 1:57 2:57 3:57 4:57 5:57 6:14 6:57 7:57 8:57 9:57 11:27
Burlingame 8:02 9:02 10:02 11:02 –12:02 1:02 2:02 3:02 4:02 5:02 6:02 –7:02 8:02 9:02 10:02 11:32
Broadway 8:05 9:05 10:05 11:05 –12:05 1:05 2:05 3:05 4:05 5:05 6:05 –7:05 8:05 9:05 10:05 11:35
Millbrae 8:10 9:10 10:10 11:10 11:23 12:10 1:10 2:10 3:10 4:10 5:10 6:10 6:23 7:10 8:10 9:10 10:10 11:40
San Bruno 8:14 9:14 10:14 11:14 –12:14 1:14 2:14 3:14 4:14 5:14 6:14 –7:14 8:14 9:14 10:14 11:44
So. San Francisco 8:19 9:19 10:19 11:19 –12:19 1:19 2:19 3:19 4:19 5:19 6:19 –7:19 8:19 9:19 10:19 11:49
Bayshore 8:25 9:25 10:25 11:25 –12:25 1:25 2:25 3:25 4:25 5:25 6:25 –7:25 8:25 9:25 10:25 11:55
22nd Street 8:30 9:30 10:30 11:30 –12:30 1:30 2:30 3:30 4:30 5:30 6:30 –7:30 8:30 9:30 10:30 12:00
San Francisco 8:38 9:38 10:38 11:38 11:41 12:38 1:38 2:38 3:38 4:38 5:38 6:38 6:41 7:38 8:38 9:38 10:38 12:08
AM Northbound - WEEKDAY SERVICE to SAN FRANCISCO
Train No.101 103 305 207 309 211 313 215 217 319 221 323 225 227 329 231 233 135 237 139 143
Gilroy 6:06 6:28 7:06
San Martin 6:15 6:37 7:15
Morgan Hill 6:21 6:43 7:21
Blossom Hill 6:36 6:58 7:36
Capitol 6:42 7:04 7:42
Tamien 4:55 5:51 5:56 6:50 6:56 7:15 7:53 7:58 8:28 9:37
San Jose Diridon 4:28 5:03 5:45 5:59 6:04 6:23 6:49 6:54 6:59 7:04 7:23 7:49 7:54 7:59 8:04 8:23 8:36 9:13 9:50 10:13 11:13
College Park –––––––––––––8:03 –––––––
Santa Clara 4:33 5:08 –6:06 –6:28 ––7:06 –7:28 ––8:08 –8:28 8:41 9:18 9:55 10:18 11:18
Lawrence 4:39 5:13 –6:12 ––––7:12 –7:33 ––8:14 ––8:47 9:24 10:00 10:24 11:24
Sunnyvale 4:43 5:18 –6:20 6:14 6:36 –7:06 7:20 7:14 7:38 –8:06 8:21 8:14 8:36 8:52 9:28 10:05 10:28 11:28
Mountain View 4:48 5:23 6:00 6:25 –6:42 7:04 7:11 7:25 –7:44 8:04 8:11 8:27 –8:42 8:57 9:33 10:10 10:33 11:33
San Antonio 4:52 5:27 –6:29 ––––7:29 ––––8:31 ––9:01 9:37 10:14 10:37 11:37
California Avenue 4:57 5:31 –6:34 –6:48 –7:17 7:34 –7:49 –8:17 8:35 ––9:06 9:41 10:18 10:42 11:41
Palo Alto 5:01 5:36 6:08 6:38 6:26 –7:12 7:21 7:38 7:26 –8:12 8:21 8:40 8:26 –9:11 9:46 10:23 10:47 11:46
Menlo Park 5:04 5:39 –6:41 –6:54 ––7:41 –7:54 ––8:43 –8:51 9:14 9:49 10:26 10:50 11:49
Redwood City 5:10 5:44 –6:47 6:32 6:59 ––7:47 7:32 8:00 ––8:49 8:32 8:57 9:20 9:55 10:31 10:55 11:55
San Carlos 5:15 5:49 –––7:04 –7:29 ––8:05 –8:29 ––9:02 9:24 9:59 10:36 10:59 11:59
Belmont 5:18 5:52 –––7:07 ––––8:08 ––––9:05 9:28 10:03 10:39 11:03 12:03
Hillsdale 5:22 5:56 6:18 6:54 –7:11 7:23 7:34 7:54 –8:12 8:23 8:34 8:57 –9:09 9:31 10:06 10:43 11:06 12:06
Hayward Park 5:25 5:59 –––7:14 ––––8:15 ––––9:12 –10:09 –11:09 12:09
San Mateo 5:28 6:03 ––6:43 7:18 –7:38 –7:43 8:19 –8:38 –8:43 9:15 9:36 10:12 10:48 11:12 12:12
Burlingame 5:32 6:06 –––7:21 –7:43 ––8:22 –8:43 ––9:19 9:39 10:15 10:51 11:15 12:15
Millbrae 5:36 6:11 6:26 7:03 6:51 7:26 7:31 –8:03 7:51 8:27 8:31 –9:06 8:51 9:24 9:44 10:20 10:56 11:20 12:20
San Bruno 5:41 6:16 –––7:30 –7:50 ––8:31 –8:50 ––9:28 9:49 10:25 11:01 11:25 12:25
So. San Francisco 5:45 6:20 –7:09 –7:34 ––8:09 –8:35 ––9:13 –9:32 –10:29 –11:29 12:29
Bayshore 5:51 6:26 –––7:41+––––8:43+––––9:39 –10:35 –11:35 12:35
22nd Street 5:57 6:32 –––7:50+––––8:51+––––9:45 –10:41 –11:41 12:41
San Francisco 6:03 6:38 6:47 7:24 7:08 7:57 7:51 8:07 8:24 8:11 8:58 8:51 9:07 9:29 9:11 9:52 10:05 10:48 11:16 11:48 12:48
PM Northbound - WEEKDAY SERVICE to SAN FRANCISCO
Train No.147 151 155 257 159 261 263 365 267 269 371 273 375 277 279 381 283 385 287 289 191 193 195 197 *199
Gilroy
San Martin
Morgan Hill
Blossom Hill
Capitol
Tamien 2:16 3:32 4:32 5:32 6:33 8:37 9:37
San Jose Diridon 12:13 1:13 2:13 2:24 3:13 3:40 4:12 4:24 4:35 4:40 4:45 5:08 5:20 5:35 5:40 5:45 6:08 6:20 6:35 6:40 7:07 7:45 8:45 9:45 10:30
College Park ––––3:16 ––––––––––––––––––––
Santa Clara 12:18 1:18 2:18 2:29 3:20 3:45 4:18 ––4:46 –5:14 ––5:46 –6:14 –––7:12 7:50 8:50 9:50 10:35
Lawrence 12:24 1:24 2:24 2:34 3:25 3:50 ––4:44 4:54 –––5:44 5:54 –––6:44 6:48 7:18 7:55 8:55 9:55 10:40
Sunnyvale 12:28 1:28 2:28 2:39 3:30 3:57 –––5:00 ––––6:00 –––6:48 –7:22 8:00 9:00 10:00 10:45
Mountain View 12:33 1:33 2:33 2:44 3:35 4:02 –4:36 4:51 5:05 4:57 –5:32 5:51 6:05 5:57 –6:32 6:53 6:56 7:27 8:05 9:05 10:05 10:50
San Antonio 12:37 1:37 2:37 2:47 3:39 4:06 –––5:09 ––––6:09 –––––7:31 8:08 9:08 10:08 10:54
California Avenue 12:41 1:41 2:41 2:52 3:43 4:11 –––5:14 ––––6:14 ––––7:02 7:35 8:13 9:13 10:13 10:59
Palo Alto 12:46 1:46 2:46 2:56 3:47 4:15 4:33 4:44 4:59 5:20 5:05 5:29 5:40 5:59 6:20 6:05 6:29 6:40 7:01 7:06 7:40 8:17 9:17 10:17 11:04
Menlo Park 12:49 1:49 2:49 2:59 3:51 4:19 –4:47 5:02 5:23 ––5:43 6:02 6:23 ––6:43 7:04 7:09 7:43 8:20 9:20 10:20 11:07
Redwood City 12:55 1:55 2:55 3:05 3:56 4:24 4:40 4:53 –5:29 5:11 5:36 5:49 –6:29 6:11 6:36 6:49 –7:15 7:49 8:27 9:27 10:27 11:13
San Carlos 12:59 1:59 2:59 3:09 4:01 4:29 4:44 –5:10 5:33 –5:40 –6:10 6:33 –6:40 –7:12 7:19 7:53 8:31 9:31 10:31 11:17
Belmont 1:03 2:03 3:03 3:13 4:04 –4:47 ––––5:43 ––––6:43 –––7:57 8:35 9:35 10:35 11:21
Hillsdale 1:06 2:06 3:06 3:16 4:08 –4:51 –5:14 –5:18 5:47 –6:14 –6:18 6:47 –7:16 7:24 8:00 8:38 9:38 10:38 11:24
Hayward Park 1:09 2:09 3:09 –4:11 –4:54 ––––5:50 ––––6:50 –––8:03 8:41 9:41 10:41 11:27
San Mateo 1:12 2:12 3:12 3:21 4:15 4:36 4:57 –5:18 5:40 –5:53 –6:18 6:40 –6:53 –7:20 7:28 8:07 8:44 9:44 10:44 11:30
Burlingame 1:15 2:15 3:15 3:24 4:18 –5:01 –5:22 ––5:57 –6:22 ––6:57 –7:24 7:32 8:10 8:48 9:48 10:48 11:34
Millbrae 1:20 2:20 3:20 3:29 4:23 4:42 5:05 5:10 –5:48 5:30 6:01 6:06 –6:48 6:30 7:01 7:06 –7:36 8:15 8:52 9:52 10:52 11:38
San Bruno 1:25 2:25 3:25 3:33 4:28 –5:10 –5:29 ––6:06 –6:29 ––7:06 –7:31 –8:20 8:57 9:57 10:57 11:42
So. San Francisco 1:29 2:29 3:29 –4:32 –5:14 ––––6:10 ––––7:10 –––8:24 9:01 10:01 11:01 11:46
Bayshore 1:35 2:35 3:35 –4:38 –5:21+––––6:17+––––7:17+–––8:30 9:07 10:07 11:07 11:52
22nd Street 1:41 2:41 3:41 –4:44 4:56 5:30+5:25 5:40 6:00 5:45 6:26+6:21 6:40 7:00 6:45 7:26+7:21 7:42 7:50 8:36 9:13 10:13 11:13 11:58
San Francisco 1:48 2:48 3:48 3:50 4:50 5:02 5:36 5:31 5:47 6:06 5:51 6:33 6:27 6:47 7:06 6:51 7:33 7:27 7:49 7:57 8:42 9:20 10:20 11:20 12:05
ZO
N
E
1
ZO
N
E
2
ZO
N
E
3
ZO
N
E
4
ZO
N
E
1
ZO
N
E
2
ZO
N
E
3
ZO
N
E
5
ZO
N
E
4
ZO
N
E
6
ZO
N
E
1
ZO
N
E
2
ZO
N
E
3
ZO
N
E
5
ZO
N
E
4
ZO
N
E
6
PMAM
ZO
N
E
4
ZO
N
E
3
ZO
N
E
2
ZO
N
E
1
PM PMAM AM
PMPM
AMAM
On weekends, a shuttle bus connects the Tamien and Diridon stations. Caltrain fare policies apply.Timetable subject to change without notice. * Train departure may be delayed up to 15 minutes after Sharks games.
On weekends, a shuttle bus connects the Tamien and Diridon stations. Caltrain fare policies apply.Timetable subject to change without notice.
+ Train may leave up to 5 minutes early. - Train bypasses station.
100 Local 200 Limited 300 Baby Bullet
Timed transfers for local service. 6:41 6:54
4:24 4:40 800 Baby Bullet400 Local
800 Baby Bullet400 Local* Train departure may be delayed up to 15 minutes after Sharks games.
Visit www.caltrain.com/stations for detailed station information and location.
PacificOcean
San Francisco Bay
N
10
902
ZONE1
ZONE2
ZONE3
ZONE4
ZONE5
ZONE6
Distance betweenBlossom Hill andGilroy not to scale
Gilroy
San Martin
Morgan Hill
Blossom Hill
Capitol
Tamien
San Jose Diridon
College Park
Santa Clara
Lawrence
Sunnyvale
Mountain View
San Antonio
California Ave.
StanfordFootball Only
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
AthertonWeekend Only
Redwood City
San Carlos
Belmont
Hillsdale
Hayward Park
San Mateo
Burlingame
BroadwayWeekend Only
Millbrae Transit Center
San Bruno South San Francisco
Bayshore
22nd St.
San Francisco
SFO
San Bruno
SJCSan JoseInternationalAirport
San FranciscoInternational Airport
SAP Center
Levi’s® Stadium
AT&TPark
Avaya Stadium
DRA
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
Appendix C – Traffic Count Raw Data
DR
A
F
T
EventCount-15055 Page 1
Traffic Data Service -- San Jose, CA
Event Counts
EventCount-15055 -- English (ENU)
Datasets:
Site:[1EB] CHARLESTON RD W OF ALMA ST
Input A:2 - East bound. - Lane= 0, Added to totals. (/2.000)
Input B:0 - Unused or unknown. - Lane= 0, Excluded from totals.
Data type:Axle sensors - Separate (Count)
Profile:
Name:Default Profile
Scheme:Count events divided by setup divisor
Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton)
* Thursday, February 23, 2017=9258, 15 minute drops
0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
62 16 10 14 30 64 141 451 729 680 553 577 510 582 581 760 746 669 697 491 366 327 130 76
27 8 2 2 4 9 29 86 130 132 153 157 134 154 124 193 175 134 194 153 88 91 51 27 28
12 2 2 6 7 11 26 92 223 213 134 121 118 141 158 183 215 194 173 122 99 93 29 17 12
11 3 4 3 11 20 31 116 193 155 136 132 124 135 144 184 166 203 156 128 99 79 35 20 14
12 3 2 3 8 25 56 157 183 181 131 168 136 153 156 201 191 139 175 89 81 66 16 13 7
AM Peak 0815 - 0915 (731), AM PHF=0.82 PM Peak 1530 - 1630 (774), PM PHF=0.90
* Friday, February 24, 2017=9308, 15 minute drops
0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
61 23 11 15 28 59 131 446 700 610 587 617 540 635 558 729 663 709 626 589 334 314 227 102
28 8 2 3 3 11 20 56 137 136 155 151 125 160 113 189 154 156 133 151 101 93 63 25 37
12 2 3 4 4 11 29 95 210 177 148 156 143 152 142 161 187 203 186 162 84 94 77 28 17
14 5 2 5 10 19 33 120 186 141 140 165 132 167 154 203 147 185 176 144 81 68 50 26 14
7 8 4 3 11 18 50 176 168 157 145 146 141 157 150 177 176 166 133 132 68 60 38 23 11
AM Peak 0745 - 0845 (708), AM PHF=0.84 PM Peak 1500 - 1600 (729), PM PHF=0.90
* Saturday, February 25, 2017=7325, 15 minute drops
0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
79 30 18 16 20 37 62 167 290 463 520 634 525 540 550 681 651 498 453 334 205 262 176 119
37 7 8 0 7 10 9 28 61 90 146 141 126 128 172 135 208 126 177 93 56 47 48 32 39
17 6 5 5 3 5 12 40 69 104 96 182 127 154 137 153 181 108 98 101 49 55 57 34 11
14 12 4 7 4 8 13 45 65 129 149 166 111 124 116 173 121 126 91 59 55 88 44 34 21
11 5 1 4 6 14 29 55 96 141 130 146 161 136 126 220 141 138 88 82 45 72 27 19 17
AM Peak 1100 - 1200 (634), AM PHF=0.87 PM Peak 1530 - 1630 (782), PM PHF=0.89
* Sunday, February 26, 2017=6020, 15 minute drops
0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
88 24 14 9 11 21 53 107 274 408 497 512 514 534 518 513 488 437 287 242 174 159 87 54
39 6 6 0 4 3 4 24 45 99 112 127 157 129 145 121 160 116 88 64 55 46 28 20 13
11 6 4 2 1 5 11 22 51 94 117 117 116 129 132 125 116 118 74 70 45 40 18 15 17
21 5 2 4 4 7 17 26 66 86 138 128 115 136 115 132 102 98 70 55 33 44 19 12 6
17 7 2 3 2 6 21 35 113 130 130 140 126 140 126 136 111 106 56 54 42 29 22 7 3
AM Peak 1115 - 1215 (542), AM PHF=0.86 PM Peak 1330 - 1430 (553), PM PHF=0.95
EventCount-15055 Page 1
DR
A
F
T
EventCount-15054 Page 1
Traffic Data Service -- San Jose, CA
Event Counts
EventCount-15054 -- English (ENU)
Datasets:
Site:[1WB] CHARESTON RD W OF ALMA ST
Input A:4 - West bound. - Lane= 0, Added to totals. (/2.000)
Input B:0 - Unused or unknown. - Lane= 0, Excluded from totals.
Data type:Axle sensors - Separate (Count)
Profile:
Name:Default Profile
Scheme:Count events divided by setup divisor
Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton)
* Thursday, February 23, 2017=8603, 15 minute drops
0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 33 20 7 12 23 109 256 517 650 691 573 464 483 495 505 585 557 671 665 484 308 227 159 113
9 5 1 2 2 15 36 84 173 170 156 107 115 120 105 124 130 146 181 155 91 52 39 28 19
11 5 1 5 3 17 52 131 134 178 147 126 129 131 115 143 122 188 182 132 81 61 45 34 14
7 3 2 2 5 26 64 143 179 169 127 108 126 110 125 149 163 175 145 104 70 70 39 33 7
6 7 3 3 13 51 105 160 165 175 144 123 114 135 162 169 143 163 158 94 67 45 37 18 5
AM Peak 0830 - 0930 (691), AM PHF=0.97 PM Peak 1715 - 1815 (706), PM PHF=0.94
* Friday, February 24, 2017=8536, 15 minute drops
0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
45 23 12 11 28 100 240 502 640 644 534 494 496 512 479 584 555 666 621 420 280 291 228 138
19 1 6 2 4 18 36 96 201 165 134 116 126 125 112 126 141 152 177 119 88 70 76 48 21
14 7 2 0 7 14 45 116 132 163 143 110 141 128 107 171 127 187 152 135 68 75 67 29 15
7 7 2 4 10 26 66 112 134 161 135 132 110 133 111 150 143 166 144 88 67 60 41 35 8
5 8 2 5 7 42 93 178 173 156 122 137 121 127 150 138 144 162 149 79 57 86 44 26 10
AM Peak 0845 - 0945 (661), AM PHF=0.96 PM Peak 1715 - 1815 (691), PM PHF=0.93
* Saturday, February 25, 2017=6617, 15 minute drops
0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
54 39 36 11 13 39 80 163 313 410 414 452 489 583 486 589 496 502 371 322 237 198 196 130
21 13 9 3 2 3 11 36 57 79 103 106 119 105 121 127 122 111 98 80 57 54 47 40 21
15 10 17 3 2 4 14 38 65 96 98 118 123 129 122 127 130 113 82 95 60 39 46 41 12
8 6 6 2 3 11 21 44 82 99 109 105 107 181 131 125 115 143 107 67 54 51 54 29 17
10 10 4 3 6 21 34 45 110 138 105 123 140 170 113 210 130 135 85 81 67 55 50 21 6
AM Peak 1145 - 1245 (472), AM PHF=0.96 PM Peak 1315 - 1415 (599), PM PHF=0.83
* Sunday, February 26, 2017=5519, 15 minute drops
0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
56 52 27 16 11 23 47 96 161 249 397 419 497 490 529 462 437 387 384 238 199 172 102 71
21 10 9 4 4 5 6 19 18 60 90 83 95 130 136 128 117 91 99 70 51 50 35 20 10
12 16 8 4 3 4 11 26 40 57 96 100 134 114 124 126 112 103 103 60 58 42 21 21 9
17 11 6 5 2 4 13 24 44 49 101 105 132 125 138 97 111 98 93 56 44 46 21 13 6
6 15 4 3 3 10 17 27 59 83 111 132 136 122 131 112 98 96 90 52 46 35 25 17 7
AM Peak 1145 - 1245 (493), AM PHF=0.92 PM Peak 1215 - 1315 (531), PM PHF=0.98
EventCount-15054 Page 1
DR
A
F
T
CustomList-15062 Page 1
Traffic Data Service -- San Jose, CA
Class Report
CustomList-15062 -- English (ENU)
Datasets:
Site:[3EB] CHURCHILL AVE W OF ALMA ST
Data type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count)
Profile:
Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
Speed range:0 - 100 mph.
Direction:East (bound)
Name:Default Profile
Scheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F)
Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton)
Column Legend:
0 [Time] 24-hour time (0000 - 2359)
1 [Total] Number in time step
2 [Cls] Class totals
* Thursday, February 23, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 13 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 8 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 20 0 15 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 51 0 38 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 154 0 138 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0800 204 1 181 19 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0900 183 1 168 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 204 1 180 20 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1100 228 3 200 24 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1200 224 1 193 26 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1300 262 5 231 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1400 352 7 317 23 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
1500 306 5 263 28 2 0 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0
1600 340 5 311 14 5 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
1700 326 6 300 8 2 2 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0
1800 291 2 275 10 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
1900 219 0 206 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 205 0 196 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 166 2 160 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 117 2 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 53 1 49 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 3074 37 2757 227 17 7 13 7 7 0 2 0 0 0
06-22 3715 39 3357 265 18 7 13 7 7 0 2 0 0 0
06-00 3885 42 3521 268 18 7 13 7 7 0 2 0 0 0
00-00 3946 43 3574 273 18 8 14 7 7 0 2 0 0 0
Peak step 14:00 (352) AM Peak step 11:00 (228) PM Peak step 14:00 (352)
CustomList-15062 Page 1
DR
A
F
T
CustomList-15062 Page 2
* Friday, February 24, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 14 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 6 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 6 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 23 0 19 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 54 0 40 10 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 127 0 107 19 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0800 186 1 164 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0900 190 2 164 22 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 212 1 196 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1100 235 2 198 33 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1200 262 2 233 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1300 265 4 239 20 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1400 326 8 291 23 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
1500 317 4 273 31 0 1 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 0
1600 319 6 289 17 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1700 314 4 281 12 6 0 4 5 2 0 0 0 0 0
1800 317 6 291 9 2 0 4 1 3 0 0 1 0 0
1900 237 2 219 15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
2000 191 0 185 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 212 1 205 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 124 0 122 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 65 1 59 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 3070 40 2726 246 16 5 18 10 6 0 1 2 0 0
06-22 3764 43 3375 282 18 7 18 11 7 0 1 2 0 0
06-00 3953 44 3556 289 18 7 18 11 7 0 1 2 0 0
00-00 4031 45 3625 294 18 8 20 11 7 0 1 2 0 0
Peak step 14:00 (326) AM Peak step 11:00 (235) PM Peak step 14:00 (326)
* Saturday, February 25, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 28 0 26 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 17 1 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 13 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 6 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 9 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 28 0 22 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 65 0 56 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0800 123 0 112 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0900 160 0 147 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 190 1 183 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1100 222 5 207 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1200 267 2 245 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1300 289 2 268 17 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1400 259 6 231 16 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1500 356 9 320 21 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
1600 301 3 279 15 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1700 213 0 205 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1800 243 2 231 6 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1900 223 2 209 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 115 0 109 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 137 1 130 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 113 0 109 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 62 0 58 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 2688 30 2484 150 10 2 7 1 3 0 0 0 0 1
06-22 3191 33 2954 180 10 2 7 1 3 0 0 0 0 1
06-00 3366 33 3121 186 10 3 7 2 3 0 0 0 0 1
00-00 3440 34 3188 192 10 3 7 2 3 0 0 0 0 1
Peak step 15:00 (356) AM Peak step 11:00 (222) PM Peak step 15:00 (356)
CustomList-15062 Page 2
DR
A
F
T
CustomList-15062 Page 3
* Sunday, February 26, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 39 0 36 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 19 0 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 11 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 5 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 9 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 51 0 45 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0800 85 0 77 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0900 139 0 132 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 174 3 162 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1100 188 5 175 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1200 224 6 202 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1300 271 5 250 12 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1400 212 1 200 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1500 249 4 231 12 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1600 236 3 222 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1700 242 1 228 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1800 190 1 178 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1900 138 1 131 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 108 0 99 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 91 0 86 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 59 0 58 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 36 0 35 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 2261 29 2102 121 2 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
06-22 2613 30 2433 141 2 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
06-00 2708 30 2526 143 2 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
00-00 2798 30 2608 151 2 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Peak step 13:00 (271) AM Peak step 11:00 (188) PM Peak step 13:00 (271)
In profile:Vehicles = 14215 / 17381 (81.78%)
CustomList-15062 Page 3
DR
A
F
T
CustomList-15060 Page 1
Traffic Data Service -- San Jose, CA
Class Report
CustomList-15060 -- English (ENU)
Datasets:
Site:[3WB] CHURCHILL AVE W OF ALMA ST
Data type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count)
Profile:
Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
Speed range:0 - 100 mph.
Direction:West (bound)
Name:Default Profile
Scheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F)
Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton)
Column Legend:
0 [Time] 24-hour time (0000 - 2359)
1 [Total] Number in time step
2 [Cls] Class totals
* Thursday, February 23, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 6 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 11 0 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 78 0 64 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 163 0 142 19 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0700 353 6 320 24 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0800 462 8 400 48 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0900 374 8 327 34 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1000 297 7 265 23 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1100 359 3 310 39 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1200 297 2 263 28 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1300 346 4 308 31 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1400 353 2 306 40 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1500 351 1 312 36 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1600 313 0 287 21 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1700 414 1 391 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1800 351 2 341 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1900 262 1 252 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 168 1 163 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 136 0 133 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 87 0 85 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 41 0 40 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 4270 44 3830 352 25 7 6 0 5 1 0 0 0 0
06-22 4999 46 4520 385 26 8 7 0 6 1 0 0 0 0
06-00 5127 46 4645 388 26 8 7 0 6 1 0 0 0 0
00-00 5242 46 4743 404 26 9 7 0 6 1 0 0 0 0
Peak step 8:00 (462) AM Peak step 8:00 (462) PM Peak step 17:00 (414)
CustomList-15060 Page 1
DR
A
F
T
CustomList-15060 Page 2
* Friday, February 24, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 13 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 16 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 10 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 19 0 15 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 78 0 65 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 183 1 166 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 294 3 276 13 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0800 419 2 380 29 6 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0900 380 9 324 43 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 332 0 304 25 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1100 372 1 325 44 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1200 321 8 284 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1300 299 1 275 20 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1400 356 1 317 37 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1500 350 1 317 29 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1600 345 0 319 21 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1700 365 0 348 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1800 328 0 314 13 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1900 301 0 290 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 159 0 155 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 149 0 144 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 108 0 107 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 48 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 4161 26 3783 319 22 5 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
06-22 4953 27 4538 353 23 6 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
06-00 5109 27 4693 354 23 6 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
00-00 5246 27 4812 368 23 8 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
Peak step 8:00 (419) AM Peak step 8:00 (419) PM Peak step 17:00 (365)
* Saturday, February 25, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 34 0 33 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 17 0 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 15 0 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 28 0 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 50 0 46 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0700 113 0 104 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0800 206 0 192 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0900 244 0 230 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 288 1 268 18 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1100 364 3 335 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1200 411 6 388 14 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1300 360 4 337 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1400 351 2 332 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1500 299 0 284 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1600 252 0 240 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1700 227 1 221 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1800 238 0 226 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1900 202 0 196 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 130 2 123 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 141 0 138 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 86 0 81 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 51 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 3353 17 3157 173 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
06-22 3876 19 3660 189 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
06-00 4013 19 3792 193 2 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
00-00 4123 19 3895 200 2 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
Peak step 12:00 (411) AM Peak step 11:00 (364) PM Peak step 12:00 (411)
CustomList-15060 Page 2
DR
A
F
T
CustomList-15060 Page 3
* Sunday, February 26, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 29 0 26 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 23 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 10 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 43 0 41 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 75 0 67 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0800 113 0 110 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0900 157 2 150 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 259 6 240 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1100 291 2 284 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1200 319 3 298 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1300 307 6 288 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1400 313 4 296 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1500 300 2 288 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1600 247 0 239 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1700 214 0 210 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1800 179 0 174 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1900 135 0 130 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 118 0 113 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 108 0 104 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 66 0 63 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 34 0 33 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 2774 25 2644 101 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
06-22 3178 25 3032 116 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
06-00 3278 25 3128 120 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00-00 3366 25 3209 127 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peak step 12:00 (319) AM Peak step 11:00 (291) PM Peak step 12:00 (319)
In profile:Vehicles = 17977 / 20914 (85.96%)
CustomList-15060 Page 3
DR
A
F
T
CustomList-15059 Page 1
Traffic Data Service -- San Jose, CA
Class Report
CustomList-15059 -- English (ENU)
Datasets:
Site:[2EB] MEADOW DR W OF ALMA ST
Data type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count)
Profile:
Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
Speed range:0 - 100 mph.
Direction:East (bound)
Name:Default Profile
Scheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F)
Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton)
Column Legend:
0 [Time] 24-hour time (0000 - 2359)
1 [Total] Number in time step
2 [Cls] Class totals
* Thursday, February 23, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 7 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 8 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 31 0 24 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 76 0 69 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 244 7 207 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0800 362 3 323 33 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0900 270 3 240 21 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1000 252 5 199 44 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
1100 235 5 193 35 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1200 211 4 172 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1300 282 12 223 46 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1400 246 7 197 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1500 351 20 280 43 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0
1600 310 9 266 32 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1700 340 10 303 23 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1800 279 8 248 20 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
1900 250 4 222 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 161 3 151 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 92 1 84 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 80 1 67 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 30 1 24 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 3382 93 2851 403 13 9 4 2 5 1 0 1 0 0
06-22 3961 101 3377 447 13 10 4 2 5 1 0 1 0 0
06-00 4071 103 3468 464 13 10 4 2 5 1 0 1 0 0
00-00 4137 103 3522 475 13 10 5 2 5 1 0 1 0 0
Peak step 8:00 (362) AM Peak step 8:00 (362) PM Peak step 15:00 (351)
CustomList-15059 Page 1
DR
A
F
T
CustomList-15059 Page 2
* Friday, February 24, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 14 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 6 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 7 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 5 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 33 1 25 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 82 0 75 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 226 5 188 32 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0800 347 5 300 34 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0900 280 1 249 25 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 244 2 194 41 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1100 233 6 189 37 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1200 249 8 203 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1300 262 26 197 38 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1400 281 7 234 37 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1500 350 20 278 42 3 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
1600 299 12 247 37 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
1700 312 14 270 25 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
1800 324 9 288 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1900 247 1 219 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 179 0 166 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 143 2 124 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 126 0 110 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 51 0 48 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 3407 115 2837 413 14 12 10 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
06-22 4058 118 3421 476 15 12 10 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
06-00 4235 118 3579 495 15 12 10 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
00-00 4303 119 3633 508 15 12 10 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
Peak step 15:00 (350) AM Peak step 8:00 (347) PM Peak step 15:00 (350)
* Saturday, February 25, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 26 0 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 15 0 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 6 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 9 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 16 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 36 0 35 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 82 1 70 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0800 141 1 123 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0900 209 2 175 31 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 250 3 212 33 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1100 273 7 230 34 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1200 289 9 243 32 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
1300 292 14 248 28 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1400 320 12 265 41 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1500 285 8 251 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1600 254 3 220 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1700 245 3 207 34 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1800 239 2 213 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1900 172 0 156 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 130 1 114 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 112 1 106 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 82 0 71 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 49 0 45 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 2879 65 2457 341 6 2 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
06-22 3329 67 2868 378 6 2 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
06-00 3460 67 2984 393 6 2 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
00-00 3536 67 3052 401 6 2 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
Peak step 14:00 (320) AM Peak step 11:00 (273) PM Peak step 14:00 (320)
CustomList-15059 Page 2
DR
A
F
T
CustomList-15059 Page 3
* Sunday, February 26, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 19 0 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 15 1 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 5 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 5 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 25 0 19 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 56 0 50 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0800 159 2 132 24 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0900 244 1 207 35 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 252 6 211 32 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1100 231 2 195 33 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1200 262 10 220 30 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1300 302 10 258 32 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1400 285 9 254 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1500 276 7 247 18 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1600 231 8 207 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1700 234 1 211 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1800 189 2 166 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1900 160 2 138 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 99 0 88 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 87 0 80 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 41 0 38 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 28 0 26 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 2721 58 2358 289 4 6 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
06-22 3092 60 2683 333 4 6 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
06-00 3161 60 2747 338 4 6 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
00-00 3215 61 2794 344 4 6 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Peak step 13:00 (302) AM Peak step 10:00 (252) PM Peak step 13:00 (302)
In profile:Vehicles = 15191 / 18158 (83.66%)
CustomList-15059 Page 3
DR
A
F
T
CustomList-15058 Page 1
Traffic Data Service -- San Jose, CA
Class Report
CustomList-15058 -- English (ENU)
Datasets:
Site:[2WB] MEADOW DR W OF ALMA ST
Data type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count)
Profile:
Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
Speed range:0 - 100 mph.
Direction:West (bound)
Name:Default Profile
Scheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F)
Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton)
Column Legend:
0 [Time] 24-hour time (0000 - 2359)
1 [Total] Number in time step
2 [Cls] Class totals
* Thursday, February 23, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 11 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 12 0 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 13 1 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 27 1 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 75 2 64 6 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 245 16 199 25 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
0800 439 23 377 24 2 3 2 1 4 2 0 0 0 1
0900 277 23 216 35 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 219 13 173 28 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
1100 240 12 194 33 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1200 253 8 204 39 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1300 243 8 209 25 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1400 303 8 252 40 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1500 354 12 299 40 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1600 352 12 300 38 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1700 477 8 433 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
1800 448 5 401 37 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1900 274 7 249 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
2000 211 6 191 12 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 166 0 152 13 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 73 1 63 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 47 3 40 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 3850 148 3257 399 12 9 10 1 8 3 0 2 0 1
06-22 4576 163 3913 446 12 10 16 1 8 3 1 2 0 1
06-00 4696 167 4016 458 12 10 17 1 8 3 1 2 0 1
00-00 4764 169 4076 464 12 10 17 1 8 3 1 2 0 1
Peak step 17:00 (477) AM Peak step 8:00 (439) PM Peak step 17:00 (477)
CustomList-15058 Page 1
DR
A
F
T
CustomList-15058 Page 2
* Friday, February 24, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 30 1 27 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 13 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 7 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 13 1 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 37 1 33 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 69 2 58 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 245 12 197 29 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
0800 453 20 380 36 4 2 2 0 5 1 2 0 0 1
0900 248 11 206 28 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 244 5 198 40 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1100 265 8 224 28 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1200 240 4 196 38 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1300 267 13 231 20 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
1400 322 6 276 36 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
1500 359 8 312 36 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1600 315 14 283 15 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1700 458 10 413 30 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1
1800 414 6 390 14 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
1900 334 6 313 13 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 195 4 166 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
2100 184 1 172 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 140 0 130 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 66 1 63 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 3830 117 3306 350 9 12 10 3 11 1 2 1 0 8
06-22 4612 130 4015 406 10 12 12 3 11 1 3 1 0 8
06-00 4818 131 4208 418 10 12 12 3 11 1 3 1 0 8
00-00 4919 134 4298 426 10 12 12 3 11 1 3 1 0 8
Peak step 17:00 (458) AM Peak step 8:00 (453) PM Peak step 17:00 (458)
* Saturday, February 25, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 37 0 36 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 20 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 13 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 10 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 17 1 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 40 1 36 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 56 3 50 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0800 114 5 100 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0900 197 6 175 13 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 229 12 193 21 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1100 287 10 240 33 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1200 326 8 275 42 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1300 301 7 262 31 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1400 249 7 224 16 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1500 357 13 310 28 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
1600 285 5 260 18 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
1700 315 14 276 23 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
1800 279 3 262 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1900 190 4 170 15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
2000 162 3 148 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 132 2 120 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 118 0 113 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 59 0 55 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 2995 93 2627 250 10 2 6 1 6 0 0 0 0 0
06-22 3519 103 3101 288 10 2 7 1 7 0 0 0 0 0
06-00 3696 103 3269 297 10 2 7 1 7 0 0 0 0 0
00-00 3795 104 3365 299 10 2 7 1 7 0 0 0 0 0
Peak step 15:00 (357) AM Peak step 11:00 (287) PM Peak step 15:00 (357)
CustomList-15058 Page 2
DR
A
F
T
CustomList-15058 Page 3
* Sunday, February 26, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 32 1 28 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 21 1 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 19 0 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 24 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 42 1 35 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0800 94 3 83 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0900 149 6 122 18 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1000 236 7 206 22 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1100 257 6 238 10 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1200 339 11 306 18 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1300 293 11 253 26 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1400 288 15 249 23 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1500 284 12 253 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1600 310 11 270 25 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0
1700 292 7 257 26 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1800 235 4 217 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1900 167 3 146 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 116 4 105 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 124 1 106 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 69 0 66 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 41 0 39 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 2819 94 2489 210 7 5 5 0 7 0 1 0 0 1
06-22 3250 102 2870 252 7 5 5 0 7 0 1 0 0 1
06-00 3360 102 2975 257 7 5 5 0 7 0 1 0 0 1
00-00 3457 104 3064 263 7 5 5 0 7 0 1 0 0 1
Peak step 12:00 (339) AM Peak step 11:00 (257) PM Peak step 12:00 (339)
In profile:Vehicles = 16935 / 20314 (83.37%)
CustomList-15058 Page 3
DR
A
F
T
CustomList-15066 Page 1
Traffic Data Service -- San Jose, CA
Class Report
CustomList-15066 -- English (ENU)
Datasets:
Site:[4] PALO ALTO AVE W OF ALMA ST
Data type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count)
Profile:
Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
Speed range:0 - 100 mph.
Direction:East (bound)
Name:Default Profile
Scheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F)
Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton)
Column Legend:
0 [Time] 24-hour time (0000 - 2359)
1 [Total] Number in time step
2 [Cls] Class totals
* Thursday, February 23, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 44 0 39 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0100 23 0 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 11 0 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 11 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 24 0 18 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 48 0 40 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 160 2 135 20 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 344 3 294 43 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0800 454 4 390 51 2 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0900 447 5 375 57 3 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 386 4 326 48 1 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1100 421 2 366 48 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1200 413 1 341 69 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1300 414 10 332 63 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1400 513 4 427 71 0 2 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1500 526 9 457 57 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1600 530 4 469 45 0 0 9 0 2 0 0 1 0 0
1700 580 13 537 24 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1800 517 14 450 39 2 1 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
1900 476 6 436 30 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 328 4 297 23 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 276 2 264 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 165 5 153 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 116 2 102 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 5545 73 4764 615 12 17 54 0 5 2 1 1 0 1
06-22 6785 87 5896 697 13 21 61 0 5 2 1 1 0 1
06-00 7066 94 6151 714 15 21 61 0 5 2 1 1 0 1
00-00 7227 94 6286 736 17 22 61 0 5 3 1 1 0 1
Peak step 17:00 (580) AM Peak step 8:00 (454) PM Peak step 17:00 (580)
CustomList-15066 Page 1
DR
A
F
T
CustomList-15066 Page 2
* Friday, February 24, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 59 1 55 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0100 31 0 26 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 14 0 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 15 0 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0400 13 0 11 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 51 0 44 4 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
0600 123 0 100 18 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 328 4 284 36 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0800 441 3 389 37 1 1 6 0 1 0 0 2 0 1
0900 398 2 357 33 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1000 391 2 348 35 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
1100 436 5 381 44 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1200 456 3 387 56 1 4 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1300 506 9 421 61 1 4 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1400 530 2 452 63 1 4 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1500 508 6 449 44 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1600 540 10 477 42 0 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1700 579 13 523 31 1 0 9 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
1800 623 10 570 32 1 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
1900 531 9 492 24 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 361 1 335 21 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 245 4 229 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 210 3 192 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 172 1 156 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 5736 69 5038 514 13 18 69 0 6 3 1 4 0 1
06-22 6996 83 6194 589 20 23 72 0 6 3 1 4 0 1
06-00 7378 87 6542 617 21 24 72 0 6 3 1 4 0 1
00-00 7561 88 6700 634 21 27 72 0 7 6 1 4 0 1
Peak step 18:00 (623) AM Peak step 8:00 (441) PM Peak step 18:00 (623)
* Saturday, February 25, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 68 1 61 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 56 0 52 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 33 1 28 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 15 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
0400 20 0 15 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0500 19 0 15 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 61 0 45 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 133 1 109 22 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0800 193 1 177 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0900 302 3 276 21 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 344 4 296 37 3 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
1100 436 5 389 28 5 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1200 447 7 399 33 2 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1300 491 5 429 52 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1400 462 2 411 43 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1500 521 11 474 32 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1600 476 3 437 34 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1700 540 12 489 35 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1800 483 4 441 34 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1900 403 2 368 32 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 258 2 243 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 238 0 214 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 164 1 150 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 125 1 117 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 4828 58 4327 385 12 5 38 0 2 0 1 0 0 0
06-22 5788 62 5197 467 14 6 39 0 2 0 1 0 0 0
06-00 6077 64 5464 486 15 6 39 0 2 0 1 0 0 0
00-00 6288 66 5647 507 16 7 39 0 3 2 1 0 0 0
Peak step 17:00 (540) AM Peak step 11:00 (436) PM Peak step 17:00 (540)
CustomList-15066 Page 2
DR
A
F
T
CustomList-15066 Page 3
* Sunday, February 26, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 67 0 63 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 49 2 40 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 24 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 15 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0400 14 0 10 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 14 0 11 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 36 0 31 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 85 0 79 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0800 180 0 167 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0900 282 1 256 24 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1000 305 5 278 16 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1100 382 4 338 35 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1200 411 4 370 29 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1300 454 11 397 42 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1400 416 6 378 24 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1500 430 8 396 21 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1600 440 5 401 32 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
1700 428 9 383 35 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1800 389 3 351 34 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1900 348 1 319 24 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 233 2 216 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 173 1 159 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 102 1 91 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 79 0 71 6 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 4202 56 3794 310 7 1 29 0 3 1 0 1 0 0
06-22 4992 60 4519 367 7 1 33 0 3 1 0 1 0 0
06-00 5173 61 4681 383 8 1 33 0 4 1 0 1 0 0
00-00 5356 63 4842 400 9 2 33 0 4 2 0 1 0 0
Peak step 13:00 (454) AM Peak step 11:00 (382) PM Peak step 13:00 (454)
In profile:Vehicles = 26432 / 68170 (38.77%)
CustomList-15066 Page 3
DR
A
F
T
CustomList-15067 Page 1
Traffic Data Service -- San Jose, CA
Class Report
CustomList-15067 -- English (ENU)
Datasets:
Site:[4] PALO ALTO AVE W OF ALMA ST
Data type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count)
Profile:
Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
Speed range:0 - 100 mph.
Direction:West (bound)
Name:Default Profile
Scheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F)
Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton)
Column Legend:
0 [Time] 24-hour time (0000 - 2359)
1 [Total] Number in time step
2 [Cls] Class totals
* Thursday, February 23, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 43 0 36 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 19 0 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0200 7 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 7 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 29 0 23 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 85 2 62 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 170 4 134 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 425 8 338 70 2 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0800 560 15 485 54 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0900 507 8 429 68 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 476 6 396 67 2 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0
1100 568 7 457 98 1 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1200 577 8 489 78 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1300 556 6 484 63 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1400 558 6 488 63 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1500 673 3 591 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1600 736 10 663 60 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
1700 804 5 745 50 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1800 690 3 636 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1900 497 3 463 29 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 363 2 335 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 299 0 282 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 204 0 194 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 109 1 98 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 7130 85 6201 801 15 15 3 1 5 2 1 1 0 0
06-22 8459 94 7415 905 15 16 4 1 5 2 1 1 0 0
06-00 8772 95 7707 925 15 16 4 1 5 2 1 1 0 0
00-00 8962 97 7854 964 15 17 4 1 5 3 1 1 0 0
Peak step 17:00 (804) AM Peak step 11:00 (568) PM Peak step 17:00 (804)
CustomList-15067 Page 1
DR
A
F
T
CustomList-15067 Page 2
* Friday, February 24, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 57 0 53 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 31 0 25 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0200 18 0 15 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 11 0 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 26 0 20 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0500 71 0 55 14 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 210 1 173 33 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0700 368 5 297 60 1 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
0800 513 10 447 47 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0900 494 9 422 57 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 513 9 440 59 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1100 534 6 467 55 1 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
1200 549 6 493 47 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
1300 590 3 533 51 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1400 644 9 579 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1500 720 12 643 63 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1600 698 6 628 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1700 773 7 730 35 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1800 628 4 595 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1900 507 3 473 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 385 2 366 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 337 3 317 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 261 1 249 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 163 2 146 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 7024 86 6274 623 11 17 4 0 3 5 0 1 0 0
06-22 8463 95 7603 720 14 17 4 0 3 6 0 1 0 0
06-00 8887 98 7998 746 14 17 4 0 3 6 0 1 0 0
00-00 9101 98 8175 777 15 19 5 0 4 7 0 1 0 0
Peak step 17:00 (773) AM Peak step 11:00 (534) PM Peak step 17:00 (773)
* Saturday, February 25, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 91 1 81 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 66 0 63 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 35 0 34 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 12 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0400 28 0 23 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 39 0 32 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 71 1 58 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 139 1 122 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0800 223 5 186 29 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0900 364 7 310 45 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 464 9 416 37 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1100 533 4 496 29 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1200 555 8 505 38 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
1300 616 7 560 43 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0
1400 629 12 582 32 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1500 606 5 558 42 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1600 532 3 497 31 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1700 485 2 453 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1800 486 3 441 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1900 372 0 344 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 279 2 260 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 321 0 304 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 204 1 191 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 175 0 161 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
07-19 5632 66 5126 414 9 7 4 0 3 1 0 1 0 1
06-22 6675 69 6092 486 9 9 4 0 3 1 0 1 0 1
06-00 7054 70 6444 510 9 10 4 0 3 1 1 1 0 1
00-00 7325 72 6687 532 10 12 4 0 3 2 1 1 0 1
Peak step 14:00 (629) AM Peak step 11:00 (533) PM Peak step 14:00 (629)
CustomList-15067 Page 2
DR
A
F
T
CustomList-15067 Page 3
* Sunday, February 26, 2017
Time Total Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls Cls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0000 92 1 83 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0100 62 1 57 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0200 35 1 33 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0300 11 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 14 1 11 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0500 20 0 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0600 56 0 52 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0700 119 2 107 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0800 225 0 206 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0900 344 2 313 27 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1000 414 1 384 28 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1100 494 6 460 26 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
1200 530 9 485 34 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
1300 516 5 489 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1400 526 8 490 26 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1500 521 8 488 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1600 516 5 471 39 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1700 455 4 418 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1800 384 5 351 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1900 326 3 297 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 217 0 200 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 183 1 171 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2200 122 0 113 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2300 63 0 57 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07-19 5044 55 4662 316 2 2 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
06-22 5826 59 5382 371 3 4 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
06-00 6011 59 5552 386 3 4 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
00-00 6245 63 5765 402 3 4 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
Peak step 12:00 (530) AM Peak step 11:00 (494) PM Peak step 12:00 (530)
In profile:Vehicles = 31633 / 68170 (46.40%)
CustomList-15067 Page 3
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Existing Conditions Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management
Appendix D – Existing Traffic Turning
Volumes at Key Intersections
DR
A
F
T
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
Charleston Rd / Alma St
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
R
P
M
,
Sa
n
t
a
C
l
a
r
a
Co
u
n
t
y
Alm
a
S
t
Charleston Rd
101
G:\
_
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
\
3
7
2
5
6
9
-
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
R
P
M
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
A
r
c
h
i
v
e
\
2
0
1
7
F
e
b
C
o
u
n
t
s
.
d
w
g
11
-
J
a
n
-
2
0
1
8
3:2
5
P
M
LEGEND
#Intersection #
AM [Midday] (PM) Peak
Hour Volume
123 4
567 8
91011
1213
Charleston Rd / Park BlvdCharleston Rd /
Wilkie Way
Charleston Rd /
Wright Pl
Meadow Dr / Alma St
Palo Alto Ave / Alma StEl Camino Real / Palo Alto
Ave / Sand Hill Rd
Pa
r
k
B
l
v
d
Charleston Rd
Wi
l
k
i
e
W
a
y
Charleston Rd
Wr
i
g
h
t
P
l
Charleston Rd
Al
m
a
S
t
Meadow Dr
Wil
k
i
e
W
a
y
Ra
m
o
n
a
S
t
Ma
r
i
p
o
s
a
A
v
e
Palo Alto Ave
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Palo Alto Ave
Churchill Ave /
Mariposa Ave
Meadow RdMeadow Rd Meadow Rd
Churchill Ave / Alma St
Alm
a
S
t
Churchill Ave
Pa
r
k
B
l
v
d
Churchill Ave
Churchill Ave /
Madrono Ave
Ma
d
r
o
n
o
A
v
e
Churchill Ave
Alm
a
S
t
Sand Hill Rd
Meadow Dr / Park BlvdMeadow Dr / Wilkie Way Meadow Dr / Ramona St
123 4
567 8
91011
12
13
NOTE
Count Date: Thursday, February 16, 2017
Alm
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
Meado
w
D
r
Churchill Ave
Palo Alto Ave
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Oregon Expy
Page Mill Rd
Em
b
a
r
c
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Project Roadway
Not to scale
Union Pacific Railroad
DR
A
F
T
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
Charleston Rd / Alma St
Ci
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
Ra
i
l
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
St
u
d
y
Alm
a
S
t
Charleston Rd
101
G:\
_
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
\
3
7
2
5
6
9
-
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
R
P
M
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
_
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
_
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
.
d
w
g
11
-
J
a
n
-
2
0
1
8
3:2
4
P
M
LEGEND
#Intersection #
AM [Midday] (PM) Peak
Hour Volume
123 4
567 8
91011
1213
Charleston Rd / Park BlvdCharleston Rd /
Wilkie Way
Charleston Rd /
Wright Pl
Meadow Dr / Alma St
Palo Alto Ave / Alma StEl Camino Real / Palo Alto
Ave / Sand Hill Rd
Pa
r
k
B
l
v
d
Charleston Rd
Wi
l
k
i
e
W
a
y
Charleston Rd
Wr
i
g
h
t
P
l
Charleston Rd
Al
m
a
S
t
Meadow Dr
Wil
k
i
e
W
a
y
Ra
m
o
n
a
S
t
Ma
r
i
p
o
s
a
A
v
e
Palo Alto Ave
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Palo Alto Ave
Churchill Ave /
Mariposa Ave
Meadow RdMeadow Rd Meadow Rd
Churchill Ave / Alma St
Alm
a
S
t
Churchill Ave
Pa
r
k
B
l
v
d
Churchill Ave
Churchill Ave /
Madrono Ave
Ma
d
r
o
n
o
A
v
e
Churchill Ave
Alm
a
S
t
Sand Hill Rd
Meadow Dr / Park BlvdMeadow Dr / Wilkie Way Meadow Dr / Ramona St
123 4
567 8
91011
12
13
NOTE
Count Date: Thursday, November 30, 2017
Alm
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
Meado
w
D
r
Churchill Ave
Palo Alto Ave
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Oregon Expy
Page Mill Rd
Em
b
a
r
c
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Study Roadway
Not to scale
Union Pacific Railroad
DR
A
F
T
372569 - Palo Alto RPM APPENDIX D-3 2/5/2018 10:18 AM
2414 387 1588 439 0-Ref
2415 457 1512 446 1
21,187 487 475 SBR SBT SBL 544 584 468 419 22 23
19,531 259 249 EBL 4,220 WBR 544 584 0 0 EBL 1,044 WBR 0 0
0 0 EBT 4,200 #13 WBT 0 0 0 0 EBT 1,076 #12 WBT 17 18
228 226 EBR WBL 0 0 468 419 EBR WBL 5 5
0-Ref (12)NBL NBT NBR (40)0-Ref 0-Ref (49)NBL NBT NBR (1)0-Ref
786 120 636 30 71 603 596 0 7 18
715 117 552 46 0-Ref 585 574 0 11 0-Ref
647 104 540 3 0-Ref
697 142 553 2 50
182 216 378 356 183 227 459 400 195 253 SBR SBT SBL 149 105
0 0 EBL 626 WBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 719 WBR 0 0 50 82 EBL 2,551 WBR 1 2
171 209 EBT 564 #11 WBT 372 350 179 226 EBT 610 #10 WBT 456 397 36 57 EBT 2,391 #9 WBT 63 57
11 7 EBR WBL 6 6 4 1 EBR WBL 3 3 109 114 EBR WBL 85 46
0-Ref 34 NBL NBT NBR 22 0-Ref 0-Ref 44 NBL NBT NBR 59 0-Ref 0-Ref 58 NBL NBT NBR 44 0-Ref
32 22 0 10 6 33 0 0 33 6 1452 230 1202 20 8
26 15 0 11 0-Ref 27 3 0 24 0-Ref 1444 241 1186 17 0-Ref
15 5 5 5 0-Ref 16 16 0 0 0-Ref 679 97 546 36 0-Ref 53 28 3 22 0-Ref
45 17 7 21 30 13 13 0 0 (3)823 134 618 71 144 91 58 4 29 38
219 252 SBR SBT SBL 400 227 353 374 SBR SBT SBL 487 289 351 403 SBR SBT SBL 259 274 221 313 SBR SBT SBL 335 246
4 13 EBL 800 WBR 5 5 0 0 EBL 924 WBR 80 70 129 155 EBL 2,720 WBR 77 81 3 0 EBL 785 WBR 11 6
211 227 EBT 528 #7 WBT 358 204 344 371 EBT 679 #6 WBT 407 219 141 152 EBT 2,550 #5 WBT 122 129 216 307 EBT 546 #8 WBT 319 231
4 12 EBR WBL 37 18 9 3 EBR WBL 0 0 81 96 EBR WBL 60 64 2 6 EBR WBL 5 9
0-Ref 33 NBL NBT NBR 173 0-Ref 0-Ref 21 NBL NBT NBR 198 0-Ref 0-Ref 52 NBL NBT NBR (15)0-Ref 0-Ref 92 NBL NBT NBR 89 0-Ref
103 36 19 48 36 50 5 0 45 29 1235 80 1122 33 (11)46 14 12 20 20
67 22 9 36 0-Ref 21 1 0 20 0-Ref 1246 73 1148 25 0-Ref 26 12 0 14 0-Ref
45 11 4 30 0-Ref 18 4 0 14 0-Ref 673 60 554 59 0-Ref 32 16 0 16 0-Ref
71 27 9 35 26 15 1 0 14 (3)774 43 654 77 101 33 20 0 13 1
526 624 0 SBR SBT SBL 610 613 518 627 SBR SBT SBL 653 646 597 635 SBR SBT SBL 397 350 470 509 SBR SBT SBL 411 349
20 32 EBL 1,383 WBR 48 32 1 5 EBL 1,322 WBR 33 28 81 80 EBL 3,140 WBR 93 71 6 10 EBL 953 WBR 20 10
491 575 EBT 1,238 #3 WBT 558 577 517 621 EBT 1,224 #2 WBT 612 612 365 396 EBT 3,074 #1 WBT 256 247 464 499 EBT 851 #4 WBT 391 339
15 17 EBR WBL 4 4 0 1 EBR WBL 8 6 151 159 EBR WBL 48 32 0 0 EBR WBL 0 0
0-Ref 98 NBL NBT NBR (3)0-Ref 0-Ref 109 NBL NBT NBR 7 0-Ref 0-Ref 38 NBL NBT NBR 47 0-Ref 0-Ref 39 62 0-Ref
78 25 33 20 24 27 2 0 25 (15)1334 310 1001 23 (120)
54 28 12 14 0-Ref 42 1 2 39 0-Ref 1454 349 1066 39 0-Ref
INTERSECTION #4: Wright Pl / Charleston Rd
INTERSECTION #8: Ramona St / Meadow Dr
Palo Alto RPM - Ground Count Comparison (AM)
INTERSECTION #7: Wilkie Way / Meadow Dr INTERSECTION #6: Park Blvd / Meadow Dr INTERSECTION #5: Alma St / Meadow Dr
INTERSECTION #3: Wilkie Way / Charleston Rd INTERSECTION #2: Park Blvd / Charleston Rd INTERSECTION #1: Alma St / Charleston Rd
February 2017 Ground Counts
November 2017 Ground Counts
INTERSECTION #13: Palo Alto Ave / El Camino Real / Sand Hill Rd INTERSECTION #12: Alma St / Palo Alto Ave
INTERSECTION #11: Madrono Ave / Churchill Ave INTERSECTION #10: Mariposa Ave / Churchill Ave INTERSECTION #9: Alma St / Churchill Ave
C:\Users\nar77489\Desktop\2017-CountComparison.xlsx
DR
A
F
T
372569 - Palo Alto RPM APPENDIX D-3 2/5/2018 10:18 AM
1710 296 1019 395 0-Ref
1909 362 1176 371 199
24,333 678 662 SBR SBT SBL 792 823 566 523 37 35
22,689 488 446 EBL 4,829 WBR 792 823 0 0 EBL 1,380 WBR 0 0
1 0 EBT 4,759 #13 WBT 0 0 2 1 EBT 1,428 #12 WBT 36 32
189 216 EBR WBL 0 0 564 522 EBR WBL 1 3
0-Ref (16)NBL NBT NBR (31)0-Ref 0-Ref (43)NBL NBT NBR 2 0-Ref
1466 83 1247 136 (82)820 808 0 12 (7)
1548 127 1268 153 0-Ref 827 816 0 11 0-Ref
1172 83 1088 1 0-Ref
1249 96 1147 6 77
338 409 362 311 366 421 363 324 329 436 SBR SBT SBL 150 130
0 0 EBL 783 WBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 806 WBR 0 0 80 108 EBL 3,283 WBR 11 3
327 395 EBT 661 #11 WBT 349 297 363 418 EBT 705 #10 WBT 362 321 56 77 EBT 2,901 #9 WBT 74 59
11 14 EBR WBL 13 14 3 3 EBR WBL 1 3 193 251 EBR WBL 65 68
0-Ref 71 NBL NBT NBR 51 0-Ref 0-Ref 55 NBL NBT NBR 39 0-Ref 0-Ref 107 NBL NBT NBR 20 0-Ref
12 9 0 3 0 22 5 0 17 7 1448 191 1235 22 178
12 8 0 4 0-Ref 15 3 0 12 0-Ref 1270 175 1072 23 0-Ref
34 12 14 8 0-Ref 26 25 0 1 0-Ref 1225 133 1023 69 0-Ref 50 14 7 29 0-Ref
44 16 16 12 10 29 28 1 0 3 1290 130 1087 73 65 101 40 12 49 51
248 297 SBR SBT SBL 406 386 328 358 SBR SBT SBL 493 446 316 357 SBR SBT SBL 437 291 270 292 SBR SBT SBL 447 416
6 17 EBL 804 WBR 6 6 2 0 EBL 897 WBR 92 107 98 117 EBL 3,337 WBR 124 7 7 10 EBL 858 WBR 29 25
232 256 EBT 710 #7 WBT 298 308 317 345 EBT 819 #6 WBT 401 339 151 169 EBT 2,906 #5 WBT 246 231 251 268 EBT 762 #8 WBT 408 375
10 24 EBR WBL 102 72 9 13 EBR WBL 0 0 67 71 EBR WBL 67 53 12 14 EBR WBL 10 16
0-Ref 49 NBL NBT NBR 20 0-Ref 0-Ref 30 NBL NBT NBR 47 0-Ref 0-Ref 41 NBL NBT NBR 146 0-Ref 0-Ref 22 NBL NBT NBR 31 0-Ref
57 16 10 31 15 17 3 0 14 (2)1253 86 1129 38 179 18 5 3 10 (8)
42 13 11 18 0-Ref 19 3 0 16 0-Ref 1074 91 935 48 0-Ref 26 12 4 10 0-Ref
83 58 15 10 0-Ref 19 3 1 15 0-Ref 1248 91 1107 50 0-Ref 23 12 0 11 0-Ref
149 109 14 26 66 30 6 2 22 11 1236 55 1132 49 (12)45 30 0 15 22
581 551 0 SBR SBT SBL 626 644 560 580 SBR SBT SBL 604 702 582 520 SBR SBT SBL 539 498 396 457 SBR SBT SBL 516 518
26 27 EBL 1,364 WBR 26 20 3 0 EBL 1,237 WBR 26 31 61 56 EBL 3,737 WBR 122 98 13 12 EBL 1,018 WBR 20 16
519 481 EBT 1,336 #3 WBT 591 614 551 580 EBT 1,294 #2 WBT 559 648 295 269 EBT 3,471 #1 WBT 330 354 383 445 EBT 937 #4 WBT 496 502
36 43 EBR WBL 9 10 6 0 EBR WBL 19 23 226 195 EBR WBL 87 46 0 0 EBR WBL 0 0
0-Ref (30)NBL NBT NBR (18)0-Ref 0-Ref 20 NBL NBT NBR (98)0-Ref 0-Ref (62)NBL NBT NBR 41 0-Ref 0-Ref 61 (2)0-Ref
38 21 10 7 10 23 1 2 20 10 1442 291 1092 59 299
28 15 10 3 0-Ref 13 1 1 11 0-Ref 1143 233 863 47 0-Ref
INTERSECTION #11: Madrono Ave / Churchill Ave INTERSECTION #10: Mariposa Ave / Churchill Ave INTERSECTION #9: Alma St / Churchill Ave
Palo Alto RPM - Ground Count Comparison (PM)
INTERSECTION #13: Palo Alto Ave / El Camino Real / Sand Hill Rd INTERSECTION #12: Alma St / Palo Alto Ave
November 2017 Ground Counts
February 2017 Ground Counts
INTERSECTION #7: Wilkie Way / Meadow Dr INTERSECTION #6: Park Blvd / Meadow Dr INTERSECTION #5: Alma St / Meadow Dr INTERSECTION #8: Ramona St / Meadow Dr
INTERSECTION #3: Wilkie Way / Charleston Rd INTERSECTION #2: Park Blvd / Charleston Rd INTERSECTION #1: Alma St / Charleston Rd INTERSECTION #4: Wright Pl / Charleston Rd
C:\Users\nar77489\Desktop\2017-CountComparison.xlsx
DR
A
F
T
xyz xyz xyz
C:\Users\GAL75108\Desktop\Palo Alto RPM files\done\Palo Alto TDM MV Report Oct
2017 Rev 2 nc.docx
Mott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald
4301 Hacienda Drive
Suite 300
Pleasanton CA 94588
United States of America
T +1 (925) 469 8010
F +1 (925) 469 8011
mottmac.com
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301 Travel Demand Model Validation
Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
January 20, 2018
City of Palo Alto
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Travel Demand Model Validation Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Background and Use of the Travel Demand Model 2
3 Model Review 3
3.1 Figure 1: Traffic Analysis Zones3.1 Travel Demand Models 3
3.2 Limitations of the Model 4
3.3 Roadway Network in the Study Area 4
3.4 Study Intersections 5
3.5 Model Results Validation 12
3.6 2014 Model Results vs. Traffic Counts 13
3.7 2030 Model Results vs. 2014 Model Results 14
3.8 The Second Base Year Model 14
4 Future Year Modeling Methodology 16
4.1 Travel Models 16
4.2 Improvement Plans in the Traffic Forecasting Model 16
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Travel Demand Model Validation Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
1
1 Introduction
The City of Palo Alto Travel Demand model is an essential source of information and part of the
“tool kit” the Consultant will use for the technical analyses of the Task 4: Rail Corridor
Circulation Study, as part of the Consultant’s Rail Program Management Services. Task 4
itemizes a number of subtasks that will be carried out as follows:
● Data Review
● Existing Documents
● Existing Traffic Counts
● Travel Demand Models
● Development Proposals
● Utilities and Right of Way
● Field Observations
● Collision Data
● Grade Crossing Hazards and Gate Downtime
● Evaluation of Alternatives
This report focuses on the Travel Demand Model. The Travel Demand Model is a regional
model that has been used by the City of Palo Alto (referred to as the “City”) to provide
transportation information on the Comprehensive Plan and other major changes that will impact
transportation. The Travel Demand Model was developed based on the VTA regional travel
demand model using the Cube Voyager program. How the model will be used is described
together with the background setting for the analyses.
A description of the model is included together with identifying its limitations and the appropriate
way of integrating the use of the model into the analyses that form a major component of the
overall evaluation studies. The Consultant has reviewed the output of the model at its base year
(2014) with newly obtained and other recent traffic volume counts. This provides a measure of
how the model can be used. The proposed analytical methods the consultant intends to use are
discussed.
A second model, a modified version of the original, was then constructed to refine the model
description for the area around the Caltrain crossings using new traffic data. A discussion on
this is also included.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Travel Demand Model Validation Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
2
2 Background and Use of the Travel
Demand Model
The Rail Corridor Circulation Study is set up to assess what the effect will be of the alternative
grade separation road/rail designs on the street based traffic. This will include all motorized
vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. This report addresses motorized vehicles only; other modes
are covered elsewhere.
Analyses of the Travel Demand Model reflect automobiles, taxis, road transit (bus and shuttles),
and trucks. The model simulates road traffic patterns and volumes in the road network. It is
responsive to connectivity in the road network and delay-generated-congestion on the road
network. It will simulate the rerouting of traffic to reflect all drivers (apart from fixed rate road
transit services), minimizing their journey times.
For this exercise, only the road traffic assignment model is used. There are other choice models
within the overall modeling framework (mainly location and mode choice), but they are not
considered to be impacted sufficiently by the alternative forms of grade crossings to be reflected
in the analyses.
The Travel Demand Model is very large (almost 3,000 zones) and is primarily intended to be
used to assess the impact of major changes in land use and transportation infrastructure and
services. For example, a major capacity increase of a freeway or changes in population or
employment in the City and surrounding area. However, the model is quite suitable for
assessing driver’s responses to major changes in road connectivity and delays generated by
congestion. It is also the best tool available for forecasting future growth in travel demand.
The Consultant will use the Travel Demand Model for two important elements of the analysis.
First, it will be used to assess the rerouting of drivers to respond to connectivity changes by
either grade separations or road closures replacing current at grade crossing, for example. This
will allow the impact of rerouting to be analyzed with the alternatives being tested. The second
use will be to assess the most likely growth of travel demand and its impact in the future years
at the key points in the road network. This growth will be applied to observed traffic volumes and
movements to project to a future year estimation of traffic conditions.
At the key intersection and grade crossings, a more detailed approach will be applied. New data
has been obtained from recent traffic counts and this data, along with the use of forecast growth
parameters, will be used as input to a more detailed modeling of the intersections. This is
described further in in the following sections of the report.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Travel Demand Model Validation Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
3
3 Model Review
Although the model geographically covers the whole Bay Area (nine counties), its focused area
is the City of Palo Alto, where it has more detailed information about the roadway network and
land use. The City model has 2,980 traffic analysis zones (TAZs). The zones are denser in the
City area than in other areas. The base year of the model is 2014, and the planning horizon
year is 2030. Figure 1 below shows the TAZs for the City of Palo Alto.
3.1 Figure 1: Traffic Analysis Zones
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Travel Demand Model Validation Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
4
3.1 Travel Demand Models
Two models were received from Hexagon Transportation Consultants, who currently maintains
the City model:
● 2014 base year model
● 2030 Alt 1 model. This is one of the many future year models of the City. The City has a
number of future year models, each representing a different planning scenario. The 2030 Alt
1 model is considered the most appropriate for this study, as it represents the currently
approved City Comprehensive Plan.
The City model has a number of traffic forecasting periods: AM peak 4-Hour, PM peak 4-Hour,
Mid-Day, and Night. In this study, only the peak hour traffic forecasts will be used, as those
represent the most critical conditions. The City model, however, does not produce peak hour
traffic directly. The peak hour forecasts have to be derived through factoring the AM 4-Hour and
PM 4-Hour traffic forecasts. The same process will be followed for forecasting peak hour traffic
in this study, as would be done for other infrastructure projects in the City.
3.2 Limitations of the Model
The City model is not an intersection based model in the sense that turning movement delay is
not explicitly modeled and is not sensitive to volume changes. The model is not intended to
address this level of detail. From the traffic operation point of view, this is a limitation of the
model because in urban streets, traffic delay is typically incurred at intersections instead of the
link level. This model uses speed/flow relationships with implicit (average) delays for
intersections.
3.3 Roadway Network in the Study Area
The City model is not built on a GIS network. It therefore lacks many roadway network details in
the study area. This is illustrated in Figure 2, where the thick blue lines represent the model
network while the gray lines represent the GIS network. It can be seen from the figure that there
are many streets that are not included in the model. The missing of those local streets, and the
fact that not all local streets are represented, may affect how traffic is assigned or routed in the
model. This is completely normal for a strategic model covering the size of area that it does.
Therefore, the model forecasts need to be examined on how they can be used for traffic
operations analysis.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Travel Demand Model Validation Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
5
Figure 2: Model Network vs. GIS Network
3.4 Study Intersections
This project has four (4) key study intersections / railway and highway crossings. In the following
section, the actual layout of these intersections is compared with what has been assumed in the
model. Aerial photos are used to show the actual layouts of these intersections. From north to
south the intersections are:
1. Palo Alto Ave with El Camino Real
2. Churchill Ave with Alma Street
3. Meadow Drive with Alma Street
4. Charleston Rd with Alma Street
Alma street is a four (4) lane arterial throughout the City and a main north-south route alongside
and immediately to the east of the Caltrain tracks. The intersecting streets have an east-west
orientation and are four (4) lanes in width.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Travel Demand Model Validation Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
6
Intersection 1: Palo Alto Ave / El Camino Real
The intersection is identified by Node 5255. The actual layout is presented in Figure 3 and the
model layout in Figure 4.
Figure 3: Palo Alto Avenue/ El Camino Real
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Travel Demand Model Validation Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
7
Figure 4: Palo Alto Avenue/El Camino Real in the City Model
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Travel Demand Model Validation Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
8
Intersection 2: Churchill Ave / Alma Street
The intersection is identified by Node 5507 in the City model. The actual layout is presented in
Figure 5 and the model layout in Figure 6.
Figure 5: Churchill Ave and Alma Street
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Travel Demand Model Validation Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
9
Figure 6: Churchill Avenue/Alma Street in the City Model
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Travel Demand Model Validation Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
10
Intersection 3: Meadow Drive / Alma Street
This intersection is identified by Node 4643 in the City model. The actual layout is presented in
Figure 7 and the model layout in Figure 8.
Figure 7: Meadow Drive and Alma Street
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Travel Demand Model Validation Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
11
Figure 8: Model Layout of Charleston Road and Meadow Drive Along Alma Street
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Travel Demand Model Validation Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
12
Figure 9: Charleston Road/ Alma Street
Intersection 4: Meadow Drive / Alma Street
This intersection is identified by Node 9350 in the City model. The actual intersection layout is
presented in Figure 9, and the model layout is presented in Figure 8.
3.5 Model Results Validation
The purpose of the model validation is to better understand the capacity of the model in
forecasting traffic at the corridor level in the study area, as well as the proper use of the model
forecast for traffic operations analysis. The validation is not intended to be a “critique” of the
model but rather to develop how it can be used in the process. The comparison of the modeled
with counted flows is highly unlikely to be the same:
● The model peak hour flows are converted from four (4) peak-hour traffic assignment results,
whereas the counted flows are true peak hour flows.
● Models of this size are not intended to be used at individual street or intersection level.
● The model does not represent all of the streets in the City.
● Traffic counts can also vary from day to day.
● The model is 2014, and the counts are 2015/16.
The model is validated in two ways. The first is to compare the 2014 traffic forecasts with the
2015/2016 traffic counts. The second way is to compare the 2014 traffic forecast with the 2030
traffic forecasts and check the reasonableness of the volume change, i.e., whether the volume
changes are reasonably explained by the network and land use changes.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Travel Demand Model Validation Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
13
3.6 2014 Model Results vs. Traffic Counts
The comparison of the base year traffic forecasts with traffic counts is summarized in Table 1.
The “Counts” column represents the 2015/2016/2017 observed traffic counts, and the “model”
column represents the traffic forecasts from the 2014 base year model (note: the El Camino
Real / Palo Alto Ave intersection traffic counts are from 2017, while those of other intersections
are from 2015/2016). The comparison is conducted for one hour in both the AM and PM peak
periods at the four key study intersections.
Table 1: Base Year Model Forecast Validation
Source: observed traffic counts and 2014 base year traffic forecast model
* GEH stands for Geoffrey Edward Havers, who developed a statistical method of measuring
the “goodness of fit” between two independent data sets. It is a modified Chi Squared test and
outputs a statistical value for the comparison. It has been adopted by the UK Department of
Transportation, many U.S. State DOTs, and the travel demand modeling industry in general.
A number of observations can be made from the comparison:
● The volume discrepancy between the model forecasts and the traffic counts demonstrates
that the model should not be used directly to estimate individual traffic flows. The general
standard is that when the GEH value is greater than 5.0, the data sets are not compatible,
which was to be expected.
● The model forecasts on Alma Street are generally lower than the observed traffic counts.
Based on the above, it was decided that future year traffic forecasts from the model should not
be used directly for traffic operational analyses at a detailed level and would be used to estimate
the growth in traffic demand. The models would also be used to identify changes in travel
patterns.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Travel Demand Model Validation Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
14
3.7 2030 Model Results vs. 2014 Model Results
The comparison between the 2030 future year forecasts and the base year forecasts is
presented in Table 2.
Table 2: 2030 Alt. 1 Model Forecast Validation
Source: observed traffic counts, and 2014/ 2030 year traffic forecast models
The comparison shows that:
● The 2030 future year traffic forecasts are systematically higher than the base year forecasts
along Alma Street. The volume growth incremental rate is roughly 2% annually. This is an
expected result.
● The cross-street traffic largely increases over time. But at a few locations, the future year
forecasts are lower than the base year forecasts by a small margin. There are some,
reassignments in the model that account for this.
The volume change seems to be consistent along Alma Street and the growth rate seems to be
reasonable. The growth shown is quite suitable to be added to traffic forecasts to derive a set of
improved 2030 traffic forecasts.
3.8 The Second Base Year Model
A second base year model was constructed to improve the modeling of traffic flows at the key
intersections on Alma Street.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Travel Demand Model Validation Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
15
This model was a refinement of the original City model, using a process called MEOD (Matrix
Estimation of Origins and Destinations), within the CUBE suite of programs. This process
modifies the trip tables to more closely reflect traffic count data that is input to the model.
Below, the methods used to modify the model are described.
A) Review the road network structure within the model and refine to a more detailed level
where necessary. To include TAZ link connectors in the review.
B) Prepare traffic count data and input to the CUBE ANALYST sub-model. The sub-model
uses a “matrix estimation by maximum entropy” (ME2) process to adjust the trip tables
to provide, when assigned to the network, the closest fit of model estimated flows to the
input observed flows.
C) Rerun base year AM & PM peak models and revalidate, using GEH statistical analyses.
The results are shown in table 3 below.
Table 3: Base Year Revised Model Validation
Int. with Alma St Approach
Direction
AM Peak PM Peak
Counts Model Diff Diff % GEH* Counts Model Diff Diff % GEH*
Palo Alto
Ave
NB 603 698 93 16% 4 820 1107 287 35% 9
EB 419 754 335 80% 14 523 731 208 40% 8
WB 22 31 8 37% 2 37 75 38 102% 5
Churchill
SB 697 653 45 6% 2 1249 1257 8 1% 0
NB 1452 1507 55 4% 1 1448 1445 7 0 0
EB 253 237 16 6% 1 436 437 1 0 0
WB 149 155 5 4% 0 150 150 0 0 0
Meadow
SB 823 822 1 0 0 1290 1275 15 1% 0
NB 1235 1235 0 0 0 1253 1272 19 2% 1
EB 403 404 1 0 0 357 362 5 1% 0
WB 398 398 0 0 0 437 443 6 1% 0
Charlest
on
SB 774 873 98 13% 3 1236 1350 114 9% 3
NB 1334 1233 102 8% 3 1442 1325 117 8% 3
EB 635 591 45 7% 2 520 479 42 8% 2
WB 397 448 51 13% 2 539 588 49 9% 2
As can be seen in the table, the degree of model fit to the traffic counts is much improved in the
area of the key Alma Street intersections.
The percentage of GEH statistics that are not greater than five (5) exceeds 85%. The average
GEH statistic is 3.0. The fit at Churchill Ave and Meadow Dr is very good and good at
Charleston Rd. This model may be used for future forecasting for a more precise analysis of the
key intersections of the Caltrain crossing routes with Alma Street.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Travel Demand Model Validation Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
16
4 Future Year Modeling Methodology
4.1 Travel Models
The City Travel Demand Models will be used to derive the growth in traffic volumes for all the
traffic operations analyses (TOA). This will be commenced by examining two different time
travel models:
● 2014 base year model. The model approximately represents the existing year condition.
● 2030 Alt 1 model. This model represents one of the City’s most likely future year conditions.
For this project, this model reflects the no-build condition.
Based on these two models, other models will be constructed to evaluate the future year
“project” conditions. The use of “project” in this instance means any planning or design
measures that are related to this study and to be explored in this study. A number of varying
project conditions will require evaluation. The approach is to add the forecast growth from the
models to the observed traffic volumes:
● Refined traffic forecast = counts + (future year model forecast – base year model forecast).
The approach is called “The Differences Method” and is described in the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program: Report 765 – Analytical Travel Forecasting Approaches for
Project-Level Planning and Design. The method is described briefly below in the following
Abstract:
“6.3 Factoring Procedure – Difference Method
6.3.1 Abstract
Factoring procedures are used to predict future year turning movements based on the
relationship between base year turning movement counts and base year model turning
movement assignments. The assumption is that future turning movements will be similar in
nature to existing turning movements. Based on this assumption, future year turning movements
can be estimated by comparing the relative differences between base year and future year
turning movement assignments. The procedure can be applied for both directional and non-
directional turning movements.
6.3.2 Context
Typical applications are intersection design, intersection capacity analysis, site impact studies,
traffic signal timing, and interchange studies.
Geography is site, corridor and wide area.
Typical time horizons are short range, interim, and long range.
Required input data are traffic counts and traffic model link assignments.
Optional input data are turning movement estimates and manual link forecasts.”
This approach was used for the 2030 sample scenario tests.
4.2 Improvement Plans in the Traffic Forecasting Model
Assuming the potential project alternatives in this study are limited to local roadway
improvements such as grade-separation, roadway signing and restriping, or even traffic signal
treatment, these improvements are unlikely to change the overall traffic demand or traffic
distribution pattern at the regional level. These local improvements typically affect only route
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Travel Demand Model Validation Report
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
17
choice: if a specific route becomes more attractive, it is going to draw more traffic from adjacent
parallel streets. This is essentially a traffic assignment issue.
It is also assumed that the above roadway improvements change traffic delay at the turning
movement level rather than the link level. For example, grade-separation effectively reduces
signal delays and thereby reduces intersection turning movement delay.
The following steps will be followed to incorporate each roadway improvement into the model:
● Revise the model network to reflect the geometric changes
● Estimate traffic delays due to the increase from four (4) trains each in the peak hour, each
direction, at current at-grade intersections, to ten trains each direction.
● Estimate the traffic delay as a result of these geometric changes, using traffic operation
models (Synchro).
● These will then be used to estimate turn penalties in the model at the intersections under
review.
More details on the methodology and the results of these tests will be contained in the next
section on the Analysis of the Sample Scenarios.
DR
A
F
T
xyz xyz xyz
C:\Users\GAL75108\Desktop\Palo Alto RPM files\done\Palo Alto TDM MV Report Oct
2017 Rev 2 nc.docx
Mott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald
4301 Hacienda Drive
Suite 300
Pleasanton CA 94588
United States of America
T +1 (925) 469 8010
F +1 (925) 469 8011
mottmac.com
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301 Analysis of Sample Scenarios
1-6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
January 20, 2018
City of Palo Alto
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
1
1 Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1-6
1.1 On 28 June 2017, a staff report was presented to the City Council Rail Committee entitled “Draft Rail
Program Circulation Study Scenarios.” In this Staff Report, six (6) different scenarios were
recommended for study that were intended to support the identification and evaluation of grade
separation alternatives. This document reports on the outcomes of those studies and also includes a
description of the background; the objectives; and the methodologies employed to obtain the results.
1.2 The intent of the Rail Corridor Circulation Study was to estimate the effect on traffic circulation under
up to eight (8) different scenarios that have been modeled using the regional/Citywide travel demand
model. This has been used to assess the diversionary (traffic rerouting) impacts of the possible
changes to the rail corridor road network in the City that future grade crossing layouts may cause. A
more detailed examination of the intersections at, and close to, the current at-grade crossings has
also been carried out using traffic operational models. These “Year 2030” scenarios include several
variations of grade crossings and grade separations at each railroad corridor crossing location. The
first two scenarios (“Year 2030 No Build Scenario One” and “Year 2030 No Build Scenario Two”) do
not include any new grade crossings, new grade separations or modifications to existing crossings,
as they refer to the “No Build” scenarios. The remaining six (6) scenarios (Year 2030 Scenarios 1
through 6) include varying collections of new multi-modal grade-separated crossings, new bicycle-
and-pedestrian-only grade-separated crossings, new grade separations, modified grade crossings,
and closed grade crossings. The analysis of scenarios is intended to inform the selection of grade
separations alternatives for more in-depth study and evaluation. These scenarios are for testing only
and are not intended to establish any policy directions or suppose a preferred alternative.
1.3 The impacts of any future modifications to the current at-grade and grade-separated crossings will
affect accessibility across the Caltrain tracks. To construct a grade separation where currently there
is an existing at-grade crossing, clearly reduces the interference or obstruction caused by that
crossing and therefore improves East/West access/capacity at that location. That may or may not
attract additional vehicular traffic to that crossing. Similarly, closing (i.e., eliminating) an existing at-
grade crossing will cause traffic to divert to other routes. The intent of this study is to assess
probable changes to motor vehicle and bicycle traffic circulation/demands under changes in
accessibility/capacity caused by railroad crossing related infrastructure improvement scenarios. To
the extent that it is possible with the demand models, an order-of-magnitude quantification of those
changes is described.
1.4 Even if no changes or modifications are made to the existing rail crossings, increases in traffic
demands driven by land-use and population growth would occur between existing and future (2030)
conditions. Vehicular traffic is forecast to grow at a little over 1% per year. The Caltrain service
modifications, made possible by the electrification, are likely to double the number of trains in the
peak periods compared to now, when they are implemented. There is also the potential for having
high-speed rail services on this line, in addition to Caltrain. The combination of the increased
frequency of gate closures at the crossings and increased traffic flows will undoubtedly increase
road congestion from what it is now.
1.5 Two types of Year 2030 “No Build” scenarios were first defined. A Year 2030 “No Build 1” scenario
was first developed that includes growth in traffic between current and Year 2030 conditions while
assuming no change to existing rail service frequencies, and no change in existing roadway
circulation conditions. Included in the Circulation Study tests, is another Year 2030 “No Build 2”
scenario where both the increased train frequencies and traffic growth (between existing and year
2030) are simulated within the demand models, while assuming no future construction occurs. The
“No Build 2” with both train frequencies and traffic volume scenario forms the ‘baseline’ from which
comparisons against the scenario tests are made.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
2
1.6 The current average number of gate closures caused by passing trains is 6-7 per hour over the peak
periods. The highest number in any one hour recorded is 10. The assumptions within the demand
modeling is that this will rise to an average of 20 by 2030 if both Caltrain Modernization and high-
speed-rail services are implemented. Caltrain current signal system headways allow for a maximum
of an express train every five (5) minutes and a local train every six (6) minutes. This would mean 24
express trains per hour for both directions if evenly spaced at five-minute intervals and 20 local
trains per hour if evenly spaced at six-minute intervals. Neither of these conditions would be likely to
occur in “real life”. Firstly, the service will most likely be a mixture of both local and express trains
and secondly, running at uniform minimum headways through a peak hour is highly unlikely to be
achievable in practice. Therefore, by assuming a maximum of 20 gate closures per hour over the
peak periods, the model is addressing the likely worst-case scenario in terms of traffic disruption.
It is also likely that with such intense service frequencies, that occasionally, a single-gate closure
could accommodate two (2) trains passing in opposite directions, meaning that the number of gate
closures was actually less than the total two-way train frequency.
1.7 Finally, conclusions are drawn from the series of ‘sensitivity’ tests carried out for alternative
scenarios. It is important to note what is forecast to happen if nothing is done to improve the
crossings and not only whether diversions will occur under various scenarios of infrastructure
changes, but whether their impact is likely to be significant or not. The study area is shown in Figure
1.1.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
3
2. Study Methods
2.1 A two-step analysis process was used to complete the circulation study. A large-scale
regional/citywide traffic demand model is first used to estimate both the growth in traffic
demand within the road network and the diversion impacts that any proposed changes to
the road infrastructure will cause. The demand model is fully described in the “Travel Model
Validation Report.” Since the regional model cannot simulate traffic flows reliably at an
individual roadway link or intersection level, a more refined post-processing of forecasts and
operational analysis at an individual intersection level is completed in the second step. This
is described below.
2.2 The Travel Demand Model runs on a “Cube Voyager” software platform. This is a universally
accepted platform throughout the planning industry. The model itself comes from the MTC
and Santa Clara VTA regional models and is compatible with all models used for
infrastructure planning on the Peninsula and the Bay Area. The models are forecast to the
future year of 2030 and outputs estimates of traffic volume conditions for the hourly average
of a four-hour peak period in both the morning and afternoon for an average week day. Both
inputs to and outputs from the Travel Demand Models and the operational models are
mounted on the City’s website.
2.3 The Travel Demand Model is a four-stage model in which trip generation, trip distribution
(locations), mode choice (motor vehicle, transit or rail) and assignment (either highway,
transit or rail networks) are estimated. The model is calibrated on observations at a base-
year against land-use and population data. For future year forecasts to 2030, the main input
to the models are the future year assumptions on the 2030 land uses; populations;
employment and car ownership. This is the same model that has been used for developing
the transportation elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The model is owned by and is
accessible through the City of Palo Alto.
2.4 This model was used, together with traffic count data, to develop the forecast traffic flows for
the sample scenarios. Subsequently a second base year model was developed that
incorporated a later set of traffic county data (November 2017) local to the at-grade
intersections to refine the model focus on these intersections. This is reported in the Existing
Conditions and the Travel Model Validation Sections. However, the original model is the one
that was used for forecasting to 2030.
2.5 The train frequencies that cause gate closures during the peak periods vary considerably at
the crossing locations from three (3) per hour to ten (10) per hour. The highest frequencies
tend to be 8:00-9:00 am and 6:00-7:00 pm. The other variable involved is the crossing traffic
volume. It is a combination of these two variables that produces congestion. Crossing traffic
volume peaks at different times at different location and at different times to the train
frequency peaks. For example, at the Palo Alto crossing, westbound traffic peaks between
11:00 am and 12:00 pm. At Churchill Rd and E/W Meadow Dr, the afternoon peak hour for
eastbound traffic is 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm. So, a single peak-hour demand model would not
capture all the peak conditions and would not be fully representative for analysis. By
adopting the City’s Demand Model that covers a four-hour peak period for both the AM and
PM, the study has encapsulated the dynamic variables that make up traffic congestion.
The qualification being that the highest peaks at individual locations could generate more
congestion for a short time than the model would predict.
A further issue is that of a phenomenon called “peak spreading.” As traffic congestion
grows, drivers tend to change their time of travel to avoid the worst conditions. It is traffic
saturated conditions that cause “peak spreading” to happen, where the physical capacity of
the system is reached. When looking at the possibility of a 20% growth of traffic by the year
2030, it is likely that the highest peak traffic volumes could not be accommodated by some
parts of the road network capacity. The result would be an expansion of the peak conditions
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
4
to a wider time period. By using a four-hour average peak period, this growth can be
realistically simulated by the demand model.
The analyses of the operational conditions, however, does use current peak hour volumes,
with growth added by the demand model to analyze those conditions in the future forecast
year of 2030. This means that the operational analyses will have captured the most
congested conditions.
2.6 The individual intersection-level forecasts were developed using Year 2017 intersection
turning-volume level ground counts as the basis. Each of the critical intersections that
include the rail crossings were surveyed for two (2) days in 2017, (one in February and one
in November) with new weekday peak-hour traffic counts obtained at thirteen (13) study
intersections. This included the actual rail crossing intersections as well as the closely
located and influential adjacent intersections.
2.7 The traffic count data and forecasts were used as input to a traffic operational modeling
procedure to analyze the performance of the intersection. The software platform is
Synchro® (Version 8). This is a popular traffic operational analysis software platform that is
universally used and accepted throughout North America. This was completed for
February’s 2017 data set.
2.8 The Synchro® analysis was initially used for the 2017 (actual) conditions and reported in the
Existing Conditions Report. For the future forecast year of 2030, the 2017 count data was
modified/refined to reflect regional-model forecasted growth in traffic demand through year
2030 from year 2017. The impact, as a result of traffic growth, was analyzed with the
Synchro® software. The Demand Model was used to estimate that growth. The result is that
at individual intersections, the peak one-hour (as opposed to the four-hour average of the
peak period) demands are more accurately represented.
Two (2) separate appraisals were carried out for the 2017 analyses. The initial one used the
February 2017 data and the second one used the November 2017 data. Compared to other
data that was available, including the November 2017 counts, it seems likely that there was
a bias in the February 2017 data. This was thought to be caused by atypical traffic demand
and behavior from events being held that were outside normal weekday activities. This is
reported in the Existing Conditions Section of this Report.
It was therefore concluded that the second data set, relating to the November 2017 traffic
counts, should be considered as the most realistic. However, the differences from using
either of the two (2) data sets in forecasting are unlikely to be significant. The probability is
that one level-of-service difference may occur in a minority of cases. Certainly the overall
impact analyses are highly unlikely to change.
2.9 To address the important issue of Bicycle accessibility, a separate analysis procedure was
used. This consisted of developing an accessibility map, based on travel time contours (an
isochronic analysis), using a GIS-based mapping procedure. This plots the travel distance
that can be achieved with 5, 10, 15 and 20-minute cycling times. The process, therefore,
easily identifies the ability of bicyclists to make east/west movements across the Caltrain
tracks and indicates where there is good and poor accessibility. The average bicycle speed
was taken as 12 mph, which is what the City typically uses to time traffic signals along
bikeways.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
5
3. Scenario Specifications
3.1 Six (6) separate circulation sample scenarios were tested with both the morning (AM) and
afternoon (PM) peak period models at a future forecast year of 2030. These are presented
in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 describes the six (6) scenarios that are analyzed and Table 2 is a
tabular representation of the scenarios.
3.2 For each at-grade crossing, there are a variety of treatments available.
● Remain as it is today with all-modes having access. (No change)
● Closure for all modes. (Motor vehicles)
● Closure for vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, but retaining Pedestrian and Bicycle access,
either remaining at-grade or grade separated.
● Grade separation for all modes.
● Widen existing grade-separated crossings.
There are other measures that can also be implemented such as remaining as an at-grade
crossing for all modes but imposing a quiet zone. This is not an option that can be analyzed
within the modeling procedures in the circulation studies, but is a qualitative assessment in
terms of impacts. For the demand model tests, there is no sensitivity to the type of grade
separation that may be employed, only that the current obstruction caused by the presence
of the rail crossing is removed.
3.3 An analysis of the details of traffic operations for specific designs will be the subject of
further work when the alternatives are being considered.
3.4 The following are the crossing locations and their current (or future committed) conditions:
● Palo Alto Avenue (AKA Alma Street) – existing at-grade, all modes
● Everett Avenue/Lytton Avenue – planned grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian
● University Avenue – existing grade-separated, all modes
● Homer Avenue – existing grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian
● Embarcadero Road – existing grade-separated, all modes
● Churchill Avenue – Existing at-grade, all modes
● California Avenue – existing grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian
● Oregon Expressway – existing grade-separated with no pedestrian access
● Loma Verde Avenue/Matadero Creek – planned grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian
● East/West Meadow Drive – existing at-grade, all modes
● East/West Charleston Road – existing at-grade, all modes
● San Antonio Road – existing grade-separated, all modes
This represents the “No Build” infrastructure condition.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
6
Table 1, below, presents a general description of each of the sample scenarios that were
tested. All were analyzed for the future forecast year of 2030.
Also, to be noted is that where the circulation study assumes grade separations, it does not
differentiate between the type of separation (below grade, above grade, etc.). This is due to
the focused nature of the analyses and means that additional circulation analysis will likely
be needed for grade separation alternatives that emerge through the community process if,
for example, the type of separation results in local street closures in the vicinity. It was also
assumed that all grade separations included full connections (both turning and through
movements) with Alma Street, as it exists today.
Table 1 - Description of Test Scenarios
Scenario General Description of Changes
No Build – Scenario 1 No changes to the crossings; existing rail service levels.
No Build – Scenario 2 No changes to the crossings; additional Caltrain plus High-Speed Rail Service for the peak
period the forecast frequencies. (6 Caltrain and 4 HSR trains per hour in each direction in the
peak periods.)
Sample Scenario 1
(Low Build)
Closed at-grade crossings at Palo Alto Ave (AKA Alma St), Churchill Ave, and E/W Meadow Dr;
widened grade-separated crossing at Embarcadero Rd; new grade-separated crossing at E/W
Charleston Rd.
Sample Scenario 2
(Low-Medium Build)
Closed at-grade crossings at Palo Alto Ave (AKA Alma St) and E/W Meadow Dr; new grade-
separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing at Everett Ave/Lytton Ave and Loma Verde Ave/Matadero
Creek; new quiet zone at-grade crossing at Churchill Ave; new grade-separated crossing at E/W
Charleston Rd
Sample Scenario 3
(Medium Build)
Widened grade-separated crossing at Embarcadero Rd; new grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian
crossing at Churchill Ave and E/W Meadow Dr; new grade-separated crossing at E/W Charleston
Rd
Sample Scenario 4
(Full Build Phase 1)
New grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing at Loma Verde Ave/Matadero Creek; new
grade-separated crossing at E/W Charleston Rd
Sample Scenario 5
(Full Build Option A)
New at-grade quiet zone crossing at Palo Alto Ave (Alma St); new grade-separated
bicycle/pedestrian crossings at Churchill Ave and Loma Verde Ave/Matadero Creek; new grade-
separated crossing at E/W Meadow Dr and E/W Charleston Rd
Sample Scenario 6
(Full Build Option B)
New grade-separated crossings at Palo Alto Ave (AKA Alma St), E/W Meadow Dr, and E/W
Charleston Rd; new grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian crossings at Everett Ave/Lytton Ave and
Loma Verde Ave/Matadero Creek; widened grade-separated crossing at Embarcadero Rd
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
7
Table 2 - Rail Corridor Circulation Study: Traffic Measures
Crossing
Existing
(No
Build)
Sample Scenario
1 2 3 4 5 6
Low
Build
Low-
Medium
Build
Medium
Build
Full
Build
Phase 1
Full Build
Option A
Full Build
Option B
Palo Alto Ave
(AKA Alma St)
A X X A A Q S
University Ave S S S S S S S
Embarcadero Rd S W S W S S W
Churchill Ave A X Q A A A A
Oregon Expwy S S S S S S S
E/W Meadow Dr A X X A A S S
E/W Charleston
Rd
A S S S S S S
Key EXISTING Bicycle and Pedestrian measures for these scenarios are contained in Table 6.
NEW
4. Scenario Test Results 1: Traffic Diversions
4.1 For the six (6) test scenarios, the travel demand model was used to assess the diversion
effects. The model was used to estimate how travel patterns will change when accessibility
changes. This shows where increases and decreases occur in traffic volumes when a
scenario is compared to the “No Build” scenarios. These are shown graphically in Figures
4.1 to 4.12. The “No Build Scenario 1” will include all infrastructure and rail service as it
exists today (2017) with the forecasted 2030 traffic demand. The “No Build Scenario 2”
includes all infrastructure as it exists today, but with the forecasted 2030 traffic demand and
the increase in the frequency of rail crossing gate closures resulting from proposed Caltrain
and High-Speed Rail service.
4.2 In 2030, the train frequency in the peak periods of the average weekday is forecast to
increase to around three times today’s service levels (i.e., from an average of 6-7 trains per
hour to 20 trains per hour). This assumes both Caltrain and high-speed rail future forecast
services will be operating. It could be speculated that even if high-speed rail is not in service
by then, the demand for Caltrain services could push the train frequency to that level. That
could be near to a practical saturation level for Caltrain services to operate if no further
modifications (such as more passing tracks) are constructed.
In simple capacity terms, this translates to approximately a 20% reduction in vehicular
capacities across the Caltrain at-grade crossings from today. For both the No-Build Scenario
1 and Scenario 2, a 15% increase in total vehicular traffic volumes crossing the rail lines
within the City is forecast through Year 2030 over existing conditions.
4.3 The difference between No Build Scenario 1 and No Build Scenario 2 is that there would be
a vehicular traffic rerouting effect for the individual crossings due to the increase in grade-
crossing congestion caused by effectively tripling the potential for gate closures. Essentially
crossing traffic reduces on Palo Alto Ave; E/W Meadow Dr and Charleston Rd and
increases on Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Rd. There is little effect on Churchill
A = At Grade Q = Quiet Zone W = Widened Grade Separated
X = Closed to all Traffic S = Grade Separated
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
8
Ave; University Ave and Embarcadero Rd. So, there is a redistribution of routing to the
grade-separated crossings in the south of the City.
4.4 In the rest of the comparisons, the “No Build Scenario 2” option is assumed to be the
baseline, so in Figures 4.1 to 4.12, the “traffic differences” diagrams are shown for each
scenario against the “No Build Scenario 2”, with the red overlay showing which roads will
have increased traffic flows and the green overlay showing where traffic flows will be
reduced. For each scenario, a summary of this is included with a description of the effect on
the volumes using the various rail crossings within the City.
4.5 SAMPLE SCENARIO 1
Sample Scenario 1 has three (3) of the at-grade crossings closed and Charleston Rd. grade
separated. Embarcadero Rd is widened. The total 2030 traffic crossing reduces to 2017
levels, so the growth is effectively rerouted out of the City. University Ave and Embarcadero
Rd experience small increases but Charleston Rd experiences very high increases in traffic
flows, over 50% above the No Build Scenario 2 flows, shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.2.
4.6 SAMPLE SCENARIO 2
Scenario 2 has Palo Alto Ave and Meadow Dr closed; Churchill Ave remaining at grade and
Charleston Rd grade separated. The total crossing traffic flows reduce by around 10% from
the No Build Scenario 2 conditions, so around 5% above today’s conditions. There is some
small amount of increases to traffic on the grade-separated crossings, with the exception of
Charleston Rd which experiences over 50% increase in traffic flow.
In the westbound direction, Oregon Expressway is likely to exceed LOS D. In the eastbound
direction, Embarcadero Rd is likely to be congested, well above LOS D. University Ave is
not likely to exceed LOS D. Shown in Figures 4.3 and 4.4.
4.7 SAMPLE SCENARIO 3
Scenario 3 has the existing grade separation at Embarcadero Rd being widened and with
Charleston Rd grade separated. There are slight increases for Palo Alto Ave and
Embarcadero Rd but over a 50% increase from the No Build Scenario 2 for Charleston Rd.
The widening of Embarcadero Rd reduces potential congestion and assists in balancing the
traffic volumes between the grade-separated crossing. The widening, therefore, is a
justifiable measure and serves the purpose for which it is intended. Both Palo Alto Ave and
Embarcadero Rd are likely not to exceed LOS D. Shown in Figures 4.5 and 4.6.
4.8 SAMPLE SCENARIO 4
The only change from No Build Scenario 2 to Sample Scenario 4 is that a grade separation
for Charleston Road is included. There is little change except for Charleston Rd itself, which
attracts over an additional 50% of traffic flow. Shown in Figures 4.7 and 4.8.
4.9 SAMPLE SCENARIO 5
Scenario 5 has an at-grade quiet zone at Palo Alto Ave and grade separations at Charleston
Rd and Meadow Dr. Churchill Ave remains at-grade. Both Meadow Dr and Charleston Rd
experience a high level of additional traffic flow. This is likely to have the effect of having
similar traffic operating conditions as today, on the existing grade separations. So, the traffic
growth is taken up by the new grade-separated crossings. Shown in Figures 4.9 and 4.10.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
9
4.10 SAMPLE SCENARIO 6
This scenario offers the greatest level of total capacity increase for the crossings within the
City of all the scenarios tested. It has all the specifications of sample scenario 5 with the
addition of widening at Embarcadero Rd and Palo Alto Ave grade separated. Churchill Ave
stays the same as today. Each of the former at-grade crossings that are assumed to be
grade separated attract substantial additional traffic flows – much of which is diverted from
the existing grade-separated crossings in the City. The existing grade-separated crossings
operate with similar levels of traffic flow to today and substantially better than in No Build
Scenario 2. Shown in Figures 4.11 and 4.12.
4.11 DISCUSSION ON TRAFFIC DIVERSION OUTCOMES
Although six (6) scenarios is only a fraction of the vast number of possible combinations and
permutations for different layouts of the crossings in the City, it seems the tests completed
provide a reasonable picture of likely outcomes of different scenarios. These range from
Sample Scenario 1, the most restrictive, which is specified to close down all the at-grade
crossings except Charleston Rd, to Sample Scenario 6, that includes grade separating
every crossing that is currently at-grade, except for Churchill Ave.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
10
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
11
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
12
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
13
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
14
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
15
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
16
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
17
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
18
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
19
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
20
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
21
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
22
In general, the outcomes of the tests are intuitive with those crossings that remain at grade
shedding traffic to either the existing grade-separated crossings or any that will be newly
constructed as grade separated. The exception is Churchill Ave which seems relatively
insensitive to changes in the layout and functions of the crossings. This may be because
Churchill is used for very local trips that are unlikely to reroute without significant
inconvenience.
4.12 If the grade separations were to be constructed, then some rerouting would occur from the
existing grade separations. Charleston Rd is particularly likely to experience this if it is grade
separated; specifically attracting traffic that currently uses the San Antonio Road grade-
separated crossing. Charleston Rd and Arastradero Rd corridor is one of the few connecting
routes for I-280 and US 101
Sample Scenario 1 is likely to divert the 15% growth in traffic demand from today to 2030,
out of the City and divert existing traffic from the routes that are closed to those that are
grade separated. This is shown in Figures 4.13 and 4.14.
It should be noted that in Figures 4.13 to 4.16 the increases are compared to current
conditions, not to the “No Build Scenario 2.” This gives a perspective to the likely increases
compared to today.
4.13 Sample Scenario 6 displays about the highest crossing capacity of the six (6) sample
scenarios for vehicular traffic. Churchill Ave is not assumed grade separated, but seems
fairly insensitive to change and may not make any significant difference. Sample Scenario 6
is technically equivalent to having the Caltrain track below or above ground for the whole
length through the City, from a traffic modeling perspective.
This Scenario attracts some 5% more total crossing traffic than No Build Scenario 2. All
routes that are currently at-grade and become grade separated in Scenario 6 will attract
significant additional volumes of traffic, as can be seen in Figures 4.15 and 4.16. Much of
this traffic reroutes from existing grade crossings, particularly San Antonio Road.
4.14 In Table 3 – a summary assessment of the likely effects of the different proposals for the at-
grade treatments are shown, as demonstrated by the model. Forecast traffic volumes for
roads across the Caltrain tracks for 2017, 2030 NB1 and NB2 and 2030 Scenarios 1-6 for
AM and PM peak hours are included in Appendix A.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
23
Table 3 - Response of the at-grade intersections to change
Remain
at-grade Closed Grade-separated
Palo Alto Ave
/ Alma St
Little effect Sheds small amount of traffic
to Ravenswood Ave and
University Ave
Significantly increases traffic flows.
(~30%)
Churchill Ave Little effect Considerable diversion to
Embarcadero Rd, which if
widened could operate
satisfactorily.
It is suspected that there would be little
effect on other grade crossings, if other
separations implemented. Could attract
small amounts of traffic.
E/W Meadow
Drive
As traffic grows, will shed to
Oregon Expressway and
Charleston Rd (if grade
separated)
Some diversion to Charleston
Road; significant if Charleston
is grade-separated
Significantly increases traffic flows
(~50%)
Charleston
Rd
As traffic grows, will shed to
San Antonio Road
Not tested but likely to either
shed significant traffic to San
Antonio Road or reduce traffic
overall
Significant increases to traffic flows
(50+%). Some diverts from San Antonio
Rd.
Condition
Location
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
24
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
25
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
26
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
27
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
28
5. Scenario Test Results 2: Intersection Analyses
5.1 GENERAL
This section of the report describes the results of a more detailed examination of the
operational performance of the intersections. The computer program Synchro® (version 8)
was used for the analysis. For each intersection, the traffic flows surveyed in 2017 were
used as input with the addition of forecast traffic growth from 2017 to 2030. The growth was
estimated using the travel demand model.
The forecast traffic flows are described below. This is followed by an analysis of the
conditions, in terms of traffic delay and queues, that are likely to occur if the Caltrain
services are increased to, firstly, Caltrain modernization specification and secondly, to both
the Caltrain Modification and high-speed rail specification for train service frequencies. This
section then describes the more detailed analyses that have been carried out for the
performance of the intersections under Sample Scenarios 1 to 6. Finally, a discussion is
included in the results.
5.2 TRAFFIC FLOWS
The intersections analyzed are shown in Figure 5.1. and listed below.
5.3 The following are the intersections that have been examined:
● Palo Alto Avenue/Alma St (unsignalized intersection)
● El Camino Real/Palo Alto Ave/Sand Hill Rd
● Churchill Ave/Alma St
● Churchill Ave/Mariposa Ave (unsignalized intersection)
● Churchill Ave/Madrona Ave (unsignalized intersection)
● Meadow Dr/Ramona St (unsignalized intersection)
● Meadow Dr/Alma St
● Meadow Dr/Park Blvd (unsignalized intersection)
● Meadow Dr/Wilkie Way
● Charleston Rd/Wright Pl (unsignalized intersection)
● Charleston Rd/Alma St
● Charleston Rd/Park Blvd (unsignalized intersection)
● Charleston Rd/Wilkie Way
These intersections were all subject to count surveys in 2017 – as reported and analyzed in
the “Existing Conditions Report.”
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
29
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
30
5.4 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS FOR “NO BUILD” SCENARIOS
Tests were carried out for a number of possible conditions for the future:
2017 - current conditions
2020 - Caltrain Modernization train frequency increases
2030 - Caltrain Modernization and high-speed-rail train frequency increases (No
Build Scenario 2)
In Figure 5.2, the average vehicle delays are shown under the three (3) analysis years
described above. As can be seen, particularly in the PM peak, delays are forecast to at least
double in many cases from 2017 to 2030.
5.5 Figures 5.3 and 5.4 show the likely queue formation for the future year of 2030 in the PM
peak for a “No Build Scenario 2” condition. The PM peak, generally, has higher volume of
flows than the AM peak. Queues become a more serious issue when they cause gridlock by
backing up through intersections that are up-stream (in traffic flow terms) of the intersection
under examination. As can be seen, this occurs at a number of the intersections under
review and particularly on El Camino Real, which is a major route through the City.
5.6 Table 4 below shows the typical level-of-service (LOS) for the key traffic flows that cross the
rail track for the three (3) analysis years at each of the at-grade crossings (as set out above
in 5.4).
Table 4 – Level-of-Service of Key Rail Crossing Movements
Crossing 2017 2020 2030
Palo Alto Ave E/F F F
Churchill Ave E F F
Meadow Dr D/E D/E E/F
Charleston Rd E/F F F
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
31
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
32
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
33
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
34
5.7 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS UNDER SAMPLE SCENARIOS 1-6 AT 2030
Table 5 shows a summary of the motor vehicle level-of-service (LOS) for traffic operations at
the intersections analyzed on the Caltrain track crossing routes, that are currently at grade
as set out in paragraph 5.3 and shown in Figure 5.1. The LOS is for the times when the rail
gates are not closed. For the LOS for times when the gates are closed, Table 4 should be
referred to. It should be remembered that the forecast flows into the intersections vary
considerably between different scenarios and therefore the LOS will also vary. For example,
when an existing at-grade crossing is assumed to be grade separated in a scenario, it is
likely to attract more traffic, which then can deteriorate the intersection LOS’s on that route.
This also means that some routes that remain at-grade will operate at a better LOS during
times when the rail crossing gate is open, than when they are assumed to be grade
separated. This is usually because traffic is deterred from using a route with an at-grade
crossing because of the likelihood of gate closures. When a route that was previously at-
grade is proposed for grade-separation, the demand model shows it will attract additional
traffic and that additional traffic may cause a deterioration in the operating LOS at the
intersections on that route. When future alternative (more detailed) designs for grade
operations are carried out, these conditions may well be improved.
Table 5 – Level-of-Service of Traffic Operations at the Intersections on the Rail Track Crossing
Routes
Sample Scenarios
“No Build”
Scenario 2 1 2 3 4 5 6
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Palo Alto Ave C C A A A A C C C C C C C F
Churchill Ave C D A A C C C D C C C C C D
Meadow Dr C C C C C C C C C C E F E D
Charleston Rd D E F F F F F F F F F F F F
5.8 DISCUSSION ON TRAFFIC OPERATION ANALYSES
Under the “No Build Scenario 2” condition which assumes maximum increase in train
services from Caltrain and high-speed-rail, all of the at-grade crossings are likely to operate
at LOS-F for traffic signal phases during which a rail track gate closure is included. With the
forecast frequencies of closures, this will occur on an increasing number of occasions during
the peak periods (one every three [3] minutes on average). Conversely, if an at-grade
crossing remains at-grade, traffic will likely divert to other routes and this may improve the
operating LOS for periods when no gate closures occur.
5.9 For routes where currently at-grade crossings are converted to grade separations, additional
traffic is likely to be attracted which may deteriorate the LOS for all intersections on that
route. This can be seen in Table 5; however, where the all mode closures of the rail
crossings at Palo Alto Ave; Churchill Ave and Meadow Dr (Scenario 1) are implemented, it
may improve the LOS of the surrounding intersections.
If closures were to be implemented and traffic diverted to existing grade crossings, then the
LOS on Embarcadero Rd and Oregon Expressway are likely to operate higher than LOS D.
Crossing
Route
Scenario
& Time
Period
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
35
Without widening, Embarcadero Rd in an eastbound direction would likely be highly
congested and above LOS D.
5.10 A further consideration is that the actual timings of the gate-crossing cannot be predicted
precisely. There is a randomness associated with arrival time of the train within a given time
period. This is exacerbated by the fact that the services are two-way operations, each
direction having their own frequency characteristics. This may mean that on occasions, the
traffic queuing from one signal phase that included a gate closure may not sufficiently
recover to a normal non-gate closure condition, before another gate-closure phase occurs
for the traffic signal. Conversely, opposite direction trains may utilize one gate closure,
resulting in more open gate time within a given window.
5.11 In summary, for those crossing routes that remain at-grade, it is likely that the intersections
will operate at LOS F for the times when there is a gate closure. Due to traffic being
attracted away from these routes, because of the likelihood of drivers experiencing a gate
closure, the traffic volumes on those routes are likely to reduce. This would mean the LOS
would improve when no gate closures occurred. However, for the forecast train frequencies
in 2030 under the full impact of Caltrain Modernization and high-speed-rail specifications,
the likelihood of a traffic signal phase including a gate closure becomes very much higher
than today.
For those routes that do have future grade separated Caltrain track crossings, where none
exist today, increased traffic flows are likely to occur and thus the LOS at the intersections
on that route may deteriorate.
6. Bicycle & Pedestrian Accessibility
6.1 As part of the scenario testing, a variety of different proposals for new bicycle and
pedestrian crossings for the Caltrain track were prepared. These are shown in Table 6
below.
As part of any future grade-separated crossings, both bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be
fully accommodated within the overall infrastructure designs. These will be equivalent in
access and safety terms to the latest standards and to any of the other newly constructed
Bicycle/Pedestrian-only grade separations.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
36
Table 6 - Rail Corridor Circulation Study: Bicycle and Pedestrian Measures for the Sample Scenarios
1-6
Crossing
Existing
(No
Build)
Sample Scenario
1 2 3 4 5 6
Low
Build
Low-
Medium
Build
Medium
Build
Full Build
Phase 1
Full Build
Option A
Full Build
Option B
opEverett
Ave/Lytton Ave
- - B/P - - - B/P
Homer Ave B/P B/P B/P B/P B/P B/P B/P
Churchill Ave 1 - - B/P - B/P -
California Ave B/P B/P B/P B/P B/P B/P B/P
Loma Verde Ave/
Matadero Creek
- - B/P - B/P B/P B/P
E/W Meadow Dr. 1 - - B/P - - -
Key EXISTING
NEW
B/P = Grade-Separated Bicycle/Pedestrian Only
1 = In close proximity
6.2 The sample scenarios with crossing closures for all modes (1 and 2) if implemented without
the provision of pedestrian and bicycle-crossing facilities close by, would seriously
deteriorate mobility for those modes of travel. For the No Build Scenario 2 and as it is today,
there is a significant gap between Oregon Expressway and Meadow Dr. With Sample
Scenario 1, this gap is extended by the closure of Meadow Dr. Added to this, new gaps
would appear between Oregon Expressway and Churchill Ave and north of Palo Alto Ave.
Sample Scenario 2 is a considerable improvement on Sample Scenario 1 with the addition
of new Bicycle/Pedestrian-crossing facilities at Everett Ave/Lytton Ave and at Loma Verde
Ave/Matadero Creek. Sample Scenario 2 though, still reduces mobility north of Palo Alto
Ave by closing it, and also, marginally between the new Loma Verde Ave/Matadero Ave
crossing and Charleston Rd, by closing Meadow Dr.
6.3 Sample Scenario 6 provides the maximum accessibility for Bicyclists and Pedestrians of all
the scenarios tested. As all at-grade crossings are assumed grade separated, except
Churchill Ave, and all proposed new grade-separated crossings for bicycle and pedestrian
are assumed constructed, the overall level of accessibility is very high. This is shown in
Figure 6.3. The only remaining at-grade crossing that does not have improved Bicycle and
Pedestrian crossing facilities would be Churchill Avenue
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
37
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
38
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
39
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
40
7. Road Safety
7.1 The Existing Conditions Report, the accident data showed the following in Table 7.
Table 7: Study Area Intersection Roadway Accident Data 2011-2015
Alma St & Palo Alto
Ave
Alma St & Churchill
Ave
Alma St & Meadow
Dr
Alma St &
Charleston Rd
Total Collisions 6 30 25 27
Injury Collisions 1 10 11 10
Fatal Collisions 0 0 0 1
Source: SWITRS data provided by City of Palo Alto, 2017
Churchill Ave, Meadow Dr and Charleston Rd all have around the same level of total
collisions and injury-related collisions, with one (1) fatality at Charleston Rd. Any new
construction to the latest standards, particularly a grade separation or closure, is likely to
reduce the potential for accidents.
8. Summary and Conclusions
8.1 The Traffic Circulation Study tests were carried out with the City’s Travel Demand Model for
examining the impacts of traffic growth and any traffic diversionary effects from the different
layouts and combinations of grade separations. Although the number of permutations and
combinations of different forms of treatment to the Caltrain crossings are potentially very
high, the six (6) representative tests carried out have provided a reasonable picture of what
is likely to happen under the most foreseeable/practical scenarios.
8.2 Six (6) sample scenarios were tested that ranged from a very restricted accessibility
specification to one with a very high level of accessibility across the Caltrain tracks.
8.3 Total growth in traffic across the Caltrain track crossing from now (2017) to 2030 is forecast
to be around 15% under “No Build” condition.
8.4 Under a “No Build Scenario 2” condition (i.e., with the expected maximum of 20 trains per
hour during peak periods), the increased delays at the at-grade crossings would cause
traffic to divert to the currently grade-separated crossings; particularly Oregon Expressway
and San Antonio Rd. The conditions on both of these routes is likely to be worse than LOS
D.
8.5 For a situation with the higher level of restricted access (Sample Scenario 1), the test
assumed closure of the Palo Alto Ave; Churchill Ave and Meadow Dr at-grade crossings.
Charleston Rd was assumed grade separated. For this scenario, the overall 2030 traffic
volumes across the Caltrain track within the City would reduce to levels that exist today and
the ‘growth’ would be diverted out of the City.
8.6 Sample Scenarios 1 and 2 would seriously reduce bicycle and pedestrian accessibility
across the Caltrain track and, therefore, active transportation mobility in general, unless
newly constructed crossings were provided in the same or close-by locations.
8.7 For the scenarios with a number of grade separations replacing currently at-grade
crossings, the total 2030 traffic across the Caltrain tracks could grow by more than 20%
from today. This means some traffic is diverted in from outside the City compared to a “No
Build” conditions.
Location
Item
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
41
8.8 In all cases, currently at-grade crossings, if they were to be grade separated, would attract
traffic from the existing grade-separated crossings. Charleston Rd and Meadow Dr are likely
to attract over 50% increases relative to the No Build Scenario 2 with Palo Alto Ave over
30%. Much of the additional traffic would be diverted from the currently grade-separated
crossings. This is likely to improve the LOS on all the existing grade-separated crossings.
8.9 The model shows that the traffic that diverts to be the longer distance traffic, whereby
decisions by drivers on changes in routing are made outside the City.
8.10 The more detailed examination of the individual intersection traffic operations shows that
under the forecast “No Build Scenario 2” conditions, the intersection at the rail crossings
would be operating at Level-of-Service F on an overall basis and could incur at least twice
the delay experienced today.
8.11 For Caltrain crossing routes within the City that are assumed to remain at-grade, the traffic
flow volumes are forecast to experience little change from 2017, and any additional traffic
due to growth diverts to those crossings where there are grade separations. Such grade
separations may be the existing ones or newly constructed ones. Thus, the traffic
operational conditions for the routes that remain at-grade remain similar to today when a
gate-closure does not interfere with the signal phasing. However, for the signal phases
where a gate closure does impose on the phasing conditions, the motor vehicle level-of-
service drops to F. In 2030 with full Caltrain modernization and high-speed rail train pre-
emptions, this would occur a substantial number of times during the peak periods.
8.12 For the Caltrain crossing routes within the City that are assumed to be upgraded from at-
grade to grade separated, the traffic volumes are likely to increase substantially. This could
cause the level-of-service of the individual intersections on the crossing routes, close to the
track, to deteriorate.
8.13 Any complete all-mode closures on the crossing routes will cause substantial reduction in
mobility to bicyclists and pedestrians unless either an existing grade-separated crossing is
close by or a new one is constructed.
8.14 In the period from 2011 to 2015, a total of 88 accident collisions were recorded, of which 32
involved injury and one (1) a fatality. New construction, either grade separations or closures,
are likely to reduce this substantially.
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
42
Appendix A
Traffic Flows Crossing the Caltrain Line: AM and PM Peak Hour
DR
A
F
T
Mott MacDonald | Analysis of Sample Scenarios 1 6
Draft
City of Palo Alto: Rail Program Management
43
DR
A
F
T