Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6647 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6647) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/18/2016 Summary Title: Bicycle Boulevard Concept Plan - Amarillo Ave-Moreno Ave, Bryant St, Louis Rd-Montrose Ave and Ross Title: Concept Plan Approval of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Along Amarillo Avenue, Bryant Street, East Meadow Drive, Montrose Avenue, Moreno Avenue, Louis Road, Palo Alto Avenue, and Ross Road From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council: adopt a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road- Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects; approve the attached concept plans for these four bicycle boulevard projects; and direct staff to move forward with the Final Design phase for these four bicycle boulevards projects. Executive Summary The Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (hereinafter “Plan”), adopted by Council in 2012, identifies a network of bicycle boulevards throughout the city. This network includes the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects. As currently proposed, these four projects will:  Enhance the existing Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard from Palo Alto Avenue to East Meadow Drive, where it connects to the proposed Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard extension. This corridor provides a continuous bicycle route from Menlo Park to Mountain View.  Construct the Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard from Garland Drive, which is just north of Oregon Expressway, to Louis Road, where it will connect to the proposed Louis Road- Montrose Avenue Bicycle Boulevard. The Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard provides a second north-south on-street bikeway for Palo Alto residents.  Construct the Louis Road-Montrose Avenue Bicycle Boulevard from Middlefield Road to the proposed Adobe Creek US 101 Overcrossing. A portion of this route was identified in the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan, but was expanded with additional funding from Google. This route connects the proposed Adobe Creek US 101 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Overcrossing to the proposed Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard, providing a system of connections within Palo Alto and, once the overcrossing is complete, to the San Francisco Bay Trail and employment centers in the City of Mountain View.  Construct the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue Bicycle Boulevard from Middlefield Road to West Bayshore Road. This route provides and east-west connection across Palo Alto and enhances the system by connecting to the Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard. This set of bicycle boulevards provides a significant step to advancing Palo Alto’s vision to provide a system of neighborhood bicycle routes that provide continuous, low-stress on-street bikeways with travel time and safety improvements to support healthy transportation. The proposed improvements incorporate focused bicycle and pedestrian enhancements and traffic calming measures to reduce motor vehicle speeds, as well as intersection modifications, repaving, and improvements to arterial crossings to better serve a diversity of ages and abilities. The proposed improvements incorporate focused bicycle and pedestrian enhancements and traffic calming measures to reduce motor vehicle speeds, as well as stop sign modifications, repaving, and improvements to arterial crossings to better serve a diversity of ages and abilities. The projects, as currently proposed, also incorporate many of the Safe Routes to Schools improvements recently identified by Staff. Funding currently exists for the Concept Plan Line and Environmental Assessment phases of these projects. The approved Concept Plan Line will serve as the basis for establishing a contract for the Final Design Phase, helping to determine the level of effort for a contract to construct these routes. Detailed cost estimates for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects will be developed as part of the Final Design phase of work. As part of the approval of the City’s Infrastructure Plan, the City Council allocated $20.0 million towards Bicycle + Pedestrian Plan implementation. Alta Planning + Design, Inc. is the lead consultant for this project. Background Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012 The Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan was adopted by the City Council in July 2012. The Plan includes a proposed bikeway network of off-street multi-use paths, bicycle boulevards, bicycle lanes, and enhanced bikeway facilities. The plan has stated goals of increasing bicycle traffic for local and work commute trips by 100% by 2020 by providing improved facilities along the proposed bicycle network, which facilitates both north-south and east-west connectivity throughout Palo Alto. A copy of the Proposed Bikeway Network is provided in Attachment A. Implementation of the Plan started in 2013 with City Council authorization of up to $1.2M per year over five years as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). With this commitment of funds, 18 projects are currently being studied and designed for implementation. Since award of City of Palo Alto Page 2 consultant contracts in April 2014, bicycle network implementation has focused primarily on bicycle boulevards and enhanced bikeways, although transportation staff has also been coordinating with Public Works and Community Services staff to deliver transportation projects through public works and parks contracts for street resurfacing and park improvements. Staff has also been working to implement data-driven spot improvements in response to customer requests, and seeks to ensure provide ongoing rehabilitation and maintenance of the bicycle and pedestrian network and incorporation of green infrastructure and storm water treatment where feasible. City staff recently provided City Council with an update on the bicycle and pedestrian program at a Study Session on October 26, 2015. Concept planning was initiated for these four corridors in 2014. Funding for concept plans was provided by both the City of Palo Alto and Google, Inc., which requested that the City consider bicycle boulevards in the southern part of Palo Alto where connections could be made to Mountain View. Bicycle Boulevard Purpose and Benefits The City pioneered the creation of the first “bicycle boulevard” – turning Bryant Street north of East Meadow Drive, a residential street, into a street that prioritized bicycle safety and circulation in 1982. The Comprehensive Plan defines a bicycle boulevard as a “low volume through-street where bicycles have priority over automobiles, conflicts between bicycles and automobiles are minimized, and bicycle travel time is reduced by the removal of stop signs and other impediments to bicycle travel. The removal of stop signs is especially important in Palo Alto, due to the large number of stop signs on local and collector streets.” Key characteristics that make bicycle boulevards attractive and safer for people who bicycle are: • Low traffic volumes • Low vehicle speeds • Discouragement of non-local motor vehicle traffic • Free-flow travel for people on bicycles by assigning the right-of-way to the bicycle boulevard at intersections wherever possible • Traffic control to help bicycles cross major streets One important feature of bicycle boulevards that greatly improves cycling efficiency is reduction in the number of stop signs; this measure improves travel time and reduces fatigue. Reducing cyclist fatigue increases the feasible length of a trip by bicycle, and is especially important to people who are hauling trailers, carrying children, groceries, and so forth, thereby encouraging more trips by bicycle. Discussion Approval of Concept Plan Lines is the first step in the design process for a project. A Concept Plan Line identifies the type and approximate location of improvements but excludes focused design details such as hardscape and landscape measures. The Concept Plan Line identifies the City of Palo Alto Page 3 locations of civil improvements that influence the amount of review required for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. Development of a Concept Plan Line normally takes three to four community meetings to help shape the location and types of improvements that each plan recommends. Due to the challenges along the corridor, the Bryant Street Update Bicycle Boulevard Project was discussed at seven public meetings throughout 2014 and 2015. Focused traffic data collection is also included as part of the Concept Plan Line development and the results are shared with the community as part of the community outreach process. Following approval of the Concept Plan Line by the City Council, staff will utilize a civil design team to complete the environmental assessment and more detailed design. An implementation plan will be developed as part of the design phase. Community Outreach Community outreach and participation has been instrumental to concept plan development since the initiation of the bicycle boulevard projects. The development of the Concept Plan Lines included community meetings and other events that helped shape the location and types of improvements that each plan recommends. Specific meetings included (a) four community bike-alongs in April and May 2014, (b) farmers’ market outreach on California Avenue in April and May 2014, (c) four rounds of community meetings in May-June 2014, October-November-December 2014, April-May 2015, and March 2016 and (d) presentations to the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) in September 2014, April 2015 and April 2016. The meetings were advertised through the mailing of notification cards to all property owners and residents within one block of the corridors, postings on the city website, e-mail notifications to the neighborhood leaders and bicycle boulevard program e-mail list, and posts to social media. Sample outreach materials and key comments received are enclosed as Attachment B. A public meeting was held on March 29, 2016 at the Ohlone Elementary School to review the final drafts of the Concept Plan Lines for these four corridors. Sixty-one citizens attended the meeting and provided written comments, which are summarized and scanned in Attachment G. The Concept Plan Lines for these four corridors were presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission for review and comment on April 13, 2016. This staff report was prepared before that meeting. Traffic Analysis Traffic data collection for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects occurred in May 2014, using video cameras to track bicycle and pedestrian demand and mechanical tube counters to collect automobile speed and volume data. Highlights of the traffic counts and speed data are shown in Table 1 below. The optimal conditions for a successful bicycle boulevard are <30 MPH or <3,000 ADT (average daily traffic). All of the corridors meet the criteria for a successful bicycle boulevard. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Table 1 Corridor (segment) 85th -percentile Speed Motor Vehicle ADT Bicycle ADT Amarillo Ave (Tanland -Greer) 30.2 MPH 1,261 82 Amarillo Ave (Greer -Louis) 27.7 MPH 1,412 73 Moreno Ave (Rosewood -Middlefield) 22.6 MPH 1,179 30 Ross Rd (Clara -Wintergreen) 25.5 MPH 2,063 121 Ross Rd (Ames -Stone) 28.2 MPH 2,703 116 Bryant St (Downtown North) 24.6 MPH 1,313 479 Bryant St (Downtown South) 26.2 MPH 1,565 643 Bryant St (Embarcadero -Oregon) 19.7 MPH 525 1,146 Montrose Ave (Seminole -Sutherland) N/A 141 46 Source: City of Palo Alto, May 2014 In February 2016, additional analysis was conducted to evaluate the traffic impacts of changing intersection controls, where proposed by this project. As currently proposed, a total of 16 intersections will have their intersection control changed. Nine intersections will be changed from an all-way stop to a roundabout, two from an all-way stop to a two-way stop; two from a two-way stop to an all-way stop, and one each from a two-way stop to a roundabout, from a three-way stop to one-way stop, and from traffic circle to a roundabout. Intersections were analyzed using the Synchro software to determine intersection, motor vehicle level of service (LOS). While an LOS analysis will no longer be required as part CEQA, it does provide a metric to understand if the extent of any impact on motor vehicle movements in these corridors. The results of the LOS calculations show that under project conditions, all of the study intersections would still operate with delays corresponding to LOS A or B. With the proposed changes in traffic controls, most of the study intersection would experience less delay than existing conditions. The delays at the following three intersections would be increased slightly with the traffic control converted from all-way stop to two-way stop:  Ross Road and Clara Drive - all-way stop to two-way stop  Ross Road and Ames Avenue – all-way stop to two-way stop  Ross Road and Mayview Avenue - three-way stop to one-way stop Future condition LOS results show that all the study intersections, except one, would still operate with delays corresponding to LOS B or better with future traffic volumes. Only one intersection operates at LOS C: Ross Road and Ames Avenue in the PM peak. The complete traffic analysis report is provided as Attachment C. Parking The Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects were planned to optimize right-of-way for all roadway users and minimize the impact on available on-street parking. To evaluate the potential impact City of Palo Alto Page 5 of parking removal on local residents, following the implementation of the proposed projects, a parking occupancy study was conducted. Although implementation of the projects will remove 266 on-street parking spaces (14 percent of the total 1,865 parking spaces along the project corridors), the study found that on average only 570 (31% of available parking spaces) of these parking spaces are typically used at any given time. Table 2 summarizes current parking utilization and the proposed changes to parking. Table 2 Corridor Existing Spaces Spaces to be Removed Current Utilization Future Utilization Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue 224 65 31% 44% Bryant Street Update 690 95 40% 47% Louis Road-Montrose Avenue 370 22 27% 28% Ross Road 580 85 21% 25% Total 1,865 266 31% 36% Reallocating a portion of these unused parking spaces for improved bicycle boulevard infrastructure will support the City’s goals of reducing motor vehicle speeds in residential areas, improving bicyclist safety, and encouraging more residents to bicycle. At the corridor level, there is sufficient capacity to absorb these changes and the vast majority of residents and visitors will not recognize a parking impact. A few specific blocks, however, may not have availability to meet current parking demand, requiring residents and visitors to seek parking one block from their desired destination. These impacted blocks are discussed below.  Bryant Street and Everett Avenue: Removing eight parking spaces at this intersection means demand will surpass availability by three spaces, however eight spaces will typically be available one block away.  Bryant Street east side (Poe Street to Hawthorne Avenue): Parking availability will not change, however parking utilization is already high on this block. Eleven spaces will be available across the street and 13 available one block away on Poe Street.  Bryant Street (Channing Avenue to Addison Avenue): Removing four spaces along this block means parking need will be nearing capacity, however eight spaces will typically be available one block away.  Ross Road west side (Stern Avenue to Allen Court - south side): Removing six spaces along this block means parking need will slightly surpass capacity by one space, however 43 spaces should typically be available one block away.  East Meadow Drive north side (Fabian Way to Paloma Street): Parking availability will not change, however parking utilization is already high on this block. Twenty-one spaces will typically be available one block away.  Amarillo Avenue south side (Louis Road to Ohlone Elementary driveway): Removing nine spaces along this block means demand will surpass availability by three cars. Twenty-eight spaces will typically be available one block away.  Amarillo Avenue north side (West Bayshore Road and North Tanland Drive): Removing City of Palo Alto Page 6 five spaces along this block means demand will surpass availability by three cars. Five spaces will typically be available one block away. Detailed information about parking changes by street segment are provided in Attachment D. Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project by Segment: The following is a summary of the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project. This narrative is supported by the project Concept Plan Lines, enclosed as Attachment E. Moreno Avenue from Middlefield Road to Louis Avenue A new crosswalk and bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage at Middlefield Road will direct bicyclists to the new bicycle boulevard on Moreno Avenue and will enhance pedestrian connectivity. A bicycle boulevard pavement legend will be added near every intersection along this corridor. Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signs will help bicyclists navigate to destinations and identify the bicycle boulevard route to all roadway users. Existing speed humps near Middlefield Road and Coastland Drive will be replaced with a slotted speed hump to reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists and fire trucks. Crosswalk markings, stop signs, and advance stop bars at side streets will enhance walking and assign right-of-way to the bicycle boulevard. Side streets will also have “cross traffic does not stop” signs added. A mini roundabout at Ross Road will improve traffic flow, reduce motorist speeds, and improve the corridor aesthetic by providing additional landscaping. High visibility crosswalk markings will enhance walkability and raised diverter medians will improve roundabout operations and create pedestrian refuges. A slotted speed hump near Fielding Drive will reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists and fire trucks. Louis Road from Moreno Avenue to Amarillo Avenue Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signs will help bicyclists navigate to destinations and identify the bicycle boulevard route to all roadway users. The two offset intersections at Moreno Avenue and at Fielding Drive/Amarillo Avenue will become raised intersections to reduce vehicle speeds and increase visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists. Stop controls will be provided on all approaches of each raised intersection to reduce conflicts between motorists and bicyclists. A five foot wide cycle track will be installed on each side of Louis Road between the two offset intersections, raised to sidewalk level. This will allow bicyclists to maintain level while traveling along the bicycle boulevard. Driveway access will be maintained. Additional street lighting will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. Amarillo Avenue from Louis Avenue to Ohlone Elementary School A new curb extension with landscaping, trees, and a Class IV separated bikeway that maintains City of Palo Alto Page 7 the existing sidewalk would be installed to accommodate two-way bicycle travel on the school side of the street to minimize conflicts between motorists and children bicycling to school. A bicycle boulevard pavement legend would also be continued through this segment, to accommodate bicyclists who prefer not to use a separated facility. New curb extensions with trees or bioretention would be added in the vicinity of Ohlone Elementary School to reduce vehicle speeds and improve aesthetics. New covered bicycle parking would be added at the school. Amarillo Avenue from Ohlone Elementary School to Bayshore Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signs will be installed to help bicyclists navigate to destinations and identify the bicycle boulevard route. Bicycle boulevard gateway signage alerts motorists and bicyclists that they are entering the enhanced bikeway. The existing midblock crosswalk near Ohlone Elementary School will be relocated to the south side of the driveway, and replaced with a raised crosswalk. This will reduce conflicts between pedestrians and motorists by placing the crosswalk in a location that does not require students to cross the driveway entrance, and will increase visibility of pedestrian (especially elementary school students) by raising them into view of motorists. A new traffic circle with mountable apron at Greer Road will improve traffic flow while reducing motorist speeds. High visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians. Additional street lighting will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. A slotted speed hump with landscaped planters near Greer Road will reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists, and will improve corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. Curb extensions with landscaping and trees at both Tanland Drive intersections will enhance walking by reducing crossing distances and reduce motorist speeds by narrowing the roadway. High visibility crosswalk markings at both Tanland Drive intersections will increase visibility of pedestrians, and additional street lighting will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. Landscaped medians and planters near Bayshore Road will reduce vehicle speeds by narrowing the roadway. Additional street lighting will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. Bryant Street Update Bicycle Boulevard Project by Segment: The following is a summary of the Bryant Street Update Bicycle Boulevard Project. This narrative is supported by the project Concept Plan Lines, enclosed as Attachment E. Palo Alto Avenue to Everett Avenue Bryant Street is an existing bicycle boulevard. A bicycle boulevard pavement legend will be added near every intersection along this corridor (applies to all segments). Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signs will help bicyclists navigate to destinations and identify the bicycle boulevard City of Palo Alto Page 8 route to all roadway users. The intersection of Bryant Street and Poe will include a landscaped traffic circle with mountable apron. At Everett Avenue, curb extensions with landscaping will be added to reduce crossing distances for pedestrians. Everett Avenue to Hamilton Avenue Enhanced shared roadway bicycle markings and door zone markings will be added along this corridor and within the intersections of University Avenue, Hamilton Avenue and Forest Avenue to alert drivers of the possible presence of persons on a bicycle as they travel through the intersections. This area will be further examined as part of the Downtown Mobility + Safety Strategies Project. Forest Avenue to Embarcadero Road New raised intersections will be constructed at Homer Avenue and Channing Avenue to help improve the safety of pedestrian crossings in the downtown area. This area will be further examined as part of the Downtown Mobility + Safety Strategies Project. The intersection with Addison Avenue will be reconstructed and a new mountable apron will be added to the traffic circle to allow for ease of access for emergency vehicles. High visibility crosswalks and splitter medians will be added on either side of the intersection ensure better visibility of pedestrians as they cross Bryant Street. The intersection at Kingsley Avenue will include a new landscaped traffic circle with a mountable apron, splitter medians and high visibility crosswalks. The intersection of Embarcadero Road will include reconstruction of the center curbs into mountable concrete median islands to create a bicycle pocket for bicyclists traveling straight through the intersection and provide protection from vehicles turning right. Mountable curbs allow for ease of access for emergency vehicles and an increase in bicycle safety. Embarcadero Road to Oregon Expressway New signs will be added to all side streets to indicate that all cross traffic does not stop on Bryant Street. A new landscaped traffic circle and mountable apron and splitter medians will be added to the intersection with North California Avenue with high visibility crosswalks added on either side to slow vehicles as they enter the intersection and to ensure better visibility of pedestrians as they cross Bryant Street. Oregon Expressway to East Meadow Drive New signs will be added to Colorado Avenue, El Dorado Avenue, Campesino Avenue, and El Verano Avenue to indicate that cross traffic does not stop on Bryant Street. Bryant Street crossing over Matadero Creek will be enhanced with striping for increased visibility. The existing bollards will be replaced with mountable monolithic concrete islands with flexible post channelizers for improved bicyclist safety. Optional short rubberized medians can be added to the center of the Bryant Street approaches to El Carmelo Avenue intersection. A new landscaped traffic circle with mountable apron and painted diverters will be added to the Loma Verde Avenue intersection. A new landscaped traffic circle with mountable apron will be added to the Campesino Avenue intersection with high visibility crosswalks added on either side to slow vehicles as they enter the intersection and to ensure better visibility of pedestrians as they cross Bryant Street. The existing bollard and raised planters to act as vehicle closures at El City of Palo Alto Page 9 Verano Avenue will remain. Between El Verano Avenue and E Meadow Drive, two slotted speed humps will be added to slow vehicles while allowing for persons on bicycles to travel along the street without needing to slow down or stop. Louis Road-Montrose Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project by Segment: The following is a summary of the Louis Road-Montrose Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project. This narrative is supported by the project Concept Plan Lines, enclosed as Attachment E. Montrose Avenue from Middlefield Road to Charleston Road Yellow high visibility crosswalk markings at Middlefield Road and Montrose Avenue will enhance walking and increase visibility for pedestrians. Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage near Middlefield Road will direct bicyclists to the new bicycle boulevard on Montrose Avenue. Bicycle boulevard markings along Montrose Avenue alert motorists that bicyclists may be present. Crosswalk markings at Sutherland Drive and Seminole Way will enhance walking. Improvements to Charleston Road are being made in conjunction with the Charleston- Arastradero Complete Streets Project by the City of Palo Alto. These include diversion of motorized traffic, green bicycle lane and conflict zone markings, and more. Louis Road from Charleston Road to East Meadow Drive bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage will assist bicyclists in navigating to destinations and to other bicycle friendly routes. Green bicycle lane and conflict zone markings from Bibbits Drive to Charleston Road will highlight potential conflicts between motorists and bicyclists and increase visibility of bicyclists. Bicycle lanes on Louis Road will provide dedicated space for bicyclists on the road, reducing conflicts with motorists. Green-backed bicycle lane markings will increase visibility of bicyclists and discourage motorists from encroaching into the bicycle lane. Crosswalk markings at Bibbits Drive, Gailen Avenue, and Corina Way will enhance walking. A new traffic circle with mountable apron at East Meadow Drive will improve traffic slow while reducing motorist speeds. High visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians. East Meadow Drive from Louis Road to East Meadow Circle Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage will assist bicyclists in navigating to destinations and to other bicycle friendly routes. Bicycle lanes on East Meadow Drive will provide dedicated space for bicyclists on the road, reducing conflicts with motorists. Green-backed bicycle lane markings will increase visibility of bicyclists and discourage motorists from encroaching into the bicycle lane. A new traffic circle with mountable apron at East Meadow Circle will improve traffic slow while reducing motorist speeds. High visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians. Additional street lighting will improve visibility for motorists and bicyclists at night. City of Palo Alto Page 10 East Meadow Drive from Meadow Circle to Fabian Way Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage will assist bicyclists in navigating to destinations and to other bicycle friendly routes. Bicycle lanes on East Meadow Drive will provide dedicated space for bicyclists on the road, reducing conflicts with motorists. Green-backed bicycle lane markings will increase visibility of bicyclists and discourage motorists from encroaching into the bicycle lane. A future connection will be made at Adobe Creek, proposed site for the connection to the US 101 overcrossing. Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage at Fabian Way will assist bicyclists in navigating to destinations and to other bicycle friendly routes. Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Project by Segment: The following is a summary of the Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Project. This narrative is supported by the project Concept Plan Lines, enclosed as Attachment E. Garland Drive to Colorado Avenue A new crosswalk and bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage near Garland Drive will direct bicyclists to the new bicycle boulevard on Ross Road. A County project is currently improving the intersection of Oregon Expressway and Ross Road. A bicycle boulevard gateway marking near Oregon Expressway will alert bicyclists and motorists that they are entering the enhanced bikeway. These gateway markings are repeated along the corridor at all side street entrances to the boulevard. A bicycle boulevard pavement legend will be added near every intersection along this corridor (applies to all segments). Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signs will help bicyclists navigate to destinations and identify the bicycle boulevard route to all roadway users. A new mountable traffic circle at Moreno Avenue will enhance the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. Moreno Avenue is also being developed as a bicycle boulevard (additional description below). Additional street lighting at Moreno Avenue will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. At Colorado Avenue, landscaped raised medians on Ross Road and Colorado Avenue will reduce motorist speeds. Additional street lighting at Colorado Avenue will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. Colorado Avenue to Loma Verde Avenue A new slotted speed hump with landscaped planters near Clara Drive will reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists, and will enhance the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. Removing the stop control on Ross Road will assign right-of-way to the bicycle boulevard, while high visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians to motorists and bicyclists. A new slotted speed hump with landscaped planters near Stern Avenue will reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists, and will enhance the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. Landscaped curb extensions with trees near Stern Avenue and Allen Court will reduce motorist speeds by narrowing the roadway physically and visually, and will enhance the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. A slotted speed hump with landscaped planters near Allen Court will reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists and fire trucks. City of Palo Alto Page 11 At Loma Verde Avenue, additional street lighting at will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night, while new crosswalk markings and stop bars will enhance walking. Landscaped raised medians will reduce motorist speeds by narrowing the roadway and enhance the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. Loma Verde Avenue to Meadow Drive Two new slotted speed humps and landscaped planters between Richardson Court and Talisman Drive will reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists, and will enhance the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. Landscaped curb extensions at Talisman Drive will enhance walking by reducing crossing distances and reduce motorist speeds by narrowing the roadway. Additional street lighting will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. New high visibility crosswalk markings will enhance walking by increasing pedestrian visibility. East Meadow Drive has existing bicycle lanes. A new traffic circle with mountable apron will improve traffic flow while reducing motorist speeds. Removing the stop control on Ross Road will assign priority to the bicycle boulevard. Additional street lighting will improve visibility for motorists and bicyclists at night. On the north- and southbound approaches to the traffic circle, a bicycle ramp to the sidewalk will provide bicyclists with the option of navigating the circle via the sidewalks and crosswalks if they prefer not to merge into the vehicle lane. The bicycle lane marking on the southbound approach will be removed to clarify bicyclists should either merge into the vehicle lane or move onto the sidewalk. Meadow Drive to Louis Avenue At Mayview Avenue, a raised intersection will enhance walking by reducing motorist and bicyclist speeds, and by increasing visibility of pedestrians. A new stop sign for bicyclists at the Ramos Park access point will assign right-of-way to the bicycle boulevard. Crosswalk markings and landscaped raised medians at both sides of the intersections with Corina Way will enhance walking, reduce motorist speeds by narrowing the roadway, and improve corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. High visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians. A new traffic circle with mountable apron at Louis Road will improve traffic flow while reducing motorist speeds. High visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians. Additional street lighting will improve visibility for motorists and bicyclists at night. This bicycle boulevard segment connects directly to the Meadow-Louis-Montrose bicycle Boulevard, described below, and via that route to the proposed Adobe Creek US 101 overcrossing. Policy Implications City of Palo Alto Page 12 The Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan identifies and prioritizes the development of the bicycle boulevard network. The Plan objectives that are addressed by the development of the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects are: Objective 1: Double the rate of bicycling for both local and total work commutes by 2020 (to 15% and 5%, respectively). Objective 2: Convert discretionary vehicle trips into walking and bicycling trips in order to reduce City transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% by 2020. Objective 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. Objective 4: Plan, construct, and maintain ‘Complete Streets’ that are safe and accessible to all modes and people of all ages and abilities. Objective 5: Promote efficient, sustainable, and creative use of limited public resources through integrated design and planning. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs that support the development of the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road- Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects include: Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles Goal T-3: Facilities, Services, and Programs the Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling Program T-19: Develop, periodically update, and implement a bicycle facilities improvement program and a pedestrian facilities improvement program that identify and prioritize critical pedestrian and bicycle links to parks, schools, retail centers, and civic facilities. Program T-22: Implement a network of bike boulevards. Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Policy T-34: Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector residential streets and prioritize these measures over congestion management. Include traffic circles and other traffic calming devices among these measures. City of Palo Alto Page 13 While it is difficult to estimate the impacts of individual bicycle boulevard projects, the City of Portland, Oregon has recently completed and assessment of its bicycle boulevard program and recorded counts of between 1,000 and 4,000 cyclists per day on its busiest corridors. Increasing the number of cyclists using the bicycle boulevard network within Palo Alto to these levels would meet many of the objectives and goals listed above and also help the City increase bicycle traffic for local and work commute trips by 100% by 2020. Resource Impact Detailed cost estimates for the bicycle boulevard projects will be developed as part of the Final Design phase of work. As part of the approval of the City’s Infrastructure Plan, the City Council allocated $20.0 million towards bicycle and pedestrian plan implementation. For Fiscal Years 2014 through FY 2020 $12.4 million has been budgeted in the CIP for the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation Project (PL-04010). Of that amount, $.9 million has been spent to date and an additional $1.9M has been encumbered. Staff actively seeks regional, state and federal grant funding to offset resources identified for bicycle and pedestrian plan implementation. As grant funds are secured or low-cost project improvements identified, Transportation Division staff will coordinate with the Public Works Department for implementation as part of the street resurfacing program. Minor elements of the Concept Plan Lines may be implemented opportunistically through the Transportation Division’s other CUPs for pavement markings, signs and traffic signals. Timeline Upon approval of the Concept Plan Lines, Final Design for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects will begin immediately and should be completed at the end of 2016. Staff anticipates that construction will begin in the spring of 2017 and last for one year. Environmental Review A Negative Declaration for the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan was adopted on September 4, 2012. Each individual project is subject to environmental assessment after there is agreement on a Concept Plan Line for further study. As part of the current phase of work, an assessment was made of the potential environmental impacts of this work and a Categorical Exemption is recommended under CEQA Guidelines section 15301 for minor alternation of existing facilities. This project will make bicycle and pedestrian improvements to multiple existing roadways. Improvements include new bicycle boulevard striping, wayfinding and safety signs, crosswalks, median and landscape islands, bulb- outs, stop control modification, traffic circles within existing rights-of-way, new tree plantings, speed humps, and raised intersections. No trees will be removed and all work will occur within the existing public right-of-way. The project is limited to minor alteration of existing roadways. The work will facilitate bicycle and pedestrian use and will not increase the roadway capacities. City of Palo Alto Page 14 The draft CEQA Notice of Exemption is attached as Attachment F. This exemption will be filed upon approval by City Council. Attachments:  Attachment A - Maps of Proposed Bicycle Blvds from the BPT Plan and the Four Projects Identified (PDF)  Attachment B - Outreach Materials from Public Meetings (PDF)  Attachment C - Traffic Analysis (PDF)  Attachment D - Parking Occupancy Study (PDF)  Attachment E - Concept Plans (11X17 reduced) (PDF)  Attachment F - CEQA Categorically Exempt Filing (PDF)  Attachment G - March 29 Public Meeting (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 15 Attachment A - Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards Staff Report Attachment A – Maps Map 1 – Palo Alto Proposed Bikeway Network Map 2 – Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards Attachment B - Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards Staff Report Attachment B – Public Meeting Advertising Attachment C - Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards Staff Report Attachment C – Traffic Analysis DRAFT Memorandum Date: February 26, 2016 To: Hugh Louch, Alta Planning + Design, Inc. From: Gary Black Ling Jin Subject: Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto Introduction Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a traffic analysis for the proposed bicycle boulevards along Bryant Street, Ross Road, Louis-Montrose, and Moreno-Amarillo in Palo Alto, California. Bicycle Boulevard projects are on streets where bicycling is already appealing for many riders due to low traffic volumes and speeds, and good access to key destinations such as schools, parks, and connections across key barriers. The City has identified potential improvements on these routes including revised traffic controls to promote cycling convenience, custom signage and wayfinding, additional traffic calming, and other measures. The purpose of the project is to enhance bikeway facilities across the Palo Alto communities. This memo documents the results of the traffic analysis to identify potential operational issues that could occur as a result of the proposed changes along the bicycle boulevards. The following intersections would be affected by changes in traffic control (see Figure 1):  Bryant Street and Palo Alto/Poe – 4-way stop to Roundabout  Bryant Street and Addison Avenue - Traffic circle to Roundabout  Bryant Street and N California Avenue - 4-way stop to Roundabout  Bryant Street and Loma Verde Avenue - 4-way stop to Roundabout  Bryant Street and Kingsley Avenue - 2-way stop to Roundabout  Ross Road and Moreno Avenue - 4-way stop to Roundabout  Ross Road and Clara Drive - 4-way Stop to 2-way Stop  Ross Road and Ames Avenue – 4-way stop to 2-way stop  Ross Road and East Meadow Drive – 4-way stop to Roundabout  Ross Road and Mayview Avenue - 3-way stop to one-side stop  Ross Road and Louis Road – 4-way stop to Roundabout  Louie Road and E Meadow Drive - 4-way stop to Roundabout  E Meadow Drive and E Meadow Circle - 4-way stop to Roundabout  Moreno Avenue and Louis Road - 2-way stop to 4-way stop  Louis Road and Fielding Drive - 2-way stop to 4-way stop  Amarillo Avenue and Greer Road - 4-way to Roundabout Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:  Existing Conditions. Existing traffic volumes were obtained from new 2016 manual turning- movement counts. The new intersection count data are included in Appendix A.  Existing with Project Conditions. Existing with project conditions were evaluated using existing traffic volumes and proposed changes for the intersection control type. The results were compared to existing conditions in order to determine the effects the project would have on traffic operations. Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto February 26, 2016 Table 2 Roundabout Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay and Volume-to-Capacity Ratio Level of Service by Volume-to-Capacity Ratio * Control Delay (sec/veh) v/c< 1.0 v/c>1.0 0-10 A F >10-15 B F >15-25 C F >25-30 D F >35-50 E F >50 F F * For approaches and intersection-wide assessment, LOS is defined by control delay. Source: NCHRP Report 672, Roundabouts, An Information Guide, Second Edition, Washington, D. C., Transportation Research Board, (2010). Existing Intersection Levels of Service The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were obtained from field observations. Existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes were obtained from new 2016 turning-movement counts. The new traffic count data are included in Appendix A. The results of the intersection level of service analysis under existing conditions are summarized in Table 3. The results show that all of the study intersections are currently operating with delays corresponding to level of service A or B during both AM and PM peak hours. Page | 4 Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto February 26, 2016 Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service Study Number Intersection Peak Count Average Delay Hour Date (sec) LOS 1 Moreno Avenue / Louis Road AM 02/09/16 13.0 PM 02/09/16 12.4 2 Louis Road / Fielding Drive AM 02/09/16 11.8 PM 02/09/16 9.9 3 Amarillo Avenue / Greer Road AM 02/09/16 9.4 PM 02/09/16 8.1 4 Bryant Street / Palo Alto Avenue/Poe Street AM 02/09/16 8.6 PM 02/09/16 8.8 5 Bryant Street / Addison Avenue AM 02/09/16 11.0 PM 02/09/16 11.3 6 Bryant Street / Kinsley Avenue AM 02/09/16 12.2 PM 02/09/16 10.5 7 Bryant Street / N California Avenue AM 02/09/16 7.9 PM 02/09/16 7.8 8 Bryant Street / Loma Verde Avenue AM 02/09/16 9.0 PM 02/09/16 7.7 9 Ross Road / Moreno Avenue AM 02/09/16 7.7 PM 02/09/16 7.4 10 Ross Road / Clara Drive AM 02/09/16 7.7 PM 02/09/16 7.6 11 Ross Road / Ames Avenue AM 02/09/16 8.5 PM 02/09/16 8.3 12 Ross Road / E Meadow Drive AM 02/09/16 9.6 PM 02/09/16 9.1 13 Ross Road / Mayview Avenue AM 02/09/16 7.7 PM 02/09/16 7.6 14 Ross Road / Louis Road AM 02/09/16 8.4 PM 02/09/16 8.3 15 Louis Road / E Meadow Drive AM 02/09/16 9.3 PM 02/09/16 8.7 16 E Meadow Drive / E Meadow Circle AM 02/09/16 8.1 PM 02/09/16 7.7 B B B A A A A A B B B B A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Note: For two-way stop controlled intersection, the average delay reflects the worst movement delay. Existing with Project Conditions The intersection levels of service were recalculated with the proposed changes to traffic control. The results of the intersection level of service analysis with the project are summarized in Table 4. The results of the level of service calculations show that under project conditions, all of the study intersections would still operate with delays corresponding to LOS A or B. With the proposed changes in traffic controls, most of the study intersection would experience less delay than existing conditions. The delays at the following three intersections would be increased slightly with the traffic control converted from 4-way stop to 2-way stop. Page | 5 Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto February 26, 2016  Ross Road and Clara Drive - 4-way Stop to 2-way Stop  Ross Road and Ames Avenue – 4-way stop to 2-way stop  Ross Road and Mayview Avenue - 3-way stop to on-side stop However, even at these three intersections, the delays would be relatively short and would correspond with LOS B. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Table 4 Existing with Project Intersection Levels of Service Study Peak Average Delay Average Delay Number Intersection Hour (sec) LOS (sec) LOS Existing Existing + Project 1 Moreno Avenue / Louis Road AM 13.0 B 9.1 A PM 12.4 B 8.9 A 2 Louis Road / Fielding Drive AM 11.8 B 8.7 A PM 9.9 A 8.7 A 3 Amarillo Avenue / Greer Road AM 9.4 A 5.6 A PM 8.1 A 4.6 A 4 Bryant Street / Palo Alto Avenue/Poe Street AM 8.6 A 3.3 A PM 8.8 A 3.4 A 5 Bryant Street / Addison Avenue AM 11.0 B 4.3 A PM 11.3 B 4.1 A 6 Bryant Street / Kinsley Avenue AM 12.2 B 4.8 A PM 10.5 B 4.3 A 7 Bryant Street / N California Avenue AM 7.9 A 4.4 A PM 7.8 A 4.3 A 8 Bryant Street / Loma Verde Avenue AM 9.0 A 5.5 A PM 7.7 A 4.4 A 9 Ross Road / Moreno Avenue AM 7.7 A 4.1 A PM 7.4 A 4.0 A 10 Ross Road / Clara Drive AM 7.7 A 10.4 B PM 7.6 A 10.2 B 11 Ross Road / Ames Avenue AM 8.5 A 14.1 B PM 8.3 A 12.3 B 12 Ross Road / E Meadow Drive AM 9.6 A 5.6 A PM 9.1 A 5.3 A 13 Ross Road / Mayview Avenue AM 7.7 A 10.1 B PM 7.6 A 9.9 A 14 Ross Road / Louis Road AM 8.4 A 4.9 A PM 8.3 A 4.8 A 15 Louis Road / E Meadow Drive AM 9.3 A 5.5 A PM 8.7 A 5.0 A 16 E Meadow Drive / E Meadow Circle AM 8.1 A 4.7 A PM 7.7 A 4.3 A Note: For two-way stop controlled intersection, the average delay reflects the worst movement delay. Future (Year 2040) with Project Conditions Future (Year 2040) conditions reflect traffic growth in the study area. The expected future traffic growth was estimated by applying a yearly growth factor to the existing AM and PM peak-hour volumes traffic for 34 Page | 6 Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto February 26, 2016 years. The growth factors of 0.44% per year for the AM peak hour and 0.48% per year for the PM peak hour were developed by Hexagon based on the Palo Alto Travel Demand Model. Future with project condition level of service results are shown in Table 5. The results show that all the study intersections would still operate with delays corresponding to LOS C or better with future traffic volumes. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Table 5 Future (Year 2040) with Project Intersection Levels of Service Study Peak Average Delay Average Delay Existing with Project Future (2040) with Project Number Intersection Hour (sec) LOS (sec) LOS 1 Moreno Avenue / Louis Road AM 9.1 A 9.7 A PM 8.9 A 9.5 A 2 Louis Road / Fielding Drive AM 8.7 A 9.2 A PM 8.7 A 9.1 A 3 Amarillo Avenue / Greer Road AM 5.6 A 6.1 A PM 4.6 A 4.8 A 4 Bryant Street / Palo Alto Avenue/Poe Street AM 3.3 A 3.4 A PM 3.4 A 3.5 A 5 Bryant Street / Addison Avenue AM 4.3 A 4.6 A PM 4.1 A 4.3 A 6 Bryant Street / Kinsley Avenue AM 4.8 A 5.1 A PM 4.3 A 4.6 A 7 Bryant Street / N California Avenue AM 4.4 A 4.6 A PM 4.3 A 4.6 A 8 Bryant Street / Loma Verde Avenue AM 5.5 A 5.9 A PM 4.4 A 4.6 A 9 Ross Road / Moreno Avenue AM 4.1 A 4.3 A PM 4.0 A 4.1 A 10 Ross Road / Clara Drive AM 10.4 B 10.9 B PM 10.2 B 10.5 B 11 Ross Road / Ames Avenue AM 14.1 B 16.3 C PM 12.3 B 13.5 B 12 Ross Road / E Meadow Drive AM 5.6 A 6.3 A PM 5.3 A 5.8 A 13 Ross Road / Mayview Avenue AM 10.1 B 10.5 B PM 9.9 A 10.3 B 14 Ross Road / Louis Road AM 4.9 A 5.2 A PM 4.8 A 5.1 A 15 Louis Road / E Meadow Drive AM 5.5 A 6.0 A PM 5.0 A 5.5 A 16 E Meadow Drive / E Meadow Circle AM 4.7 A 5.0 A PM 4.3 A 4.5 A Note: For two-way stop controlled intersection, the average delay reflects the worst movement delay. Page | 7 Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto February 26, 2016 Conclusions Based on the intersection level of service calculation results, all the study intersections are currently experiencing minor delays corresponding to LOS A or B. With the proposed traffic control changes, most of the study intersections would experience less delay than existing conditions except for three intersections along Ross Road, which would experience increases in delay, but would still operate at LOS B. In the future year 2040 with expected traffic growth, all the study intersection would operate at acceptable level of service C or better with the proposed traffic control changes. Page | 8 Appendix A Traffic Counts Appendix B Level of Service Calculations HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 Future Volume (Veh/h) 10 EBT 208 208 Free EBR WBL 21 34 21 34 WBT WBR 165 8 165 8 Free NBL 12 12 NBT 10 10 Stop NBR 15 15 SBL 8 8 SBT 11 11 Stop SBR 16 16 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 11 0.92 226 0% 0.92 23 0.92 37 0.92 179 0% 0.92 9 0.92 13 0.92 11 0% 0.92 16 0.92 9 0.92 12 0% 0.92 17 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 203 203 4.1 12.0 15 3.5 1 None 264 264 4.1 2.2 12.0 12 3.5 1 None 472 570 552 264 566 558 214 264 566 558 214 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 15 3.5 1 12.0 15 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1349 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 225 NB 1 SB 1 40 38 1281 97 382 570 7.1 3.5 97 414 552 6.5 4.0 97 754 3.3 98 387 3.5 98 410 4.0 97 803 3.3 98 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 23 260 11 9 37 16 13 17 9 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1349 1 0.4 0.03 1281 2 1.5 0.08 489 516 7 6 12.5 0.07 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.4 A 1.5 A 13.0 13.0 B 12.5 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 2.6 37.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 226 Future Volume (Veh/h) 226 EBR 5 5 WBL WBT 2 199 2 199 NBL NBR 4 6 6 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 246 Free 0% 0.92 5 0.92 2 0.92 216 Free 0% 0.92 4 4 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 7 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 50 3.5 5 None 12.0 50 3.5 5 None 171 301 12.0 50 3.5 5 568 348 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 251 WB 1 NB 1 218 11 1200 301 4.1 2.2 100 438 568 348 6.4 6.2 3.5 3.3 99 99 630 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 5 0 0 2 7 4 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.15 1700 0 0.0 0.00 1200 0 0.1 0.02 544 2 11.8 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 0.1 A 11.8 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 0.3 31.2% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 101 EBR WBL 48 15 WBT WBR Stop 123 7 NBL 98 NBT Stop 31 NBR 50 SBL 15 SBT Stop 40 SBR 59 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 35 32 32 0.92 110 101 0.92 52 48 0.92 16 15 0.92 134 123 0.92 8 7 0.92 107 98 0.92 34 31 0.92 54 50 0.92 16 15 0.92 43 40 0.92 64 59 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 197 EB 1 35 52 -0.09 4.8 0.26 158 WB 1 16 8 0.02 5.0 0.22 195 NB 1 107 54 -0.02 4.9 0.27 123 SB 1 16 64 -0.25 4.8 0.16 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 690 9.6 9.6 A 663 9.4 9.4 A 677 9.7 9.7 A 677 8.8 8.8 Delay Level of Service 9.4 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 41.0% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 4 Future Volume (Veh/h) 4 EBR 3 3 WBL WBT 17 2 17 2 NBL NBR 2 9 9 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 4 Free 0% 0.92 3 0.92 18 0.92 2 Free 0% 0.92 2 2 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 10 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 11 3.5 1 None 19 66 30 66 30 6.4 6.2 12.0 12 3.5 1 None 12.0 12 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 7 WB 1 NB 1 20 12 1579 19 4.1 2.2 99 908 3.5 3.3 100 99 1021 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 3 0 0 18 10 2 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1700 0 0.0 0.01 1579 1 6.6 0.01 1001 1 8.6 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 6.6 A 8.6 A Approach LOS Intersection Summary A A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 6.0 21.0% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 Future Volume (Veh/h) 6 EBT 26 26 Free EBR WBL 15 13 15 13 WBT WBR 102 11 102 11 Free NBL 5 5 NBT 52 52 Stop NBR 6 6 SBL 9 9 SBT 48 48 Stop SBR 12 12 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 7 0.92 28 0% 0.92 16 0.92 14 0.92 111 0% 0.92 12 0.92 5 0.92 57 0% 0.92 7 0.92 10 0.92 52 0% 0.92 13 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 134 134 4.1 12.0 11 3.5 1 None 54 54 4.1 2.2 12.0 13 3.5 1 None 255 222 59 254 224 139 59 254 224 139 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 10 3.5 1 12.0 11 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1435 2.2 100 EB 1 WB 1 137 NB 1 SB 1 69 75 10 1537 99 617 255 7.1 3.5 99 654 222 6.5 4.0 91 985 3.3 99 617 3.5 98 652 4.0 92 890 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 16 51 7 12 14 7 5 13 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1435 0 1.1 0.01 1537 1 0.8 0.10 674 679 9 9 11.0 0.11 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 1.1 A 0.8 A 10.9 10.9 B 11.0 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 5.3 24.7% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20166: Bryant St & Kingsley Ave Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 11 Future Volume (Veh/h) 11 EBT 41 41 Free EBR WBL 1 6 1 6 WBT WBR 147 23 147 23 Free NBL 1 1 NBT 11 11 Stop NBR 2 2 SBL 71 71 SBT 12 12 Stop SBR 12 12 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 12 0.92 45 0% 0.92 1 0.92 7 0.92 160 0% 0.92 25 0.92 1 0.92 12 0% 0.92 2 0.92 77 0.92 13 0% 0.92 13 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 208 208 4.1 12.0 16 3.5 2 None 64 64 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 23 3.5 2 None 310 310 86 310 298 212 86 310 298 212 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 18 3.5 2 12.0 23 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1333 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 192 NB 1 SB 1 15 103 77 1512 578 310 7.1 3.5 100 574 310 6.5 4.0 98 935 3.3 100 580 3.5 87 583 4.0 98 798 3.3 98 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 1 58 12 25 7 2 1 13 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1333 1 1.7 0.00 1512 0 0.3 0.02 605 601 2 15 12.2 0.17 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 1.7 A 0.3 A 11.1 11.1 B 12.2 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 4.3 31.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 78 EBR WBL 4 2 WBT WBR Stop 27 24 NBL 0 NBT Stop 59 NBR 17 SBL 49 SBT Stop 40 SBR 7 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 14 13 13 0.92 85 78 0.92 4 4 0.92 2 2 0.92 29 27 0.92 26 24 0.92 0 0 0.92 64 59 0.92 18 17 0.92 53 49 0.92 43 40 0.92 8 7 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 103 EB 1 14 4 0.04 4.4 0.13 57 WB 1 2 26 -0.23 4.2 0.07 82 NB 1 0 18 -0.10 4.3 0.10 104 SB 1 53 8 0.09 4.4 0.13 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 777 8.1 8.1 A 801 7.5 7.5 A 798 7.8 7.8 A 768 8.1 8.1 Delay Intersection Summary 7.9 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 30.3% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 3 EBR WBL 12 9 WBT WBR Stop 1 5 NBL 7 NBT Stop 168 NBR 5 SBL 5 SBT Stop 240 SBR 14 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 29 27 27 0.92 3 3 0.92 13 12 0.92 10 9 0.92 1 1 0.92 5 5 0.92 8 7 0.92 183 168 0.92 5 5 0.92 5 5 0.92 261 240 0.92 15 14 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 45 EB 1 29 13 -0.01 5.0 0.06 16 WB 1 10 5 -0.03 5.0 0.02 196 NB 1 8 5 0.03 4.4 0.24 281 SB 1 5 15 0.01 4.3 0.33 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 654 8.3 8.3 A 643 8.1 8.1 A 798 8.7 8.7 A 818 9.4 9.4 Delay Level of Service 9.0 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 35.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 3 42 EBR WBL 3 15 WBT WBR Stop 39 11 NBL 12 NBT Stop 35 NBR 17 SBL 26 SBT Stop 54 SBR 6 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 3 3 0.92 46 42 0.92 3 3 0.92 16 15 0.92 42 39 0.92 12 11 0.92 13 12 0.92 38 35 0.92 18 17 0.92 28 26 0.92 59 54 0.92 7 6 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 52 EB 1 3 3 0.01 4.4 0.06 70 WB 1 16 12 -0.02 4.3 0.08 69 NB 1 13 18 -0.08 4.2 0.08 94 SB 1 28 7 0.05 4.3 0.11 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 790 7.6 7.6 A 802 7.7 7.7 A 822 7.6 7.6 A 811 7.8 7.8 Delay Intersection Summary 7.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 23.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 4 102 EBR WBL 1 2 WBT WBR Stop 96 9 NBL 1 NBT Stop 0 NBR 5 SBL 22 SBT Stop 2 SBR 8 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 4 4 0.92 111 102 0.92 1 1 0.92 2 2 0.92 104 96 0.92 10 9 0.92 1 1 0.92 0 0 0.92 5 5 0.92 24 22 0.92 2 2 0.92 9 8 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 116 EB 1 4 1 0.04 4.1 0.13 116 WB 1 2 10 -0.01 4.1 0.13 6 NB 1 1 5 -0.43 4.0 0.01 35 SB 1 24 9 0.02 4.4 0.04 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 852 7.8 7.8 A 863 7.7 7.7 A 838 7.0 7.0 A 760 7.6 7.6 Delay Intersection Summary 7.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 24.3% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 135 EBR WBL 5 21 5 21 WBT WBR Stop 94 36 NBL 2 NBT Stop 21 NBR 12 SBL 33 SBT Stop 13 SBR 47 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 38 35 35 0.92 147 135 0.92 5 0.92 23 0.92 102 94 0.92 39 36 0.92 2 2 0.92 23 21 0.92 13 12 0.92 36 33 0.92 14 13 0.92 51 47 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 190 EB 1 38 5 0.06 4.5 0.24 164 WB 1 23 39 -0.08 4.4 0.20 38 NB 1 2 13 -0.16 4.7 0.05 101 SB 1 36 51 -0.20 4.6 0.13 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 775 8.9 8.9 A 783 8.5 8.5 A 703 7.9 7.9 A 725 8.2 8.2 Delay Intersection Summary 8.5 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 35.1% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 88 EBR WBL 35 28 WBT WBR Stop 51 9 NBL 73 NBT Stop 115 NBR 19 SBL 12 SBT Stop 160 SBR 14 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 12 11 11 0.92 96 88 0.92 38 35 0.92 30 28 0.92 55 51 0.92 10 9 0.92 79 73 0.92 125 115 0.92 21 19 0.92 13 12 0.92 174 160 0.92 15 14 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 146 EB 1 12 38 -0.11 5.0 0.20 95 WB 1 30 10 0.03 5.2 0.14 225 NB 1 79 21 0.05 4.8 0.30 202 SB 1 13 15 0.00 4.8 0.27 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 655 9.3 9.3 A 622 9.0 9.0 A 703 9.9 9.9 A 699 9.6 9.6 Delay Level of Service 9.6 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 45.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBT Sign Control Stop EBR 39 WBL WBT Stop 28 44 NBL NBR 26 26 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 95 87 87 0.92 42 39 0.92 30 28 0.92 48 44 0.92 47 Stop 43 43 0.92 0.92 28 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 137 EB 1 0 42 -0.15 4.0 0.15 78 WB 1 30 0 0.11 4.3 0.09 75 NB 1 47 28 -0.06 4.3 0.09 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 876 7.7 7.7 A 812 7.8 7.8 A 793 7.7 7.7 Delay Level of Service 7.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 28.7% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 2 2 EBR WBL 119 12 WBT WBR Stop 4 2 NBL 47 NBT Stop 89 NBR 2 SBL 0 SBT Stop 156 SBR 1 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 2 2 0.92 2 2 0.92 129 119 0.92 13 12 0.92 4 4 0.92 2 2 0.92 51 47 0.92 97 89 0.92 2 2 0.92 0 0 0.92 170 156 0.92 1 1 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 133 EB 1 2 129 -0.54 4.1 0.15 19 WB 1 13 2 0.11 4.9 0.03 150 NB 1 51 2 0.09 4.5 0.19 171 SB 1 0 1 0.03 4.4 0.21 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 805 7.9 7.9 A 669 8.0 8.0 A 760 8.6 8.6 A 772 8.6 8.6 Delay Level of Service 8.4 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 39.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 126 EBR WBL 64 21 WBT WBR Stop 63 22 NBL 41 NBT Stop 89 NBR 15 SBL 9 SBT Stop 93 SBR 17 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 22 20 20 0.92 137 126 0.92 70 64 0.92 23 21 0.92 68 63 0.92 24 22 0.92 45 41 0.92 97 89 0.92 16 15 0.92 10 9 0.92 101 93 0.92 18 17 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 229 EB 1 22 70 -0.13 4.7 0.30 115 WB 1 23 24 -0.05 4.9 0.16 158 NB 1 45 16 0.03 5.0 0.22 129 SB 1 10 18 -0.03 4.9 0.18 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 723 9.6 9.6 A 677 8.8 8.8 A 674 9.3 9.3 A 669 9.0 9.0 Delay Level of Service 9.3 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 34.9% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 0 10 EBR WBL 8 73 WBT WBR Stop 48 64 NBL 13 NBT Stop 19 NBR 85 SBL 20 SBT Stop 10 SBR 0 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 0 0 0.92 11 10 0.92 9 8 0.92 79 73 0.92 52 48 0.92 70 64 0.92 14 13 0.92 21 19 0.92 92 85 0.92 22 20 0.92 11 10 0.92 0 0 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 20 EB 1 0 9 -0.24 4.2 0.02 201 WB 1 79 70 -0.10 4.2 0.23 127 NB 1 14 92 -0.38 4.1 0.14 33 SB 1 22 0 0.17 4.7 0.04 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 805 7.3 7.3 A 823 8.4 8.4 A 839 7.7 7.7 A 716 7.9 7.9 Delay Level of Service 8.1 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 34.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 16 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 Future Volume (Veh/h) 6 EBT 204 204 Free EBR WBL 16 10 16 10 WBT WBR 178 6 178 6 Free NBL 27 27 NBT 5 5 Stop NBR 22 22 SBL 8 8 SBT 2 2 Stop SBR 4 4 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 7 0.92 222 0% 0.92 17 0.92 11 0.92 193 0% 0.92 7 0.92 29 0.92 5 0% 0.92 24 0.92 9 0.92 2 0% 0.92 4 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 210 210 4.1 12.0 10 3.5 1 None 249 249 4.1 2.2 12.0 9 3.5 1 None 472 488 486 250 508 492 216 250 508 492 216 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 10 3.5 1 12.0 10 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1348 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 211 NB 1 SB 1 58 15 1304 99 465 488 7.1 3.5 94 466 486 6.5 4.0 99 775 3.3 97 437 3.5 98 463 4.0 100 808 3.3 100 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 17 246 7 7 11 24 29 4 9 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1348 0 0.3 0.01 1304 1 0.5 0.10 557 502 9 2 12.4 0.03 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.3 A 0.5 A 12.2 12.2 B 12.4 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 2.0 27.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 233 Future Volume (Veh/h) 233 EBR 3 3 WBL WBT 2 181 2 181 NBL NBR 0 4 4 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 253 Free 0% 0.92 3 0.92 2 0.92 197 Free 0% 0.92 0 0 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 4 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 11 3.5 1 None 12.0 14 3.5 1 None 171 270 12.0 14 3.5 1 480 282 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 256 WB 1 NB 1 199 4 1276 270 4.1 2.2 100 531 480 282 6.4 6.2 3.5 3.3 100 99 736 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 3 0 0 2 4 0 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.15 1700 0 0.0 0.00 1276 0 0.1 0.01 736 0 9.9 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 0.1 A 9.9 A Approach LOS Intersection Summary A A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 0.1 26.5% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 89 EBR WBL 13 3 WBT WBR Stop 108 11 NBL 8 NBT Stop 21 NBR 2 SBL 5 SBT Stop 25 SBR 39 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 41 38 38 0.92 97 89 0.92 14 13 0.92 3 3 0.92 117 108 0.92 12 11 0.92 9 8 0.92 23 21 0.92 2 2 0.92 5 5 0.92 27 25 0.92 42 39 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 152 EB 1 41 14 0.03 4.3 0.18 132 WB 1 3 12 -0.02 4.3 0.16 34 NB 1 9 2 0.05 4.7 0.04 74 SB 1 5 42 -0.29 4.3 0.09 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 806 8.3 8.3 A 800 8.1 8.1 A 715 7.9 7.9 A 776 7.7 7.7 Delay Intersection Summary 8.1 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 30.4% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 Future Volume (Veh/h) 1 EBR 4 4 WBL WBT 22 4 22 4 NBL NBR 2 6 6 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 1 Free 0% 0.92 4 0.92 24 0.92 4 Free 0% 0.92 2 2 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 7 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 16 3.5 2 None 26 92 45 92 45 6.4 6.2 12.0 21 3.5 2 None 12.0 21 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 5 WB 1 NB 1 28 9 1556 26 4.1 2.2 98 863 3.5 3.3 100 99 984 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 4 0 0 24 7 2 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1700 0 0.0 0.02 1556 1 6.3 0.01 954 1 8.8 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 6.3 A 8.8 A Approach LOS Intersection Summary A A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 6.1 23.1% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 4 Future Volume (Veh/h) 4 EBT 34 34 Free EBR WBL 8 18 8 18 WBT WBR 71 10 71 10 Free NBL 8 8 NBT 51 51 Stop NBR 7 7 SBL 4 4 SBT 28 28 Stop SBR 12 12 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 4 0.92 37 0% 0.92 9 0.92 20 0.92 77 0% 0.92 11 0.92 9 0.92 55 0% 0.92 8 0.92 4 0.92 30 0% 0.92 13 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 107 107 4.1 12.0 26 3.5 2 None 77 77 4.1 2.2 12.0 31 3.5 3 None 257 228 104 258 226 128 104 258 226 128 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 31 3.5 3 12.0 19 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1457 2.2 100 EB 1 WB 1 108 NB 1 SB 1 72 47 1477 99 596 257 7.1 3.5 98 630 228 6.5 4.0 91 896 3.3 99 584 3.5 99 631 4.0 95 883 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 9 50 4 11 20 8 9 13 4 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1457 0 0.6 0.01 1477 1 1.5 0.11 647 680 9 6 10.7 0.07 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.6 A 1.5 A 11.3 11.3 B 10.7 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 5.4 28.4% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20166: Kingsley Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 15 Future Volume (Veh/h) 15 EBT 23 23 Free EBR WBL 1 3 1 3 WBT WBR 128 17 128 17 Free NBL 0 0 NBT 2 2 Stop NBR 3 3 SBL 6 6 SBT 3 3 Stop SBR 9 9 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 16 0.92 25 0% 0.92 1 0.92 3 0.92 139 0% 0.92 18 0.92 0 0.92 2 0% 0.92 3 0.92 7 0.92 3 0% 0.92 10 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 185 185 4.1 12.0 27 3.5 3 None 61 61 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 35 3.5 3 None 285 284 96 278 275 203 96 278 275 203 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 35 3.5 3 12.0 28 3.5 3 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1353 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 160 NB 1 SB 1 5 20 1491 584 285 7.1 3.5 100 580 284 6.5 4.0 100 898 3.3 100 595 3.5 99 587 4.0 99 794 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 1 42 16 18 3 3 0 10 7 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1353 1 3.0 0.00 1491 0 0.2 0.01 737 679 1 2 10.5 0.03 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 3.0 A 0.2 A 9.9 9.9 A 10.5 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary A B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 1.8 29.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 45 EBR WBL 3 10 WBT WBR Stop 31 43 NBL 2 NBT Stop 80 NBR 19 SBL 39 SBT Stop 24 SBR 10 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 13 12 12 0.92 49 45 0.92 3 3 0.92 11 10 0.92 34 31 0.92 47 43 0.92 2 2 0.92 87 80 0.92 21 19 0.92 42 39 0.92 26 24 0.92 11 10 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 65 EB 1 13 3 0.05 4.5 0.08 92 WB 1 11 47 -0.25 4.2 0.11 110 NB 1 2 21 -0.08 4.3 0.13 79 SB 1 42 11 0.06 4.4 0.10 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 765 7.9 7.9 A 814 7.7 7.7 A 805 7.9 7.9 A 769 7.9 7.9 Delay Intersection Summary 7.8 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 30.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 4 1 EBR WBL 3 2 WBT WBR Stop 0 0 NBL 2 NBT Stop 28 NBR 8 SBL 6 SBT Stop 145 SBR 3 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 4 4 0.92 1 1 0.92 3 3 0.92 2 2 0.92 0 0 0.92 0 0 0.92 2 2 0.92 30 28 0.92 9 8 0.92 7 6 0.92 158 145 0.92 3 3 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 8 EB 1 4 3 -0.09 4.3 0.01 2 WB 1 2 0 0.23 4.6 0.00 41 NB 1 2 9 -0.09 4.0 0.05 168 SB 1 7 3 0.03 4.0 0.19 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 802 7.3 7.3 A 746 7.6 7.6 A 881 7.2 7.2 A 894 7.9 7.9 Delay Level of Service 7.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 25.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 4 27 EBR WBL 7 6 WBT WBR Stop 22 6 NBL 7 NBT Stop 55 NBR 33 SBL 6 SBT Stop 23 SBR 2 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 4 4 0.92 29 27 0.92 8 7 0.92 7 6 0.92 24 22 0.92 7 6 0.92 8 7 0.92 60 55 0.92 36 33 0.92 7 6 0.92 25 23 0.92 2 2 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 41 EB 1 4 8 -0.06 4.2 0.05 38 WB 1 7 7 -0.04 4.2 0.04 104 NB 1 8 36 -0.16 3.9 0.11 34 SB 1 7 2 0.04 4.2 0.04 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 831 7.4 7.4 A 825 7.4 7.4 A 883 7.5 7.5 A 831 7.4 7.4 Delay Level of Service 7.4 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 21.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 89 EBR WBL 3 3 WBT WBR Stop 69 10 NBL 1 NBT Stop 2 NBR 3 SBL 10 SBT Stop 2 SBR 3 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 12 11 11 0.92 97 89 0.92 3 3 0.92 3 3 0.92 75 69 0.92 11 10 0.92 1 1 0.92 2 2 0.92 3 3 0.92 11 10 0.92 2 2 0.92 3 3 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 112 EB 1 12 3 0.04 4.1 0.13 89 WB 1 3 11 -0.03 4.0 0.10 6 NB 1 1 3 -0.23 4.1 0.01 16 SB 1 11 3 0.06 4.4 0.02 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 870 7.7 7.7 A 882 7.5 7.5 A 824 7.1 7.1 A 779 7.5 7.5 Delay Intersection Summary 7.6 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 24.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 145 EBR WBL 9 5 WBT WBR Stop 133 23 NBL 2 NBT Stop 6 NBR 7 SBL 26 SBT Stop 4 SBR 8 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 18 17 17 0.92 158 145 0.92 10 9 0.92 5 5 0.92 145 133 0.92 25 23 0.92 2 2 0.92 7 6 0.92 8 7 0.92 28 26 0.92 4 4 0.92 9 8 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 186 EB 1 18 10 0.02 4.2 0.22 175 WB 1 5 25 -0.05 4.2 0.20 17 NB 1 2 8 -0.22 4.5 0.02 41 SB 1 28 9 0.04 4.7 0.05 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 830 8.4 8.4 A 841 8.3 8.3 A 729 7.6 7.6 A 695 8.0 8.0 Delay Intersection Summary 8.3 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 32.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 7 50 EBR WBL 63 19 WBT WBR Stop 81 17 NBL 53 NBT Stop 119 NBR 18 SBL 10 SBT Stop 114 SBR 11 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 8 7 0.92 54 50 0.92 68 63 0.92 21 19 0.92 88 81 0.92 18 17 0.92 58 53 0.92 129 119 0.92 20 18 0.92 11 10 0.92 124 114 0.92 12 11 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 130 EB 1 8 68 -0.27 4.7 0.17 127 WB 1 21 18 -0.02 4.9 0.17 207 NB 1 58 20 0.03 4.8 0.27 147 SB 1 11 12 0.00 4.8 0.20 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 703 8.6 8.6 A 671 9.0 9.0 A 714 9.6 9.6 A 697 9.0 9.0 Delay Level of Service 9.1 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 43.3% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBT Sign Control Stop EBR 29 WBL WBT Stop 10 65 NBL NBR 18 18 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 52 48 48 0.92 32 29 0.92 11 10 0.92 71 65 0.92 55 Stop 51 51 0.92 0.92 20 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 84 EB 1 0 32 -0.19 4.0 0.09 82 WB 1 11 0 0.06 4.2 0.10 75 NB 1 55 20 0.02 4.3 0.09 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 884 7.4 7.4 A 833 7.7 7.7 A 805 7.7 7.7 Delay Level of Service 7.6 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 24.1% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 3 3 EBR WBL 52 5 WBT WBR Stop 1 0 NBL 78 NBT Stop 114 NBR 10 SBL 0 SBT Stop 111 SBR 1 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 3 3 0.92 3 3 0.92 57 52 0.92 5 5 0.92 1 1 0.92 0 0 0.92 85 78 0.92 124 114 0.92 11 10 0.92 0 0 0.92 121 111 0.92 1 1 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 63 EB 1 3 57 -0.50 4.2 0.07 6 WB 1 5 0 0.20 4.9 0.01 220 NB 1 85 11 0.08 4.3 0.26 122 SB 1 0 1 0.03 4.3 0.15 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 790 7.5 7.5 A 667 8.0 8.0 A 823 8.8 8.8 A 804 8.0 8.0 Delay Level of Service 8.3 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 30.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 89 EBR WBL 46 10 WBT WBR Stop 101 10 NBL 45 NBT Stop 51 NBR 28 SBL 10 SBT Stop 71 SBR 22 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 22 20 20 0.92 97 89 0.92 50 46 0.92 11 10 0.92 110 101 0.92 11 10 0.92 49 45 0.92 55 51 0.92 30 28 0.92 11 10 0.92 77 71 0.92 24 22 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 169 EB 1 22 50 -0.12 4.6 0.21 132 WB 1 11 11 0.00 4.7 0.17 134 NB 1 49 30 -0.03 4.7 0.18 112 SB 1 11 24 -0.07 4.7 0.15 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 738 8.8 8.8 A 712 8.7 8.7 A 708 8.8 8.8 A 704 8.5 8.5 Delay Level of Service 8.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 33.9% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 0 60 EBR WBL 20 50 WBT WBR Stop 6 12 NBL 6 NBT Stop 7 NBR 57 SBL 57 SBT Stop 18 SBR 1 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 0 0 0.92 65 60 0.92 22 20 0.92 54 50 0.92 7 6 0.92 13 12 0.92 7 6 0.92 8 7 0.92 62 57 0.92 62 57 0.92 20 18 0.92 1 1 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 87 EB 1 0 22 -0.12 4.2 0.10 74 WB 1 54 13 0.07 4.4 0.09 77 NB 1 7 62 -0.43 3.9 0.08 83 SB 1 62 1 0.18 4.5 0.10 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 816 7.7 7.7 A 770 7.9 7.9 A 868 7.3 7.3 A 755 8.0 8.0 Delay Level of Service 7.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 30.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 16 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 208 EBR WBL 21 34 WBT WBR Stop 165 8 NBL 12 NBT Stop 10 NBR 15 SBL 8 SBT Stop 11 SBR 16 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 11 10 10 0.92 226 208 0.92 23 21 0.92 37 34 0.92 179 165 0.92 9 8 0.92 13 12 0.92 11 10 0.92 16 15 0.92 9 8 0.92 12 11 0.92 17 16 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 260 EB 1 11 23 -0.01 4.3 0.31 225 WB 1 37 9 0.04 4.4 0.28 40 NB 1 13 16 -0.14 4.9 0.05 38 SB 1 9 17 -0.19 4.9 0.05 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 810 9.3 9.3 A 785 9.1 9.1 A 661 8.2 8.2 A 662 8.1 8.1 Delay Level of Service 9.1 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 37.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBT Sign Control Stop EBR 5 WBL WBT Stop 2 199 NBL NBR 6 6 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 246 226 226 0.92 5 5 0.92 2 2 0.92 216 199 0.92 4 Stop 4 4 0.92 0.92 7 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 251 EB 1 0 5 0.02 4.2 0.29 218 WB 1 2 0 0.04 4.2 0.25 11 NB 1 4 7 -0.28 4.6 0.01 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 852 8.9 8.9 A 844 8.6 8.6 A 703 7.7 7.7 Delay Intersection Summary 8.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 31.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 4 Future Volume (Veh/h) 4 EBT 102 102 Free EBR WBL 1 2 1 2 WBT WBR 96 9 96 9 Free NBL 1 1 NBT 0 0 Stop NBR 5 5 SBL 22 22 SBT 2 2 Stop SBR 8 8 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 4 0.92 111 0% 0.92 1 0.92 2 0.92 104 0% 0.92 10 0.92 1 0.92 0 0% 0.92 5 0.92 24 0.92 2 0% 0.92 9 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 128 128 4.1 12.0 13 3.5 1 None 120 120 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 14 3.5 1 None 264 260 134 266 255 136 134 266 255 136 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 8 3.5 1 12.0 14 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1438 2.2 100 EB 1 WB 1 116 NB 1 SB 1 6 35 24 1457 654 264 7.1 3.5 100 629 260 6.5 4.0 100 896 3.3 99 653 3.5 96 633 4.0 100 889 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 1 116 4 10 2 5 1 9 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1438 0 0.3 0.00 1457 0 0.1 0.01 844 699 1 4 10.4 0.05 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.3 A 0.1 A 9.3 9.3 A 10.4 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary A B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 1.7 24.3% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 35 Future Volume (Veh/h) 35 EBT 135 135 Free EBR WBL 5 21 5 21 WBT WBR 94 36 94 36 Free NBL 2 2 NBT 21 21 Stop NBR 12 12 SBL 33 33 SBT 13 13 Stop SBR 47 47 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 38 0.92 147 0% 0.92 5 0.92 23 0.92 102 0% 0.92 39 0.92 2 0.92 23 0% 0.92 13 0.92 36 0.92 14 0% 0.92 51 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 194 194 4.1 12.0 53 3.5 5 None 187 187 4.1 2.2 12.0 52 3.5 5 None 539 500 236 522 484 228 236 522 484 228 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 35 3.5 3 12.0 53 3.5 5 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1310 2.2 97 EB 1 WB 1 164 NB 1 SB 1 38 101 36 1341 98 342 539 7.1 3.5 99 414 500 6.5 4.0 94 737 3.3 98 357 3.5 90 423 4.0 97 732 3.3 93 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 5 190 38 39 23 13 2 51 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.03 1310 2 1.8 0.02 1341 1 1.2 0.08 481 496 6 19 14.1 0.20 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 1.8 A 1.2 A 13.1 13.1 B 14.1 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 5.0 35.1% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 87 Future Volume (Veh/h) 87 EBR 39 39 WBL WBT 28 44 28 44 NBL NBR 43 26 26 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 95 Free 0% 0.92 42 0.92 30 0.92 48 Free 0% 0.92 47 43 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 28 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 8 3.5 1 None 145 240 131 240 131 6.4 6.2 12.0 7 3.5 1 None 12.0 8 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 137 WB 1 NB 1 78 75 1426 145 4.1 2.2 98 721 3.5 3.3 93 97 905 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 42 0 0 30 28 47 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.08 1700 0 0.0 0.02 1426 2 3.0 0.10 781 8 10.1 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 3.0 A 10.1 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 3.4 28.7% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 197 201 76 311 3.186 40 0.995 5.3 A EB Left 1 1 158 161 180 183 3.186 23 0.997 5.5 A Left 1 1 195 199 164 113 3.186 40 0.995 5.9 A Left 1 1 123 125 262 79 3.186 31 0.996 5.7 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 201 161 199 125 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1047 944 959 870 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.979 0.983 0.981 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 197 158 195 123 Cap Entry, veh/h 1020 925 936 853 V/C Ratio 0.193 0.171 0.209 0.144 Control Delay, s/veh 5.3 5.5 5.9 5.7 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 3.3 A WB NB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 7 7 18 4 3.186 11 0.998 3.3 A EB Left 1 1 20 20 2 14 3.186 12 0.998 3.4 A Left 1 1 12 12 4 21 3.186 12 0.998 3.3 A Designated Moves TR LT LR Assumed Moves TR LT LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 7 20 12 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1110 1128 1125 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.998 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 7 20 12 Cap Entry, veh/h 1096 1124 1124 V/C Ratio 0.006 0.018 0.011 Control Delay, s/veh 3.3 3.4 3.3 LOS A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Roundabout 5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 51 52 77 131 3.186 11 0.998 3.9 A EB Left 1 1 137 139 70 46 3.186 13 0.998 4.7 A Left 1 1 69 70 46 83 3.186 10 0.999 4.0 A Left 1 1 75 76 132 77 3.186 13 0.998 4.4 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 52 139 70 76 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1046 1054 1079 990 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.984 0.984 0.986 Flow Entry, veh/h 51 137 69 75 Cap Entry, veh/h 1033 1035 1060 975 V/C Ratio 0.050 0.132 0.065 0.077 Control Delay, s/veh 3.9 4.7 4.0 4.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20166: Bryant St & Kingsley Ave Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.8 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 58 59 99 177 3.186 16 0.998 4.1 A EB Left 1 1 192 196 25 127 3.186 23 0.997 5.0 A Left 1 1 15 15 137 21 3.186 18 0.998 3.9 A Left 1 1 103 105 171 49 3.186 23 0.997 4.9 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 59 196 15 105 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1023 1102 985 952 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.979 0.984 0.979 Flow Entry, veh/h 58 192 15 103 Cap Entry, veh/h 1006 1075 967 929 V/C Ratio 0.058 0.178 0.015 0.111 Control Delay, s/veh 4.1 5.0 3.9 4.9 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.4 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 103 105 100 38 3.186 13 0.998 4.5 A EB Left 1 1 57 59 79 159 3.186 9 0.999 4.0 A Left 1 1 82 83 155 50 3.186 13 0.998 4.6 A Left 1 1 104 106 32 106 3.186 13 0.998 4.2 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 105 59 83 106 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1022 1044 968 1094 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.984 0.973 0.985 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 103 57 82 104 Cap Entry, veh/h 1004 1015 951 1073 V/C Ratio 0.103 0.057 0.086 0.097 Control Delay, s/veh 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.5 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 45 46 281 24 3.186 114 0.982 4.9 A EB Left 1 1 16 16 225 13 3.186 48 0.993 4.2 A Left 1 1 196 200 38 289 3.186 114 0.979 5.2 A Left 1 1 281 286 19 222 3.186 84 0.988 5.8 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 46 16 200 286 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 853 902 1088 1109 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.977 0.999 0.982 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 45 16 196 281 Cap Entry, veh/h 818 895 1046 1076 V/C Ratio 0.055 0.018 0.188 0.261 Control Delay, s/veh 4.9 4.2 5.2 5.8 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 Roundabout 9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.1 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 52 53 105 63 3.186 3 1.000 4.1 A EB Left 1 1 70 71 55 94 3.186 4 0.999 4.0 A Left 1 1 69 70 79 79 3.186 3 1.000 4.1 A Left 1 1 94 96 72 54 3.186 4 0.999 4.3 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 53 71 70 96 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1017 1069 1044 1051 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.983 0.988 0.989 0.977 Flow Entry, veh/h 52 70 69 94 Cap Entry, veh/h 999 1056 1032 1027 V/C Ratio 0.052 0.066 0.067 0.091 Control Delay, s/veh 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.3 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.8 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 146 149 221 152 3.186 15 0.998 5.7 A EB Left 1 1 95 97 220 132 3.186 13 0.998 5.1 A Left 1 1 225 230 123 247 3.186 12 0.998 5.9 A Left 1 1 202 205 168 149 3.186 15 0.998 6.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 149 97 230 205 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 906 907 999 955 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.978 0.980 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 146 95 225 202 Cap Entry, veh/h 886 886 978 937 V/C Ratio 0.165 0.107 0.231 0.215 Control Delay, s/veh 5.7 5.1 5.9 6.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM 2010 Roundabout 14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.9 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 133 136 186 57 3.186 16 0.998 5.3 A EB Left 1 1 19 19 153 4 3.186 13 0.998 3.9 A Left 1 1 150 153 4 318 3.186 11 0.998 4.5 A Left 1 1 171 174 69 103 3.186 16 0.998 5.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 136 19 153 174 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 938 970 1125 1055 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.978 0.996 0.981 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 133 19 150 171 Cap Entry, veh/h 915 964 1102 1032 V/C Ratio 0.145 0.020 0.136 0.165 Control Delay, s/veh 5.3 3.9 4.5 5.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 0 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.5 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 229 233 136 133 3.186 19 0.997 6.1 A EB Left 1 1 115 116 167 166 3.186 23 0.997 5.0 A Left 1 1 158 161 172 197 3.186 13 0.998 5.5 A Left 1 1 129 131 138 145 3.186 23 0.997 5.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 233 116 161 131 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 986 956 951 984 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.984 0.988 0.982 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 229 115 158 129 Cap Entry, veh/h 968 942 932 966 V/C Ratio 0.237 0.122 0.170 0.134 Control Delay, s/veh 6.1 5.0 5.5 5.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 1 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.7 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 20 20 114 67 3.186 20 0.997 3.8 A EB Left 1 1 201 205 35 127 3.186 17 0.998 5.1 A Left 1 1 127 129 33 101 3.186 19 0.997 4.4 A Left 1 1 33 33 148 92 3.186 20 0.997 4.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 20 205 129 33 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1008 1091 1093 974 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.980 0.981 0.993 Flow Entry, veh/h 20 201 127 33 Cap Entry, veh/h 995 1067 1070 965 V/C Ratio 0.020 0.188 0.118 0.034 Control Delay, s/veh 3.8 5.1 4.4 4.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 6 204 EBR WBL 16 10 WBT WBR Stop 178 6 NBL 27 NBT Stop 5 NBR 22 SBL 8 SBT Stop 2 SBR 4 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 7 6 0.92 222 204 0.92 17 16 0.92 11 10 0.92 193 178 0.92 7 6 0.92 29 27 0.92 5 5 0.92 24 22 0.92 9 8 0.92 2 2 0.92 4 4 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 246 EB 1 7 17 0.00 4.3 0.29 211 WB 1 11 7 0.02 4.4 0.26 58 NB 1 29 24 -0.11 4.8 0.08 15 SB 1 9 4 -0.01 5.0 0.02 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 815 9.1 9.1 A 794 8.9 8.9 A 679 8.2 8.2 A 644 8.1 8.1 Delay Intersection Summary 8.9 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 27.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBT Sign Control Stop EBR 3 WBL WBT Stop 2 181 NBL NBR 4 4 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 253 233 233 0.92 3 3 0.92 2 2 0.92 197 181 0.92 0 Stop 0 0 0.92 0.92 4 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 256 EB 1 0 3 0.03 4.1 0.29 199 WB 1 2 0 0.04 4.2 0.23 4 NB 1 0 4 -0.57 4.3 0.00 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 861 8.8 8.8 A 848 8.4 8.4 A 753 7.3 7.3 Delay Intersection Summary 8.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 26.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 11 Future Volume (Veh/h) 11 EBT 89 89 Free EBR WBL 3 3 3 3 WBT WBR 69 10 69 10 Free NBL 1 1 NBT 2 2 Stop NBR 3 3 SBL 10 10 SBT 2 2 Stop SBR 3 3 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 12 0.92 97 0% 0.92 3 0.92 3 0.92 75 0% 0.92 11 0.92 1 0.92 2 0% 0.92 3 0.92 11 0.92 2 0% 0.92 3 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 98 98 4.1 12.0 13 3.5 1 None 113 113 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 10 3.5 1 None 239 240 122 235 236 106 122 235 236 106 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 13 3.5 1 12.0 12 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1478 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 89 NB 1 SB 1 6 16 11 1458 676 239 7.1 3.5 100 639 240 6.5 4.0 100 909 3.3 100 683 3.5 98 643 4.0 100 926 3.3 100 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 3 112 12 11 3 3 1 3 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1478 1 0.9 0.00 1458 0 0.3 0.01 759 712 1 2 10.2 0.02 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.9 A 0.3 A 9.8 9.8 A 10.2 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary A B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 1.5 24.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 Future Volume (Veh/h) 17 EBT 145 145 Free EBR WBL 9 5 9 5 WBT WBR 133 23 133 23 Free NBL 2 2 NBT 6 6 Stop NBR 7 7 SBL 26 26 SBT 4 4 Stop SBR 8 8 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 18 0.92 158 0% 0.92 10 0.92 5 0.92 145 0% 0.92 25 0.92 2 0.92 7 0% 0.92 8 0.92 28 0.92 4 0% 0.92 9 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 185 185 4.1 12.0 27 3.5 3 None 195 195 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 27 3.5 3 None 432 421 217 420 414 200 217 420 414 200 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 27 3.5 3 12.0 15 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1370 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 175 NB 1 SB 1 17 41 28 1343 477 432 7.1 3.5 100 495 421 6.5 4.0 99 781 3.3 99 489 3.5 94 499 4.0 99 808 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 10 186 18 25 5 8 2 9 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1370 1 0.8 0.00 1343 0 0.3 0.03 595 537 2 6 12.3 0.08 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.8 A 0.3 A 11.2 11.2 B 12.3 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 2.1 32.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 48 Future Volume (Veh/h) 48 EBR 29 29 WBL WBT 10 65 10 65 NBL NBR 51 18 18 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 52 Free 0% 0.92 32 0.92 11 0.92 71 Free 0% 0.92 55 51 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 20 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 17 3.5 2 None 101 195 95 195 95 6.4 6.2 12.0 10 3.5 1 None 12.0 17 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 84 WB 1 NB 1 82 75 1467 101 4.1 2.2 99 763 3.5 3.3 93 98 937 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 32 0 0 11 20 55 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.05 1700 0 0.0 0.01 1467 1 1.1 0.09 802 8 9.9 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 1.1 A 9.9 A Approach LOS Intersection Summary A A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 3.5 24.1% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 152 155 36 171 3.186 20 0.997 4.6 A EB Left 1 1 132 134 74 106 3.186 25 0.997 4.7 A Left 1 1 34 34 146 45 3.186 25 0.997 4.1 A Left 1 1 74 76 131 77 3.186 22 0.997 4.4 A Designated Moves LT TR LTR LR Assumed Moves LT TR LTR LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 155 134 34 76 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1090 1049 976 991 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 0.983 0.987 0.980 Flow Entry, veh/h 152 132 34 74 Cap Entry, veh/h 1066 1028 960 968 V/C Ratio 0.143 0.128 0.035 0.077 Control Delay, s/veh 4.6 4.7 4.1 4.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 3.4 A WB NB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 5 5 24 6 3.186 16 0.998 3.3 A EB Left 1 1 28 28 2 8 3.186 21 0.997 3.4 A Left 1 1 9 9 1 28 3.186 21 0.997 3.3 A Designated Moves TR LT LR Assumed Moves TR LT LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 5 28 9 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1103 1128 1129 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.996 0.997 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 5 28 9 Cap Entry, veh/h 1096 1121 1126 V/C Ratio 0.005 0.025 0.008 Control Delay, s/veh 3.3 3.4 3.3 LOS A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Roundabout 5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.1 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 50 51 55 101 3.186 26 0.996 3.8 A EB Left 1 1 108 110 69 50 3.186 31 0.996 4.4 A Left 1 1 72 73 46 60 3.186 31 0.996 4.0 A Left 1 1 47 48 108 71 3.186 19 0.997 4.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 51 110 73 48 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1069 1055 1079 1014 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.986 0.985 0.987 Flow Entry, veh/h 50 108 72 47 Cap Entry, veh/h 1050 1035 1058 999 V/C Ratio 0.048 0.105 0.068 0.047 Control Delay, s/veh 3.8 4.4 4.0 4.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20166: Kingsley Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 42 43 13 152 3.186 27 0.996 3.6 A EB Left 1 1 160 163 18 35 3.186 35 0.995 4.6 A Left 1 1 5 5 48 7 3.186 35 0.995 3.4 A Left 1 1 20 20 145 36 3.186 28 0.996 3.9 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 43 163 5 20 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1115 1110 1077 977 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.988 0.983 0.992 0.997 Flow Entry, veh/h 42 160 5 20 Cap Entry, veh/h 1098 1086 1063 971 V/C Ratio 0.039 0.148 0.005 0.021 Control Delay, s/veh 3.6 4.6 3.4 3.9 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 65 66 81 48 3.186 40 0.995 4.1 A EB Left 1 1 92 94 104 114 3.186 23 0.997 4.4 A Left 1 1 110 112 106 41 3.186 34 0.995 4.6 A Left 1 1 79 81 48 150 3.186 40 0.995 4.1 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 66 94 112 81 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1042 1018 1016 1077 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.982 0.984 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 65 92 110 79 Cap Entry, veh/h 1021 997 996 1051 V/C Ratio 0.064 0.093 0.111 0.076 Control Delay, s/veh 4.1 4.4 4.6 4.1 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.4 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 8 8 170 5 3.186 17 0.998 3.9 A EB Left 1 1 2 2 37 17 3.186 7 0.999 3.3 A Left 1 1 41 42 12 166 3.186 17 0.998 3.6 A Left 1 1 168 171 4 35 3.186 17 0.998 4.6 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 8 2 42 171 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 953 1089 1116 1125 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.998 1.000 0.986 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 8 2 41 168 Cap Entry, veh/h 949 1088 1098 1102 V/C Ratio 0.008 0.002 0.038 0.152 Control Delay, s/veh 3.9 3.3 3.6 4.6 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 Roundabout 9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.0 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 41 42 39 34 3.186 11 0.998 3.7 A EB Left 1 1 38 38 73 74 3.186 11 0.998 3.8 A Left 1 1 104 106 41 40 3.186 11 0.998 4.3 A Left 1 1 34 35 39 72 3.186 9 0.999 3.6 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 42 38 106 35 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1087 1050 1085 1087 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.986 0.988 0.979 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 41 38 104 34 Cap Entry, veh/h 1070 1036 1060 1070 V/C Ratio 0.039 0.036 0.098 0.032 Control Delay, s/veh 3.7 3.8 4.3 3.6 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 130 132 158 161 3.186 11 0.998 5.1 A EB Left 1 1 127 129 199 86 3.186 21 0.997 5.3 A Left 1 1 207 211 74 216 3.186 21 0.997 5.4 A Left 1 1 147 149 170 158 3.186 18 0.998 5.3 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 132 129 211 149 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 965 926 1049 953 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.984 0.986 0.983 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 130 127 207 147 Cap Entry, veh/h 948 911 1029 935 V/C Ratio 0.137 0.140 0.202 0.157 Control Delay, s/veh 5.1 5.3 5.4 5.3 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM 2010 Roundabout 14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.8 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 63 64 128 89 3.186 8 0.999 4.3 A EB Left 1 1 6 6 216 14 3.186 5 0.999 4.0 A Left 1 1 220 224 6 186 3.186 8 0.999 5.1 A Left 1 1 122 124 93 129 3.186 7 0.999 4.7 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 64 6 224 124 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 994 910 1123 1030 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.983 0.997 0.980 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 63 6 220 122 Cap Entry, veh/h 977 907 1100 1009 V/C Ratio 0.064 0.007 0.200 0.121 Control Delay, s/veh 4.3 4.0 5.1 4.7 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.0 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 169 172 101 186 3.186 10 0.999 5.2 A EB Left 1 1 132 134 128 141 3.186 18 0.998 4.9 A Left 1 1 134 137 132 141 3.186 18 0.998 5.0 A Left 1 1 112 114 173 89 3.186 16 0.998 5.0 A Designated Moves LTR LR TR LT Assumed Moves LTR LR TR LT RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 172 134 137 114 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1021 994 990 950 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.983 0.984 0.977 0.986 Flow Entry, veh/h 169 132 134 112 Cap Entry, veh/h 1003 975 965 935 V/C Ratio 0.169 0.135 0.139 0.120 Control Delay, s/veh 5.2 4.9 5.0 5.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 87 88 138 15 3.186 13 0.998 4.5 A EB Left 1 1 74 75 15 192 3.186 19 0.997 3.9 A Left 1 1 77 78 129 97 3.186 19 0.997 4.4 A Left 1 1 83 84 69 21 3.186 17 0.998 4.2 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 88 75 78 84 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 984 1113 993 1055 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 87 74 77 83 Cap Entry, veh/h 968 1093 976 1035 V/C Ratio 0.090 0.068 0.079 0.080 Control Delay, s/veh 4.5 3.9 4.4 4.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/26/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 242 EBR WBL 24 40 WBT WBR Stop 192 9 NBL 14 NBT Stop 12 NBR 17 SBL 9 SBT Stop 13 SBR 19 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 13 12 12 0.92 263 242 0.92 26 24 0.92 43 40 0.92 209 192 0.92 10 9 0.92 15 14 0.92 13 12 0.92 18 17 0.92 10 9 0.92 14 13 0.92 21 19 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 302 EB 1 13 26 -0.01 4.4 0.37 262 WB 1 43 10 0.04 4.5 0.33 46 NB 1 15 18 -0.14 5.1 0.07 45 SB 1 10 21 -0.20 5.0 0.06 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary B 791 10.0 10.0 A 768 9.7 9.7 A 626 8.5 8.5 A 630 8.4 8.4 Delay Level of Service 9.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 41.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/26/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBT Sign Control Stop EBR 6 WBL WBT Stop 2 231 NBL NBR 7 7 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 286 263 263 0.92 7 6 0.92 2 2 0.92 251 231 0.92 5 Stop 5 5 0.92 0.92 8 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 293 EB 1 0 7 0.02 4.2 0.34 253 WB 1 2 0 0.04 4.3 0.30 13 NB 1 5 8 -0.26 4.8 0.02 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 844 9.4 9.4 A 825 9.1 9.1 A 670 7.9 7.9 Delay Intersection Summary 9.2 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 32.9% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/26/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 Future Volume (Veh/h) 5 EBT 119 119 Free EBR WBL 1 2 1 2 WBT WBR 112 10 112 10 Free NBL 1 1 NBT 0 0 Stop NBR 6 6 SBL 26 26 SBT 2 2 Stop SBR 9 9 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 5 0.92 129 0% 0.92 1 0.92 2 0.92 122 0% 0.92 11 0.92 1 0.92 0 0% 0.92 7 0.92 28 0.92 2 0% 0.92 10 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 149 149 4.1 12.0 15 3.5 1 None 139 139 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 16 3.5 2 None 306 302 154 310 296 158 154 310 296 158 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 9 3.5 1 12.0 16 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1411 2.2 100 EB 1 WB 1 135 NB 1 SB 1 8 40 28 1432 609 306 7.1 3.5 100 594 302 6.5 4.0 100 870 3.3 99 605 3.5 95 598 4.0 100 861 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 1 135 5 11 2 7 1 10 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1411 0 0.3 0.00 1432 0 0.1 0.01 826 653 1 5 10.9 0.06 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.3 A 0.1 A 9.4 9.4 A 10.9 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary A B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 1.8 26.7% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/26/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 41 Future Volume (Veh/h) 41 EBT 157 157 Free EBR WBL 6 24 6 24 WBT WBR 109 42 109 42 Free NBL 2 2 NBT 24 24 Stop NBR 14 14 SBL 38 38 SBT 15 15 Stop SBR 55 55 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 45 0.92 171 0% 0.92 7 0.92 26 0.92 118 0% 0.92 46 0.92 2 0.92 26 0% 0.92 15 0.92 41 0.92 16 0% 0.92 60 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 226 226 4.1 12.0 62 3.5 6 None 219 219 4.1 2.2 12.0 62 3.5 6 None 628 584 278 610 564 265 278 610 564 265 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 41 3.5 4 12.0 62 3.5 6 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1263 2.2 96 EB 1 WB 1 190 NB 1 SB 1 43 117 41 1298 98 280 628 7.1 3.5 99 362 584 6.5 4.0 93 688 3.3 98 296 3.5 86 371 4.0 96 685 3.3 91 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 7 223 45 46 26 15 2 60 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.04 1263 3 1.9 0.02 1298 2 1.2 0.10 427 435 8 27 16.3 0.27 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 1.9 A 1.2 A 14.4 14.4 B C 16.3 Approach LOS Intersection Summary B C Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 5.5 38.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/26/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 101 Future Volume (Veh/h) 101 EBR 45 45 WBL WBT 33 51 33 51 NBL NBR 50 30 30 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 110 Free 0% 0.92 49 0.92 36 0.92 55 Free 0% 0.92 54 50 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 33 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 9 3.5 1 None 168 280 152 280 152 6.4 6.2 12.0 8 3.5 1 None 12.0 9 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 159 WB 1 NB 1 91 87 1398 168 4.1 2.2 97 680 3.5 3.3 92 96 880 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 49 0 0 36 33 54 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.09 1700 0 0.0 0.03 1398 2 3.1 0.12 744 10 10.5 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 3.1 A 10.5 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 3.6 31.0% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/26/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 6.1 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 228 233 88 360 3.186 48 0.993 5.7 A EB Left 1 1 182 185 207 212 3.186 28 0.996 6.0 A Left 1 1 226 230 189 132 3.186 48 0.993 6.5 A Left 1 1 144 146 302 90 3.186 36 0.995 6.2 A Designated Moves LT TR LTR LR Assumed Moves LT TR LTR LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 233 185 230 146 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1035 919 935 835 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.983 0.984 0.986 Flow Entry, veh/h 228 182 226 144 Cap Entry, veh/h 1008 900 914 820 V/C Ratio 0.227 0.202 0.248 0.176 Control Delay, s/veh 5.7 6.0 6.5 6.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 3.4 A WB NB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 8 8 22 4 3.186 13 0.998 3.4 A EB Left 1 1 24 24 2 16 3.186 14 0.998 3.4 A Left 1 1 13 13 5 25 3.186 14 0.998 3.3 A Designated Moves TR LT LR Assumed Moves TR LT LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 8 24 13 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1105 1128 1124 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.988 0.998 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 8 24 13 Cap Entry, veh/h 1090 1124 1122 V/C Ratio 0.007 0.021 0.012 Control Delay, s/veh 3.4 3.4 3.3 LOS A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Roundabout 5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/26/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 59 60 89 154 3.186 13 0.998 4.0 A EB Left 1 1 159 162 81 53 3.186 15 0.998 4.9 A Left 1 1 80 81 53 96 3.186 12 0.998 4.1 A Left 1 1 87 88 155 88 3.186 15 0.998 4.6 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 60 162 81 88 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1034 1042 1072 968 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.984 0.984 0.986 Flow Entry, veh/h 59 159 80 87 Cap Entry, veh/h 1020 1023 1053 952 V/C Ratio 0.058 0.156 0.076 0.091 Control Delay, s/veh 4.0 4.9 4.1 4.6 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/20166: Bryant St & Kingsley Ave Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.1 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 67 68 115 206 3.186 19 0.997 4.2 A EB Left 1 1 223 228 29 147 3.186 27 0.996 5.3 A Left 1 1 17 17 159 24 3.186 21 0.997 4.0 A Left 1 1 120 122 199 58 3.186 27 0.996 5.2 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 68 228 17 122 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1007 1098 964 926 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.979 0.984 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 67 223 17 120 Cap Entry, veh/h 989 1071 946 905 V/C Ratio 0.068 0.208 0.018 0.132 Control Delay, s/veh 4.2 5.3 4.0 5.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 120 122 117 44 3.186 15 0.998 4.8 A EB Left 1 1 66 68 92 186 3.186 10 0.999 4.2 A Left 1 1 97 98 180 59 3.186 15 0.998 4.9 A Left 1 1 122 124 37 123 3.186 15 0.998 4.4 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 122 68 98 124 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1005 1031 944 1089 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.984 0.975 0.985 0.984 Flow Entry, veh/h 120 66 97 122 Cap Entry, veh/h 987 1004 928 1069 V/C Ratio 0.122 0.066 0.104 0.114 Control Delay, s/veh 4.8 4.2 4.9 4.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.9 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 52 53 327 27 3.186 133 0.973 5.3 A EB Left 1 1 19 19 260 17 3.186 59 0.992 4.4 A Left 1 1 228 232 45 335 3.186 133 0.968 5.6 A Left 1 1 327 333 21 258 3.186 98 0.987 6.4 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 53 19 232 333 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 815 871 1080 1106 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.999 0.982 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 52 19 228 327 Cap Entry, veh/h 777 863 1027 1072 V/C Ratio 0.067 0.022 0.222 0.305 Control Delay, s/veh 5.3 4.4 5.6 6.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 Roundabout 9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/26/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 59 60 121 73 3.186 4 0.999 4.2 A EB Left 1 1 81 82 64 110 3.186 5 0.999 4.1 A Left 1 1 82 83 91 90 3.186 4 0.999 4.2 A Left 1 1 109 111 83 63 3.186 5 0.999 4.5 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 60 82 83 111 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1001 1060 1032 1040 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.982 0.988 0.989 0.979 Flow Entry, veh/h 59 81 82 109 Cap Entry, veh/h 983 1047 1020 1017 V/C Ratio 0.060 0.077 0.080 0.107 Control Delay, s/veh 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.5 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 6.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 170 173 258 176 3.186 17 0.998 6.2 A EB Left 1 1 111 113 257 152 3.186 15 0.998 5.5 A Left 1 1 262 267 142 289 3.186 14 0.998 6.5 A Left 1 1 234 238 196 174 3.186 17 0.998 6.6 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 173 113 267 238 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 873 874 980 929 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 0.980 0.982 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 170 111 262 234 Cap Entry, veh/h 855 855 960 911 V/C Ratio 0.199 0.130 0.273 0.257 Control Delay, s/veh 6.2 5.5 6.5 6.6 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM 2010 Roundabout 14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/26/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.2 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 154 157 216 67 3.186 19 0.997 5.8 A EB Left 1 1 22 22 177 4 3.186 15 0.998 4.0 A Left 1 1 174 177 4 369 3.186 13 0.998 4.7 A Left 1 1 198 202 81 118 3.186 19 0.997 5.4 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 157 22 177 202 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 910 947 1125 1042 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 0.996 0.982 0.980 Flow Entry, veh/h 154 22 174 198 Cap Entry, veh/h 890 940 1103 1019 V/C Ratio 0.173 0.023 0.158 0.194 Control Delay, s/veh 5.8 4.0 4.7 5.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 6.0 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 264 270 157 156 3.186 22 0.997 6.7 A EB Left 1 1 133 137 192 191 3.186 27 0.996 5.4 A Left 1 1 182 185 198 228 3.186 15 0.998 5.9 A Left 1 1 150 152 161 168 3.186 27 0.996 5.3 A Designated Moves LTR LR TR LT Assumed Moves LTR LR TR LT RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 270 137 185 152 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 966 933 927 962 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.977 0.974 0.983 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 264 133 182 150 Cap Entry, veh/h 941 905 909 944 V/C Ratio 0.280 0.147 0.200 0.159 Control Delay, s/veh 6.7 5.4 5.9 5.3 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.0 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 23 23 132 78 3.186 23 0.997 3.9 A EB Left 1 1 233 238 40 148 3.186 20 0.997 5.5 A Left 1 1 148 150 38 117 3.186 22 0.997 4.6 A Left 1 1 38 39 172 106 3.186 23 0.997 4.3 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 23 238 150 39 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 990 1086 1088 951 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.978 0.984 0.968 Flow Entry, veh/h 23 233 148 38 Cap Entry, veh/h 976 1059 1067 918 V/C Ratio 0.023 0.220 0.138 0.041 Control Delay, s/veh 3.9 5.5 4.6 4.3 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/23/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 7 240 EBR WBL 19 12 WBT WBR Stop 209 7 NBL 32 NBT Stop 6 NBR 26 SBL 9 SBT Stop 2 SBR 5 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 8 7 0.92 261 240 0.92 21 19 0.92 13 12 0.92 227 209 0.92 8 7 0.92 35 32 0.92 7 6 0.92 28 26 0.92 10 9 0.92 2 2 0.92 5 5 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 290 EB 1 8 21 0.00 4.4 0.35 248 WB 1 13 8 0.03 4.5 0.31 70 NB 1 35 28 -0.11 5.0 0.10 17 SB 1 10 5 -0.02 5.2 0.02 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 796 9.8 9.8 A 776 9.4 9.4 A 645 8.6 8.6 A 610 8.3 8.3 Delay Intersection Summary 9.5 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 31.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/23/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBT Sign Control Stop EBR 4 WBL WBT Stop 2 213 NBL NBR 5 5 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 298 274 274 0.92 4 4 0.92 2 2 0.92 232 213 0.92 0 Stop 0 0 0.92 0.92 5 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 302 EB 1 0 4 0.03 4.2 0.35 234 WB 1 2 0 0.04 4.2 0.28 5 NB 1 0 5 -0.57 4.5 0.01 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 853 9.4 9.4 A 829 8.8 8.8 A 716 7.5 7.5 Delay Intersection Summary 9.1 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 28.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/23/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 Future Volume (Veh/h) 13 EBT 105 105 Free EBR WBL 4 4 4 4 WBT WBR 81 12 81 12 Free NBL 1 1 NBT 2 2 Stop NBR 4 4 SBL 12 12 SBT 2 2 Stop SBR 4 4 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 14 0.92 114 0% 0.92 4 0.92 4 0.92 88 0% 0.92 13 0.92 1 0.92 2 0% 0.92 4 0.92 13 0.92 2 0% 0.92 4 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 115 115 4.1 12.0 15 3.5 1 None 133 133 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 12 3.5 1 None 282 282 143 278 278 124 143 278 278 124 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 15 3.5 1 12.0 14 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1454 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 105 NB 1 SB 1 7 19 13 1431 628 282 7.1 3.5 100 602 282 6.5 4.0 100 881 3.3 100 634 3.5 98 605 4.0 100 902 3.3 100 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 4 132 14 13 4 4 1 4 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1454 1 0.9 0.00 1431 0 0.3 0.01 740 673 1 2 10.5 0.03 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.9 A 0.3 A 9.9 9.9 A 10.5 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary A B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 1.6 25.9% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/23/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 Future Volume (Veh/h) 20 EBT 170 170 Free EBR WBL 11 6 11 6 WBT WBR 156 27 156 27 Free NBL 2 2 NBT 7 7 Stop NBR 8 8 SBL 31 31 SBT 5 5 Stop SBR 9 9 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 22 0.92 185 0% 0.92 12 0.92 7 0.92 170 0% 0.92 29 0.92 2 0.92 8 0% 0.92 9 0.92 34 0.92 5 0% 0.92 10 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 217 217 4.1 12.0 32 3.5 3 None 229 229 4.1 2.2 12.0 32 3.5 3 None 510 498 255 496 490 234 255 496 490 234 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 32 3.5 3 12.0 18 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1329 2.2 98 EB 1 WB 1 206 NB 1 SB 1 19 49 34 1298 99 413 510 7.1 3.5 100 442 498 6.5 4.0 98 737 3.3 99 426 3.5 92 447 4.0 99 767 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 12 219 22 29 7 9 2 10 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.02 1329 1 0.9 0.01 1298 0 0.3 0.04 540 471 3 9 13.5 0.10 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.9 A 0.3 A 11.9 11.9 B 13.5 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 2.3 36.7% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/23/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 56 Future Volume (Veh/h) 56 EBR 34 34 WBL WBT 12 76 12 76 NBL NBR 60 21 21 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 61 Free 0% 0.92 37 0.92 13 0.92 83 Free 0% 0.92 65 60 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 23 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 20 3.5 2 None 118 228 112 228 112 6.4 6.2 12.0 12 3.5 1 None 12.0 20 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 98 WB 1 NB 1 96 88 1442 118 4.1 2.2 99 724 3.5 3.3 91 97 913 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 37 0 0 13 23 65 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.06 1700 0 0.0 0.01 1442 1 1.1 0.11 766 10 10.3 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 1.1 A 10.3 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 3.6 25.7% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.8 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 179 182 44 202 3.186 24 0.997 4.9 A EB Left 1 1 156 159 88 125 3.186 29 0.996 5.0 A Left 1 1 39 40 173 53 3.186 29 0.996 4.2 A Left 1 1 89 91 155 92 3.186 26 0.996 4.7 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 182 159 40 91 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1081 1035 950 968 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.982 0.983 0.986 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 179 156 39 89 Cap Entry, veh/h 1058 1013 934 947 V/C Ratio 0.169 0.154 0.042 0.094 Control Delay, s/veh 4.9 5.0 4.2 4.7 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 3.5 A WB NB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 6 6 29 7 3.186 19 0.997 3.3 A EB Left 1 1 33 34 2 9 3.186 25 0.997 3.6 A Left 1 1 10 10 1 34 3.186 25 0.997 3.3 A Designated Moves TR LT LR Assumed Moves TR LT LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 6 34 10 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1098 1128 1129 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.997 0.968 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 6 33 10 Cap Entry, veh/h 1091 1088 1125 V/C Ratio 0.005 0.030 0.009 Control Delay, s/veh 3.3 3.6 3.3 LOS A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Roundabout 5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 58 59 65 117 3.186 31 0.996 4.0 A EB Left 1 1 126 128 81 58 3.186 36 0.995 4.6 A Left 1 1 84 85 54 70 3.186 36 0.995 4.1 A Left 1 1 56 57 125 84 3.186 22 0.997 4.2 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 59 128 85 57 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1059 1042 1071 997 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.986 0.985 0.987 Flow Entry, veh/h 58 126 84 56 Cap Entry, veh/h 1039 1022 1049 982 V/C Ratio 0.056 0.123 0.080 0.057 Control Delay, s/veh 4.0 4.6 4.1 4.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20166: Kingsley Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 50 51 16 178 3.186 32 0.996 3.7 A EB Left 1 1 189 192 22 42 3.186 41 0.994 4.9 A Left 1 1 6 6 58 9 3.186 41 0.994 3.5 A Left 1 1 24 24 170 44 3.186 33 0.995 4.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 51 192 6 24 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1112 1105 1066 953 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.988 0.983 0.993 0.997 Flow Entry, veh/h 50 189 6 24 Cap Entry, veh/h 1094 1081 1053 946 V/C Ratio 0.046 0.175 0.006 0.025 Control Delay, s/veh 3.7 4.9 3.5 4.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 77 78 95 55 3.186 47 0.994 4.3 A EB Left 1 1 107 109 121 134 3.186 27 0.996 4.7 A Left 1 1 128 130 125 48 3.186 40 0.995 4.9 A Left 1 1 93 95 55 175 3.186 47 0.994 4.2 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 78 109 130 95 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1028 1001 997 1069 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.984 0.984 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 77 107 128 93 Cap Entry, veh/h 1006 981 976 1045 V/C Ratio 0.076 0.109 0.131 0.089 Control Delay, s/veh 4.3 4.7 4.9 4.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 10 10 199 6 3.186 20 0.997 4.0 A EB Left 1 1 2 2 44 19 3.186 8 0.999 3.3 A Left 1 1 48 49 14 195 3.186 20 0.997 3.7 A Left 1 1 197 201 4 42 3.186 20 0.997 4.9 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 10 2 49 201 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 926 1081 1114 1125 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.998 1.000 0.985 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 10 2 48 197 Cap Entry, veh/h 922 1080 1095 1102 V/C Ratio 0.011 0.002 0.044 0.179 Control Delay, s/veh 4.0 3.3 3.7 4.9 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 Roundabout 9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.1 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 49 50 46 40 3.186 13 0.998 3.8 A EB Left 1 1 44 45 86 87 3.186 13 0.998 3.9 A Left 1 1 122 124 49 47 3.186 13 0.998 4.4 A Left 1 1 39 40 46 85 3.186 11 0.998 3.7 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 50 45 124 40 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1079 1037 1076 1079 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.986 0.987 0.981 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 49 44 122 39 Cap Entry, veh/h 1062 1022 1053 1062 V/C Ratio 0.046 0.043 0.115 0.037 Control Delay, s/veh 3.8 3.9 4.4 3.7 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.8 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 153 156 186 187 3.186 13 0.998 5.5 A EB Left 1 1 149 151 232 101 3.186 25 0.997 5.8 A Left 1 1 242 246 87 255 3.186 25 0.997 5.8 A Left 1 1 173 176 197 186 3.186 21 0.997 5.8 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 156 151 246 176 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 938 896 1036 928 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.979 0.986 0.984 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 153 149 242 173 Cap Entry, veh/h 917 881 1015 910 V/C Ratio 0.167 0.169 0.238 0.190 Control Delay, s/veh 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.8 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM 2010 Roundabout 14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.1 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 74 75 151 104 3.186 9 0.999 4.5 A EB Left 1 1 8 8 255 17 3.186 6 0.999 4.2 A Left 1 1 259 264 8 218 3.186 9 0.999 5.5 A Left 1 1 142 145 110 153 3.186 8 0.999 5.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 75 8 264 145 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 972 876 1121 1012 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.986 0.998 0.981 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 74 8 259 142 Cap Entry, veh/h 956 873 1099 991 V/C Ratio 0.077 0.009 0.236 0.143 Control Delay, s/veh 4.5 4.2 5.5 5.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.5 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 199 203 118 220 3.186 12 0.998 5.6 A EB Left 1 1 155 158 152 166 3.186 21 0.997 5.3 A Left 1 1 159 162 156 165 3.186 21 0.997 5.4 A Left 1 1 131 134 204 106 3.186 19 0.997 5.4 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 203 158 162 134 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1004 971 967 921 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.979 0.984 0.980 0.979 Flow Entry, veh/h 199 155 159 131 Cap Entry, veh/h 981 952 944 900 V/C Ratio 0.202 0.163 0.168 0.146 Control Delay, s/veh 5.6 5.3 5.4 5.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.5 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 103 106 162 17 3.186 15 0.998 4.9 A EB Left 1 1 87 88 17 227 3.186 22 0.997 4.0 A Left 1 1 90 91 153 115 3.186 22 0.997 4.6 A Left 1 1 97 98 81 24 3.186 20 0.997 4.4 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 106 88 91 98 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 961 1111 970 1042 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.976 0.987 0.987 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 103 87 90 97 Cap Entry, veh/h 936 1093 954 1024 V/C Ratio 0.111 0.079 0.094 0.094 Control Delay, s/veh 4.9 4.0 4.6 4.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 Attachment D - Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards Staff Report Attachment D – Parking Occupancy Study 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Table 1: Bryant Street Bike Boulevard # of Average ProposedFeet of Available Percentage Spaces ExpectedCars ParkingParking Space Parking of Use Lost UtilizationObserved SpacesSpacesBlock Segment Bryant St Palo Alto Ave to Palo Alto Ave (southside) Bryant St Palo Alto Ave to Hawthorne Ave (southside) Bryant St Hawthorne Ave to Everett Ave (southside) Everett Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (westside) Everett Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (eastside) Bryant St Everett Ave to 335 driveway (southside) Bryant St Channing Ave to Addison Ave (southside) Addison Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (westside) Addison Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (eastside) Bryant St Addison Ave to Lincoln Ave (southside) Bryant St Lincoln Ave to Kingsley Ave (southside) Kingsley Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (westside) Kingsley Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (eastside) Bryant St Kingsley Ave to Embarcadero Rd (southside) Bryant St Embarcadero Rd to Kellogg Ave (southside) Lowell Ave Bryant St to Emerson St (westside) Lowell Ave Emerson St to Bryant St (eastside) Bryant St Santa Rita Ave to Washington Ave (southside) Bryant St Washington Ave to California Ave (southside) California Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (westside) California Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (eastside) Bryant St California Ave to Oregon Expy (southside) El Verano Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (westside) El Verano Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (eastside) El Verano Ave Bryant St to South Ct (eastside) El Verano Ave South Ct to Bryant St (westside) Bryant St Oregon Expy to California Ave (northside) Bryant St California Ave to Santa Rita Ave (northside) California Ave Bryant St to Waverley St (eastside) 88.00 4 0 0.0% 2 2 0% 487.00 22 9.25 41.8% 20 2 46% 274.00 12 8.25 66.2% 11 1 72% 112.00 5 5 98.2% 4 1 122% 139.00 6 6.25 98.9% 5 1 118% 196.00 9 7.5 84.2% 8 1 95% 256.00 12 9.75 83.8% 10 2 101% 157.00 7 3 42.0% 5 2 58% 181.00 8 3.5 42.5% 6 2 56% 335.00 15 5.75 37.8% 13 2 43% 387.00 18 7.25 41.2% 15 3 50% 207.00 9 3 31.9% 6 3 47% 165.00 8 0.75 10.0% 5 3 17% 253.00 12 3.25 28.3% 7 5 50% 264.00 12 5.5 45.8% 12 0 46% 424.00 19 8.5 44.1% 17 2 49% 370.00 17 10 59.5% 15 2 67% 362.00 16 5.5 33.4% 16 0 33% 105.00 5 1.5 31.4% 3 2 54% 176.00 8 0.5 6.3% 6 2 8% 206.00 9 0 0.0% 7 2 0% 432.00 20 5.75 29.3% 18 2 33% 215.00 10 1.25 12.8% 8 2 16% 192.00 9 1 11.5% 7 2 15% 211.00 10 2.25 23.5% 8 2 30% 204.00 9 0.5 5.4% 7 2 7% 513.00 23 6.25 26.8% 21 2 29% 1600.00 73 12.5 17.2% 71 2 18% 300.00 14 0.7 4.9% 12 2 6% 17 # of Average ProposedFeet of Available Percentage Spaces ExpectedCars ParkingParking Space Parking of Use Lost UtilizationObserved SpacesSpacesBlock Segment California Ave Waverley St to Bryant St (westside) Lowell Ave Bryant St to Waverley St (eastside) Lowell Ave Waverley St to Bryant St (westside) Bryant St Kellogg Ave to Embarcadero Rd (northside) Bryant St Embarcadero Rd to Kingsley Ave (northside) Kingsley Ave Bryant St to Waverly St (eastside) Kinglsey Ave Waverly St to Bryant St (westside) Bryant St Kingsley Ave to Lincoln Ave (northside) Bryant St Lincoln Ave to Addison Ave (northside) Addison Ave Bryant St to Waverly St (eastside) Addison Ave Waverly St to Bryant St (westside) Bryant St Addison Ave to Channing Ave (northside) Bryant St mixed use building to Everett Ave (northside) Everett Ave Bryant St to Waverley St (eastside)* Everett Ave Waverly St to Bryant St (westside) Bryant St Everett Ave to Hawthorn Ave (northside) Bryant St Hawthorne Ave to Poe St (northside) Poe St Bryant St to Palo Alto Ave (eastside) Poe St Palo Alto Ave to Bryant St (westside) Bryant St Poe St to Palo Alto Ave (northside) 387.00 18 8.3 47.4% 16 2 53% 421.00 19 4.3 22.6% 17 2 25% 415.00 19 3.3 17.7% 17 2 20% 255.00 12 1.75 15.1% 10 2 18% 237.00 11 2.5 23.2% 5 6 52% 425.00 19 15.25 78.9% 16 3 93% 410.00 19 13.25 71.1% 16 3 85% 332.00 15 5.25 34.8% 12 3 43% 313.00 14 6.75 47.4% 12 2 55% 400.00 18 7.5 41.3% 16 2 46% 334.00 15 7.5 49.4% 13 2 57% 340.00 15 12.25 79.3% 13 2 91% 166.00 8 5.75 76.2% 7 1 88% 177.00 8 12.5 155.4% 7 1 177% 346.00 16 11.75 74.7% 15 1 80% 250.00 11 9 79.2% 10 1 87% 371.00 17 14.5 86.0% 17 0 86% 388.00 18 4.75 26.9% 18 0 27% 281.00 13 2.25 17.6% 13 0 18% 131 6 0.5 8.4% 2 4 26% TOTAL 15,190.00 690.5 279 40.4% 595 95 47% Survey Times Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 24, 2016 at 12:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Weekend as surveyed on February 28, 2016 at 12:00 pm (between 8am and 5pm) Evening was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am) Daytime #1 for select locations were surveyed on March 1, 2016 at 10:00 AM (California btwn Bryant and Waverely; Lowell Ave btwn Bryant and Waverley) Notes 1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for instruction on how to count spaces. 2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas. 3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and street functional classification. 4) California Ave is no parking on the east side of the street from 7 am - 7 pm. 5) *A high number of compact cars were observed on Everett Street (Bryant Street to Waverley Street - east side) which culminated in more parkings spaces observed than typically available when estimated at 22 feet per space. 18 Table 2: Ross Road Bike Boulevard # ofFeet of Average ProposedAvailable Percentage Spaces ExpectedParking Cars ParkingParking of Use Lost UtilizationSpace Observed SpacesBlock Segment Spaces Ross Rd Oregon Expy to Moreno Ave (southside) Ross Rd Moreno Ave to Rosewood Dr (southside) Ross Rd Rosewood Dr to Colorado Ave (southside) Colorado Ave Ross Rd to Randers Ct (westside) Colorado Ave Randers Ct to Ross Rd (eastside) Ross Rd Colorado Ave to Sutter Ave (southside) Ross Rd Sutter Ave to Clara Dr (southside) Ross Rd Clara Dr to Stern Ave (southside) Ross Rd Stern Ave to Allen Ct (southside) Ross Rd Allen Ct to Loma Verde Ave (southside) Loma Verde Ave Ross Rd to Loma Verde Pl (westside) Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Pl to Ross Rd (eastside) Ross Rd Loma Verde Ave to Ames Ave (southside) Ross Rd Ames Ave to Stone Ln (southside) Ross Rd Stone Ln to Talisman Dr (northside) Talisman Dr Ross Rd to bend in road (westside) Talisman Dr bend in road to Ross Rd (eastside) Ross Rd Talisman Dr to Christine Dr (southside) Ross Rd Christine Dr to Meadow Dr (southside) Ross Rd Meadow Dr to Mayview Ave (southside) Ross Rd Mayview Ave to Corina Wy (southside) Ross Rd W Corina Wy to E Corina Wy (southside) Ross Rd E Corina Wy to Louis Rd (southside) Ross Rd Louis Rd to Nathan Wy (southside) Ross Rd Nathan Wy to Louis Rd (northside) Ross Rd Louis Rd to Corina Wy (northside) Ross Rd Corina Wy to Ramos Park Path (northside) Ross Rd Ramos Park Path to Meadow Dr (northside) Ross Rd Meadow Dr to Talisman Dr (northside) Talisman Dr Ross to Arbutus Ave (eastside) Talisman Dr Arbutus Ave to Ross Rd (westside) Ross Rd Talisman Dr to Ames Ave (northside) Ross Rd Ames Ave to Richardson Ct (northside) Ross Rd Richardson Ct to Ross Ct (northside) Ross Rd Ross Ct to Loma Verde Ave (northside) Loma Verde Ave Ross Rd to Manchester Ct (eastside) Loma Verde Ave Manchester Ct to Ross Rd (westside) Ross Rd Loma Verde Ave to Wintergreen Wy (northside) Ross Rd Wintergreen Wy to Clara Dr (northside) Ross Rd Clara Dr to Sutter Ave (northside) 402.00 18 4.75 26.0% 16 2 29% 176.00 8 0.5 6.3% 5 3 10% 548.00 25 7 28.1% 23 2 31% 138.00 6 0.25 4.0% 5 1 5% 68.00 3 0 0.0% 1 2 0% 155.00 7 1.5 21.3% 5 2 30% 151.00 7 0.75 10.9% 5 2 15% 354.00 16 2.75 17.1% 14 2 20% 180.00 8 2.25 27.5% 2 6 103% 386.00 18 5.5 31.3% 15 3 38% 225.00 10 2.25 22.0% 8 2 27% 201.00 9 0 0.0% 7 2 0% 488.00 22 4 18.0% 19 3 21% 405.00 18 7.5 40.7% 13 5 56% 227.00 10 1.75 17.0% 9 1 19% 255.00 12 2.5 21.6% 11 1 24% 282.00 13 2 15.6% 11 2 18% 183.00 8 0.5 6.0% 7 1 7% 275.00 13 4.5 36.0% 12 1 39% 284.00 13 3.25 25.2% 13 0 25% 102.00 5 1.25 27.0% 5 0 27% 317.00 14 1.75 12.1% 13 1 13% 148.00 7 0.25 3.7% 4 3 7% 129.00 6 0.5 8.5% 6 0 9% 125.00 6 0.25 4.4% 5 1 5% 141.00 6 0.75 11.7% 3 3 22% 453.00 21 5.25 25.5% 20 1 27% 332.00 15 5.5 36.4% 14 1 39% 445.00 20 4 19.8% 19 1 21% 190.00 9 3.25 37.6% 8 1 43% 172.00 8 1.5 19.2% 7 1 22% 779.00 35 10.5 29.7% 32 3 32% 95.00 4 1 23.2% 3 1 30% 145.00 7 0 0.0% 7 0 0% 184.00 8 0 0.0% 6 2 0% 106.00 5 0 0.0% 3 2 0% 122.00 6 2 36.1% 4 2 56% 793.00 36 6.5 18.0% 30 6 22% 173.00 8 0.75 9.5% 8 0 10% 220.00 10 0.25 2.5% 8 2 3% 19 Block Segment Feet of Parking Space # of Available Parking Spaces Average Cars Observed Percentage of Use Proposed Parking Spaces Spaces Lost Expected Utilization Ross Rd Sutter Ave to Colorado Ave (northside) 177.00 8 0 0.0% 6 2 0% Colorado Ave Ross Rd to Sevyson Ct (eastside) 432.00 20 0 0.0% 18 2 0% Colorado Ave Sevyson Ct to Ross Rd (westside) 492.00 22 7.5 33.5% 20 2 37% Ross Rd Colorado Ave to Marshall Dr (northside) 381.00 17 4.75 27.4% 16 1 29% Ross Rd Marshall Dr to Moreno Ave (northside) 274.00 12 3.75 30.1% 10 2 36% Ross Rd Moreno Ave to Oregon Expy (northside) 447.00 20 6.75 33.2% 18 2 37% TOTAL 12,757.00 579.9 121.5 21.0% 495 85 25% Survey Times Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 23, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Weekend as surveyed on February 28, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Evening was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am) Notes 1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for instruction on how to count spaces 2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas. 3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and street functional classification 4) Louis Road is no parking on the north side of street from 7 am - 7 pm. 5) Colorado Ave is no parking on the east side of the street from 7 am - 7 pm. 6) Loma Verde Ave is no parking on the east side of the street from 7 am - 7 pm. 20 Table 3: Moreno-Amarillo Avenues Bike Boulevard # ofFeet of Average ProposedAvailable Percentage Spaces ExpectedParking Cars ParkingParking of Use Lost UtilizationSpace Observed SpacesBlock Segment Spaces Moreno Ave Rosewood Dr to Ross Rd (eastside) Moreno Ave Ross Rd to Marshall Dr (eastside) Moreno Ave Marshall Dr to Ross Rd (westside) Moreno Ave Ross Rd to Coastland Dr (westside) Moreno Ave Coastland Dr to Rosewood Dr (westside) Amarillo Ave Louis Rd to Ohlone Elem driveway (eastside) Amarillo Ave Ohlone Elem driveway to Greer Rd (eastside) Amarillo Ave Greer Rd to Greer Park Pathway (eastside) Amarillo Ave Greer Park Pathway to W Bayshore Rd (eastside) Amarillo Ave W Bayshore Rd to N Tanland Dr (westside) Amarillo Ave N Tanland Dr to S Tanland Dr (westside) Amarillo Ave S Tanland Dr to Greer Rd (westside) Amarillo Ave Greer Rd to Louis Rd (westside) Louis Rd Moreno Ave to Fielding Dr (southside) Louis Rd Fielding Dr to Bruce Dr (southside) Louis Rd Bruce Dr to Amarillo Ave (northside) Louis Rd Amarillo Ave to Moreno Ave (northside) 357.00 16 1.25 7.7% 14 2 9% 172.00 8 0.75 9.6% 6 2 13% 162.00 7 0.5 6.8% 5 2 9% 217.00 10 2.25 22.8% 8 2 29% 113.00 5 0.75 14.6% 5 0 15% 206.00 9 2.75 29.4% 0 9 #DIV/0! 311.00 14 4.25 30.1% 13 1 33% 559.00 25 4.5 17.7% 24 1 19% 640.00 29 14.5 49.8% 18 11 81% 223.00 10 8 78.9% 5 5 160% 197.00 9 5.25 58.6% 7 2 75% 473.00 22 10.75 50.0% 20 2 54% 702.00 32 10.25 32.1% 16 16 64% 200.00 9 0 0.0% 0 9 0% 206.00 9 4.75 50.7% 9 0 51% 67.00 3 0 0.0% 3 0 0% 124.00 6 0 0.0% 6 0 0% TOTAL 4,929.00 224 70.5 31.5% 160 65 44% Survey Times Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 10, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Weekend as surveyed on February 13, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Evening was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am) Notes 1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for instruction on how to count spaces 2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas. 3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and street functional classification 4) Louis Rd from Charleston to Bibbits is no parking (bike lane only) from 7 am to 7 pm 5) Amarillo from Louis next to Ohlone has one no parking space from 7 am to 4 pm M-F. A maintenance truck was parked in that spot Daytime #1 6) Amarillo north of Ohlone, the first house has a no parking sign from 7 am to 4 pm M-F. 21 Table 4: Meadow-Louis-Montrose Bike Boulevard Feet of # of Available Average ProposedPercentage Spaces ExpectedParking Parking Cars Parkingof Use Lost UtilizationSpace Spaces Observed SpacesBlock Segment Meadow Dr Ross Rd to Arbutus Ave (eastside) Meadow Dr Ortega Ct to Louis Rd (westside) Meadow Dr Louis Rd to Meadow Cir (eastside) Meadow Cir Meadow Dr to Paloma St (eastside) Meadow Cir Paloma St to Meadow Cir (westside) Meadow Cir Meadow Cir to Loral Space Systems (1085) (northside) Meadow Cir Loral Space Systems to Meadow Dr (southside) Meadow Dr Meadow Cir to Fabian Wy (southside) Meadow Dr Fabian Wy to Meadow Cir (northside) Meadow Dr Meadow Cir to Louis Rd (westside) Meadow Dr Louis Rd to Ortega Ct (eastside) Meadow Dr Arbutus Ave to Ross Rd (westside) Meadow Dr Ross Rd to Grove Ave (westside) Meadow Dr Grove Ave to Ross Rd (eastside) Montrose Ave Middlefield Rd to Sutherland Dr (westside) Montrose Ave Sutherland Dr to Seminole Wy (westside) Montrose Ave Seminole Wy to Charleston Rd (westside) Louis Rd Charleston Rd to Bibbits Dr (westside) Louis Rd Bibbits Dr to Charleston Rd (eastside) Montrose Ave Charleston Rd to Sutherland Dr (eastside) Montrose Ave Sutherland Dr to Middlefield Rd (eastside) Louis Rd Meadow Dr to Corina Wy (southside) Louis Rd Corina Wy to Meadow Dr (northside) Louis Rd Aspen Wy to Meadow Dr (northside) Louis Rd Meadow Dr to Aspen Wy (southside) 106.00 5 1.75 36.3% 4 1 46% 143.00 7 0.75 11.5% 6 1 14% 867.00 39 9.25 23.5% 38 1 24% 282.00 13 8.5 66.3% 13 0 66% 293.00 13 7 52.6% 12 1 57% 342.00 16 2.75 17.7% 16 0 18% 355.00 16 3.25 20.1% 15 1 21% 381.00 17 0.25 1.4% 17 0 1% 342.00 16 14.75 94.9% 16 0 95% 445.00 20 9 44.5% 19 1 47% 148.00 7 1.75 26.0% 6 1 31% 112.00 5 0 0.0% 3 2 0% 386.00 18 4 22.8% 17 1 24% 365.00 17 0.75 4.5% 15 2 5% 170.00 8 1.25 16.2% 8 0 16% 700.00 32 10.75 33.8% 32 0 34% 158.00 7 0.75 10.4% 7 0 11% 101.00 5 1.5 32.7% 4 1 38% 116.00 5 0 0.0% 0 5 #DIV/0! 736.00 33 11.25 33.6% 31 2 36% 170.00 8 2.75 35.6% 8 0 34% 106.00 5 0 0.0% 5 0 0% 139.00 6 0 0.0% 5 1 0% 584.00 27 0.25 0.9% 27 0 1% 596.00 27 6.5 24.0% 26 1 25% TOTAL 8,143.00 370.1 98.75 26.7% 348 22 28% Survey Times Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 10, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Weekend as surveyed on February 13, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Evening was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am) Notes 1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for instruction on how to count spaces. 2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas. 3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and street functional classification. 4) Louis Rd from Charleston to Bibbits is no parking (bike lane only) from 7 am to 7 pm 22 Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards Staff Report Attachment E – Concept Plans C E Q A N O T I C E O F E X E M P T I O N To: Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder 70 West Hedding Street, First Floor San Jose, CA 95110 From: City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project Title: Bicycle Boulevards – Bryant Street, Moreno-Amarillo Avenues, and Ross Road Project Location: Several streets throughout the City of Palo Alto, including Bryant Street (Palo Alto to East Meadow), Moreno Avenue (Middlefield to Louis), Louis Road (Moreno to Amarillo), Amarillo Avenue (Louis to West Bayshore), and Ross Road (Garland to East Meadow) Project Location – City: Palo Alto Project Location – County: Santa Clara Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Palo Alto Description of Project: This project will make bicycle and pedestrian improvements to multiple existing roadways. Improvements include new bicycle boulevard striping, wayfinding and safety signs, crosswalks, median and landscape islands, bulb-outs, stop control modification, traffic circles within existing rights-of-way, new tree plantings, speed humps, and raised intersections. No trees will be removed and all work will occur within the existing public right-of-way. Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: City of Palo Alto Exempt Status: Class 1, Section 15301, Existing Facilities: Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination. Reasons why Project is Exempt: The project is limited to minor alteration of existing roadways. The work will facilitate bicycle and pedestrian use and will not increase the roadway capacities. Per Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines, it has been determined that the project is not located on a hazardous waste site, would not result in a significant impact due to unusual circumstances, damage scenic resources, affect a historic resource, or result in a cumulative impact. For these reasons and those stated above, the project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Lead Agency Contact Person: Josh Mello Phone Number: Signature: John Hesler Date: Title: Senior Environmental Specialist Attachment F Bryant Street, Ross Road, Louis-Montrose and Amarillo- Moreno Bicycle Boulevards Staff Report Attachment G – March 29, 2016 Public Meeting Summary Attachment G On March 29, 2016, The City of Palo Alto staff with help from Alta Planning + Design (Alta), the consultant team, held a public meeting to present the concept plans for four bicycle boulevards: Amarillo Avenue & Moreno Avenues, Bryant Street, Louis Road & Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road. The meeting was held at Ohlone Elementary School from 6:30-8:30 PM. 61 people were recorded in attendance. The meeting began with a presentation by the City of Palo Alto and Alta staff. The presentation focused on why these projects are important to the city, previous meetings held for this project, how the concept plans have changed based on public feedback at previous meetings, some technical aspects of bicycle boulevard treatments, and the comment cards available to record comments. Participants were invited to ask clarifying and process questions, but save corridor specific questions and comments for the individual discussions. Several questions were raised, many regarding the proposed mini-roundabouts and their efficacy. City staff directed attendees to the Federal Highway Administration’s website on proven safety countermeasures (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/) for data and research to support the use of roundabouts in Palo Alto. After the presentation, attendees were directed to the back of the room where the concept plans were presented on tables by corridor. Comment cards and pens were available at each table for attendees to provide feedback. The comments provided by participants were scanned as written and are attached to this document. Several emails and a flyer that was distributed before the event are also attached. Common themes expressed on the comment cards are below. General comments are presented first, followed by corridor-specific comments. General Comments  The proposed designs are great and thank you for listening to us (9)  The proposed roundabouts are welcome (10)  The proposed removal of stop signs in favor of roundabouts does not seem safe for pedestrians (2)  Palo Alto should be more bold with these designs (2)  More education should be done for all roadway users on these treatments (3)  The proposed raised intersections are welcome and should be implemented elsewhere (3)  When implementing these plans, do not add too many signs. Signs are an urban blight and can distract from the roadway (3)  The proposed slotted speed bumps are welcome (2) Amarillo Avenue & Moreno Avenues  The increase in landscaping along Amarillo is welcome (4)  The removal of parking on Amarillo near Greer Park should be mitigated by adding more parking to the parking lot nearby (2)  Two attendees mentioned the proposed mini-roundabout at Ross at Moreno. One was in favor and one was opposed. Bryant Street  The proposed roundabout at Bryant at California was a major topic for discussion. Some attendees commented that a roundabout at this intersection is a safety concern and will not work as intended (6). Other attendees were in favor of the design and noted that it will go a long way to make all roadway users feel safe (5).  The proposed parking removal near the First Baptist Church is worrisome due to the large number of Sunday and nighttime events (4) Louis Road & Montrose Avenue  The proposed roundabouts are welcome (1)  Although not technically part of this project, the concept plans note to consider relocating the existing crossing and bus stop from the driveway into Walgreens to Moreno as a potential future project. One person was in favor of this and two were against Ross Road  The proposed landscaping on Ross in front of the YMCA parking lot should be kept short for maximum visibility (2)  The existing traffic signal at Ross and Oregon Expressway is not timed for bicyclists even though bicyclists are the only ones that use the signal. This light should either be removed or retimed (2)  Keep the stop signs on Ross at Ames (2) In addition to the comments received about the project corridors, there were two comments made about other projects or policy issues. Specifically:  Charleston Road. Although not a part of this project, two comments were made about the markings along Charleston Road needing to be reworked.  Trash Pickup Policy. The new policy regarding leaving trash cans in bike lanes is hazardous for all roadway users as bicyclists must swerve out of the bike lane into the vehicle lane to not run into them (2) Event Photos RE: Bryant street blvd Mello, Joshuah to me, jonathanschuppert@altaplanning.com 4:19 PM FYI   From: Annette Glanckopf [mailto:]  Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 4:16 PM To: Mello, Joshuah Subject: Re: Bryant street blvd   Thanks again White is better than green. The green marking are distasteful and and distracting. Why do we need any markings at all? Drivers ignore signage. Bikers already know the street, All of this signage gets ignored very quickly (almost immediately after it is installed) and is just - IMHO - urban blight. The visual effect is unpleasant and it changes the character of suburban to urban  Annette On 3/28/2016 3:48 PM, Mello, Joshuah wrote: Ms. Glanckopf:   Those markings are white. …   Regards,   JOSHUAH D. MELLO, AICP Chief Transportation Official PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Transportation office: 650.329.2136 fax: 650.329.2154   Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix. Download the   or click   to make a service request.   From: Annette Glanckopf []  Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 3:28 PM To: Mello, Joshuah Subject: Re: Bryant street blvd   Thank you for your reply That is not what I see on plans. annetteglanckopf@att.net Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org app here mailto:annetteglanckopf@att.net No biker has difficulty knowing this is a bike path. From the plans it looks to me like the green "gateway markings" will be at the intersection of Colorado and Bryant as well as the intersection of El Dorado and Bryant. The only problem I witness on a daily basis is the bike speeders who consider Bryant their own personal street.  They are extremely rude and just this weekend one came within inches of hitting me as I was trimming my bushes, I oppose the green markings. They are urban blight and do not belong on a residential street. Several of my neighbors agree with me.  If I am looking at the plans incorrectly, please let me know.  Annette … FW: Bryant Street emails me to me 9:50 AM … ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Brunicardi <> To: Transportation <>  Cc:  Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 03:59:28 +0000  Subject: Bryant/N. California Street(s) roundabout Dear Mr. Mello,  I realize this is coming to you on the eve of a community meeting about changes to the Bryant Street Bike Blvd, but I wanted to get in touch with you about the proposal for the Bryant/ N . California intersection. Let me say up front that my family enjoys the "bikability" of Palo Alto and we bike to school and work every day. But we also live within 150' of the above mentioned intersection and have some serious concerns about the proposed changes. My wife and I, as well as every neighbor in the vicinity, feel that the roundabout idea is a poor one at best. From what I've seen at previous meetings, and from the current drawing, it appears to merge bicycles and vehicular traffic into one lane, leaving very little room for error. Remember this intersection is heavily used by young teens coming and going to Jordan Middle School and Palo Alto High School. If the city is expecting them to abide by the rules of a roundabout 100% of the time they are deluding themselves. My wife and I have said separately that the most dangerous section of Bryant street for a cyclist is the roundabout at Addison. Cars fly into it without looking, or completely do not understand the right of way. I've had to lock up my brakes and veer out of the way several times. This would be worse and Bryant and N. California because there is more traffic of every type.  The second issue regarding a roundabout at N. California and Bryant streets is the parking problem that will arise from the removal of parking spaces at each corner of the intersection. If you take into consideration the size of the chicanes it seems feasible that we'd lose sixteen in total. This is unacceptable because the First Baptist Church at that corner has become less of a church and more of a community center. Without exaggeration, well over a hundred people come and go every afternoon. There is a large music school comprising the entire top floor of the former church rectory. There are other businesses on site as well and they all need to park somewhere. My family is rarely afforded the luxury of parking in from of our own home. Same is true for our neighbors. The loss of any parking spaces would be detrimental to the flow of everyday life for the neighborhood.  In short this is a reckless proposal that has not been studied properly and it should not be allowed to proceed.  Thank you for your time. All best, David Brunicardi 2183 Bryant Street ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Miriam W Palm <> To: Transportation <>  Cc:  Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 23:58:30 +0000 Subject: Traffic circles  I don’t have an objection to circles per se, I actually like them.  But I urge you to build and implement them as they are intended to be, and as Stanford has done on campus: they should be a four way YIELD , and not have stop signs on two sides, as the one at Bryant and Addison does.  This defeats the purpose of the circle. If you construct more in Palo Alto, please keep this in mind. And get rid of the stop signs on Addison. Miram Palm 2185 Waverley St. Miriam Palm Librarian Emerita, Stanford University Phone & Fax (650) 327-8989 david.brunicardi@gmail.com Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org mwpalm@stanford.edu Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org