traffic impact study for hagstrom residential development · 22/06/2015 · information presented...

Transportation Consultants

Draft Report

Traffic Impact Study for Hagstrom Residential Development

April 3, 2015

In the City of Alameda

Exhibit 4 Attachment C Item 7-B, 6/2215Planning Board Meeting

Draft TIS – Hagstrom Residential Development Page | i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1

Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................................. 7

Level of Service Threshold Criteria ............................................................................................... 8

Study Intersections .......................................................................................................................... 8

Study Traffic Analysis Scenarios ...................................................................................................... 8

Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... 10

Existing Roadway System and Setting ........................................................................................... 10

Local Setting .................................................................................................................................. 10

Pedestrian / Bicycle / Transit Travel Modes .................................................................................. 11

Pedestrian Travel ....................................................................................................................... 11

Bicycle Travel ............................................................................................................................. 11

Transit Travel ............................................................................................................................. 11

Truck Travel ............................................................................................................................... 12

Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................ 13

Intersection Level of Service Analysis Results (Existing Conditions) ............................................. 13

Baseline Conditions (2017) ........................................................................................................ 15

Baseline Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................... 15

Approved and Not Occupied Developments ............................................................................. 15

Intersection Level of Service Analysis Results (Baseline Conditions) ............................................ 16

Baseline plus Project Conditions ................................................................................................ 18

Project Location and Proposal ....................................................................................................... 18

Trip Generation – Proposed Project .............................................................................................. 18

Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ..................................................................................... 19

Intersection Level of Service Analysis Results (Baseline plus Project Conditions) ........................ 19

Cumulative (2035) Conditions ................................................................................................... 24

Cumulative (2035) plus Project Conditions ................................................................................ 24

Cumulative Transportation Improvements ................................................................................... 25

Vehicle Miles Traveled .............................................................................................................. 25

Pedestrian LOS .......................................................................................................................... 26

Bicycle LOS ................................................................................................................................ 26

Transit LOS ................................................................................................................................ 27

Draft TIS – Hagstrom Residential Development Page | ii

Project Site Access .................................................................................................................... 29

Vehicle Parking ......................................................................................................................... 29

Tables

Table 1: Intersection Levels of Service ‐ Existing Conditions .............................................................. 13

Table 2: Intersection Levels of Service ‐ Existing Conditions and Baseline Conditions ....................... 16

Table 3: Proposed Project Trip Generation ......................................................................................... 19

Table 4: Intersection Levels of Service ‐ Baseline Conditions and Baseline plus Project Conditions .. 20

Table 5: Traffic Volumes Comparison ‐ Baseline Conditions and Baseline plus Project Conditions ... 21

Table 6: Traffic Volumes Comparison ‐ Cumulative (2035) Conditions and Cumulative (2035) plus Project Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 24

Table 7: Transit Route Arterial Speeds ‐ Baseline Conditions and Baseline plus Project Conditions . 28

Figures

Figure 1: Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................ 5

Figure 2: Project Site Plan ..................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 3: Existing Conditions Traffic Volumes, Controls, and Lane Geometry .................................... 14

Figure 4: Baseline Conditions Traffic Volumes, Controls, and Lane Geometry ................................... 17

Figure 5: Project Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................... 22

Figure 6: Baseline plus Project Conditions Traffic Volumes, Controls, and Lane Geometry ............... 23

Appendices

Appendix A – Vehicle Level of Service Methodology

Appendix B – Existing Traffic Counts

Appendix C – Level of Service Worksheets: Existing Conditions

Appendix D – Level of Service Worksheets: Baseline Conditions

Appendix E – Level of Service Worksheets: Baseline plus Project Conditions

Appendix F – Level of Service Worksheets: Arterial Level of Service

Draft Report – Traffic Impact Study for Hagstrom Development in the City of Alameda Page | 1

Executive Summary

Introduction

This report presents the results of TJKM's transportation impact analysis for the proposed Hagstrom development project in the City of Alameda. Figure 1 shows the location of the project site relative to its surrounding area. The proposed project site is bounded by Clement Avenue to the north, Willow Street to the west, Mulberry Street to the east and Eagle Avenue to the south. The site currently contains an existing warehouse, which is vacant.

The proposed project consists of 58 residential units ranging from 508 square feet to 2,369 square feet. Among the 58 residential units, 56 units are proposed to be residential town homes and 2 units are proposed to be “in‐law” style apartments. Each of the 56 residential townhomes contains a 2‐car garage, totaling to 112 vehicular parking stalls. In addition, 7 guest parking stalls including one handicapped parking stall are proposed to be provided within the development. Furthermore, 116 bicycle parking spaces are proposed to be provided. The two “in‐law” style apartments or studio apartments do not have any dedicated parking. Each residential unit would be provided with AC transit passes and would be charged $450 per annum for shuttle services to BART. A site plan for the proposed project is shown in Figure 2. The access to the project site is provided via one proposed driveway on Eagle Avenue and one proposed driveway on Clement Avenue.

This report includes traffic analysis results for four study scenarios and ten study intersections. For the purposes of this analysis, potential traffic operational effects from the Hagstrom project are identified at the study intersections based on traffic operational thresholds established by the City of Alameda. The report also includes evaluations concerning potential project impacts on pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel, project site access and circulation, and on‐site vehicle parking supply.

Information presented in this report is also taken from the traffic study for the Del Monte Mixed Use Project prepared by Abrams Associates in March 2014, the Draft Environment Impact Report (DEIR) for the Alameda Point Project prepared in September 2013, the traffic study for Marina Cove II Residential Development project previously prepared by TJKM in September 2012, the DEIR for the adjacent Boatworks Residential Project prepared in March 2010 and the traffic study for 1835 Oak Street Residential Redevelopment prepared by TJKM in December 2014.

Existing Conditions (2015)

The study intersections are analyzed using methods from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) contained in the standard traffic software Synchro. Currently, all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS), LOS D or better based on City of Alameda traffic operational standards, during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

Baseline Conditions (2017)

This scenario includes existing traffic volumes plus traffic anticipated to be generated by approved City of Alameda developments that are not yet built or occupied. Under these conditions, all study intersections are expected to continue operating within City of Alameda standards, at LOS D or better, during both the peak periods.


Project Trip Generation

The proposed residential uses of the proposed project are expected to generate 404 net additional daily vehicular trips, including 32 net additional trips during the a.m. peak hour and 40 net additional trips during the p.m. peak hour.

TJKM applied a ten percent trip discount that accounts for the proposed TDM uses in consultation with City staff. The ten percent discount reflects the following TDM measures:

Shuttle services to BART Stations

Providing AC Transit passes to residents

Bicycle and pedestrian friendly design to project site

Baseline plus Project Conditions (2017)

With the addition of trips resulting from the proposed project to Baseline Conditions, all study intersections are expected to continue operating at acceptable LOS D or better during both peak hours with the following exception:

Study Intersection 8: Park Street / Clement Avenue (LOS E during the a.m. peak hour). Toimprove the level of service from unacceptable ‘E’ to an acceptable ‘D’, followingimprovement is recommended.

o Re‐timing of the traffic signal would improve the intersection operations to a LOS D.

The intersection of Park Street/ Clement Avenue is already expected to operate at a less‐than‐acceptable LOS E under Baseline Conditions without the proposed project, the percentage of additional trips generated by the proposed project is calculated. The proposed project is expected to generate 0.7 and 0.8 percent additional trips in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. Since the traffic volumes at study intersection 8 are expected to increase by less than three percent, traffic impacts of the proposed project are expected to have a less‐than‐significant impact.

The project sponsor would be required to their development impact fee of the associated mitigation measures. An impact fee towards intersection improvement would be an acceptable mitigation measure for intersection impacts.

Cumulative (2035) Conditions

TJKM was requested to analyze four study intersections that have been reported in in the Alameda Point Project DEIR (September 2013).

Cumulative (2035) plus Project Conditions

Cumulative (2035) plus Project Conditions are based on forecasts of 2035 conditions, and the proposed project’s contribution to those forecasted conditions. Forecasted traffic volumes are taken from the Cumulative (2035) Conditions scenario analyzed in the Alameda Point Project DEIR. The impact of the proposed project is analyzed at four study intersections (Intersection # 7,8,9 and 10), which were also analyzed in the Alameda Point Project DEIR.

The forecasted Cumulative (2035) Conditions volumes at study intersections 7, 8, 9 and 10 are compared to the proposed Hagstrom development project volumes. The proposed project is expected to generate less than a three‐percent increase in peak hour volumes. Therefore, the project trips are expected to result in less‐than‐significant impacts under Cumulative (2035) plus Project Conditions and no mitigations are required.


Vehicle Miles Traveled

The Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is 725,263. Therefore, the daily VMT/unit for the proposed development is calculated to be 35.5.

Pedestrian LOS

Potential impacts on pedestrian LOS are evaluated based on the HCM 2000 methodology for determining average delay for pedestrians at signalized study intersections. The proposed project would increase vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the project vicinity, but would not require a change in the signal timing at any of the existing signalized study intersections. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project on pedestrian travel would be less than significant and no mitigations are required.

Bicycle LOS

Potential impacts on bicycle LOS are evaluated based on the Florida Department of Transportation methodology for assessing bicyclists’ perceived level of comfort along study roadway segments. Based on City of Alameda bicycle LOS standards for roadway segments, a project impact would be considered significant if the bicycle LOS score for a study roadway segment increases by 10 percent.

Since the bicycle LOS score is expected to increase by less than 10 percent as a result of the project, the project impact on bicycle travel is expected to be less than significant and no mitigations are required.

Transit LOS

The proposed project is expected to add traffic on one study street segment serving transit routes, Park Street, between Blanding Avenue and Clement Avenue. With the addition of project trips to Park Street, the speeds along the study segment are expected to decrease by less than 10 percent. Therefore, the project trips are expected to result in less‐than‐significant impacts on the transit route arterial speed along the Park Street study segment and no mitigations are required.

Project Site Access

The proposed project will include two full access driveways: one on Clement Avenue and the other on Eagle Avenue. The on‐site roadway network is expected to provide adequate on‐site circulation for personal and emergency vehicles.

Sight distance for vehicles that would turn left or right from the proposed driveways onto Eagle Avenue and Clement Avenue seem to be adequate.

The City’s Transportation Element Update DEIR General Plan supports adequately meeting the needs of all transportation users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. Based on the analyses presented in this study, the proposed project’s site plan would not interfere with adopted City plans or policies, conflict with existing or planned off‐site facilities, or create a hazard for vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, or transit access, and the resulting project impacts would be less than significant. To compliment these less‐than‐significant impacts, TJKM recommends the following improvements and programs:

Installation of Stop control at the project driveways with appropriate pavement delineation and signing.


Vehicle Parking

Based on the project site plan, there are 119 proposed parking spaces. Of the 119 parking spaces, 112 spaces are provided to the residents, 7 spaces are provided to the guest parking including one space for Handicapped Parking. In addition, 116 bicycle parking spaces are proposed to be provided. The two “in‐law” style apartments or studio apartments do not have any dedicated parking.

TJKMTransportation

Consultants

MARINA VILLAGE P

KW

Y.

BAYVIEW DR.

CLINTON AVE.

ATLANTIC AVE.

EASTSHORE D

R.

FERN SIDE B

LVD.

GR

AN

D

S

T.

OTIS DR.

FRU

ITV

ALE

FERNSIDE BLVD.

OTIS DR.

LINCOLN AVE.

CENTRAL AVE.

ENCINAL AVE.

LINCOLN AVE.

LINCOLN

AVE.

CLEMENT AVE.

CLEMENTAVE.

Coast Guard Island

TILDEN WY.

SHORELINE DR.

8th

ST.

WE

BS

TE

R

ST.

PAR

K S

T.B

RO

AD

WAY HIG

H ST.

HIGH

ST.

OA

K S

T.

WIL

LOW

ST.

29th

AVE

.

AVE

.

BUENA VISTA AVE.

EAGLE ST.BUENA VISTA AVE.

PACIFIC AVE.

PACIFIC AVE.

BUENA VISTA AVE.

STA

NT

ON

ST.

CHALLENGER DR.

CONSTITUTION WY.

SH

ER

MA

N S

T.

WE

BS

TER

ST.

TU

BE

PO

SE

Y T

UB

E

BR

OA

DW

AYW

EB

STE

R S

T.H

AR

RIS

ON

ST.

260

61

61

61

61

61

DOOLITTLE DR.

5th ST.7th ST.

12

10

5

6

47

8

9

3

BLANDING AVE.

MULBERRY ST.

WILLIE STARGELL AVE.

INTERSTATE

880

INTERSTATE

880

Vicinity Map

Figure 1

LEGEND

Study Intersection

ProjectSite Tidal Canal

San Francisco Bay

San Leandro Bay

Site Plan

Figure 2Source: Hunt, Hale, Jones

TJKMTransportation

Consultants


Analysis Methodology

Vehicle LOS

Vehicle level of service is a qualitative measure that describes operational conditions as they relate to the traffic stream and perceptions by motorists and passengers. The level of service generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, delays, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. The operational levels of service (LOS) are given letter designations from “A” to “F,” with “A” representing the best operating conditions (free‐flow) and “F” the worst (severely congested flow with high delays). Intersections generally are the capacity‐controlling locations with respect to traffic operations on arterial and collector streets.

Signalized Intersections

The study intersections under traffic signal control are analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) Operations Method contained in the standard traffic software Synchro. This methodology determines LOS based on average control delay per vehicle for the overall intersection during peak hour intersection operating conditions. The methodology is described in detail in Appendix A.

Unsignalized Intersections

The operating conditions at the study intersections with minor stop‐controlled approaches (one‐way or two‐way) are evaluated using the HCM 2000 Unsignalized Methodology in the Synchro software. For two‐way stop controlled intersections, LOS is based on and reported for the critical minor approaches. For all‐way stop controlled intersections, LOS is based on the average control delay experienced on all approaches. The methodologies for unsignalized intersections are also presented in Appendix A.

Pedestrian LOS

Potential impacts on pedestrian LOS are evaluated based on the HCM 2000 methodology for determining average delay for pedestrians at signalized study intersections. Pedestrian delay is based on the effective green signal time for pedestrians to cross each intersection leg and the actuated cycle length of the signal.

Bicycle LOS

Potential impacts on bicycle LOS are evaluated based on the Florida Department of Transportation methodology for assessing bicyclists’ perceived level of comfort along study roadway segments. Bicycle LOS scores are based on five factors: 1) average effective width of the outside through lane (and presence of bike lane); 2) motor vehicle volumes; 3) motor vehicle speeds; 4) truck volumes; and, 5) pavement conditions.

Transit LOS

To evaluate potential impacts on transit, travel speeds on study street segments with transit routes are calculated using the HCM 2000 methodology for Urban Street (arterial) LOS, also contained in the Synchro software.


Level of Service Threshold Criteria

Vehicle

The City of Alameda vehicular LOS traffic operational standard for intersections is LOS D. If an intersection already operates at LOS E or worse, a project impact would be considered significant if it causes a three percent or greater increase in peak hour traffic volume.


Pedestrian

Based on City of Alameda pedestrian LOS standards for signalized intersections, a project impact would be considered significant if the delay for a crosswalk increases by 10 percent or more.

Bicycle

Based on City of Alameda bicycle LOS standards for roadway segments, a project impact would be considered significant if the bicycle LOS score for a study roadway segment increases by 10 percent or more.

Transit

Based on City of Alameda standards, if travel speed on a study street segment with transit service degrades by 10 percent or more due to a project, then the transit service would be considered impacted.

Study Intersections

This study focused on evaluating traffic conditions at nine study intersections, selected in consultation with City of Alameda staff that the proposed project may potentially impact. Figure 1 shows the location of the study intersections. The study intersections are as follows:

1. Willow Street/ Clement Avenue

2. Willow Street/ Eagle Street

3. Willow Street/ Buena Vista Avenue

4. Buena Vista Avenue/ Mulberry Street

5. Oak Street / Clement Avenue

6. Oak Street / Buena Vista Avenue

7. Park Street / Blanding Avenue

8. Park Street / Clement Avenue

9. Blanding Avenue / Tilden Way

10. Constitution Way/ Atlantic Avenue

Study Traffic Analysis Scenarios

The study evaluated traffic operational conditions under the following four analysis scenarios:

1. Existing Conditions – This scenario is based on existing lane geometry and traffic controls at the study intersections


2. Baseline Conditions – This scenario includes existing traffic volumes plus traffic anticipated to be generated by approved City of Alameda developments that are not yet built or occupied.

3. Baseline plus Project Conditions – This scenario is identical to Baseline Conditions, but with the addition of the traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development.

4. Cumulative (2035) plus Project Conditions – This scenario is based on forecasted traffic volumes from the Cumulative (2035) Conditions analyzed in the September 2013 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Alameda Point Project. For this scenario, the impact of the proposed project is analyzed at the study intersections that were also analyzed in the Alameda Point Project DEIR.


Existing Conditions

This section describes existing conditions in the project site vicinity, including roadway facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, available transit service, truck routes, and project site traffic. In addition, existing traffic volumes and vehicle level of service calculations are presented for the study intersections.

Existing Roadway System and Setting

The City of Alameda is an island separated from the City of Oakland by the Oakland Estuary. Access to the City of Alameda across the Oakland‐Alameda Estuary is provided by a one‐way couplet of under‐Estuary tubes at Webster and Posey Streets (State Route 260), and draw bridges at Park Street / 29th Avenue, Tilden Way / Fruitvale Avenue, and High Street. Doolittle Drive / Otis Drive (State Route 61) crosses the San Leandro Channel, providing access from Bay Farm Island.

Interstate 880 (I‐880) is a north‐south eight‐lane freeway (though oriented east‐west in the study area) between I‐80 near the Bay Bridge and San Jose. Traffic generated in Alameda uses I‐880 to travel to/from eastern Alameda and Contra Costa County, San Francisco (via the Bay Bridge), the Tri‐Valley (via State Route 238 and I‐580), and the South Bay. The closest access to/from the project site is provided via circuitous routes to/from the 23rd Avenue and 29th Avenue / Fruitvale Avenue interchanges.

Local Setting

The proposed Hagstrom development project site is at the intersection of Clement Avenue and Willow Street. Figure 2 shows the proposed site plan. Eagle Avenue provides direct access to the project site via a proposed driveway.

Key local roadways that provide access to the project site are described below:

Park Street has four travel lanes and is the busiest roadway near the proposed project site. One end is located at the Park Street / 29th Avenue Bridge (providing access to Oakland and I‐880), while the other is located at Shoreline Drive, where it meets the San Francisco Bay. Park Street is one of two major shopping streets in the City of Alameda. The City of Alameda’s Transportation Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (2008) classifies Park Street as a Regional Arterial.

Oak Street is a two‐lane local street that serves as a bypass to the congested Park Street. Oak Street extends north to Blanding Avenue and curves to become Powell Street to the south.

Eagle Avenue is a two‐lane street that, in the project area, runs between Hibbard Street and Mulberry Street. It is classified as a local street. Parking is permitted on both sides of the street. Near the project site, Eagle Avenue curves to becomes Mulberry Street, which terminates at Buena Vista Avenue.

Mulberry Street is a two‐lane street that runs between Eagle Avenue and Buena Vista Avenue. It is classified as a local street. Parking is permitted on both sides of the street.

Clement Avenue is a two‐lane arterial that runs from Grand Street to Broadway, and serves primarily industrial land uses. It is designated as a truck route. Parking is generally permitted on both sides of the street except between Walnut Street and Willow Street and between Hibbard Street and Ohlone Street, where parking is prohibited on the north side of Clement Avenue. In the future, this street is planned to be extended from Grand Street to Sherman Street / Atlantic Avenue and from Broadway


to Tilden Way. When those extensions are completed, the connection from Tilden Way to Sherman Street / Atlantic Avenue will tend to draw cross‐town traffic from Lincoln Avenue and Buena Vista Avenue. The City is currently planning for the redesign of the Clement Avenue between Grand Street and Broadway. Potential improvements may include removal of abandoned rail tracks, installing bikeway or enhancing pedestrian access.

Buena Vista Avenue runs parallel to Clement Avenue and consists of a single travel lane in each direction. Parking is generally permitted on both sides of the street, although parking is prohibited on the north side of Buena Vista Avenue, between Hibbard Street and Sherman Street. Buena Vista Avenue is fronted primarily by residential development and is classified as an Island Collector.

Tilden Way is classified as a Regional Arterial and is a four‐lane divided roadway from Park Street to the northern City limits, where it becomes Fruitvale Avenue in the City of Oakland. No on‐street parking is allowed on Tilden Way, and Class II bicycle lanes exist on both sides of the roadway between Park Street and west of Broadway. Tilden Way provides local access from Alameda to the Fruitvale Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station, located off San Leandro Street in the City of Oakland.

Blanding Avenue is a two‐lane street that runs parallel to Clement Avenue and connects Oak Street to the west and Tilden Way to the east. It is fronted primarily by a mix of industrial and commercial uses and is classified as a Local Street. Parking is generally permitted on both sides of the street in the project area.

Willow Street is a two‐lane local street that runs parallel to Oak Street. Willow Street runs between Clement Avenue to the north and Otis Drive to the south.

Pedestrian / Bicycle / Transit Travel Modes

Pedestrian Travel

Pedestrian facilities include crosswalk and sidewalks. Near the project site, sidewalks are present on both sides of the streets. Crosswalks are present on all the legs of the signalized intersections near the project site.

Bicycle Travel

Near the project site, there are no Class I (Bike Path), Class II (Bike Lane), or Class III (Bike Route) bikeways on the streets immediately adjacent to the project site. The segment of Blanding Avenue, between Broadway and Tilden Way, is currently a Class III bikeway.

According to the City of Alameda’s Bicycle Master Plan , bikeways proposed along the following streets:

Clement Avenue, between Grand Street and Broadway: Class II bikeways or cycle track.

Oak Street, between Blanding Avenue and Encinal Avenue: Class II bikeways are proposed

Blanding Avenue, from Oak Street, to Broadway: a combination of Class II and Class III bikeways are proposed

Transit Travel

The AC Transit bus routes that run within approximately one half mile of the proposed project are as follows (AC Transit, 2014):


Along Park Street, with a stop within five blocks from the project site:

o Line 20 between Dimond District (Oakland) and Downtown Oakland (weekday and weekend).

o Line 21 between Dimond District (Oakland) and Oakland Airport (weekday and weekend).

o Transbay Line OX between Bay Farm Island and San Francisco (weekday commute).

Along Santa Clara Avenue, approximately five blocks away:

o Transbay Line O between Fruitvale BART and San Francisco via Alameda (weekday and weekend service).

o Line 51A between Rockridge and Fruitvale BART Stations (weekday and weekend service).

o Line 851 is the all‐nighter bus running a similar route to Route 51A, except service is shortened, extending only from the Downtown Berkeley BART station to the intersection of Park Street and Santa Clara Avenue (weekday and weekend service).

o Limited service Line 314 between Hegenberger Road / Edgewater Drive and West Oakland Post Office (only Tuesdays and Thursdays between 10:30 a.m. and 1:35 p.m.)

BART provides service to Alameda via its connections with local AC Transit bus lines. The Fruitvale BART station is the closest station to the project site. BART provides daily service to downtown San Francisco, San Francisco and Oakland Airports, and various suburbs in the East Bay and Peninsula. The Dublin/Pleasanton‐Daly City, Richmond‐Fremont, and Daly City‐Fremont lines all serve the Fruitvale station.

The San Francisco Bay Ferry provides ferry service from Alameda to San Francisco, South San Francisco, Oakland, and Angel Island. The closest ferry terminal is the Alameda Ferry Dock located at 2990 Main Street. Year‐round weekday service is provided to San Francisco, South San Francisco, and Oakland’s Jack London Square from the Alameda Ferry Dock (San Francisco Bay Ferry, 2014). Seasonal weekend service is provided to San Francisco, Oakland, and Angel Island.

Truck Travel

The City of Alameda has designated the following roadway segments in the project vicinity as existing truck routes:

Clement Avenue along its entire length

Buena Vista Avenue, between Sherman Street and Grand Street

Park Street, between the City Limit and Central Avenue

Tilden Way, between Park Street and the City Limit

Broadway, between Otis Drive and Clement Avenue

A heavy vehicle percentage of five percent is used for truck routes in the intersection LOS analysis.

The truck route designation for Buena Vista Avenue, between Sherman Street and Grand Street, will be removed when the extension of Clement Avenue from Sherman Street to Grand Street is constructed.


Existing Traffic Volumes

TJKM collected peak hour turning movement counts at study intersections 1, 2, 3, and 4 in January 2015. Traffic volumes for the rest of the intersections 5 and 6 were counted in March 2014 and traffic volumes for intersections 7, 8, 9 and 10 were counted in July 2012. Existing Traffic counts are provided in Appendix B.

Figure 3 shows the existing weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement volumes at the study intersections, as well as lane configurations and traffic control devices.

Intersection Level of Service Analysis Results (Existing Conditions)

Traffic operations for the study intersections are evaluated under Existing Conditions for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Table 1 summarizes the results of the level of service analysis and detailed level of service calculations are contained in Appendix C. Under Existing Conditions, all study intersections are operating within acceptable City of Alameda LOS standards, LOS D or better, during both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

Table 1: Intersection Levels of Service ‐ Existing Conditions

ID Intersection Control

Existing Conditions

A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour

Delay LOS Delay LOS

1 Willow Street / Clement Avenue Two‐way Stop 17.0 C 24.7 C

2 Willow Street / Eagle Avenue Two‐way Stop 9.4 A 9.2 A

3 Willow Street / Buena Vista Avenue Two‐way Stop 19.7 C 17.0 C

4 Buena Vista Avenue / Mulberry Street One‐way Stop 13.6 B 12.3 B

5 Oak Street / Clement Avenue All‐way Stop 26.2 D 26.6 D

6 Oak Street / Buena Vista Avenue Signal 11.2 B 12.6 B

7 Park Street / Blanding Avenue Signal 41.9 D* 16.3 B

8 Park Street / Clement Avenue Signal 47.7 D* 26.7 C

9 Blanding Avenue / Tilden Way Signal 15.4 B 19.6 B

10 Constitution Way/ Atlantic Avenue Signal 16.9 B 20.9 C

Notes: 1) LOS=Level of Service, Delay = Average control delay per vehicle. 2) Signalized and four‐way stop controlled intersections – Delay / LOS is for overall intersection.

3) Unsignalized one‐ and two‐way stop controlled intersections – Delay / LOS is for critical minor stop‐controlled approach. * Heavy queuing is observed during the a.m. peak hour at the intersections of Park Street/Blanding Avenue and Park Street/Clement Avenue. Therefore, the delay experienced by the drivers in the morning might be worse than the delay shown in the above table due to the varying daily volumes.

2 (3)338 (421)

3 (3

)8

(3)

8 (6)3 (1)3 (2)

1 (5

)57

(31)

5 (3

)

Intersection #1Willow St./Clement St.

Intersection #5Oak St./Clement Ave.

Intersection #9Blanding Ave./Tilden Wy.

Intersection #10Constitution Wy./Atlantic Ave.

Intersection #6Oak St./Buena Vista Ave.

Intersection #7Park St./Blanding Ave.

Intersection #8Park St./Clement Ave.

Intersection #2Willow St./Eagle St.

Intersection #3Willow St./Buena Vista Ave.

Intersection #4Buena Vista Ave./Mulberry St.

199 (111)225 (243)23 (21)

22 (1

0)10

0 (6

6)52

(53)

13 (10)136 (139)14 (13)

214

(296

)43

(144

)21

(14)

15 (10)336 (332)26 (31)

31 (4

4)14

2 (1

07)

66 (8

8)15 (14)275 (211)

12 (38)

10 (3

0)55

(178

)14

(13)

196 (169)15 (60)4 (12)

2 (2

)

1,36

6 (1

,056

)11

(39)

375 (212)64 (120)

12 (19)

202

(330

)66

2 (1

,121

)0

(1)

207 (204)43 (81)8 (21)

4 (6

)95

4 (8

28)

19 (2

0)

219 (50)89 (48)3 (4)

77 (7

4)54

0 (8

66)

62 (2

10)

10 (27)

369 (375)

55 (95)

365 (154)307 (159)

47 (61)

175 (220)

484 (606)

118 (277)80 (112)

73 (144)

11 (16)

2 (7

)14

(39)

2 (4

)

3 (2)3 (0)2 (3)

0 (0)278 (306)4 (7)

3 (5

)0

(0)

59 (3

4)

0 (3

)0

(0)

1 (2

7)8 (1)285 (352)

12 (50)

7 (5)300 (400)10 (15)

24 (9

)57

(32)

39 (2

2)

4 (4

)13

(29)

3 (3

)

3 (5)297 (211)21 (18) 3 (4)316 (232)

63 (84)120 (158)

43 (92)

77 (

80)

882

(626

)

25 (

51)

104 (143)100 (162)24 (58)

47 (

135)

310

(1,4

03)

104

(151

)

TJKMTransportation

Consultants Existing Conditions Traffic Volumes, Lane Geometry, and Controls

Figure 3

LEGEND

Study IntersectionTraffic SignalStop SignAM Peak Hour VolumePM Peak Hour VolumeTrip Distribution

XX(XX)XX%

ProjectSite

MARINA VILLAGE P

KW

Y.

BAYVIEW DR.

CLINTON AVE.

ATLANTIC AVE.

EASTSHORE D

R.

FERN SIDE B

LVD.

GR

AN

D

S

T.

OTIS DR.

FRU

ITV

ALE

FERNSIDE BLVD.

OTIS DR.

LINCOLN AVE.

CENTRAL AVE.

ENCINAL AVE.

LINCOLN AVE.

LINCOLN

AVE.

CLEMENT AVE.

CLEMENTAVE.

Coast Guard Island

TILDEN WY.

SHORELINE DR.

8th

ST.

WE

BS

TE

R

ST.

PAR

K S

T.B

RO

AD

WAY HIG

H ST.

HIGH

ST.

OA

K S

T.

WIL

LOW

ST.

29th

AVE

.

AVE

.

BUENA VISTA AVE.


PACIFIC AVE.

PACIFIC AVE.

BUENA VISTA AVE.

STA

NT

ON

ST.

CHALLENGER DR.

CONSTITUTION WY.

SH

ER

MA

N S

T.

WE

BS

TER

ST.

TU

BE

PO

SE

Y T

UB

E

BR

OA

DW

AYW

EB

STE

R S

T.H

AR

RIS

ON

ST.

260

61

61

61

61

61

DOOLITTLE DR.

5th ST.7th ST.

12

10

5

6

47

8

9

3

BLANDING AVE.

MULBERRY ST.


INTERSTATE

880

INTERSTATE

880

Tidal Canal

San Francisco Bay

San Leandro Bay


Baseline Conditions (2017)

This section details expected traffic conditions at the study intersections under Baseline Conditions in 2017 when the proposed project would be constructed and occupied. This scenario includes existing traffic volumes plus traffic anticipated to be generated by approved City of Alameda developments that are not yet built or occupied.

Baseline Traffic Volumes

Approved and Not Occupied Developments

The Baseline Conditions volumes incorporate trips expected to be generated by the following approved, but not yet built or occupied project developments:

Alameda Landing Mixed‐Use Development (140,000 square foot Target store, 40,000 square feet other retail, 100 of 285 residential units) west of Webster Street and north of Willie Stargell Avenue.

Alameda Station Retail Development (24,700 square feet, including pharmacy, bank, and food service) at the northeast corner of Park Street and Tilden Way.

Boatworks Residential Project (100 of 182 dwelling units) in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Clement Avenue and Oak Street.

Del Monte Mixed Use Project (25,000 square feet of retail with 100 of 380 residential units, consisting of a mix of condominiums and apartments) in the site between Buena Vista Avenue to the south, Entrance Road to the east, the future extension of Clement Avenue to the north, and Sherman Street to the west.

Marina Shores Residential Development (89 dwelling units) located along Clement Avenue to the east of the project.

Figure 4 shows the Baseline Conditions traffic volumes at the study intersections.


Intersection Level of Service Analysis Results (Baseline Conditions)

Table 2 shows the results of the LOS analysis conducted for the study intersections under Existing Conditions and Baseline Conditions. Detailed calculation sheets for the analysis for Baseline Conditions are contained in Appendix D. All study intersections are expected to continue operating within City of Alameda standards, at LOS D or better, during both peak periods with the exception of the following intersection:

Study Intersection 8: Park Street / Clement Avenue (LOS E during the a.m. peak hour).

Table 2: Intersection Levels of Service ‐ Existing Conditions and Baseline Conditions


Existing Conditions Baseline Conditions

A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour

Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

1 Willow Street / Clement

Avenue Two‐way Stop 17.0 C 24.7 C 17.7 C 27.0 D

2 Willow Street / Eagle

Avenue Two‐way Stop 9.4 A 9.2 A 9.4 A 9.2 A

3 Willow Street / Buena Vista

Avenue Two‐way Stop 19.7 C 17.0 C 19.7 C 17.0 C

4 Buena Vista Avenue /

Mulberry Street One‐way Stop 13.6 B 12.3 B 13.6 C 12.3 B

5 Oak Street / Clement

Avenue All‐way Stop 26.2 D 26.6 D 32.9 D 33.4 D

6 Oak Street / Buena Vista

Avenue Signal 11.2 B 12.6 B 11.3 B 12.7 B

7 Park Street / Blanding

Avenue Signal 41.9 D 16.3 B 51.2 D 19.4 B

8 Park Street / Clement

Avenue Signal 47.7 D 26.7 C 55.3 E 31.2 C

9 Blanding Avenue / Tilden

Way Signal 15.4 B 19.6 B 15.7 B 20.7 C

10 Constitution Way/ Atlantic

Avenue Signal 16.9 B 20.9 C 19.1 B 27.7 C


3) Unsignalized one‐ and two‐way stop controlled intersections – Delay / LOS is for critical minor stop‐controlled approach. 4) Bold indicated LOS exceeds applicable standard for operating conditions.

2 (3)338 (421)

3 (3

)8

(3)

8 (6)3 (1)3 (2)

1 (5

)57

(31)

5 (3

)











199 (111)245 (254)29 (24)

23 (1

5)10

0 (6

6)52

(53)

13 (10)141 (159)14 (13)

216

(303

)45

(151

)21

(14)

15 (10)336 (332)26 (31)

31 (4

4)14

3 (1

12)

66 (8

8)15 (14)275 (211)

12 (38)

10 (3

0)63

(188

)14

(13)

220 (185)15 (60)8 (16)

2 (2

)

1,45

5 (1

,194

)13

(40)

375 (212)64 (120)

12 (21)

210

(357

)74

2 (1

,272

)0

(1)

226 (214)43 (81)10 (22)

5 (8

)

1,02

6 (9

57)

19 (2

0)

219 (50)89 (48)3 (4)

81 (9

3)61

6 (1

,000

)

62 (2

10)

10 (27)

398 (422)

55 (95)

365 (154)307 (159)

47 (61)

177 (226)

517 (656)

118 (277)86 (116)

73 (144)

11 (16)

2 (7

)14

(39)

2 (4

)

3 (2)3 (0)2 (3)

0 (0)299 (320)4 (7)

3 (5

)0

(0)

59 (3

4)

0 (3

)0

(0)

1 (2

7)8 (1)293 (385)

12 (50)

7 (5)300 (400)10 (15)

24 (9

)57

(32)

39 (2

2)

4 (4

)13

(29)

3 (3

)

3 (5)297 (211)21 (18) 3 (4)316 (232)

63 (84)150 (231)

43 (92)

77 (

80)

890

(634

)

25 (

51)

153 (175)134 (236)24 (58)

47 (

135)

320

(1,4

11)

124

(204

)

TJKMTransportation

Consultants Baseline Conditions Traffic Volumes, Lane Geometry, and Controls

Figure 4

LEGEND

Study IntersectionTraffic SignalStop SignAM Peak Hour VolumePM Peak Hour Volume

XX(XX)

ProjectSite

MARINA VILLAGE P

KW

Y.

BAYVIEW DR.

CLINTON AVE.

ATLANTIC AVE.

EASTSHORE D

R.

FERN SIDE B

LVD.

GR

AN

D

S

T.

OTIS DR.

FRU

ITV

ALE

FERNSIDE BLVD.

OTIS DR.

LINCOLN AVE.

CENTRAL AVE.

ENCINAL AVE.

LINCOLN AVE.

LINCOLN

AVE.

CLEMENT AVE.

CLEMENTAVE.

Coast Guard Island

TILDEN WY.

SHORELINE DR.

8th

ST.

WE

BS

TE

R

ST.

PAR

K S

T.B

RO

AD

WAY HIG

H ST.

HIGH

ST.

OA

K S

T.

WIL

LOW

ST.

29th

AVE

.

AVE

.

BUENA VISTA AVE.


PACIFIC AVE.

PACIFIC AVE.

BUENA VISTA AVE.

STA

NT

ON

ST.

CHALLENGER DR.

CONSTITUTION WY.

SH

ER

MA

N S

T.

WE

BS

TER

ST.

TU

BE

PO

SE

Y T

UB

E

BR

OA

DW

AYW

EB

STE

R S

T.H

AR

RIS

ON

ST.

260

61

61

61

61

61

DOOLITTLE DR.

5th ST.7th ST.

12

10

5

6

47

8

9

3

BLANDING AVE.

MULBERRY ST.


INTERSTATE

880

INTERSTATE

880

Tidal Canal

San Francisco Bay

San Leandro Bay


Baseline plus Project Conditions

This analysis scenario is similar to Baseline Conditions, but with the addition of traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development.

Project Location and Proposal

The proposed project site is bounded by Clement Avenue to the north, Willow Street to the west, Mulberry Street to the east and Eagle Avenue to the south. The site is currently zoned for light industrial use and contains an existing warehouse, which is currently vacant.

The proposed project consists of 58 residential townhomes with 119 vehicular parking stalls and 116 bicycle parking spaces. A site plan for the proposed project is shown in Figure 2. Eagle Avenue and Clement Avenue provides direct access to the project site via a proposed driveway.

Trip Generation – Proposed Project

The expected trip generation for the proposed project is based on published data in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) reference Trip Generation (9th Edition, 2012). In an effort to analyze the worst case scenario, the proposed residential development was classified into two categories:

1. All the units above 1,600 square feet were analyzed as Single Family Detached Housing units.

2. All the units below 1,600 square feet were analyzed as Residential Condominium/ Townhomes.

Therefore, data is used from both the Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Code 210) category and the Residential Condominium / Townhome (ITE Code 230) category. In addition, TJKM applied a trip discount that accounts for proposed TDM uses in consultation with City staff. The 10 percent discount reflects the following TDM measures:

Shuttle services to BART Stations

Providing AC Transit passes to residents

Bicycle and pedestrian friendly design to project site

With these discounts, the proposed residential and commercial space for the project is expected to generate approximately 404 net additional daily trips, 32 net additional trips during the a.m. peak hour, and 40 net additional trips during the p.m. peak hour. The trip generation for the proposed project is summarized in Table 3.


Table 3: Proposed Project Trip Generation

Land Use (ITE Code)

Size/Unit

Daily A.M. Peak Hour Trips P.M. Peak Hour Trips

Rate Trips RateIn %:Out %

In Out Total Rate In %: Out %

In Out Total

Residential Condominium /Townhouse (230)

28 DU 5.81 163 0.44 17:83 2 10 12 0.52 67:33 10 5 15

Single Family Detached Housing (210)

30 DU 9.52 286 0.75 25:75 6 17 23 1.00 63:37 19 11 30

10% TDM Reduction ‐45 ‐1 ‐3 ‐3 ‐3 ‐2 ‐5

Total 404 7 24 32 26 14 40

Source: ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition, Average Rates; DU = Dwelling Units

Project Trip Distribution and Assignment

The process of trip distribution determines the proportion of project trips that are expected to travel between the project site and various destinations outside the project area. Trip assignment determines the various routes that vehicles are expected to take while travelling between the project site and each destination. For the proposed project, the trip distribution is determined based on existing turning movements, and TJKM’s knowledge of the study area. Figure 5 shows the following trip distribution percentages on a vicinity map:

55 percent to/from the north via the bridge at Park Street (18 a.m. trips & 22 p.m. trips)

15 percent to/from the south via Willow Street (5 a.m. trips & 6 p.m. trips)

10 percent to/from the east via the bridge at Tilden Way (3 a.m. trips & 4 p.m. trips)

10 percent to/from the west via Buena Vista Avenue(3 a.m. trips & 4 p.m. trips)

10 percent to/from the west via Clement Avenue(3 a.m. trips & 4 p.m. trips)

Project trip assignments are based on the above trip distribution percentages. The assigned project trips are then added to Baseline Conditions traffic volumes to generate Baseline plus Project traffic volumes. Figure 6 shows the resulting traffic volumes at the study intersections under Baseline plus Project Conditions.

Intersection Level of Service Analysis Results (Baseline plus Project Conditions)

Table 4 shows the results of the LOS analysis conducted for the study intersections under Baseline Conditions and Baseline plus Project Conditions. Detailed calculation sheets for the analysis for Baseline plus Project Conditions are contained in Appendix E. All study intersections are expected to continue operating within City of Alameda standards, at LOS D or better, with the following exception:

Study Intersection 8: Park Street / Clement Avenue (LOS E during the a.m. peak hour). To improve the level of service from unacceptable ‘E’ to an acceptable ‘D’, following improvement is recommended.

o Re‐timing of the traffic signal would improve the intersection operations to a LOS D.

The intersection of Park Street/ Clement Avenue is already expected to operate at a less‐than‐acceptable LOS E under Baseline Conditions without the proposed project, the percentage of


additional trips generated by the proposed project is calculated. The proposed project is expected to generate 0.7 and 0.8 percent additional trips in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. Since the traffic volumes at study intersection 8 are expected to increase by less than three percent, traffic impacts of the proposed project are expected to have a less‐than‐significant impact. Table 5 shows the comparison of the traffic volumes at study intersection 8 under Baseline Conditions and Baseline plus Project Conditions. The project sponsor would be required to their development impact fee of the associated mitigation measures. An impact fee towards intersection improvement would be an acceptable mitigation measure for intersection impacts. The mitigated LOS calculations sheets are contained in Appendix E. Table 4: Intersection Levels of Service ‐ Baseline Conditions and Baseline plus Project Conditions


Baseline Conditions Baseline plus Project Conditions

A.M. Peak Hour

P.M. Peak Hour

A.M. Peak Hour

P.M. Peak Hour

Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

1 Willow Street / Clement

Avenue Two‐way Stop 17.7 C 27.0 D 17.9 C 27.6 D

2 Willow Street / Eagle

Avenue Two‐way Stop 9.4 A 9.2 A 9.4 A 9.2 A

3 Willow Street / Buena

Vista Avenue Two‐way Stop 19.7 C 17.0 C 19.9 C 17.3 C

4 Buena Vista Avenue /

Mulberry Street One‐way Stop 13.6 C 12.3 B 14.7 B 13.7 B

5 Oak Street / Clement

Avenue All‐way Stop 32.9 D 33.4 D 35.0 D 34.9 D

6 Oak Street / Buena Vista

Avenue Signal 11.3 B 12.7 B 11.3 B 12.7 B

7 Park Street / Blanding

Avenue Signal 51.2 D 19.4 B 51.1 D 19.7 B

8 Park Street / Clement

Avenue

Signal 55.3 E 31.2 C 58.3 E 32.0 C

Recommended Improvement

Signal Timing Optimization

55.3 E 31.2 C 36.2 D 32.0 C

9 Blanding Avenue / Tilden

Way Signal 15.7 B 20.7 C 15.7 B 20.8 C

10 Constitution Way/ Atlantic

Avenue Signal 19.1 B 27.7 C 19.1 B 27.9 C


3) Unsignalized one‐ and two‐way stop controlled intersections – Delay / LOS is for critical minor stop‐controlled approach. 4) Bold indicated LOS exceeds applicable standard for operating conditions.


Table 5: Traffic Volumes Comparison ‐ Baseline Conditions and Baseline plus Project Conditions

ID Intersection

Baseline Conditions

Volumes

Baseline plus Project

Volumes

Change in Volumes (Percent)

A.M. Peak Hour

P.M. Peak Hour

A.M. Peak Hour

P.M. Peak Hour

A.M. Peak Hour

P.M. Peak Hour

8 Park Street /

Clement Avenue 2,399 2,707 2,416 2,729 0.7% 0.8%

TJKMTransportation

Consultants Project Trip Distribution

Figure 5

LEGEND

Study IntersectionTrip DistributionXX%

ProjectSite

MARINA VILLAGE P

KW

Y.

BAYVIEW DR.

CLINTON AVE.

ATLANTIC AVE.

EASTSHORE D

R.

FERN SIDE B

LVD.

GR

AN

D

S

T.

OTIS DR.

FRU

ITV

ALE

FERNSIDE BLVD.

OTIS DR.

LINCOLN AVE.

CENTRAL AVE.

ENCINAL AVE.

LINCOLN AVE.

LINCOLN

AVE.

CLEMENT AVE.

CLEMENTAVE.

Coast Guard Island

TILDEN WY.

SHORELINE DR.

8th

ST.

WE

BS

TE

R

ST.

PAR

K S

T.B

RO

AD

WAY HIG

H ST.

HIGH

ST.

OA

K S

T.

WIL

LOW

ST.

29th

AVE

.

AVE

.

BUENA VISTA AVE.

EAGLE ST.PACIFIC AVE.

PACIFIC AVE.

BUENA VISTA AVE.

STA

NT

ON

ST.

CHALLENGER DR.

CONSTITUTION WY.

SH

ER

MA

N S

T.

WE

BS

TER

ST.

TU

BE

PO

SE

Y T

UB

E

BR

OA

DW

AYW

EB

STE

R S

T.H

AR

RIS

ON

ST.

260

61

61

61

61

61

DOOLITTLE DR.

5th ST.7th ST.

12

10

5

6

47

8

9

3

BLANDING AVE.

MULBERRY ST.


INTERSTATE

880

INTERSTATE

880

Tidal Canal

San Francisco Bay

San Leandro Bay

10%

10%55

%15%

10%

2 (3)338 (421)

3 (3

)16

(9)

8 (6)3 (1)3 (2)

1 (5

)57

(33)

6 (7

)











199 (111)252 (258)29 (24)

23 (1

5)10

0 (6

6)52

(53)

13 (10)143 (166)14 (13)

216

(303

)45

(151

)21

(14)

15 (10)344 (338)26 (31)

31 (4

4)14

3 (1

12)

66 (8

8)15 (14)278 (220)

12 (38)

10 (3

0)63

(188

)14

(13)

220 (185)15 (60)8 (16)

2 (2

)

1,46

8 (1

,202

)13

(40)

375 (212)64 (120)

12 (21)

210

(357

)74

6 (1

,286

)0

(1)

233 (218)43 (81)10 (22)

5 (8

)

1,03

2 (9

61)

19 (2

0)

219 (50)89 (48)3 (4)

83 (1

00)

618

(1,0

07)

62 (2

10)

10 (27)

398 (422)

55 (95)

365 (154)307 (159)

47 (61)

178 (228)

517 (656)

118 (277)88 (118)

73 (144)

11 (16)

2 (7

)17

(40)

2 (6

)

5 (2)3 (0)5 (5)

0 (0)300 (322)4 (9)

5 (5

)0

(0)

59 (3

6)

0 (3

)0

(0)

1 (2

7)8 (1)294 (386)

15 (51)

7 (7)300 (400)10 (15)

24 (9

)58

(36)

39 (2

2)

6 (5

)17

(31)

3 (3

)

3 (5)297 (211)21 (18) 6 (13)316 (232)

63 (84)150 (231)

43 (92)

77 (

80)

890

(634

)

25 (

51)

155 (178)134 (236)24 (58)

47 (

135)

320

(1,4

12)

125

(207

)

TJKMTransportation

Consultants Baseline plus Project Conditions Traffic Volumes, Lane Geometry, and Controls

Figure 6

LEGEND

Study IntersectionTraffic SignalStop SignAM Peak Hour VolumePM Peak Hour Volume

XX(XX)

ProjectSite

MARINA VILLAGE P

KW

Y.

BAYVIEW DR.

CLINTON AVE.

ATLANTIC AVE.

EASTSHORE D

R.

FERN SIDE B

LVD.

GR

AN

D

S

T.

OTIS DR.

FRU

ITV

ALE

FERNSIDE BLVD.

OTIS DR.

LINCOLN AVE.

CENTRAL AVE.

ENCINAL AVE.

LINCOLN AVE.

LINCOLN

AVE.

CLEMENT AVE.

CLEMENTAVE.

Coast Guard Island

TILDEN WY.

SHORELINE DR.

8th

ST.

WE

BS

TE

R

ST.

PAR

K S

T.B

RO

AD

WAY HIG

H ST.

HIGH

ST.

OA

K S

T.

WIL

LOW

ST.

29th

AVE

.

AVE

.

BUENA VISTA AVE.


PACIFIC AVE.

PACIFIC AVE.

BUENA VISTA AVE.

STA

NT

ON

ST.

CHALLENGER DR.

CONSTITUTION WY.

SH

ER

MA

N S

T.

WE

BS

TER

ST.

TU

BE

PO

SE

Y T

UB

E

BR

OA

DW

AYW

EB

STE

R S

T.H

AR

RIS

ON

ST.

260

61

61

61

61

61

DOOLITTLE DR.

5th ST.7th ST.

12

10

5

6

47

8

9

3

BLANDING AVE.

MULBERRY ST.


INTERSTATE

880

INTERSTATE

880

Tidal Canal

San Francisco Bay

San Leandro Bay


Cumulative (2035) Conditions

TJKM was requested to analyze the study intersections that have been analyzed in the Alameda Point Project DEIR (September 2013) for the following reasons:

1. Alameda Point Project DEIR provides a city‐wide analysis of the major intersections. 2. The traffic forecasts for the Cumulative (2035) Conditions are based on the more detailed

model developed for the City of Alameda with projections for the 2035 baseline year.

Cumulative (2035) plus Project Conditions

Cumulative (2035) plus Project Conditions are based on forecasts of 2035 conditions, and the proposed project’s contribution to those forecasted conditions. Forecasted traffic volumes are taken from the Cumulative (2035) Conditions scenario analyzed in the Alameda Point Project DEIR. The impact of the proposed project is analyzed at four study intersections (Intersection # 7,8,9 and 10), which were also analyzed in the Alameda Point Project DEIR.

According to the Alameda Point Project DEIR, under Cumulative (2035) Conditions, the study intersection 10 (Constitution Way / Atlantic Avenue) is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS during both the peak hours. The impacts on vehicle travel at study intersections 7 (Park Street / Blanding Avenue), 8 (Park Street / Clement Avenue), and 9 (Blanding Avenue / Tilden Way) were considered to be significant.

The forecasted Cumulative (2035) Conditions volumes at study intersections 7, 8, 9 and 10 are compared to the proposed Hagstrom development project volumes. The proposed project is expected to generate less than a three‐percent increase in peak hour volumes. Therefore, the project trips are expected to result in less‐than‐significant impacts under Cumulative (2035) plus Project Conditions and no mitigations are required. Table 6 shows the comparison of the traffic volumes at study intersections 7, 8, 9 and 10 under Cumulative (2035) Conditions and Cumulative (2035) plus Project Conditions.

Table 6: Traffic Volumes Comparison ‐ Cumulative (2035) Conditions and Cumulative (2035) plus Project Conditions

ID Intersection

2035 Conditions Volumes1

Cumulative plus Project (2035)

Volumes

Change in Volumes (Percent)

A.M. Peak Hour

P.M. Peak Hour

A.M. Peak Hour

P.M. Peak Hour

A.M. Peak Hour

P.M. Peak Hour

7 Park Street /

Blanding Avenue 4,781 5,211 4,798 5,233 0.4% 0.4%

8 Park Street /

Clement Avenue 3,860 3,929 3,869 3,940 0.2% 0.3%

9 Blanding Avenue /

Tilden Way 3,905 4,179 3,908 4,183 0.07% 0.09%

10 Constitution Way/ Atlantic Avenue

2,127 2,801 2,130 2,805 0.1% 0.1%

1Source: Alameda Point Project DEIR (September 2013)


Cumulative Transportation Improvements

For consistency with the Cumulative (2035) Conditions discussion in the Alameda Point Project DEIR, the applicable improvements recommended at these intersections as part of that DEIR are also included here:

Study intersection 7 (Park Street / Blanding Avenue)

o Add northbound left‐turn pocket along Park Street; and

o Optimize the signal offsets and splits.

Study intersection 8 (Park Street / Clement Avenue)

o Add two eastbound left‐turn lanes to provide two left‐turn lanes and a shared through/right‐turn lane on the eastbound Blanding Avenue approach;

o Add a westbound left‐turn lane to provide a left‐turn lane, a through lane and a right‐turn lane on the westbound Blanding Avenue approach;

o Separate the operation of the southbound left‐turn‐only driveway from the Park Street and Blanding Avenue intersection;

o Change east‐west signal phasing to protected phasing; and

o Optimize signal timing during both peak periods.


According to Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum by ESA in March 2015, the Annual VMT is 752,263. Therefore, the daily VMT/per unit for the proposed residential development is calculated to be 35.5.


Pedestrian LOS

Potential impacts on pedestrian LOS are evaluated based on the HCM 2000 methodology for determining average delay for pedestrians at signalized study intersections. Pedestrian delay is based on the following two factors:

1. The effective green signal time for pedestrians to cross each intersection leg; and

2. The actuated cycle length of the signal.

Based on City of Alameda pedestrian LOS standards for signalized intersections, a project impact would be considered significant if the delay for a crosswalk increases by 10 percent or more.

The proposed project would increase vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the project vicinity, but would not change the signal timing configurations at any of the existing signalized study intersections. The effective green signal times for pedestrians to cross and the actuated cycle lengths would remain the same. As a result, pedestrian delay and LOS at signalized study intersections would be the same under Baseline Conditions and Baseline plus Project Conditions. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project on pedestrian travel would be less than significant and no mitigations are required.

Bicycle LOS

Potential impacts on bicycle LOS are evaluated based on the Florida Department of Transportation methodology for assessing bicyclists’ perceived level of comfort along study roadway segments. Bicycle LOS scores are based on the following five factors:

1. Average effective width of the outside through lane (and presence of bike lane);

2. Motor vehicle volumes;

3. Motor vehicle speeds;

4. Truck volumes; and

5. Pavement conditions.

Based on City of Alameda bicycle LOS standards for roadway segments, a project impact would be considered significant if the bicycle LOS score for a study roadway segment increases by 10 percent or more.

Based on streets where the City of Alameda’s Bicycle Master Plan (updated November 2010) proposed bikeways, the proposed project’s impact on bicycle LOS is considered along the following study segments:

Oak Street, between Blanding Avenue and Buena Vista Avenue

Blanding Avenue, between Oak Street and Park Street

Clement Avenue, between Willow Street and Park Street

The proposed project’s impact is evaluated, under Baseline Conditions, on each of the five factors that determine the bicycle LOS score, as follows:


1. The project would not change the average effective width of outside through lanes on any existing roadways and therefore would result in no change to this component of the bicycle LOS score.

2. From Baseline Conditions to Baseline plus Project Conditions, the project would increase peak directional motor vehicle volumes by the following percentages:

o Clement Avenue, between Willow Street and Park Street

Approximately 2 percent in the a.m. peak hour

Approximately 2 percent in the p.m. peak hour

There was no increase in motor vehicle volumes along the segments of Oak Street and Blanding Avenue. Based on these percentage increases, the proposed project would increase this component of the bicycle LOS score by less than 10 percent on the study roadway segments.

3. Motor vehicle speed and truck volumes are accounted for in the same component of the bicycle LOS score.

o The proposed project is not expected to change motor vehicle speeds on the study roadway segments in the vicinity of the project.

o The proposed project’s 58 residential units are not expected to generate significant, if any, truck volumes.

The proposed project is expected to result in less than a 10 percent increase, if any, in the motor‐vehicle‐speed‐and‐truck volumes component of the bicycle LOS score.

4. The expected less than 10 percent increases in the motor vehicle volumes and the less‐than‐significant increase, if any, in the truck volumes due to the proposed project are expected to result in less‐than‐significant additional wear on the pavement along the study segments. This component of the bicycle LOS score is not expected to change.

5. The pavement component of the bicycle LOS score is not expected to change, as there will be no pavement changes.

Based on this analysis of the expected change in the bicycle LOS score components, the bicycle LOS score is not expected to increase by 10 percent as a result of the project, and the project impact on bicycle travel is expected to be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Transit LOS

The proposed project is expected to add traffic on one study street segment serving transit routes, Park Street, between Blanding Avenue and Clement Avenue. The transit route arterial speed data for this street segment is obtained from the arterial LOS report generated by the peak hour Synchro model, using the HCM 2000 methodology for Urban Street (arterial) LOS. The arterial speed is calculated using the distances between the intersections and the travel time along the roadway segments. With the addition of project trips to Park Street, the speeds along the study segment are expected to decrease by less than 10 percent. Therefore, the project trips are expected to result in less‐than‐significant impacts on transit route arterial speed along the Park Street study segment. Table 7 summarizes the arterial speed data for the Baseline Conditions and Baseline plus Project Conditions. Analysis sheets are included in Appendix F.


Table 7I: Transit Route Arterial Speeds ‐ Baseline Conditions and Baseline plus Project Conditions

ID Corridor Direction

Baseline Conditions Speed (mph)

Baseline plus Project Conditions Speed (mph) Change in Arterial

Speed A.M. Peak Hour

P.M. Peak Hour

A.M. Peak Hour

P.M. Peak Hour

LOSArterial Speed

LOSArterial Speed

LOSArterial Speed

LOS Arterial Speed

A.M. Peak Hour

P.M. Peak Hour

1

Park Street:

Blanding Avenue to

Clement Avenue

NB E 7.8 E 7.1 E 7.8 E 7.1 No Change No Change

SB D 10.8 E 8.3 D 10.8 E 8.2 No Change 1.2%

Notes: Bold indicates decrease in speed


Project Site Access

Vehicle Access

The proposed project will include two full access driveways: one on Clement Avenue and the other on Eagle Avenue. The on‐site roadway network is expected to provide adequate on‐site circulation for personal and emergency vehicles.

Sight distance for vehicles that would turn left or right from the proposed driveways onto Eagle Avenue and Clement Avenue seem to be adequate.

Pedestrian Access

The City’s Transportation Element Update DEIR (August 2008) states that providing safe and convenient pedestrian connections within a new development and between the new development and adjacent areas should be a high priority.

The proposed project provides a network of pedestrian facilities including non‐vehicle pathways along the frontages of the residential units. This on‐site pedestrian network will provide connectivity to the existing network of sidewalks on Eagle Avenue.

Bicycle Access

The City’s Transportation Element Update DEIR General Plan supports providing a network of facilities to allow for the safe conveyance of bicycle traffic on all City streets. Bicycle parking is expected to be provided on site as part of the proposed project. City staff has requested that a ratio of 0.5 bicycle parking spaces per dwelling unit be used for the proposed project. The project sponsor is providing 2 bicycle parking spaces per unit. This results in 116 off‐street short‐term bicycle parking spaces. This exceeds the requirements for proposed bicycle parking by the City.

Transit Access

The City’s Transportation Element Update DEIR supports providing amenities or support programs to make using alternative modes a more attractive option. As part of the proposed project, residents are expected to receive AC Transit passes to encourage use of the nearby bus routes.

Site Access Conclusion

Based on the analyses presented above, the proposed project’s site plan would not interfere with adopted City plans or policies, conflict with existing or planned off‐site facilities, or create a hazard for vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, or transit access, and the resulting project impacts would be less than significant. To compliment these less‐than‐significant impacts, TJKM recommends the following improvements and programs:

Installation of Stop control at the project driveways with appropriate pavement delineation and signing.

Vehicle Parking

Based on the project site plan, there are 119 proposed parking spaces. Of the 119 parking spaces, 112 spaces are provided to the residents, 7 spaces are provided to the guest parking including one space for Handicapped Parking. In addition, 116 bicycle parking spaces are proposed to be provided. The two “in‐law” style apartments or studio apartments do not have any dedicated parking.

Appendix A – Vehicle Level of Service Methodology

c:\tjkm\templates\appendices-pleasanton office\sign. method 2000.doc 07/17/02

DESCRIPTION OF SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Updated 2000 HCM METHOD

Background The operations method of intersection capacity analysis found in Chapter 16, “Signalized Intersections,” of the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board, was used for this study. This method is used in most analyses of existing conditions or of future situations in which traffic, geometric, and control parameters were well established by projections and trial designs. This method addresses the capacity and level of service of intersection approaches, and the level of service of the intersection as a whole. In this method, capacity and level of service are evaluated separately, and are not related to each other in a simple one-to-one fashion. Capacity is evaluated in terms of the ratio of demand flow rate to capacity (volume-to-capacity ratio), while level of service is evaluated on the basis of control delay per vehicle (sec/veh). The capacity of the intersection as a whole is not addressed by this method; the design and signalization of intersections focuses on the accommodation of the major movements and approaches comprising the intersection. Capacity is, therefore, only meaningful as applied to these major movements and approaches. Capacity analysis results in the computation of volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements and a composite volume-to-capacity ratio for the sum of critical movements or lane groups within the intersection. The volume-to-capacity ratio is the actual or projected rate of flow on an approach or designated group of lanes during a peak 15-minute interval divided by the capacity of the approach or designated group of lanes. Level of Service Level of service is based on the control delay per vehicle for various movements within the intersection. While volume-to-capacity affects delay, there are other parameters that more strongly affect it, such as the quality of progression, length of green phases, cycle lengths, and others. Thus for any given volume-to-capacity ratio, a range of delay values my result, and vice-versa. See the table “Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections” for the relationship between the level of service and stopped delay per vehicle. Because delay is a complex measure, its relationship to capacity is also complex. It is possible, for example, to have delays in the range of Level of Service F while the volume-to-capacity ratios is below 1.00, perhaps as slow as 0.75-0.85. Very high delays can occur at such volume-to-capacity ratios when some combination of the following conditions exists: the cycle length is long; the lane group in question has a long red time; and/or the signal progression for the subject movement is poor. The reverse is also possible. A saturated approach or lane group with a volume-to-capacity equal to 1.00 may have low delays if the cycle length is short, and/or the signal progression is favorable for the subject movement. Acceptable delay levels do not automatically ensure that capacity is sufficient. The analysis must consider the results of the capacity analysis module and the level of service module to obtain a complete picture of existing or projected intersection operations.

c:\tjkm\templates\appendices-pleasanton office\sign. method 2000.doc 07/17/02

Thus, the designation of Level of Service does not automatically imply that the intersection, approach, or lane group is overloaded, nor does a level of service in the A to E range automatically imply that there is unused capacity available. The procedures of this methodology require the analysis of both capacity and level of service conditions to fully evaluate the operation of a signalized intersection. Input Data The input data necessary to use this methodology are: • Lane geometrics • Traffic volumes • Signal timing • Vehicle type distribution • Percent grade • Pedestrians • Peak hour factors • Parking activity • Arrival type per approach Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Transportation Research Board, 2000.

c:\tjkm\templates\appendices-pleasanton office\los criteria 2000.doc 07/17/02

Table A-1: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections

Level of Service Type of Flow Delay Maneuverability

Control Delay/ Vehicle (s/veh)

A Stable Flow

Very slight delay. Progression is very favorable, with most vehicles arriving during the green phase and not stopping at all.

Turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation.

< 10.0

B Stable Flow

Good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.

Vehicle platoons are formed. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles.

> 10-20

C Stable Flow Higher delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping.

Back-ups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted.

> 20-35

D Approaching Unstable Flow

The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result in some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.

Maneuverability is severely limited during short periods due to temporary back ups.

> 35-55

E Unstable Flow Generally considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. Indicative of poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.

There are typically long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection.

> 55-80

F Forced Flow Generally considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. Often occurs with oversaturation. May also occur at high volume-to-capacity ratios. There are many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing factors.

Jammed conditions. Back ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement. Volumes may vary widely, depending principally on the downstream back-up conditions.

> 80

References: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 87, Highway Research Board, 1965. TJKM.

c:\tjkm\templates\appendices-pleasanton office\unsig. method 2000.doc 07/17/2002

DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS UNSIGNALIZED 2000 METHOD

Background The method of unsignalized intersection capacity analysis used in this study is from Chapter 17, “Unsignalized Intersections” of the Highway Capacity Manual, Special report No. 209, Transportation Research Board, updated October 2000. This method applies to two-way STOP sign or YIELD sign controlled intersections (or one-way STOP sign or YIELD sign controlled intersections at three-way intersections). At such intersections, drivers on the minor street are forced to use judgement when selecting gaps in the major flow through which to execute crossings or turning maneuvers. Thus, the capacity of the controlled legs of an intersection is based on three factors: 1. The distribution of gaps in the major street traffic stream. 2. Driver judgement in selecting gaps through which to execute their desired maneuvers. 3. Follow-up time required to move into the front-of-queue position. It is assumed that gaps in the traffic stream are randomly distributed. For this reason, the methodology will be less reliable in situations in which the conflicting flows are strongly platooned, as would be the case at many urban intersections where the major street is part of a signalized network. This method assumes that major street traffic is not affected by minor street flows. This assumption is generally good for periods when the operation is smooth and uncongested. (When congestion occurs, it is likely that major street traffic will experience some impedance due to minor street traffic.) Left turns from the major street are assumed to be affected by the opposing major street flow, and minor street traffic is affected by all conflicting movements. Input Data The general procedure to calculate the level of service is as follows: 1. Define existing geometric and volume conditions for the intersection under study.

2. Determine the conflicting traffic through which each minor street movement and the major street left-turn must cross.

3. Determine the size of the gap in the conflicting traffic stream needed by vehicles in each movement crossing the conflicting traffic stream.

4. Determine the capacity of the gaps in the major traffic stream to accommodate each of the subject movements that will utilize these gaps.

5. Adjust the capacities found to account for impedance and the use of shared lanes.

6. Estimate the average total delay for each of the subject movements and determine the level of service for each movement and for the intersection.

Gaps are utilized by vehicles in the following priority order:

c:\tjkm\templates\appendices-pleasanton office\unsig. method 2000.doc 07/17/2002

1. Right turns from the minor street 2. Left turns from the major street 3. Through movements from the minor street 4. Left turns from the minor street For example, if a left-turning vehicle on the major street and a through vehicle from the minor street are waiting to cross the major traffic stream, the first available gap of acceptable size would be taken by the left-turning vehicle. The minor street through vehicle must wait for the second available gap. In aggregate terms, a large number of such left-turning vehicles could use up so many of the available gaps that minor street through vehicles are severely impeded or unable to make safe crossing movements. Level of Service See the following table “Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections” for the relationship between delay and level of service.

LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED ITNERSECTIONS

Control Delay (s/veh) Level of Service Delays

0-10 A Little or no delay

> 10-15 s/veh B Short traffic delays

> 15-25 s/veh C Average traffic delays

> 25-35 s/veh D Long traffic delays

>35-50 s/veh E Very long traffic delays

> 50 s/veh F Extreme traffic delay The level of service criteria for Two-Way STOP controlled intersections is somewhat different from the criteria used in Chapter 16 for signalized intersections. The primary reason for this is the difference that drivers expect a signalized intersection to carry higher traffic volumes than unsignalized intersections. Additionally, several driver behavior conditions combine to make delays at signalized intersections less onerous than at unsignalized intersections. Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Update October 2000.

Appendix B – Existing Traffic Counts

PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: WEDNESDAYN-S APPROACH: WILLOW STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH: CLEMENT AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3501003-1AM

PEAK HOUR ARRIVAL / DEPARTURE VOLUMES7:30 AM to 8:30 AM NORTH

0 0 1 0PHF = 0.25

1 8

0 8 PHF =0.93

0 285288 305

278 12282 338

4 0PHF =

CLEMENT AVENUE 0.93

16 620 3 0 59

WILLOW STREET PHF = 0.74

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TOTALFrom To U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT

7:00 AM to 7:15 AM 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 44 0 1 50 3 1047:15 AM to 7:30 AM 0 0 14 1 0 0 1 101 0 3 95 10 2257:30 AM to 7:45 AM 0 0 26 1 0 0 1 160 0 7 165 17 3777:45 AM to 8:00 AM 3 0 44 1 0 0 1 231 0 9 237 18 5448:00 AM to 8:15 AM 3 0 59 1 0 0 1 306 1 12 316 18 7178:15 AM to 8:30 AM 3 0 73 2 0 0 1 379 4 15 380 18 8758:30 AM to 8:45 AM 3 0 86 6 0 1 1 440 6 19 438 22 10228:45 AM to 9:00 AM 6 0 96 9 0 2 1 500 7 24 491 26 1162

7:00 AM to 7:15 AM 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 44 0 0 1 50 3 1047:15 AM to 7:30 AM 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 2 45 7 1217:30 AM to 7:45 AM 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 4 70 7 1527:45 AM to 8:00 AM 0 3 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 2 72 1 1678:00 AM to 8:15 AM 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 1 0 3 79 0 1738:15 AM to 8:30 AM 0 0 0 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 73 3 0 3 64 0 1588:30 AM to 8:45 AM 0 0 0 13 0 4 0 1 0 0 61 2 0 4 58 4 1478:45 AM to 9:00 AM 0 3 0 10 0 3 0 1 0 0 60 1 0 5 53 4 140

7:00 AM to 8:00 AM 0 3 0 44 0 1 0 0 0 1 231 0 0 9 237 18 5447:15 AM to 8:15 AM 0 3 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 262 1 0 11 266 15 6137:30 AM to 8:30 AM 0 3 0 59 0 1 0 0 0 0 278 4 0 12 285 8 6507:45 AM to 8:45 AM 0 3 0 60 0 5 0 1 0 0 280 6 0 12 273 5 6458:00 AM to 9:00 AM 0 3 0 52 0 8 0 2 0 0 269 7 0 15 254 8 618

7:30 AM to 8:30 AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TOTALNBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT SBR EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR

0 3 0 59 0 1 0 0 0 0 278 4 0 12 285 8 6500.00 0.25 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.33 0.00 0.75 0.90 0.29 OVERALL

0.94414

33 0 5 6

TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

9:00 AM

TIME PERIOD

P E A K H O U R S U M M A R Y

VOLUME

PEDESTRIANBICYCLE

PHF BY MOVEMENTPHF BY APPROACH 0.74 0.25 0.930.93

0 1 0

1/7/20157:00 AM

I N T E R S E C T I O N T U R N I N G M O V E M E N T S U M M A R Y

650

S U R V E Y D A T A

T O T A L B Y P E R I O D

H O U R L Y T O T A L S

PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: WEDNESDAYN-S APPROACH: WILLOW STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH CLEMENT AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3501003-1AM

PEAK HOUR ARRIVAL / DEPARTURE VOLUMES7:30 AM TO 8:30 AM NORTH

N-LEG TOTAL0 0 0 0

NORTH - LEG0 0

WEST - LEG EAST - LEG E-LEG TOTAL0 0 14

5 14 5 5 6

0 1 5 8W-LEG TOTAL

CLEMENT AVENUE 10

SOUTH - LEG0 0 3 1 3

S-LEG TOTALWILLOW STREET 4

NB (SOUTH - LEG) SB (NORTH - LEG) EB (WEST - LEG) WB (EAST - LEG) TOTALFrom To LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT



7:00 AM to 8:00 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 7 0 167:15 AM to 8:15 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 8 0 187:30 AM to 8:30 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 5 0 147:45 AM to 8:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 3 0 108:00 AM to 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 3 0 10

7:30 AM to 8:30 AMVOLUME BY APPROACH NBT SBT EBT WBT TOTAL

3 0 5 6 14

7:00 AM 9:00 AM

BICYCLE

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A



TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

B I C Y C L E M O V E M E N T S U M M A R Y

1/7/2015

P E D E S T R I A N M O V E M E N T S U M M A R Y

PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE:N-S APPROACH: WILLOW STREET DAY: WEDNESDAYE-W APPROACH: CLEMENT AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDASURVEY PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM FILE: 3501003-1AM

PEAK HOUR PEAK HOUR07:30 AM TO 08:30 AM TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES

4 N-LEG

B 2 A&BA 0 W-LEG 2

1 0 G&H 1 H C

G DCLEMENT AVENUE 0 0 0 C&D

1 E E&F 1 E-LEG0 F S-LEG

LEGEND:

WILLOW STREET CROSSWALKSIDEWALKSTOP CONTROL LINE

TIME PERIOD NORTH END EAST END SOUTH END WEST ENDSIDE-WALK JAY-WALK STOP LINE JAY-WALK TOTAL

From To A B C D E F G H

S U R V E Y D A T A07:00 AM --- 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07:15 AM --- 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07:30 AM --- 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07:45 AM --- 08:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

08:00 AM --- 08:15 AM 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 4

08:15 AM --- 08:30 AM 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 4

08:30 AM --- 08:45 AM 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 5

08:45 AM --- 09:00 AM 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 5

T O T A L B Y P E R I O D07:00 AM --- 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07:15 AM --- 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07:30 AM --- 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07:45 AM --- 08:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

08:00 AM --- 08:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

08:15 AM --- 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

08:30 AM --- 08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

08:45 AM --- 09:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H O U R L Y T O T A L S07:00 AM --- 08:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

07:15 AM --- 08:15 AM 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 4

07:30 AM --- 08:30 AM 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 4

07:45 AM --- 08:45 AM 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 5

08:00 AM --- 09:00 AM 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3

Tel : (510) 232-1271 Fax: (510) 232-1272

7:30 AM to 8:30 AMVOLUME BY LEG NB SB EB WB TOTAL

0 1 0 3 4

1/7/2015

PEDESTRIAN

PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: WEDNESDAYN-S APPROACH: WILLOW STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH: CLEMENT AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3501003-1PM

PEAK HOUR ARRIVAL / DEPARTURE VOLUMES4:30 PM to 5:30 PM NORTH

3 0 27 0PHF = 0.44

30 1

0 1 PHF =0.91

0 352360 403

306 50313 367

7 0PHF =

CLEMENT AVENUE 0.88

57 390 5 0 34



4:00 PM to 4:15 PM 1 0 10 0 0 1 0 97 1 8 85 0 2034:15 PM to 4:30 PM 2 0 20 1 0 1 0 150 3 12 174 0 3634:30 PM to 4:45 PM 4 0 28 5 0 1 0 231 5 24 273 0 5714:45 PM to 5:00 PM 6 0 32 20 0 3 0 300 7 40 342 0 7505:00 PM to 5:15 PM 6 0 45 27 0 3 0 387 9 51 429 1 9585:15 PM to 5:30 PM 7 0 54 28 0 4 0 456 10 62 526 1 11485:30 PM to 5:45 PM 8 0 59 28 0 4 0 532 11 71 614 1 13285:45 PM to 6:00 PM 10 0 67 28 0 4 0 616 11 78 686 1 1501

4:00 PM to 4:15 PM 0 1 0 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 97 1 0 8 85 0 2034:15 PM to 4:30 PM 0 1 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 53 2 0 4 89 0 1604:30 PM to 4:45 PM 0 2 0 8 0 4 0 0 0 0 81 2 0 12 99 0 2084:45 PM to 5:00 PM 0 2 0 4 0 15 0 2 0 0 69 2 0 16 69 0 1795:00 PM to 5:15 PM 0 0 0 13 0 7 0 0 0 0 87 2 0 11 87 1 2085:15 PM to 5:30 PM 0 1 0 9 0 1 0 1 0 0 69 1 0 11 97 0 1905:30 PM to 5:45 PM 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 1 0 9 88 0 1805:45 PM to 6:00 PM 0 2 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 0 7 72 0 173

4:00 PM to 5:00 PM 0 6 0 32 0 20 0 3 0 0 300 7 0 40 342 0 7504:15 PM to 5:15 PM 0 5 0 35 0 27 0 2 0 0 290 8 0 43 344 1 7554:30 PM to 5:30 PM 0 5 0 34 0 27 0 3 0 0 306 7 0 50 352 1 7854:45 PM to 5:45 PM 0 4 0 31 0 23 0 3 0 0 301 6 0 47 341 1 7575:00 PM to 6:00 PM 0 4 0 35 0 8 0 1 0 0 316 4 0 38 344 1 751

4:30 PM to 5:30 PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TOTALNBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT SBR EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR

0 5 0 34 0 27 0 3 0 0 306 7 0 50 352 1 7850.00 0.63 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.88 0.00 0.78 0.89 0.25 OVERALL

0.943

18

785

B . A . Y . M . E . T . R . I . C . S .

TIME PERIOD



1/7/2015

S U R V E Y D A T A


4:00 PM 6:00 PM


VOLUME

TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 12720 4 14BICYCLE

PHF BY MOVEMENTPHF BY APPROACH 0.75 0.44 0.88 0.91

PEDESTRIAN 0 0 1 20

PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: WEDNESDAYN-S APPROACH: WILLOW STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH:CLEMENT AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3501003-1PM

PEAK HOUR ARRIVAL / DEPARTURE VOLUMES4:30 PM TO 5:30 PM NORTH

N-LEG TOTAL0 0 0 0

NORTH - LEG0 0


4 18 13 13 14

0 1 4 4W-LEG TOTAL

CLEMENT AVENUE 17






4:00 PM to 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 9 0 114:15 PM to 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 13 0 164:30 PM to 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 13 0 184:45 PM to 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 12 0 205:00 PM to 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 9 0 17

4:30 PM to 5:30 PMVOLUME BY APPROACH NBT SBT EBT WBT TOTAL

0 0 4 14 18

B . A . Y . M . E . T . R . I . C . S .B I C Y C L E M O V E M E N T S U M M A R Y

1/7/2015

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A



4:00 PM 6:00 PM

TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

BICYCLE

B . A . Y . M . E . T . R . I . C . S .P E D E S T R I A N M O V E M E N T S U M M A R Y

PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE:N-S APPROACH: WILLOW STREET DAY: WEDNESDAYE-W APPROACH: CLEMENT AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDASURVEY PERIOD: 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3501003-1PM

PEAK HOUR PEAK HOUR04:30 PM TO 05:30 PM TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES

3 N-LEG

B 2 A&BA 0 W-LEG 2

0 0 G&H 0 H C

G DCLEMENT AVENUE 0 0 0 C&D


LEGEND:


TIME PERIOD NORTH END EAST END SOUTH END WEST END

SIDE-WALK JAY-WALK STOP LINE JAY-WALK TOTALFrom To A B C D E F G H

S U R V E Y D A T A04:00 PM --- 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

04:15 PM --- 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

04:30 PM --- 04:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2

04:45 PM --- 05:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 3

05:00 PM --- 05:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 3

05:15 PM --- 05:30 PM 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 4

05:30 PM --- 05:45 PM 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5

05:45 PM --- 06:00 PM 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5

T O T A L B Y P E R I O D04:00 PM --- 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

04:15 PM --- 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

04:30 PM --- 04:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

04:45 PM --- 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

05:00 PM --- 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

05:15 PM --- 05:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

05:30 PM --- 05:45 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

05:45 PM --- 06:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H O U R L Y T O T A L S04:00 PM --- 05:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 3

04:15 PM --- 05:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2

04:30 PM --- 05:30 PM 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 3

04:45 PM --- 05:45 PM 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3

05:00 PM --- 06:00 PM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Tel : (510) 232-1271 Fax: (510) 232-1272

4:30 PM to 5:30 PMVOLUME BY LEG NB SB EB WB TOTAL

0 0 1 2 3

1/7/2015

PEDESTRIAN

PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: WEDNESDAYN-S APPROACH: WILLOW STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH: EAGLE AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3501003-2AM


2 14 2 0PHF = 0.75

18 68

0 3 PHF =0.50

8 36 8

3 214 10

3 0PHF =

EAGLE AVENUE 0.39

19 630 1 57 5







0 1 57 5 0 2 14 2 0 8 3 3 0 2 3 3 1030.00 0.25 0.79 0.42 0.00 0.50 0.58 0.50 0.00 0.40 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.25 0.38 0.75 OVERALL

0.9267

34 1 2 0

TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

9:00 AM

TIME PERIOD


VOLUME

PEDESTRIANBICYCLE


1 0 2

1/7/20157:00 AM

B . A . Y . M . E . T . R . I . C . S .I N T E R S E C T I O N T U R N I N G M O V E M E N T S U M M A R Y

103

S U R V E Y D A T A



PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: WEDNESDAYN-S APPROACH: WILLOW STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH EAGLE AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3501003-2AM


N-LEG TOTAL0 1 0 5

NORTH - LEG1 4


1 7 0 0 0

1 0 2 1W-LEG TOTAL

EAGLE AVENUE 2








4 1 2 0 7

7:00 AM 9:00 AM

BICYCLE

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A



TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272


1/7/2015


PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE:N-S APPROACH: WILLOW STREET DAY: WEDNESDAYE-W APPROACH: EAGLE AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDASURVEY PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM FILE: 3501003-2AM


6 N-LEG

B 3 A&BA 1 W-LEG 4

0 1 G&H 1 H C

G DEAGLE AVENUE 0 0 0 C&D


LEGEND:


TIME PERIOD NORTH END EAST END SOUTH END WEST ENDJAY-WALK STOP LINE JAY-WALK STOP LINE TOTAL


S U R V E Y D A T A07:00 AM --- 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

07:15 AM --- 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

07:30 AM --- 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

07:45 AM --- 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3

08:00 AM --- 08:15 AM 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 5

08:15 AM --- 08:30 AM 1 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 7

08:30 AM --- 08:45 AM 1 3 0 0 2 1 1 0 8

08:45 AM --- 09:00 AM 1 3 0 0 2 1 1 0 8


07:15 AM --- 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07:30 AM --- 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07:45 AM --- 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2

08:00 AM --- 08:15 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

08:15 AM --- 08:30 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

08:30 AM --- 08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

08:45 AM --- 09:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


07:15 AM --- 08:15 AM 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 4

07:30 AM --- 08:30 AM 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 6

07:45 AM --- 08:45 AM 1 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 7

08:00 AM --- 09:00 AM 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 5

Tel : (510) 232-1271 Fax: (510) 232-1272


1 0 2 3 6

1/7/2015

PEDESTRIAN

PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: WEDNESDAYN-S APPROACH: WILLOW STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH: EAGLE AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3501003-2PM


7 39 4 0PHF = 0.83

50 39

0 2 PHF =0.63

6 012 5

1 39 8

2 0PHF =

EAGLE AVENUE 0.56

44 390 5 31 3







0 5 31 3 0 4 39 7 0 6 1 2 0 3 0 2 1030.00 0.63 0.86 0.38 0.00 0.50 0.81 0.88 0.00 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.50 OVERALL

0.8921

103

B . A . Y . M . E . T . R . I . C . S .

TIME PERIOD



1/7/2015

S U R V E Y D A T A


4:00 PM 6:00 PM


VOLUME

TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 12721 0 0BICYCLE


PEDESTRIAN 1 1 0 00

PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: WEDNESDAYN-S APPROACH: WILLOW STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH EAGLE AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3501003-2PM


N-LEG TOTAL0 1 0 1

NORTH - LEG1 0


0 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0W-LEG TOTAL

EAGLE AVENUE 0








0 1 0 0 1


1/7/2015

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A



4:00 PM 6:00 PM

TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

BICYCLE


PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE:N-S APPROACH: WILLOW STREET DAY: WEDNESDAYE-W APPROACH: EAGLE AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDASURVEY PERIOD: 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3501003-2PM


2 N-LEG

B 0 A&BA 0 W-LEG 0

0 0 G&H 0 H C

G DEAGLE AVENUE 1 1 2 C&D


LEGEND:


TIME PERIOD NORTH END EAST END SOUTH END WEST ENDJAY-WALK STOP LINE JAY-WALK STOP LINE TOTAL


S U R V E Y D A T A04:00 PM --- 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

04:15 PM --- 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

04:30 PM --- 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

04:45 PM --- 05:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2

05:00 PM --- 05:15 PM 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3

05:15 PM --- 05:30 PM 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3

05:30 PM --- 05:45 PM 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 4

05:45 PM --- 06:00 PM 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 4


04:15 PM --- 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

04:30 PM --- 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

04:45 PM --- 05:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

05:00 PM --- 05:15 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

05:15 PM --- 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

05:30 PM --- 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

05:45 PM --- 06:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


04:15 PM --- 05:15 PM 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3

04:30 PM --- 05:30 PM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2

04:45 PM --- 05:45 PM 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3

05:00 PM --- 06:00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2

Tel : (510) 232-1271 Fax: (510) 232-1272


1 1 0 0 2

1/7/2015

PEDESTRIAN

PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: WEDNESDAYN-S APPROACH: WILLOW STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH: BUENA VISTA AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3501003-3AM


4 13 3 0PHF = 0.83

20 67

0 3 PHF =0.90

7 297325 321

300 21317 342

10 0PHF =

BUENA VISTA AVENUE 0.92

44 1200 24 57 39







0 24 57 39 0 3 13 4 0 7 300 10 0 21 297 3 7780.00 0.75 0.84 0.98 0.00 0.75 0.81 1.00 0.00 0.35 0.91 0.63 0.00 0.75 0.91 0.38 OVERALL

0.94408

142 1 1 4

TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

9:00 AM

TIME PERIOD


VOLUME

PEDESTRIANBICYCLE


6 13 7

1/7/20157:00 AM


778

S U R V E Y D A T A



PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: WEDNESDAYN-S APPROACH: WILLOW STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH BUENA VISTA AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3501003-3AM


N-LEG TOTAL0 0 1 3

NORTH - LEG1 2


0 8 4 4 4

1 0 1 1W-LEG TOTAL

BUENA VISTA AVENUE 5








2 1 1 4 8

7:00 AM 9:00 AM

BICYCLE

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A



TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272


1/7/2015


PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE:N-S APPROACH: WILLOW STREET DAY: WEDNESDAYE-W APPROACH: BUENA VISTA AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDASURVEY PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM FILE: 3501003-3AM


40 N-LEG

B 10 A&BA 3 W-LEG 13

11 4 G&H 15 H C

G DBUENA VISTA AVENUE 2 2 4 C&D


LEGEND:


TIME PERIOD NORTH END EAST END SOUTH END WEST ENDSTOP LINE JAY-WALK STOP LINE CROSS-WALK TOTAL


S U R V E Y D A T A07:00 AM --- 07:15 AM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

07:15 AM --- 07:30 AM 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4

07:30 AM --- 07:45 AM 2 3 1 0 0 0 1 3 10

07:45 AM --- 08:00 AM 2 5 1 0 0 1 2 5 16

08:00 AM --- 08:15 AM 2 7 1 0 2 1 2 7 22

08:15 AM --- 08:30 AM 3 13 2 1 3 3 5 14 44

08:30 AM --- 08:45 AM 5 13 3 2 4 4 5 14 50

08:45 AM --- 09:00 AM 6 15 3 2 5 4 5 15 55


07:15 AM --- 07:30 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

07:30 AM --- 07:45 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 6

07:45 AM --- 08:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 6

08:00 AM --- 08:15 AM 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6

08:15 AM --- 08:30 AM 1 6 1 1 1 2 3 7 22

08:30 AM --- 08:45 AM 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 6

08:45 AM --- 09:00 AM 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 5


07:15 AM --- 08:15 AM 1 7 0 0 2 1 2 7 20

07:30 AM --- 08:30 AM 1 13 1 1 3 3 4 14 40

07:45 AM --- 08:45 AM 3 10 2 2 4 4 4 11 40

08:00 AM --- 09:00 AM 4 10 2 2 5 3 3 10 39

Tel : (510) 232-1271 Fax: (510) 232-1272


6 13 7 14 40

1/7/2015

PEDESTRIAN

PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: WEDNESDAYN-S APPROACH: WILLOW STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH: BUENA VISTA AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3501003-3PM


4 29 3 0PHF = 0.82

36 42

0 5 PHF =0.84

5 211224 234

400 18420 425

15 0PHF =


62 630 9 32 22







0 9 32 22 0 3 29 4 0 5 400 15 0 18 211 5 7530.00 0.56 0.73 0.55 0.00 0.38 0.91 0.33 0.00 0.63 0.94 0.63 0.00 0.64 0.85 0.63 OVERALL

0.95134

753

B . A . Y . M . E . T . R . I . C . S .

TIME PERIOD



1/7/2015

S U R V E Y D A T A


4:00 PM 6:00 PM


VOLUME

TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 12723 1 0BICYCLE


PEDESTRIAN 3 2 5 30

PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: WEDNESDAYN-S APPROACH: WILLOW STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH BUENA VISTA AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3501003-3PM


N-LEG TOTAL0 3 0 3

NORTH - LEG3 0


1 4 0 0 0

0 0 1 1W-LEG TOTAL









0 3 1 0 4


1/7/2015

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A



4:00 PM 6:00 PM

TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

BICYCLE


PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE:N-S APPROACH: WILLOW STREET DAY: WEDNESDAYE-W APPROACH: BUENA VISTA AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDASURVEY PERIOD: 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3501003-3PM


13 N-LEG

B 3 A&BA 3 W-LEG 6

1 1 G&H 2 H C



LEGEND:


TIME PERIOD NORTH END EAST END SOUTH END WEST ENDSTOP LINE JAY-WALK STOP LINE CROSS-WALK TOTAL


S U R V E Y D A T A04:00 PM --- 04:15 PM 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 7

04:15 PM --- 04:30 PM 3 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 10

04:30 PM --- 04:45 PM 3 7 0 0 2 0 3 1 16

04:45 PM --- 05:00 PM 5 8 0 0 3 1 4 1 22

05:00 PM --- 05:15 PM 5 8 0 1 3 1 4 1 23

05:15 PM --- 05:30 PM 6 9 0 2 3 1 4 1 26

05:30 PM --- 05:45 PM 7 10 0 2 3 2 5 1 30

05:45 PM --- 06:00 PM 8 11 1 2 3 3 5 2 35


04:15 PM --- 04:30 PM 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3

04:30 PM --- 04:45 PM 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 6

04:45 PM --- 05:00 PM 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 6

05:00 PM --- 05:15 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

05:15 PM --- 05:30 PM 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3

05:30 PM --- 05:45 PM 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 4

05:45 PM --- 06:00 PM 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 5


04:15 PM --- 05:15 PM 3 4 0 1 3 1 4 0 16

04:30 PM --- 05:30 PM 3 4 0 2 3 1 3 0 16

04:45 PM --- 05:45 PM 4 3 0 2 1 2 2 0 14

05:00 PM --- 06:00 PM 3 3 1 2 0 2 1 1 13

Tel : (510) 232-1271 Fax: (510) 232-1272


3 2 5 3 13

1/7/2015

PEDESTRIAN

PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: WEDNESDAYN-S APPROACH: MULBERRY STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH: BUENA VISTA AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3501003-4AM


3 0 8 0PHF = 0.39

11 5

0 3 PHF =0.93

2 316319 319

338 0340 346

0 0PHF =


0 00 0 0 0

MULBERRY STREET PHF = 0.00


7:00 AM to 7:15 AM 0 0 0 27 37 0 647:15 AM to 7:30 AM 1 0 0 62 76 1 1407:30 AM to 7:45 AM 3 1 0 119 132 3 2587:45 AM to 8:00 AM 8 3 1 196 217 4 4298:00 AM to 8:15 AM 10 3 1 279 295 5 5938:15 AM to 8:30 AM 10 4 1 370 368 6 7598:30 AM to 8:45 AM 11 4 2 457 448 6 9288:45 AM to 9:00 AM 11 7 2 522 520 6 1068




0 0 0 0 0 8 0 3 0 2 338 0 0 0 316 3 6700.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.50 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.75 OVERALL

0.9886


670

S U R V E Y D A T A



1/7/20157:00 AM

TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

9:00 AM

TIME PERIOD


VOLUME

PEDESTRIANBICYCLE


0 0 4 40 0 2 4

PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: WEDNESDAYN-S APPROACH: MULBERRY STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH BUENA VISTA AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3501003-4AM


N-LEG TOTAL0 0 0 0

NORTH - LEG0 0


2 6 4 4 4

0 0 2 2W-LEG TOTAL



S-LEG TOTALMULBERRY STREET 0






0 0 2 4 6BICYCLE

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A



TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272


1/7/20157:00 AM 9:00 AM


PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE:N-S APPROACH: MULBERRY STREET DAY: WEDNESDAYE-W APPROACH: BUENA VISTA AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDASURVEY PERIOD 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM FILE: 3501003-4AM


8 N-LEG

B 4 A&BA 4 W-LEG 8

0 0 G&H 0 H C



LEGEND:

MULBERRY STREET CROSSWALKSIDEWALKSTOP CONTROL LINE

TIME PERIOD NORTH END EAST END SOUTH END WEST ENDSTOP LINE JAY-WALK SIDE-WALK JAY-WALK TOTAL


S U R V E Y D A T A07:00 AM --- 07:15 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

07:15 AM --- 07:30 AM 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

07:30 AM --- 07:45 AM 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

07:45 AM --- 08:00 AM 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

08:00 AM --- 08:15 AM 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

08:15 AM --- 08:30 AM 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 11

08:30 AM --- 08:45 AM 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 14

08:45 AM --- 09:00 AM 7 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 17


07:15 AM --- 07:30 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

07:30 AM --- 07:45 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

07:45 AM --- 08:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

08:00 AM --- 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

08:15 AM --- 08:30 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

08:30 AM --- 08:45 AM 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

08:45 AM --- 09:00 AM 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3


07:15 AM --- 08:15 AM 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

07:30 AM --- 08:30 AM 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

07:45 AM --- 08:45 AM 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

08:00 AM --- 09:00 AM 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

Tel : (510) 232-1271 Fax: (510) 232-1272


0 0 4 4 8PEDESTRIAN

1/7/2015

PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: WEDNESDAYN-S APPROACH: MULBERRY STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH: BUENA VISTA AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3501003-4PM


3 0 3 0PHF = 0.75

6 7

0 4 PHF =0.84

3 232235 236

421 0424 424

0 0PHF =


0 00 0 0 0

MULBERRY STREET PHF = 0.00


4:00 PM to 4:15 PM 2 0 1 88 47 1 1394:15 PM to 4:30 PM 3 0 2 187 107 3 3024:30 PM to 4:45 PM 4 0 3 278 158 6 4494:45 PM to 5:00 PM 6 2 3 368 225 11 6155:00 PM to 5:15 PM 6 4 3 461 278 12 7645:15 PM to 5:30 PM 6 5 3 570 334 13 9315:30 PM to 5:45 PM 8 5 3 678 402 15 11115:45 PM to 6:00 PM 9 5 6 789 457 15 1281




0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 421 0 0 0 232 4 6660.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.25 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.50 OVERALL

0.9371BICYCLE


PEDESTRIAN 0 0 3 40


VOLUME

TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 12720 1 0

4:00 PM 6:00 PM

666

B . A . Y . M . E . T . R . I . C . S .

TIME PERIOD



1/7/2015

S U R V E Y D A T A


PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: WEDNESDAYN-S APPROACH: MULBERRY STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH BUENA VISTA AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3501003-4PM


N-LEG TOTAL0 0 0 0

NORTH - LEG0 0


1 1 0 0 0

0 0 1 1W-LEG TOTAL



S-LEG TOTALMULBERRY STREET 0






0 0 1 0 1BICYCLE

TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

4:00 PM 6:00 PM


1/7/2015

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A




PROJECT: TRAFFIC COUNTS IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE:N-S APPROACH: MULBERRY STREET DAY: WEDNESDAYE-W APPROACH: BUENA VISTA AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDASURVEY PERIOD 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3501003-4PM


7 N-LEG

B 4 A&BA 3 W-LEG 7

0 0 G&H 0 H C



LEGEND:

MULBERRY STREET CROSSWALKSIDEWALKSTOP CONTROL LINE

TIME PERIOD NORTH END EAST END SOUTH END WEST ENDSTOP LINE JAY-WALK SIDE-WALK JAY-WALK TOTAL


S U R V E Y D A T A04:00 PM --- 04:15 PM 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

04:15 PM --- 04:30 PM 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

04:30 PM --- 04:45 PM 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

04:45 PM --- 05:00 PM 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 13

05:00 PM --- 05:15 PM 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 13

05:15 PM --- 05:30 PM 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 15

05:30 PM --- 05:45 PM 7 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 18

05:45 PM --- 06:00 PM 8 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 20


04:15 PM --- 04:30 PM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

04:30 PM --- 04:45 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

04:45 PM --- 05:00 PM 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

05:00 PM --- 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

05:15 PM --- 05:30 PM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

05:30 PM --- 05:45 PM 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

05:45 PM --- 06:00 PM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2


04:15 PM --- 05:15 PM 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

04:30 PM --- 05:30 PM 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

04:45 PM --- 05:45 PM 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

05:00 PM --- 06:00 PM 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

Tel : (510) 232-1271 Fax: (510) 232-1272


0 0 3 4 7PEDESTRIAN

1/7/2015

PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: TUESDAYN-S APPROACH: OAK STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH: CLEMENT AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3404050-1AM


214 43 21 0PHF = 0.77

278 312

0 13 PHF =0.95

199 136371 163

225 14447 298

23 0PHF =

CLEMENT AVENUE 0.87

81 1741 21 100 52

OAK STREET PHF = 0.95


7:00 AM to 7:15 AM 0 3 11 9 0 9 29 35 50 1 1 21 2 1717:15 AM to 7:30 AM 0 8 23 17 0 21 70 65 102 3 1 44 2 3567:30 AM to 7:45 AM 0 16 46 29 2 32 118 105 153 10 3 70 2 5867:45 AM to 8:00 AM 0 19 72 45 6 43 193 162 221 14 5 106 7 8938:00 AM to 8:15 AM 1 24 95 61 17 55 251 213 271 28 10 137 13 11768:15 AM to 8:30 AM 1 30 115 73 20 70 292 256 326 31 15 169 13 14118:30 AM to 8:45 AM 1 37 146 81 23 75 332 304 378 33 17 206 15 16488:45 AM to 9:00 AM 1 41 174 95 24 90 368 329 427 36 18 243 17 1863




1 21 100 52 0 21 43 214 0 199 225 23 0 14 136 13 1062421

0.25 0.75 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.48 0.72 0.71 0.00 0.87 0.83 0.41 0.00 0.70 0.92 0.54 OVERALL0.86

TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

9:00 AM

TIME PERIOD


VOLUMEPEDESTRIAN

BICYCLEPHF BY MOVEMENTPHF BY APPROACH 0.95 0.77 0.950.87

4/29/20147:00 AM


1062

S U R V E Y D A T A



PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE DAY: TUESDAYN-S APPROACHOAK STREET SURVEY TIME TOE-W APPROACHCLEMENT AVENUE JURISDICTIONALAMEDA FILE: 3404050-1AM

PEAK HOUR7:45 AM TO 8:45 AM NORTH

2 0 11.08% 1.60%

3 5

4 02.07% 2.16% 3.07%

7 22 5 8 5

0 0 11 92.46% 3.02%

CLEMENT AVENUE

1 1 1 0 30.00% 1.72%

OAK STREET

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TOTALFrom To LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT




B . A . Y . M . E . T . R . I . C . S .T R U C K M O V E M E N T S U M M A R Y

4/29/20147:00 AM 9:00 AM



TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

TRUCK ARRIVAL / DEPARTURE VOLUMES & PERCENTAGE

(TRUCK PERCENTAGE IN RED)

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A

PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: TUESDAYN-S APPROACH: OAK STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACHCLEMENT AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3404050-1AM


N-LEG TOTAL3 1 0 14

NORTH - LEG4 10


5 21 2 5 2

0 0 9 5W-LEG TOTAL

CLEMENT AVENUE 14


S-LEG TOTALOAK STREET 7






6 4 9 2 21

7:00 AM 9:00 AM

BICYCLE

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A



TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272


4/29/2014


PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE:N-S APPROACH: OAK STREET DAY: TUESDAYE-W APPROACH: CLEMENT AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDASURVEY PERIOD 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM FILE: 3404050-1AM


4 N-LEG

B* 0 A&BA* 0 W-LEG 0

0 0 G&H 0 H* C*

G* D*CLEMENT AVENUE 1 3 4 C&D

0 E* 0 E-LEG0 F* E&F

S-LEG

OAK STREET

LEGEND:* NO CROSSWALK. J-WALK

TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALKFrom To A * B * C * D * E * F * G * H * TOTAL

S U R V E Y D A T A07:00 AM --- 07:15 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

07:15 AM --- 07:30 AM 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 5

07:30 AM --- 07:45 AM 1 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 9

07:45 AM --- 08:00 AM 1 3 2 3 1 1 0 0 11

08:00 AM --- 08:15 AM 1 3 2 3 1 1 0 0 11

08:15 AM --- 08:30 AM 1 3 2 3 1 1 0 0 11

08:30 AM --- 08:45 AM 1 3 2 5 1 1 0 0 13

08:45 AM --- 09:00 AM 3 3 2 6 2 4 0 0 20


07:15 AM --- 07:30 AM 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 4

07:30 AM --- 07:45 AM 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4

07:45 AM --- 08:00 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2

08:00 AM --- 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

08:15 AM --- 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

08:30 AM --- 08:45 AM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

08:45 AM --- 09:00 AM 2 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 7


07:15 AM --- 08:15 AM 1 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 10

07:30 AM --- 08:30 AM 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 6

07:45 AM --- 08:45 AM 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 4

08:00 AM --- 09:00 AM 2 0 0 3 1 3 0 0 9

Tel : (510) 232-1271 Fax: (510) 232-1272

7:45 AM to 8:45 AMVOLUME BY LEG N-LEG S-LEG E-LEG W-LEG TOTAL

0 0 4 0 4

4/29/2014

PEDESTRIAN

PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: TUESDAYN-S APPROACH: OAK STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH: CLEMENT AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3404050-1PM


296 144 13 1PHF = 0.88

454 188

0 10 PHF =0.96

111 139445 162

243 13375 309

21 0PHF =

CLEMENT AVENUE 0.92

178 1290 10 66 53



4:00 PM to 4:15 PM 6 21 13 0 0 28 71 23 55 4 0 7 23 5 2564:15 PM to 4:30 PM 9 37 30 0 1 65 150 58 128 9 0 11 53 8 5594:30 PM to 4:45 PM 12 53 38 0 2 101 206 83 189 12 1 19 79 12 8074:45 PM to 5:00 PM 14 70 49 0 5 136 282 120 245 13 1 23 112 13 10835:00 PM to 5:15 PM 18 85 60 0 8 165 352 146 313 21 1 25 148 17 13595:15 PM to 5:30 PM 20 102 68 0 10 210 434 168 379 26 1 29 181 20 16485:30 PM to 5:45 PM 22 119 91 1 15 245 502 194 432 33 1 32 218 22 19275:45 PM to 6:00 PM 25 142 98 1 21 292 563 209 472 38 1 39 248 25 2174




0 10 66 53 1 13 144 296 0 111 243 21 0 13 139 10 11201545

0.00 0.63 0.97 0.58 0.25 0.65 0.80 0.90 0.00 0.75 0.89 0.66 0.00 0.81 0.94 0.63 OVERALL0.97


4/29/20144:00 PM 6:00 PM

1120

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A




TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

VOLUMEPEDESTRIAN

BICYCLEPHF BY MOVEMENTPHF BY APPROACH 0.77 0.88 0.92 0.96

PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE DAY: TUESDAYN-S APPROACHOAK STREET SURVEY TIME TOE-W APPROACHCLEMENT AVENUE JURISDICTIONALAMEDA FILE: 3404050-1PM

PEAK HOUR4:45 PM TO 5:45 PM NORTH

1 0 00.22% 0.53%

1 1

0 00.71% 0.90% 1.85%

3 8 3 4 3

0 0 3 30.80% 0.97%

CLEMENT AVENUE

0 1 0 0 10.00% 0.78%

OAK STREET






4/29/20144:00 PM 6:00 PM



TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A



TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: TUESDAYN-S APPROACH: OAK STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACHCLEMENT AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3404050-1PM


N-LEG TOTAL19 11 0 34

NORTH - LEG30 4


4 45 6 25 6

0 0 5 5W-LEG TOTAL

CLEMENT AVENUE 30

SOUTH - LEG0 3 1 11 4







4 30 5 6 45


4/29/20144:00 PM 6:00 PM

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A



TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

BICYCLE


PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE:N-S APPROACH: OAK STREET DAY: TUESDAYE-W APPROACH: CLEMENT AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDASURVEY PERIOD 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3404050-1PM


15 N-LEG


0 0 G&H 0 H* C*

G* D*CLEMENT AVENUE 4 3 7 C&D


S-LEG

OAK STREET



S U R V E Y D A T A04:00 PM --- 04:15 PM 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3

04:15 PM --- 04:30 PM 0 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 6

04:30 PM --- 04:45 PM 0 1 3 2 2 1 0 1 10

04:45 PM --- 05:00 PM 0 1 4 2 3 1 0 1 12

05:00 PM --- 05:15 PM 0 1 7 4 5 1 0 1 19

05:15 PM --- 05:30 PM 0 2 7 5 6 2 0 1 23

05:30 PM --- 05:45 PM 0 3 7 5 7 2 0 1 25

05:45 PM --- 06:00 PM 0 5 7 5 7 2 0 1 27


04:15 PM --- 04:30 PM 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3

04:30 PM --- 04:45 PM 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 4

04:45 PM --- 05:00 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2

05:00 PM --- 05:15 PM 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 7

05:15 PM --- 05:30 PM 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 4

05:30 PM --- 05:45 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

05:45 PM --- 06:00 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2


04:15 PM --- 05:15 PM 0 1 5 4 4 1 0 1 16

04:30 PM --- 05:30 PM 0 2 5 4 4 1 0 1 17

04:45 PM --- 05:45 PM 0 2 4 3 5 1 0 0 15

05:00 PM --- 06:00 PM 0 4 3 3 4 1 0 0 15

Tel : (510) 232-1271 Fax: (510) 232-1272

4:45 PM to 5:45 PMVOLUME BY LEG N-LEG S-LEG E-LEG W-LEG TOTAL

2 6 7 0 15

4/29/2014

PEDESTRIAN

PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: TUESDAYN-S APPROACH: OAK STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH: EAGLE AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3404050-2AM


3 69 12 0PHF = 0.70

84 173

0 23 PHF =0.83

0 04 30

0 70 34

0 0PHF =

EAGLE AVENUE 0.00

76 1730 1 150 22



7:00 AM to 7:15 AM 0 21 0 0 1 11 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 387:15 AM to 7:30 AM 0 44 3 0 3 24 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 5 857:30 AM to 7:45 AM 0 81 3 0 5 37 3 2 0 0 1 3 0 7 1427:45 AM to 8:00 AM 0 120 7 0 7 51 4 2 0 0 1 4 0 13 2098:00 AM to 8:15 AM 0 160 13 0 9 78 5 2 0 0 1 6 0 17 2918:15 AM to 8:30 AM 0 193 19 0 11 99 5 2 0 0 1 8 0 23 3618:30 AM to 8:45 AM 1 231 25 0 17 106 6 2 0 0 1 10 0 30 4298:45 AM to 9:00 AM 1 272 27 1 19 121 6 2 0 0 1 10 0 32 492




0 1 150 22 0 12 69 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 23 28788

0.00 0.25 0.94 0.92 0.00 0.50 0.64 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.82 OVERALL0.88


287

S U R V E Y D A T A



4/29/20147:00 AM

TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

9:00 AM

TIME PERIOD


VOLUMEPEDESTRIAN


PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: TUESDAYN-S APPROACH: OAK STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACHEAGLE AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3404050-2AM


N-LEG TOTAL0 1 1 8

NORTH - LEG2 6


0 8 0 0 0

0 0 0 1W-LEG TOTAL

EAGLE AVENUE 0








6 2 0 0 8BICYCLE

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A



TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272


4/29/20147:00 AM 9:00 AM


PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE:N-S APPROACH: OAK STREET DAY: TUESDAYE-W APPROACH: EAGLE AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDASURVEY PERIOD 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM FILE: 3404050-2AM


8 N-LEG


0 0 G&H 0 H* C*

G* D*EAGLE AVENUE 5 3 8 C&D


S-LEG

OAK STREET


TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALKFrom To NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK TOTAL

S U R V E Y D A T A A * B * C * D * E * F * G * H *

07:00 AM --- 07:15 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

07:15 AM --- 07:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

07:30 AM --- 07:45 AM 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3

07:45 AM --- 08:00 AM 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 6

08:00 AM --- 08:15 AM 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 8

08:15 AM --- 08:30 AM 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 8

08:30 AM --- 08:45 AM 0 0 6 5 0 0 0 0 11

08:45 AM --- 09:00 AM 0 0 6 5 0 0 0 0 11


07:15 AM --- 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07:30 AM --- 07:45 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2

07:45 AM --- 08:00 AM 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3

08:00 AM --- 08:15 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

08:15 AM --- 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

08:30 AM --- 08:45 AM 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3

08:45 AM --- 09:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


07:15 AM --- 08:15 AM 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 7

07:30 AM --- 08:30 AM 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 7

07:45 AM --- 08:45 AM 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 8

08:00 AM --- 09:00 AM 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 5

Tel : (510) 232-1271 Fax: (510) 232-1272


0 0 8 0 8PEDESTRIAN

4/29/2014

PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: TUESDAYN-S APPROACH: OAK STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH: EAGLE AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3404050-2PM


0 188 10 0PHF = 0.85

198 134

0 9 PHF =0.79

0 00 38

0 291 24

1 0PHF =

EAGLE AVENUE 0.25

218 1390 0 125 14







0 0 125 14 0 10 188 0 0 0 0 1 0 29 0 9 376514

0.00 0.00 0.84 0.70 0.00 0.83 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.75 OVERALL0.90

TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272


PEDESTRIAN



VOLUME

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A


4:00 PM 6:00 PM

376


4/29/2014

PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: TUESDAYN-S APPROACH: OAK STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACHEAGLE AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3404050-2PM


N-LEG TOTAL0 8 0 14

NORTH - LEG8 6


0 14 0 0 0

0 0 0 0W-LEG TOTAL

EAGLE AVENUE 0








6 8 0 0 14BICYCLE


TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A


4:00 PM 6:00 PM


4/29/2014


PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE:N-S APPROACH: OAK STREET DAY: TUESDAYE-W APPROACH: EAGLE AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDASURVEY PERIOD 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3404050-2PM


5 N-LEG


0 0 G&H 0 H* C*

G* D*EAGLE AVENUE 0 1 1 C&D


S-LEG

OAK STREET



S U R V E Y D A T A04:00 PM --- 04:15 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

04:15 PM --- 04:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

04:30 PM --- 04:45 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

04:45 PM --- 05:00 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3

05:00 PM --- 05:15 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3

05:15 PM --- 05:30 PM 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 4

05:30 PM --- 05:45 PM 0 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 6

05:45 PM --- 06:00 PM 0 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 8


04:15 PM --- 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

04:30 PM --- 04:45 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

04:45 PM --- 05:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

05:00 PM --- 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

05:15 PM --- 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

05:30 PM --- 05:45 PM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2

05:45 PM --- 06:00 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2


04:15 PM --- 05:15 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

04:30 PM --- 05:30 PM 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3

04:45 PM --- 05:45 PM 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4

05:00 PM --- 06:00 PM 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 5

Tel : (510) 232-1271 Fax: (510) 232-1272


3 1 1 0 5PEDESTRIAN

4/29/2014

PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: TUESDAYN-S APPROACH: OAK STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH: BUENA VISTA AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3404050-3AM


10 55 14 0PHF = 0.76

79 172

0 15 PHF =0.82

15 275316 302

336 12377 416

26 0PHF =


93 2390 31 142 66







0 31 142 66 0 14 55 10 0 15 336 26 0 12 275 15 9974316

0.00 0.78 0.89 0.87 0.00 0.44 0.86 0.50 0.00 0.63 0.86 0.72 0.00 0.60 0.80 0.47 OVERALL0.94

TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

9:00 AM

TIME PERIOD


VOLUMEPEDESTRIAN


4/29/20147:00 AM


997

S U R V E Y D A T A



PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE DAY: TUESDAYN-S APPROACHOAK STREET SURVEY TIME TOE-W APPROACHBUENA VISTA AVENUE JURISDICTIONALAMEDA FILE: 3404050-3AM

PEAK HOUR7:30 AM TO 8:30 AM NORTH

0 1 01.27% 0.58%

1 1

0 00.90% 0.32% 0.33%

6 9 1 1 1

0 0 6 61.59% 1.44%

BUENA VISTA AVENUE

0 1 0 1 11.08% 0.42%

OAK STREET






4/29/20147:00 AM 9:00 AM



TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272



TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A

PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: TUESDAYN-S APPROACH: OAK STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACHBUENA VISTA AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3404050-3AM


N-LEG TOTAL0 1 0 10

NORTH - LEG1 9


2 16 4 4 4

0 0 3 2W-LEG TOTAL









8 1 3 4 16

7:00 AM 9:00 AM

BICYCLE

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A



TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272


4/29/2014


PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE:N-S APPROACH: OAK STREET DAY: TUESDAYE-W APPROACH: BUENA VISTA AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDASURVEY PERIOD 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM FILE: 3404050-3AM


43 N-LEG

B 7 A&BA 2 W-LEG 9

5 4 G&H 9 H C


6 E 12 E-LEG6 F E&F

S-LEG

OAK STREET

LEGEND:CROSSWALK

TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALKFrom To A B C D E F G H TOTAL

S U R V E Y D A T A07:00 AM --- 07:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

07:15 AM --- 07:30 AM 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3

07:30 AM --- 07:45 AM 1 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 13

07:45 AM --- 08:00 AM 1 6 2 3 3 7 1 2 25

08:00 AM --- 08:15 AM 1 7 6 3 4 7 3 4 35

08:15 AM --- 08:30 AM 2 8 8 5 7 7 4 5 46

08:30 AM --- 08:45 AM 3 9 8 7 7 8 6 5 53

08:45 AM --- 09:00 AM 3 9 8 7 9 10 6 5 57


07:15 AM --- 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

07:30 AM --- 07:45 AM 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 10

07:45 AM --- 08:00 AM 0 3 1 2 1 4 0 1 12

08:00 AM --- 08:15 AM 0 1 4 0 1 0 2 2 10

08:15 AM --- 08:30 AM 1 1 2 2 3 0 1 1 11

08:30 AM --- 08:45 AM 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 7

08:45 AM --- 09:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 4


07:15 AM --- 08:15 AM 1 6 6 3 3 7 3 4 33

07:30 AM --- 08:30 AM 2 7 8 5 6 6 4 5 43

07:45 AM --- 08:45 AM 2 6 7 6 5 5 5 4 40

08:00 AM --- 09:00 AM 2 3 6 4 6 3 5 3 32

Tel : (510) 232-1271 Fax: (510) 232-1272


9 12 13 9 43

4/29/2014

PEDESTRIAN

PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: TUESDAYN-S APPROACH: OAK STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH: BUENA VISTA AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3404050-3PM


30 178 13 0PHF = 0.88

221 131

0 14 PHF =0.88

10 211285 263

332 38373 433

31 0PHF =


247 2390 44 107 88







0 44 107 88 0 13 178 30 0 10 332 31 0 38 211 14 10963020

0.00 0.73 0.86 0.85 0.00 0.81 0.84 0.68 0.00 0.83 0.88 0.86 0.00 0.79 0.88 0.70 OVERALL0.97


4/29/20144:00 PM 6:00 PM

1096

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A




TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

VOLUMEPEDESTRIAN


PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE DAY: TUESDAYN-S APPROACHOAK STREET SURVEY TIME TOE-W APPROACHBUENA VISTA AVENUE JURISDICTIONALAMEDA FILE: 3404050-3PM

PEAK HOUR5:00 PM TO 6:00 PM NORTH

0 0 00.00% 0.76%

0 1

0 10.64% 1.05% 1.52%

2 7 3 3 4

0 0 2 30.54% 0.69%

BUENA VISTA AVENUE

0 0 1 0 10.00% 0.42%

OAK STREET






4/29/20144:00 PM 6:00 PM



TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A



TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: TUESDAYN-S APPROACH: OAK STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACHBUENA VISTA AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3404050-3PM


N-LEG TOTAL2 6 0 14

NORTH - LEG8 6


5 20 0 2 0

1 0 6 5W-LEG TOTAL









6 8 6 0 20


4/29/20144:00 PM 6:00 PM

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A



TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

BICYCLE


PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE:N-S APPROACH: OAK STREET DAY: TUESDAYE-W APPROACH: BUENA VISTA AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDASURVEY PERIOD 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3404050-3PM


30 N-LEG

B 3 A&BA 4 W-LEG 7

6 2 G&H 8 H C


5 E 11 E-LEG6 F E&F

S-LEG

OAK STREET

LEGEND:CROSSWALK

TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALKFrom To A B C D E F G H TOTAL

S U R V E Y D A T A04:00 PM --- 04:15 PM 2 1 2 2 0 0 4 1 12

04:15 PM --- 04:30 PM 2 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 14

04:30 PM --- 04:45 PM 2 1 2 3 2 1 5 1 17

04:45 PM --- 05:00 PM 4 3 2 3 2 1 5 1 21

05:00 PM --- 05:15 PM 6 4 3 4 4 2 5 2 30

05:15 PM --- 05:30 PM 8 4 3 4 5 5 6 2 37

05:30 PM --- 05:45 PM 8 6 3 6 7 7 7 6 50

05:45 PM --- 06:00 PM 8 6 3 6 7 7 7 7 51


04:15 PM --- 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2

04:30 PM --- 04:45 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 3

04:45 PM --- 05:00 PM 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

05:00 PM --- 05:15 PM 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 9

05:15 PM --- 05:30 PM 2 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 7

05:30 PM --- 05:45 PM 0 2 0 2 2 2 1 4 13

05:45 PM --- 06:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1


04:15 PM --- 05:15 PM 4 3 1 2 4 2 1 1 18

04:30 PM --- 05:30 PM 6 3 1 2 4 4 2 1 23

04:45 PM --- 05:45 PM 6 5 1 3 5 6 2 5 33

05:00 PM --- 06:00 PM 4 3 1 3 5 6 2 6 30

Tel : (510) 232-1271 Fax: (510) 232-1272


7 11 4 8 30

4/29/2014

PEDESTRIAN

PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: TUESDAYN-S APPROACH: PARK STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH: EAGLE AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3404050-4AM


10 543 5 0PHF = 0.94

558 1024

0 8 PHF =0.65

19 317 13

4 234 15

11 0PHF =

EAGLE AVENUE 0.61

556 10070 4 997 6

PARK STREET PHF = 0.93


7:00 AM to 7:15 AM 0 1 179 0 0 77 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2607:15 AM to 7:30 AM 1 5 358 1 1 182 3 3 0 2 0 0 3 5597:30 AM to 7:45 AM 1 7 602 3 3 304 5 6 0 4 0 0 5 9407:45 AM to 8:00 AM 1 9 870 4 4 447 9 8 0 7 1 1 5 13668:00 AM to 8:15 AM 1 9 1131 5 5 586 10 15 3 11 2 2 7 17878:15 AM to 8:30 AM 1 9 1355 7 6 725 13 22 4 13 2 3 11 21718:30 AM to 8:45 AM 1 11 1585 9 6 844 16 25 6 17 2 3 14 25398:45 AM to 9:00 AM 1 13 1808 11 11 1000 18 28 6 19 4 3 16 2938




0 4 997 6 0 5 543 10 0 19 4 11 0 2 3 8 16122912

0.00 0.50 0.93 0.75 0.00 0.63 0.95 0.63 0.00 0.68 0.33 0.69 0.00 0.50 0.75 0.50 OVERALL0.95


1612

S U R V E Y D A T A



4/29/20147:00 AM

TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

9:00 AM

TIME PERIOD


VOLUMEPEDESTRIAN


PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: TUESDAYN-S APPROACH: PARK STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACHEAGLE AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3404050-4AM


N-LEG TOTAL1 5 0 12

NORTH - LEG6 6


0 12 0 1 0

0 0 0 0W-LEG TOTAL

EAGLE AVENUE 1


S-LEG TOTALPARK STREET 11






6 6 0 0 12BICYCLE

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A



TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272


4/29/20147:00 AM 9:00 AM


PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE:N-S APPROACH: PARK STREET DAY: TUESDAYE-W APPROACH: EAGLE AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDASURVEY PERIOD 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM FILE: 3404050-4AM


29 N-LEG


7 4 G&H 11 H C*

G D*EAGLE AVENUE 2 5 7 C&D

3 E 11 E-LEG8 F E&F

S-LEG

PARK STREET

LEGEND:* J-WALK

CROSSWALK

TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALKFrom To A * B * C * D * E F G H TOTAL

S U R V E Y D A T A07:00 AM --- 07:15 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 6

07:15 AM --- 07:30 AM 0 0 4 1 0 0 2 2 9

07:30 AM --- 07:45 AM 0 0 4 5 1 7 4 3 24

07:45 AM --- 08:00 AM 0 0 5 6 2 8 4 7 32

08:00 AM --- 08:15 AM 0 0 5 6 2 8 4 7 32

08:15 AM --- 08:30 AM 0 0 6 6 3 8 6 9 38

08:30 AM --- 08:45 AM 0 0 8 7 4 10 7 10 46

08:45 AM --- 09:00 AM 0 0 10 9 4 10 7 14 54


07:15 AM --- 07:30 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 3

07:30 AM --- 07:45 AM 0 0 0 4 1 7 2 1 15

07:45 AM --- 08:00 AM 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 8

08:00 AM --- 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

08:15 AM --- 08:30 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 6

08:30 AM --- 08:45 AM 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 1 8

08:45 AM --- 09:00 AM 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 8


07:15 AM --- 08:15 AM 0 0 2 6 2 8 2 6 26

07:30 AM --- 08:30 AM 0 0 2 5 3 8 4 7 29

07:45 AM --- 08:45 AM 0 0 4 2 3 3 3 7 22

08:00 AM --- 09:00 AM 0 0 5 3 2 2 3 7 22

Tel : (510) 232-1271 Fax: (510) 232-1272


0 11 7 11 29PEDESTRIAN

4/29/2014

PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: TUESDAYN-S APPROACH: PARK STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACH: EAGLE AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3404050-4PM


21 871 22 0PHF = 0.96

914 842

0 14 PHF =0.68

18 234 19

3 331 35

10 0PHF =

EAGLE AVENUE 0.70

884 8310 11 810 10

PARK STREET PHF = 0.93






0 11 810 10 0 22 871 21 0 18 3 10 0 3 2 14 17956310

0.00 0.69 0.94 0.63 0.00 0.55 0.96 0.75 0.00 0.75 0.38 0.63 0.00 0.75 0.25 0.70 OVERALL0.97

TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272


PEDESTRIAN



VOLUME

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A


4:00 PM 6:00 PM

1795


4/29/2014

PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE: DAY: TUESDAYN-S APPROACH: PARK STREET SURVEY TIME: TOE-W APPROACHEAGLE AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDA FILE: 3404050-4PM


N-LEG TOTAL0 2 0 9

NORTH - LEG2 7


0 10 0 0 0

0 0 0 1W-LEG TOTAL

EAGLE AVENUE 0


S-LEG TOTALPARK STREET 10






8 2 0 0 10BICYCLE


TEL: (510) 232 - 1271 FAX: (510) 232 - 1272

TIME PERIOD

S U R V E Y D A T A


4:00 PM 6:00 PM


4/29/2014


PROJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY IN ALAMEDA SURVEY DATE:N-S APPROACH: PARK STREET DAY: TUESDAYE-W APPROACH: EAGLE AVENUE JURISDICTION: ALAMEDASURVEY PERIOD 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3404050-4PM


63 N-LEG


9 15 G&H 24 H C*

G D*EAGLE AVENUE 17 11 28 C&D

9 E 10 E-LEG1 F E&F

S-LEG

PARK STREET

LEGEND:* J-WALK

CROSSWALK

TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALKFrom To A * B * C * D * E F G H TOTAL

S U R V E Y D A T A04:00 PM --- 04:15 PM 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 6

04:15 PM --- 04:30 PM 0 0 3 6 1 1 6 5 22

04:30 PM --- 04:45 PM 1 0 14 8 3 2 12 8 48

04:45 PM --- 05:00 PM 1 0 15 11 3 2 16 9 57

05:00 PM --- 05:15 PM 1 0 17 14 5 2 16 10 65

05:15 PM --- 05:30 PM 1 0 20 17 10 2 21 14 85

05:30 PM --- 05:45 PM 1 0 23 19 11 3 24 19 100

05:45 PM --- 06:00 PM 1 0 26 22 12 3 28 25 117


04:15 PM --- 04:30 PM 0 0 2 5 1 1 3 4 16

04:30 PM --- 04:45 PM 1 0 11 2 2 1 6 3 26

04:45 PM --- 05:00 PM 0 0 1 3 0 0 4 1 9

05:00 PM --- 05:15 PM 0 0 2 3 2 0 0 1 8

05:15 PM --- 05:30 PM 0 0 3 3 5 0 5 4 20

05:30 PM --- 05:45 PM 0 0 3 2 1 1 3 5 15

05:45 PM --- 06:00 PM 0 0 3 3 1 0 4 6 17


04:15 PM --- 05:15 PM 1 0 16 13 5 2 13 9 59

04:30 PM --- 05:30 PM 1 0 17 11 9 1 15 9 63

04:45 PM --- 05:45 PM 0 0 9 11 8 1 12 11 52

05:00 PM --- 06:00 PM 0 0 11 11 9 1 12 16 60

Tel : (510) 232-1271 Fax: (510) 232-1272


1 10 28 24 63PEDESTRIAN

4/29/2014

Survey Date: DAY:

Survey Time: To

City: Alameda

Constitution Way

8:00 AM TO 9:00 AM

North PHF = #DIV/0!

TOTAL

0 PHF = PHF =

#DIV/0! #DIV/0!

PHF = #DIV/0!

PHF = #DIV/0!

From To Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total

7:00 AM --- 7:15 AM 0

7:15 AM --- 7:30 AM 0

7:30 AM --- 7:45 AM 0

7:45 AM --- 8:00 AM 0

8:00 AM --- 8:15 AM 0

8:15 AM --- 8:30 AM 0

8:30 AM --- 8:45 AM 0

8:45 AM --- 9:00 AM 0

7:00 AM --- 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:15 AM --- 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:30 AM --- 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:45 AM --- 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:00 AM --- 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:15 AM --- 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:30 AM --- 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:45 AM --- 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:00 AM --- 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:15 AM --- 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:30 AM --- 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:45 AM --- 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:00 AM --- 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Overall

#DIV/0!

377

1,049

SURVEY DATA

Time Period Eastbound Northbound

PEAK HOUR

Westbound

120

43

63

77

E-W Approach:

Constitution Way

Atlantic Ave. Recorder:

Southbound

104

461

228

249

984

226

PHF by Movement

882 25

47 310

Control

TJKM Intersection Turning Movement SummaryMarina Cove Speed Limit

7:00 AM 9:00 AM

Project: 7/24/2012 Tuesday

N-S Approach:

PHF by Approach

Arrival / Departure Volumes

Atla

ntic

Ave

.

#DIV/0!#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

104

100

24

224

HOURLY TOTALS

TOTAL BY PERIOD

Survey Date: DAY:

Survey Time: To

City: Alameda

Constitution Way

4:45 PM TO 5:45 PM

North PHF= #DIV/0!

TOTAL PHF= PHF=

0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

PHF = #DIV/0!

PHF= #DIV/0!


4:00 PM --- 4:15 PM 0

4:15 PM --- 4:30 PM 0

4:30 PM --- 4:45 PM 0

4:45 PM --- 5:00 PM 0

5:00 PM --- 5:15 PM 0

5:15 PM --- 5:30 PM 0

5:30 PM --- 5:45 PM 0

5:45 PM --- 6:00 PM 0

4:00 PM --- 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:15 PM --- 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:30 PM --- 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:45 PM --- 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:00 PM --- 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:15 PM --- 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:30 PM --- 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:45 PM --- 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:00 PM --- 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:15 PM --- 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:30 PM --- 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:45 PM --- 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:00 PM --- 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


#DIV/0!

80 626 51

135

1553

PHF by Movement

377

1689

HOURLY TOTALS

363

360

757

334

Recorder:

PEAK HOUR

E-W Approach: Atlantic Ave.

853

1403 151

TOTAL BY PERIOD

SURVEY DATA

Time Period Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound

92

143

162

58

84

Marina Cove

Constitution Way

Speed Limit Project: Tuesday

158

4:00 PM 6:00 PM N-S Approach:

#DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Control

0.00 0

TJKM Intersection Turning Movement Summary

#DIV/0! #DIV/0!

7/24/2012

PHF by Approach

0.00 0


Atla

ntic

Ave

.

Survey Date: DAY:

Survey Time: To

City: Alameda

Park St.

7:45 AM TO 8:45 AM

North PHF = #DIV/0!

TOTAL

0 PHF = PHF =

#DIV/0! #DIV/0!

PHF = #DIV/0!

PHF = #DIV/0!


7:00 AM --- 7:15 AM 0

7:15 AM --- 7:30 AM 0

7:30 AM --- 7:45 AM 0

7:45 AM --- 8:00 AM 0

8:00 AM --- 8:15 AM 0

8:15 AM --- 8:30 AM 0

8:30 AM --- 8:45 AM 0

8:45 AM --- 9:00 AM 0

7:00 AM --- 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:15 AM --- 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:30 AM --- 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:45 AM --- 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:00 AM --- 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:15 AM --- 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:30 AM --- 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:45 AM --- 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:00 AM --- 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:15 AM --- 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:30 AM --- 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:45 AM --- 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:00 AM --- 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

219

89

3

Project: 7/19/2012 Thursday

N-S Approach:

PHF by Approach


Cle

men

t A

ve.

540

Control


7:00 AM 9:00 AM

PHF by Movement

954 19

170

HOURLY TOTALS

TOTAL BY PERIOD

679

311

124

977

258

E-W Approach:

Park St.

Clement Ave. Recorder:

6277

PEAK HOUR

Westbound

43

8

207

4

551

1,380

SURVEY DATA

Time Period Eastbound Northbound Southbound

Survey Date: DAY:

Survey Time: To

City: Alameda

Park St.

4:45 PM TO 5:45 PM

North PHF= #DIV/0!

TOTAL PHF= PHF=

0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

PHF = #DIV/0!

PHF= #DIV/0!


4:00 PM --- 4:15 PM 0

4:15 PM --- 4:30 PM 0

4:30 PM --- 4:45 PM 0

4:45 PM --- 5:00 PM 0

5:00 PM --- 5:15 PM 0

5:15 PM --- 5:30 PM 0

5:30 PM --- 5:45 PM 0

5:45 PM --- 6:00 PM 0

4:00 PM --- 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:15 PM --- 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:30 PM --- 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:45 PM --- 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:00 PM --- 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:15 PM --- 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:30 PM --- 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:45 PM --- 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:00 PM --- 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:15 PM --- 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:30 PM --- 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:45 PM --- 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:00 PM --- 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


#DIV/0!PHF by Approach

0.00 0


Cle

men

t A

ve.

#DIV/0! #DIV/0!

21

Control

0.00 0


#DIV/0! #DIV/0!

7/19/2012Marina Cove

Park St.

Speed Limit Project: Thursday

81


50

48

204

866 210

TOTAL BY PERIOD

SURVEY DATA


Recorder:

PEAK HOUR

E-W Approach: Clement Ave.

1082

4

102

311

854

306

6 828 20

74

891

PHF by Movement

128

1150

HOURLY TOTALS

Survey Date: DAY:

Survey Time: To

City: Alameda

Park St.

7:45 AM TO 8:45 AM

North PHF = #DIV/0!

TOTAL

0 PHF = PHF =

#DIV/0! #DIV/0!

PHF = #DIV/0!

PHF = #DIV/0!


7:00 AM --- 7:15 AM 0

7:15 AM --- 7:30 AM 0

7:30 AM --- 7:45 AM 0

7:45 AM --- 8:00 AM 0

8:00 AM --- 8:15 AM 0

8:15 AM --- 8:30 AM 0

8:30 AM --- 8:45 AM 0

8:45 AM --- 9:00 AM 0

7:00 AM --- 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:15 AM --- 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:30 AM --- 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:45 AM --- 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:00 AM --- 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:15 AM --- 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:30 AM --- 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:45 AM --- 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:00 AM --- 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:15 AM --- 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:30 AM --- 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:45 AM --- 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:00 AM --- 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


#DIV/0!

678

1,937

SURVEY DATA


PEAK HOUR

Westbound

15

4

196

2

E-W Approach:

Park St.

Blanding Ave. Recorder:

0202

864

451

26

1,379

215

PHF by Movement

1366 11

268

HOURLY TOTALS

TOTAL BY PERIOD

662

Control


7:00 AM 9:00 AM

Project: 7/19/2012 Thursday

N-S Approach:

PHF by Approach


Blan

ding

Ave

.

#DIV/0!#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

375

64

12

Survey Date: DAY:

Survey Time: To

City: Alameda

Park St.

4:45 PM TO 5:45 PM

North PHF= #DIV/0!

TOTAL PHF= PHF=

0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

PHF = #DIV/0!

PHF= #DIV/0!


4:00 PM --- 4:15 PM 0

4:15 PM --- 4:30 PM 0

4:30 PM --- 4:45 PM 0

4:45 PM --- 5:00 PM 0

5:00 PM --- 5:15 PM 0

5:15 PM --- 5:30 PM 0

5:30 PM --- 5:45 PM 0

5:45 PM --- 6:00 PM 0

4:00 PM --- 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:15 PM --- 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:30 PM --- 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:45 PM --- 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:00 PM --- 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:15 PM --- 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:30 PM --- 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:45 PM --- 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:00 PM --- 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:15 PM --- 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:30 PM --- 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:45 PM --- 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:00 PM --- 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


#DIV/0!

2 1056 39

330

1152

PHF by Movement

452

1452

HOURLY TOTALS

351

100

1097

241

19

Recorder:

PEAK HOUR

E-W Approach: Blanding Ave.

1437

1121 1

TOTAL BY PERIOD

SURVEY DATA


169

Speed Limit Project: Thursday

60


212

120

Control

0.00 0


#DIV/0! #DIV/0!


Park St.

PHF by Approach

0.00 0


Blan

ding

Ave

.

#DIV/0! #DIV/0!

12

Survey Date: DAY:

Survey Time: To

City: Alameda

Blanding Ave.

7:45 AM TO 8:45 AM

North PHF = #DIV/0!

TOTAL

0 PHF = PHF =

#DIV/0! #DIV/0!

PHF = #DIV/0!

PHF = #DIV/0!


7:00 AM --- 7:15 AM 0

7:15 AM --- 7:30 AM 0

7:30 AM --- 7:45 AM 0

7:45 AM --- 8:00 AM 0

8:00 AM --- 8:15 AM 0

8:15 AM --- 8:30 AM 0

8:30 AM --- 8:45 AM 0

8:45 AM --- 9:00 AM 0

7:00 AM --- 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:15 AM --- 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:30 AM --- 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:45 AM --- 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:00 AM --- 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:15 AM --- 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:30 AM --- 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:45 AM --- 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:00 AM --- 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:15 AM --- 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:30 AM --- 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7:45 AM --- 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8:00 AM --- 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

175

484

118

Project: 7/24/2012 Tuesday

N-S Approach:

PHF by Approach


Tild

en W

ay

73

Control


7:00 AM 9:00 AM

PHF by Movement

307 365

542

HOURLY TOTALS

TOTAL BY PERIOD

164

777

814

719

434

E-W Approach:

Blanding Ave.

Tilden Way Recorder:

8011

PEAK HOUR

Westbound

369

55

10

47

246

492

SURVEY DATA


Survey Date: DAY:

Survey Time: To

City: Alameda

Blanding Ave.

5:00 PM TO 6:00 PM

North PHF= #DIV/0!

TOTAL PHF= PHF=

0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

PHF = #DIV/0!

PHF= #DIV/0!


4:00 PM --- 4:15 PM 0

4:15 PM --- 4:30 PM 0

4:30 PM --- 4:45 PM 0

4:45 PM --- 5:00 PM 0

5:00 PM --- 5:15 PM 0

5:15 PM --- 5:30 PM 0

5:30 PM --- 5:45 PM 0

5:45 PM --- 6:00 PM 0

4:00 PM --- 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:15 PM --- 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:30 PM --- 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:45 PM --- 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:00 PM --- 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:15 PM --- 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:30 PM --- 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:45 PM --- 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:00 PM --- 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:15 PM --- 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:30 PM --- 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:45 PM --- 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:00 PM --- 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


#DIV/0!PHF by Approach

0.00 0


Tild

en W

ay

#DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Control

0.00 0


#DIV/0! #DIV/0!


Blanding Ave.

Speed Limit Project: Tuesday

375


95

220

606

277

27

144 112

TOTAL BY PERIOD

SURVEY DATA


Recorder:

PEAK HOUR

E-W Approach: Tilden Way

406

1103

641

374

497

61 159 154

16

516

PHF by Movement

683

272

HOURLY TOTALS

Appendix C – Level of Service Worksheets: Existing Conditions

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions1: Willow St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak

Alameda - Hagstrom Project Synchro 8 ReportTJKM Transportation Consultants 4/3/2015

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 0 278 4 12 285 8 3 0 59 1 0 0Sign Control Free Free Stop StopGrade 0% 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.25 0.25 0.25Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 299 4 13 306 9 4 0 80 4 0 0Pedestrians 1 1 2Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0Percent Blockage 0 0 0Right turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 317 304 640 645 302 719 643 314vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 317 304 640 645 302 719 643 314tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3p0 queue free % 100 99 99 100 89 99 100 100cM capacity (veh/h) 1241 1256 384 386 737 303 387 725

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total 303 328 84 4Volume Left 0 13 4 4Volume Right 4 9 80 0cSH 1241 1256 706 303Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.01Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 10 1Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 10.8 17.0Lane LOS A B CApproach Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 10.8 17.0Approach LOS B C

Intersection SummaryAverage Delay 1.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.6% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions2: Willow St & Eagle Ave/Eagle Avenue Timing Plan: AM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 8 3 3 2 3 3 1 57 5 2 14 2Sign Control Stop Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75Hourly flow rate (vph) 21 8 8 4 6 6 1 76 7 3 19 3Pedestrians 1 1 4Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0Percent Blockage 0 0 0Right turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 121 112 22 120 110 83 22 83vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 121 112 22 120 110 83 22 83tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2p0 queue free % 98 99 99 100 99 99 100 100cM capacity (veh/h) 838 776 1053 840 778 973 1592 1514

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total 36 16 84 24Volume Left 21 4 1 3Volume Right 8 6 7 3cSH 861 858 1592 1514Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 1 0 0Control Delay (s) 9.4 9.3 0.1 0.8Lane LOS A A A AApproach Delay (s) 9.4 9.3 0.1 0.8Approach LOS A A


HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions3: Willow St & Buena Vista Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 7 300 10 21 297 3 24 57 39 3 13 4Sign Control Free Free Stop StopGrade 0% 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.83 0.83 0.83Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 326 11 23 330 3 28 66 45 4 16 5Pedestrians 15 4 8 13Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Percent Blockage 1 0 1 1Right turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 346 345 761 748 344 821 752 360vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 346 345 761 748 344 821 752 360tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3p0 queue free % 99 98 90 80 93 98 95 99cM capacity (veh/h) 1199 1206 292 327 692 221 325 669

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total 345 357 140 24Volume Left 8 23 28 4Volume Right 11 3 45 5cSH 1199 1206 383 336Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.02 0.36 0.07Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 41 6Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.7 19.7 16.5Lane LOS A A C CApproach Delay (s) 0.2 0.7 19.7 16.5Approach LOS C C


HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions4: Buena Vista Ave & Mulberry Street Timing Plan: AM Peak


Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 2 338 316 3 8 3Sign Control Free Free StopGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.39 0.39Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 363 340 3 21 8Pedestrians 8Lane Width (ft) 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0Percent Blockage 1Right turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 351 717 349vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 351 717 349tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3p0 queue free % 100 95 99cM capacity (veh/h) 1200 393 689

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1Volume Total 366 343 28Volume Left 2 0 21Volume Right 0 3 8cSH 1200 1700 445Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.20 0.06Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 5Control Delay (s) 0.1 0.0 13.6Lane LOS A BApproach Delay (s) 0.1 0.0 13.6Approach LOS B


HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions5: Oak St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsSign Control Stop Stop Stop StopVolume (vph) 199 225 23 14 136 13 22 100 52 21 43 214Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.77 0.77 0.77Hourly flow rate (vph) 229 259 26 15 143 14 23 105 55 27 56 278

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total (vph) 514 172 183 361Volume Left (vph) 229 15 23 27Volume Right (vph) 26 14 55 278Hadj (s) 0.12 0.05 -0.12 -0.41Departure Headway (s) 6.2 7.0 6.9 6.2Degree Utilization, x 0.89 0.33 0.35 0.62Capacity (veh/h) 514 468 469 546Control Delay (s) 40.1 13.4 13.7 18.9Approach Delay (s) 40.1 13.4 13.7 18.9Approach LOS E B B C

Intersection SummaryDelay 26.2Level of Service DIntersection Capacity Utilization 62.6% ICU Level of Service BAnalysis Period (min) 15

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions6: Oak St & Buena Vista Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 15 336 26 12 275 15 31 142 66 14 55 10Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.98Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99Satd. Flow (prot) 1837 1844 1751 1802Flt Permitted 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.94Satd. Flow (perm) 1811 1815 1685 1707Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.76 0.76 0.76Adj. Flow (vph) 17 373 29 15 335 18 33 149 69 18 72 13RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 23 0 0 9 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 415 0 0 365 0 0 228 0 0 94 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 12 12 9 9 13 13 9Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 4 8 1Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NAProtected Phases 1 1 2 2Permitted Phases 1 1 2 2Actuated Green, G (s) 37.5 37.5 15.5 15.5Effective Green, g (s) 37.5 37.5 15.5 15.5Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.62 0.26 0.26Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1131 1134 435 440v/s Ratio Protv/s Ratio Perm c0.23 0.20 c0.14 0.06v/c Ratio 0.37 0.32 0.52 0.21Uniform Delay, d1 5.5 5.3 19.1 17.5Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.8 4.5 1.1Delay (s) 6.4 6.0 23.6 18.6Level of Service A A C BApproach Delay (s) 6.4 6.0 23.6 18.6Approach LOS A A C B

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 11.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 7.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.4% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions7: Park St & Blanding Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 196 15 4 12 64 375 2 1366 11 0 662 202Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.96Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1575 3433 3322Flt Permitted 0.25 0.99 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 466 1562 3277 3322Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.97Adj. Flow (vph) 220 17 4 13 70 408 2 1438 12 0 682 208RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 27 0 0 1 0 0 42 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 240 0 0 464 0 0 1451 0 0 848 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 14 8 8 14 8 8Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 2 5Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2%Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Prot NAProtected Phases 4 4 6! 14 2 6! 2Permitted Phases 4 4 6Actuated Green, G (s) 21.5 21.5 40.5 40.5Effective Green, g (s) 21.5 21.5 40.5 40.5Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.59 0.59Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 145 486 1923 1949v/s Ratio Prot 0.26v/s Ratio Perm c0.52 0.30 c0.44v/c Ratio 1.66 0.96 0.75 0.44Uniform Delay, d1 23.8 23.3 10.6 7.9Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.59 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 324.3 29.5 1.6 0.7Delay (s) 348.1 52.7 7.8 8.6Level of Service F D A AApproach Delay (s) 348.1 52.7 7.8 8.6Approach LOS F D A A

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 41.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service DHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.0 Sum of lost time (s) 7.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.0% ICU Level of Service FAnalysis Period (min) 15! Phase conflict between lane groups.c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions8: Park St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 207 43 8 3 89 219 4 954 19 62 540 77Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.98Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1505 1447 3254 1719 3249Flt Permitted 0.42 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 658 1444 3103 1719 3249Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.98Adj. Flow (vph) 246 51 10 3 99 243 4 1004 20 63 551 79RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 124 0 0 2 0 0 16 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 305 0 0 221 0 0 1026 0 63 614 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 12 7 5Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 3 3 1Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Prot NAProtected Phases 4 8 6 5 2Permitted Phases 4 8 6Actuated Green, G (s) 22.5 22.5 31.7 3.6 39.3Effective Green, g (s) 22.0 22.0 31.4 3.1 39.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.46 0.04 0.57Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.7 4.0 3.7Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 3.0 0.2Lane Grp Cap (vph) 209 460 1412 77 1836v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.19v/s Ratio Perm c0.46 0.15 c0.33v/c Ratio 1.46 0.48 0.73 0.82 0.33Uniform Delay, d1 23.5 18.9 15.3 32.7 8.0Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.27 0.74Incremental Delay, d2 231.1 0.3 3.3 43.4 0.4Delay (s) 254.6 19.2 18.6 84.8 6.4Level of Service F B B F AApproach Delay (s) 254.6 19.2 18.6 13.5Approach LOS F B B B

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 47.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service DHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.6% ICU Level of Service FAnalysis Period (min) 15Description: Railroad tracks along Clement are no longer in service.Semi-Actuated: detectors for SBL only.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions8: Park St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak


No pedestrian push buttons (all sides), max recall on Peds.c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions9: Fernside Blvd/Blanding Ave & Tilden Way/Fruitvale Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 10 369 55 118 484 175 47 307 365 80 73 11Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3384 1770 3262 1851 1555 1764 1583Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.64 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3384 1770 3262 1761 1555 1165 1583Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Adj. Flow (vph) 11 388 58 124 509 184 49 323 384 84 77 12RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 32 0 0 0 111 0 0 8Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 436 0 124 661 0 0 372 273 0 161 4Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 5Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 2% 2% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 5% 5% 2%Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA PermProtected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 17.9 7.0 24.1 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.2Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 17.9 7.0 24.1 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.2Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.31 0.12 0.41 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 1.5 3.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 23 1042 213 1353 642 567 425 577v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.13 c0.07 c0.20v/s Ratio Perm c0.21 0.18 0.14 0.00v/c Ratio 0.48 0.42 0.58 0.49 0.58 0.48 0.38 0.01Uniform Delay, d1 28.4 16.0 24.2 12.5 14.9 14.2 13.6 11.8Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 5.6 0.3 2.6 0.3 1.3 0.6 0.6 0.0Delay (s) 34.0 16.2 26.8 12.8 16.1 14.9 14.2 11.8Level of Service C B C B B B B BApproach Delay (s) 16.7 14.9 15.5 14.0Approach LOS B B B B

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 15.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57Actuated Cycle Length (s) 58.1 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.0% ICU Level of Service BAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions10: Constitution Avenue & Atlantic Avenue Timing Plan: AM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 63 120 43 24 100 104 77 882 25 104 310 47Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.7 4.2 4.2 3.7 4.2 4.2Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3309 1770 3130 3433 3539 1558 3335 3539 1500Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3309 1770 3130 3433 3539 1558 3335 3539 1500Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Adj. Flow (vph) 66 126 45 25 105 109 81 928 26 109 326 49RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 34 0 0 95 0 0 0 16 0 0 29Lane Group Flow (vph) 66 137 0 25 119 0 81 928 10 109 326 20Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 6 6 25Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 7 1Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 2% 2% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 5%Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA PermProtected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6Permitted Phases 2 6Actuated Green, G (s) 7.7 7.7 7.2 7.2 4.9 22.6 22.6 5.4 23.1 23.1Effective Green, g (s) 7.7 7.7 7.2 7.2 4.9 22.6 22.6 5.4 23.1 23.1Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.40 0.40 0.09 0.41 0.41Clearance Time (s) 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.7 4.2 4.2 3.7 4.2 4.2Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 232 447 223 395 295 1403 617 315 1434 607v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.04 0.01 c0.04 0.02 c0.26 c0.03 0.09v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01v/c Ratio 0.28 0.31 0.11 0.30 0.27 0.66 0.02 0.35 0.23 0.03Uniform Delay, d1 22.2 22.2 22.1 22.6 24.4 14.1 10.4 24.1 11.1 10.2Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0Delay (s) 22.4 22.4 22.1 22.8 24.6 15.0 10.5 24.4 11.1 10.2Level of Service C C C C C B B C B BApproach Delay (s) 22.4 22.7 15.6 14.0Approach LOS C C B B


HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions1: Willow St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak

Alameda - Hagstrom Project Synchro 8 ReportTJKM Transportation Consultants Page 1

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 0 306 7 50 352 1 5 0 34 27 0 3Sign Control Free Free Stop StopGrade 0% 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.44 0.44 0.44Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 348 8 55 387 1 7 0 45 61 0 7Pedestrians 1 2Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0Percent Blockage 0 0Right turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 390 357 857 853 353 896 856 389vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 390 357 857 853 353 896 856 389tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3p0 queue free % 100 95 97 100 93 74 100 99cM capacity (veh/h) 1167 1201 264 282 690 234 281 658


Intersection SummaryAverage Delay 3.2Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.8% ICU Level of Service BAnalysis Period (min) 15

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions2: Willow St & Eagle Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 6 1 2 3 0 2 5 31 3 4 39 7Sign Control Stop Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.83 0.83 0.83Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 2 4 5 0 3 6 35 3 5 47 8Pedestrians 2Lane Width (ft) 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0Percent Blockage 0Right turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 112 112 51 115 115 39 55 40vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 112 112 51 115 115 39 55 40tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2p0 queue free % 99 100 100 99 100 100 100 100cM capacity (veh/h) 858 771 1017 850 769 1032 1549 1567



HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions3: Willow St & Buena Vista Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak





HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions4: Buena Vista Ave & Mulberry St Timing Plan: PM Peak





HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions5: Oak St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak



Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total (vph) 408 169 168 516Volume Left (vph) 121 14 13 16Volume Right (vph) 23 10 69 336Hadj (s) 0.09 0.06 -0.20 -0.35Departure Headway (s) 6.6 7.3 7.0 6.0Degree Utilization, x 0.75 0.34 0.32 0.86Capacity (veh/h) 517 438 458 578Control Delay (s) 27.1 14.0 13.3 34.7Approach Delay (s) 27.1 14.0 13.3 34.7Approach LOS D B B D

Intersection SummaryDelay 26.6Level of Service DIntersection Capacity Utilization 68.7% ICU Level of Service CAnalysis Period (min) 15

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions6: Oak St & Buena Vista Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 10 332 31 38 211 14 44 107 88 13 178 30Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.98Flt Protected 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1834 1832 1732 1814Flt Permitted 0.99 0.91 0.91 0.98Satd. Flow (perm) 1821 1686 1596 1780Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.88Adj. Flow (vph) 11 377 35 43 240 16 49 120 99 15 202 34RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 35 0 0 9 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 418 0 0 296 0 0 233 0 0 242 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 11 11 7 8 4 4 8Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 6 6Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NAProtected Phases 1 1 2 2Permitted Phases 1 1 2 2Actuated Green, G (s) 30.5 30.5 22.5 22.5Effective Green, g (s) 30.5 30.5 22.5 22.5Actuated g/C Ratio 0.51 0.51 0.38 0.38Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5Lane Grp Cap (vph) 925 857 598 667v/s Ratio Protv/s Ratio Perm c0.23 0.18 c0.15 0.14v/c Ratio 0.45 0.34 0.39 0.36Uniform Delay, d1 9.4 8.8 13.7 13.6Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 1.1 1.9 1.5Delay (s) 11.0 9.9 15.6 15.1Level of Service B A B BApproach Delay (s) 11.0 9.9 15.6 15.1Approach LOS B A B B

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 12.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 7.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.9% ICU Level of Service CAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions7: Park St & Blanding Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 169 60 12 19 120 212 2 1056 39 1 1121 330Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.5Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.99 0.92 0.99 1.00 0.97Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1780 1652 3416 1719 3323Flt Permitted 0.43 0.98 0.95 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 801 1620 3257 1719 3323Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96Adj. Flow (vph) 180 64 13 20 126 223 2 1135 42 1 1168 344RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 47 0 0 4 0 0 39 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 254 0 0 322 0 0 1175 0 1 1473 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 5 5 10 3 7 7 3Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2%Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Prot NAProtected Phases 4 4 6! 14 2 6! 2Permitted Phases 4 4 6Actuated Green, G (s) 22.7 22.7 39.3 39.3 39.3Effective Green, g (s) 22.7 22.7 39.3 39.3 39.3Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.57 0.57 0.57Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 263 532 1855 979 1892v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.44v/s Ratio Perm c0.32 0.20 0.36v/c Ratio 0.97 0.61 0.63 0.00 0.78Uniform Delay, d1 22.8 19.4 10.0 6.4 11.5Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.43 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 45.9 2.0 0.9 0.0 3.2Delay (s) 68.7 21.3 5.2 6.4 14.7Level of Service E C A A BApproach Delay (s) 68.7 21.3 5.2 14.7Approach LOS E C A B

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 16.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.0 Sum of lost time (s) 7.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.5% ICU Level of Service EAnalysis Period (min) 15! Phase conflict between lane groups.c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions8: Park St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 204 81 21 4 48 50 6 828 20 210 866 74Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.99 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.99Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1506 1487 3248 1719 3277Flt Permitted 0.76 0.99 0.95 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1180 1473 3080 1719 3277Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97Adj. Flow (vph) 232 92 24 4 53 55 7 900 22 216 893 76RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 38 0 0 3 0 0 9 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 344 0 0 74 0 0 926 0 216 960 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 19 30 28 5Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 3 3 1Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Prot NAProtected Phases 4 8 6 5 2Permitted Phases 4 8 6Actuated Green, G (s) 22.4 22.4 25.7 9.7 39.4Effective Green, g (s) 21.9 21.9 25.4 9.2 39.1Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.37 0.13 0.57Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.7 4.0 3.7Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Lane Grp Cap (vph) 374 467 1133 229 1856v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.29v/s Ratio Perm c0.29 0.05 c0.30v/c Ratio 0.92 0.16 0.82 0.94 0.52Uniform Delay, d1 22.7 16.9 19.7 29.6 9.2Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.18 1.15Incremental Delay, d2 26.6 0.1 6.6 31.4 0.6Delay (s) 49.3 17.0 26.3 66.3 11.2Level of Service D B C E BApproach Delay (s) 49.3 17.0 26.3 21.2Approach LOS D B C C

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 26.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service CHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.7% ICU Level of Service EAnalysis Period (min) 15Description: Railroad tracks along Clement are no longer in service.Semi-Actuated: detectors for SBL only.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions8: Park St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak



HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions9: Fernside Blvd/Blanding Ave & Tilden Way/Fruitvale Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 27 375 95 277 606 220 61 159 154 112 144 16Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3353 1770 3238 1837 1555 1771 1563Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.80 1.00 0.67 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3353 1770 3238 1493 1555 1211 1563Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Adj. Flow (vph) 28 395 100 292 638 232 64 167 162 118 152 17RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 21 0 0 27 0 0 0 84 0 0 12Lane Group Flow (vph) 28 474 0 292 843 0 0 231 78 0 270 5Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 21 4 1Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 2% 2% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 5% 5% 2%Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA PermProtected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4Actuated Green, G (s) 2.2 19.6 17.8 35.2 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3Effective Green, g (s) 2.2 19.6 17.8 35.2 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.28 0.26 0.51 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 1.5 3.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 54 942 452 1635 434 452 352 455v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.14 c0.17 c0.26v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.05 c0.22 0.00v/c Ratio 0.52 0.50 0.65 0.52 0.53 0.17 0.77 0.01Uniform Delay, d1 33.2 21.0 23.1 11.5 20.7 18.4 22.5 17.6Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 3.5 0.4 2.4 0.3 1.3 0.2 9.6 0.0Delay (s) 36.7 21.4 25.5 11.8 22.0 18.6 32.2 17.6Level of Service D C C B C B C BApproach Delay (s) 22.2 15.3 20.6 31.3Approach LOS C B C C


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions10: Constitution Avenue & Atlantic Avenue Timing Plan: PM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 84 158 92 58 162 143 80 626 51 151 1403 135Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.7 4.2 4.2 3.7 4.2 4.2Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3262 1770 3162 3433 3539 1550 3335 3539 1500Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3262 1770 3162 3433 3539 1550 3335 3539 1500Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Adj. Flow (vph) 88 166 97 61 171 151 84 659 54 159 1477 142RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 81 0 0 132 0 0 0 29 0 0 47Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 182 0 61 190 0 84 659 25 159 1477 95Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 9 13 18Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 2% 2% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 5%Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA PermProtected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6Permitted Phases 2 6Actuated Green, G (s) 8.4 8.4 8.8 8.8 5.1 32.8 32.8 7.7 35.4 35.4Effective Green, g (s) 8.4 8.4 8.8 8.8 5.1 32.8 32.8 7.7 35.4 35.4Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.46 0.46 0.11 0.49 0.49Clearance Time (s) 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.7 4.2 4.2 3.7 4.2 4.2Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 201 381 216 387 243 1616 708 357 1744 739v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.06 0.03 c0.06 0.02 0.19 c0.05 c0.42v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.06v/c Ratio 0.44 0.48 0.28 0.49 0.35 0.41 0.03 0.45 0.85 0.13Uniform Delay, d1 29.5 29.6 28.6 29.4 31.8 13.0 10.8 30.0 15.8 9.9Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 3.8 0.0Delay (s) 30.1 30.0 28.9 29.8 32.1 13.1 10.8 30.4 19.7 9.9Level of Service C C C C C B B C B AApproach Delay (s) 30.0 29.6 14.9 19.9Approach LOS C C B B

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 20.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service CHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.8 Sum of lost time (s) 14.1Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.1% ICU Level of Service DAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

Appendix D – Level of Service Worksheets: Baseline Conditions

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions1: Willow St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak





HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions2: Willow St & Eagle Ave/Eagle Avenue Timing Plan: AM Peak





HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions3: Willow St & Buena Vista Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak





HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions4: Buena Vista Ave & Mulberry Street Timing Plan: AM Peak





HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions5: Oak St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak



Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total (vph) 544 177 184 366Volume Left (vph) 229 15 24 27Volume Right (vph) 33 14 55 281Hadj (s) 0.11 0.05 -0.12 -0.41Departure Headway (s) 6.4 7.2 7.2 6.4Degree Utilization, x 0.96 0.35 0.37 0.65Capacity (veh/h) 559 459 464 546Control Delay (s) 53.5 14.1 14.4 20.8Approach Delay (s) 53.5 14.1 14.4 20.8Approach LOS F B B C


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions6: Oak St & Buena Vista Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak




HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions7: Park St & Blanding Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 220 15 8 12 64 375 2 1455 13 0 742 210Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.97Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1766 1575 3432 3329Flt Permitted 0.25 0.99 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 468 1561 3276 3329Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.97Adj. Flow (vph) 247 17 9 13 70 408 2 1532 14 0 765 216RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 21 0 0 1 0 0 38 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 271 0 0 470 0 0 1547 0 0 943 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 14 8 8 14 8 8Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 2 5Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2%Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Prot NAProtected Phases 4 4 6! 14 2 6! 2Permitted Phases 4 4 6Actuated Green, G (s) 21.5 21.5 40.5 40.5Effective Green, g (s) 21.5 21.5 40.5 40.5Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.59 0.59Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 145 486 1922 1953v/s Ratio Prot 0.28v/s Ratio Perm c0.58 0.30 c0.47v/c Ratio 1.87 0.97 0.80 0.48Uniform Delay, d1 23.8 23.4 11.2 8.2Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.56 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 415.9 32.0 1.8 0.9Delay (s) 439.7 55.4 8.1 9.1Level of Service F E A AApproach Delay (s) 439.7 55.4 8.1 9.1Approach LOS F E A A


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions8: Park St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 226 43 10 3 89 219 5 1026 19 62 616 81Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.98Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1504 1447 3255 1719 3254Flt Permitted 0.42 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 653 1444 3101 1719 3254Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.98Adj. Flow (vph) 269 51 12 3 99 243 5 1080 20 63 629 83RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 124 0 0 2 0 0 15 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 330 0 0 221 0 0 1103 0 63 697 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 12 7 5Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 3 3 1Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Prot NAProtected Phases 4 8 6 5 2Permitted Phases 4 8 6Actuated Green, G (s) 22.5 22.5 31.7 3.6 39.3Effective Green, g (s) 22.0 22.0 31.4 3.1 39.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.46 0.04 0.57Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.7 4.0 3.7Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 3.0 0.2Lane Grp Cap (vph) 208 460 1411 77 1839v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.21v/s Ratio Perm c0.50 0.15 c0.36v/c Ratio 1.59 0.48 0.78 0.82 0.38Uniform Delay, d1 23.5 18.9 15.9 32.7 8.3Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.26 0.71Incremental Delay, d2 285.5 0.3 4.4 42.0 0.5Delay (s) 309.0 19.2 20.3 83.3 6.4Level of Service F B C F AApproach Delay (s) 309.0 19.2 20.3 12.7Approach LOS F B C B

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 55.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service EHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.10Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.2% ICU Level of Service FAnalysis Period (min) 15Description: Railroad tracks along Clement are no longer in service.Semi-Actuated: detectors for SBL only.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions8: Park St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak



HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions9: Fernside Blvd/Blanding Ave & Tilden Way/Fruitvale Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak




HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions10: Constitution/Avenue & Atlantic Avenue Timing Plan: AM Peak




HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions1: Willow St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak



Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total 372 479 52 68Volume Left 0 55 7 61Volume Right 8 1 45 7cSH 1131 1185 551 231Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.05 0.09 0.30Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 4 8 30Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.4 12.2 27.0Lane LOS A B DApproach Delay (s) 0.0 1.4 12.2 27.0Approach LOS B D


HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions2: Willow St & Eagle Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak





HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions3: Willow St & Buena Vista Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak





HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions4: Buena Vista Ave & Mulberry St Timing Plan: PM Peak





HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions5: Oak St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak



Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total (vph) 423 190 174 532Volume Left (vph) 121 14 19 16Volume Right (vph) 26 10 69 344Hadj (s) 0.09 0.06 -0.18 -0.35Departure Headway (s) 6.9 7.6 7.4 6.3Degree Utilization, x 0.81 0.40 0.36 0.92Capacity (veh/h) 500 432 442 558Control Delay (s) 33.4 15.6 14.4 46.0Approach Delay (s) 33.4 15.6 14.4 46.0Approach LOS D C B E


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions6: Oak St & Buena Vista Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 10 332 31 38 211 14 44 112 88 13 188 30Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.98Flt Protected 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1834 1832 1734 1816Flt Permitted 0.99 0.91 0.91 0.98Satd. Flow (perm) 1821 1686 1598 1784Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.88Adj. Flow (vph) 11 377 35 43 240 16 49 126 99 15 214 34RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 34 0 0 9 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 418 0 0 296 0 0 240 0 0 254 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 11 11 7 8 4 4 8Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 6 6Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NAProtected Phases 1 1 2 2Permitted Phases 1 1 2 2Actuated Green, G (s) 30.5 30.5 22.5 22.5Effective Green, g (s) 30.5 30.5 22.5 22.5Actuated g/C Ratio 0.51 0.51 0.38 0.38Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5Lane Grp Cap (vph) 925 857 599 669v/s Ratio Protv/s Ratio Perm c0.23 0.18 c0.15 0.14v/c Ratio 0.45 0.34 0.40 0.38Uniform Delay, d1 9.4 8.8 13.8 13.7Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 1.1 2.0 1.6Delay (s) 11.0 9.9 15.8 15.3Level of Service B A B BApproach Delay (s) 11.0 9.9 15.8 15.3Approach LOS B A B B


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions7: Park St & Blanding Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 185 60 16 21 120 212 2 1194 40 1 1272 357Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.5Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.99 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.97Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1777 1652 3418 1719 3327Flt Permitted 0.44 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 814 1614 3258 1719 3327Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96Adj. Flow (vph) 197 64 17 22 126 223 2 1284 43 1 1325 372RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 32 0 0 4 0 0 37 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 275 0 0 339 0 0 1325 0 1 1660 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 5 5 10 3 7 7 3Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2%Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Prot NAProtected Phases 4 4 6! 14 2 6! 2Permitted Phases 4 4 6Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 23.5 38.5 38.5 38.5Effective Green, g (s) 23.5 23.5 38.5 38.5 38.5Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.56 0.56 0.56Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 277 549 1817 959 1856v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.50v/s Ratio Perm c0.34 0.21 0.41v/c Ratio 0.99 0.62 0.73 0.00 0.89Uniform Delay, d1 22.7 19.0 11.4 6.7 13.5Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.44 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 51.6 2.1 1.0 0.0 7.1Delay (s) 74.2 21.1 6.0 6.7 20.6Level of Service E C A A CApproach Delay (s) 74.2 21.1 6.0 20.6Approach LOS E C A C

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 19.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.0 Sum of lost time (s) 7.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.6% ICU Level of Service FAnalysis Period (min) 15! Phase conflict between lane groups.c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions8: Park St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 214 81 22 4 48 50 8 957 20 210 1000 93Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.99 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.99Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1505 1487 3250 1719 3273Flt Permitted 0.76 0.99 0.94 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1176 1473 3070 1719 3273Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97Adj. Flow (vph) 243 92 25 4 53 55 9 1040 22 216 1031 96RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 38 0 0 2 0 0 10 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 356 0 0 74 0 0 1069 0 216 1117 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 19 30 28 5Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 3 3 1Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Prot NAProtected Phases 4 8 6 5 2Permitted Phases 4 8 6Actuated Green, G (s) 22.4 22.4 25.7 9.7 39.4Effective Green, g (s) 21.9 21.9 25.4 9.2 39.1Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.37 0.13 0.57Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.7 4.0 3.7Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Lane Grp Cap (vph) 373 467 1130 229 1854v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.34v/s Ratio Perm c0.30 0.05 c0.35v/c Ratio 0.95 0.16 0.95 0.94 0.60Uniform Delay, d1 23.1 16.9 21.1 29.6 9.8Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.14 1.22Incremental Delay, d2 34.3 0.1 16.6 25.1 0.6Delay (s) 57.4 17.0 37.7 58.9 12.6Level of Service E B D E BApproach Delay (s) 57.4 17.0 37.7 20.1Approach LOS E B D C

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 31.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service CHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.3% ICU Level of Service FAnalysis Period (min) 15Description: Railroad tracks along Clement are no longer in service.Semi-Actuated: detectors for SBL only.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions8: Park St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak



HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions9: Fernside Blvd/Blanding Ave & Tilden Way/Fruitvale Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 27 422 95 277 656 226 61 159 154 116 144 16Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3361 1770 3244 1837 1555 1770 1563Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.79 1.00 0.65 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3361 1770 3244 1467 1555 1183 1563Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Adj. Flow (vph) 28 444 100 292 691 238 64 167 162 122 152 17RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 18 0 0 24 0 0 0 83 0 0 12Lane Group Flow (vph) 28 526 0 292 905 0 0 231 79 0 274 5Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 21 4 1Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 2% 2% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 5% 5% 2%Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA PermProtected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4Actuated Green, G (s) 2.2 21.8 17.9 37.5 21.4 21.4 21.4 21.4Effective Green, g (s) 2.2 21.8 17.9 37.5 21.4 21.4 21.4 21.4Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.30 0.24 0.51 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 1.5 3.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 51 1002 433 1664 429 455 346 457v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.16 c0.17 c0.28v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 0.05 c0.23 0.00v/c Ratio 0.55 0.53 0.67 0.54 0.54 0.17 0.79 0.01Uniform Delay, d1 35.0 21.3 25.0 12.0 21.7 19.3 23.8 18.3Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 6.3 0.5 3.3 0.4 1.3 0.2 11.7 0.0Delay (s) 41.3 21.8 28.2 12.4 23.0 19.4 35.5 18.4Level of Service D C C B C B D BApproach Delay (s) 22.8 16.2 21.5 34.5Approach LOS C B C C

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 20.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service CHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.1 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.1% ICU Level of Service CAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline Conditions10: Constitution Avenue & Atlantic Avenue Timing Plan: PM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 84 231 92 58 236 175 80 634 51 204 1411 135Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.7 4.2 4.2 3.7 4.2 4.2Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3388 1770 3313 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3388 1770 3313 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Adj. Flow (vph) 88 243 97 61 248 184 84 667 54 215 1485 142RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 39 0 0 118 0 0 0 32 0 0 51Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 301 0 61 314 0 84 667 22 215 1485 91Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA PermProtected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6Permitted Phases 2 6Actuated Green, G (s) 11.7 11.7 12.1 12.1 5.3 32.0 32.0 8.9 35.6 35.6Effective Green, g (s) 11.7 11.7 12.1 12.1 5.3 32.0 32.0 8.9 35.6 35.6Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.41 0.41 0.11 0.45 0.45Clearance Time (s) 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.7 4.2 4.2 3.7 4.2 4.2Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 262 503 271 508 230 1437 642 387 1598 715v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.09 0.03 c0.09 0.02 0.19 c0.06 c0.42v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.06v/c Ratio 0.34 0.60 0.23 0.62 0.37 0.46 0.03 0.56 0.93 0.13Uniform Delay, d1 30.1 31.4 29.2 31.2 35.1 17.1 14.1 33.1 20.4 12.6Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.3 0.2 1.6 0.4 0.1 0.0 1.0 9.7 0.0Delay (s) 30.3 32.6 29.4 32.8 35.5 17.2 14.1 34.1 30.1 12.6Level of Service C C C C D B B C C BApproach Delay (s) 32.2 32.4 18.9 29.2Approach LOS C C B C


Appendix E – Level of Service Worksheets: Baseline plus Project Conditions

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions1: Willow St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak





HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions2: Willow St & Eagle Ave/Eagle Avenue Timing Plan: AM Peak





HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions3: Willow St & Buena Vista Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak





HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions4: Buena Vista Ave & Mulberry Street Timing Plan: AM Peak





HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions5: Oak St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak



Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total (vph) 552 179 184 366Volume Left (vph) 229 15 24 27Volume Right (vph) 33 14 55 281Hadj (s) 0.11 0.05 -0.12 -0.41Departure Headway (s) 6.4 7.3 7.3 6.5Degree Utilization, x 0.98 0.36 0.37 0.66Capacity (veh/h) 558 459 463 545Control Delay (s) 57.7 14.3 14.5 21.1Approach Delay (s) 57.7 14.3 14.5 21.1Approach LOS F B B C


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions6: Oak St & Buena Vista Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak




HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions7: Park St & Blanding Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 220 15 8 12 64 375 2 1468 13 0 746 210Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.97Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1766 1575 3432 3329Flt Permitted 0.25 0.99 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 468 1561 3276 3329Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.97Adj. Flow (vph) 247 17 9 13 70 408 2 1545 14 0 769 216RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 21 0 0 1 0 0 37 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 271 0 0 470 0 0 1560 0 0 948 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 14 8 8 14 8 8Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 2 5Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2%Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Prot NAProtected Phases 4 4 6! 14 2 6! 2Permitted Phases 4 4 6Actuated Green, G (s) 21.5 21.5 40.5 40.5Effective Green, g (s) 21.5 21.5 40.5 40.5Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.59 0.59Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 145 486 1922 1953v/s Ratio Prot 0.28v/s Ratio Perm c0.58 0.30 c0.48v/c Ratio 1.87 0.97 0.81 0.49Uniform Delay, d1 23.8 23.4 11.2 8.2Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.57 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 415.9 32.3 1.8 0.9Delay (s) 439.7 55.7 8.2 9.1Level of Service F E A AApproach Delay (s) 439.7 55.7 8.2 9.1Approach LOS F E A A


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions8: Park St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 233 43 10 3 89 219 5 1032 19 62 618 83Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.98Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1504 1447 3255 1719 3253Flt Permitted 0.42 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 652 1444 3101 1719 3253Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.98Adj. Flow (vph) 277 51 12 3 99 243 5 1086 20 63 631 85RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 124 0 0 2 0 0 15 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 338 0 0 221 0 0 1109 0 63 701 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 12 7 5Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 3 3 1Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Prot NAProtected Phases 4 8 6 5 2Permitted Phases 4 8 6Actuated Green, G (s) 22.5 22.5 31.7 3.6 39.3Effective Green, g (s) 22.0 22.0 31.4 3.1 39.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.46 0.04 0.57Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.7 4.0 3.7Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 3.0 0.2Lane Grp Cap (vph) 207 460 1411 77 1838v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.22v/s Ratio Perm c0.52 0.15 c0.36v/c Ratio 1.63 0.48 0.79 0.82 0.38Uniform Delay, d1 23.5 18.9 16.0 32.7 8.3Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.26 0.71Incremental Delay, d2 305.6 0.3 4.5 42.0 0.5Delay (s) 329.1 19.2 20.4 83.2 6.4Level of Service F B C F AApproach Delay (s) 329.1 19.2 20.4 12.6Approach LOS F B C B

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 58.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service EHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.11Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.2% ICU Level of Service FAnalysis Period (min) 15Description: Railroad tracks along Clement are no longer in service.Semi-Actuated: detectors for SBL only.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions8: Park St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak



HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions9: Fernside Blvd/Blanding Ave & Tilden Way/Fruitvale Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak




HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions10: Constitution/Avenue & Atlantic Avenue Timing Plan: AM Peak




HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions (Mitigation)8: Park St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 233 43 10 3 89 219 5 1032 19 62 618 83Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.98Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1504 1447 3255 1719 3253Flt Permitted 0.48 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 753 1444 3100 1719 3253Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.98Adj. Flow (vph) 277 51 12 3 99 243 5 1086 20 63 631 85RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 89 0 0 2 0 0 14 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 338 0 0 256 0 0 1109 0 63 702 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 12 7 5Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 3 3 1Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Prot NAProtected Phases 4 8 6 5 2Permitted Phases 4 8 6Actuated Green, G (s) 31.7 31.7 28.9 3.2 36.1Effective Green, g (s) 31.2 31.2 28.6 2.7 35.8Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.38 0.04 0.48Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.7 4.0 3.7Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 3.0 0.2Lane Grp Cap (vph) 313 600 1182 61 1552v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.22v/s Ratio Perm c0.45 0.18 c0.36v/c Ratio 1.08 0.43 0.94 1.03 0.45Uniform Delay, d1 21.9 15.5 22.4 36.1 13.1Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 74.1 0.2 15.0 124.7 1.0Delay (s) 96.0 15.7 37.4 160.9 14.0Level of Service F B D F BApproach Delay (s) 96.0 15.7 37.4 25.9Approach LOS F B D C

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 38.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service DHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.2% ICU Level of Service FAnalysis Period (min) 15Description: Railroad tracks along Clement are no longer in service.Semi-Actuated: detectors for SBL only.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions (Mitigation)8: Park St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak



HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions1: Willow St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak



Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total 376 481 55 68Volume Left 0 56 7 61Volume Right 10 1 48 7cSH 1130 1180 552 226Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.30Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 4 8 30Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.4 12.2 27.6Lane LOS A B DApproach Delay (s) 0.0 1.4 12.2 27.6Approach LOS B D


HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions2: Willow St & Eagle Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak





HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions3: Willow St & Buena Vista Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak





HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions4: Buena Vista Ave & Mulberry St Timing Plan: PM Peak





HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions5: Oak St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak



Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total (vph) 427 197 174 532Volume Left (vph) 121 14 19 16Volume Right (vph) 26 10 69 344Hadj (s) 0.09 0.06 -0.18 -0.35Departure Headway (s) 7.0 7.7 7.5 6.3Degree Utilization, x 0.83 0.42 0.36 0.93Capacity (veh/h) 488 432 437 553Control Delay (s) 35.3 16.1 14.6 48.3Approach Delay (s) 35.3 16.1 14.6 48.3Approach LOS E C B E


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions6: Oak St & Buena Vista Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 10 338 31 38 220 14 44 112 88 13 188 30Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.98Flt Protected 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1835 1833 1734 1816Flt Permitted 0.99 0.92 0.91 0.98Satd. Flow (perm) 1822 1689 1598 1784Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.88Adj. Flow (vph) 11 384 35 43 250 16 49 126 99 15 214 34RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 34 0 0 9 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 425 0 0 306 0 0 240 0 0 254 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 11 11 7 8 4 4 8Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 6 6Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NAProtected Phases 1 1 2 2Permitted Phases 1 1 2 2Actuated Green, G (s) 30.5 30.5 22.5 22.5Effective Green, g (s) 30.5 30.5 22.5 22.5Actuated g/C Ratio 0.51 0.51 0.38 0.38Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5Lane Grp Cap (vph) 926 858 599 669v/s Ratio Protv/s Ratio Perm c0.23 0.18 c0.15 0.14v/c Ratio 0.46 0.36 0.40 0.38Uniform Delay, d1 9.5 8.9 13.8 13.7Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 1.2 2.0 1.6Delay (s) 11.1 10.0 15.8 15.3Level of Service B B B BApproach Delay (s) 11.1 10.0 15.8 15.3Approach LOS B B B B


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions7: Park St & Blanding Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 185 60 16 21 120 212 2 1202 40 1 1286 357Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.5Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.99 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.97Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1777 1652 3418 1719 3328Flt Permitted 0.44 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 814 1614 3258 1719 3328Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96Adj. Flow (vph) 197 64 17 22 126 223 2 1292 43 1 1340 372RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 31 0 0 4 0 0 37 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 275 0 0 340 0 0 1333 0 1 1675 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 5 5 10 3 7 7 3Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2%Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Prot NAProtected Phases 4 4 6! 14 2 6! 2Permitted Phases 4 4 6Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 23.5 38.5 38.5 38.5Effective Green, g (s) 23.5 23.5 38.5 38.5 38.5Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.56 0.56 0.56Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 277 549 1817 959 1856v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.50v/s Ratio Perm c0.34 0.21 0.41v/c Ratio 0.99 0.62 0.73 0.00 0.90Uniform Delay, d1 22.7 19.0 11.4 6.7 13.6Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.44 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 51.6 2.1 1.0 0.0 7.7Delay (s) 74.2 21.1 6.1 6.7 21.2Level of Service E C A A CApproach Delay (s) 74.2 21.1 6.1 21.2Approach LOS E C A C

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 19.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.0 Sum of lost time (s) 7.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.0% ICU Level of Service FAnalysis Period (min) 15! Phase conflict between lane groups.c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions8: Park St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 218 81 22 4 48 50 8 961 20 210 1007 100Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.99 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.99Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1505 1487 3250 1719 3270Flt Permitted 0.75 0.99 0.94 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1174 1473 3069 1719 3270Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97Adj. Flow (vph) 248 92 25 4 53 55 9 1045 22 216 1038 103RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 38 0 0 2 0 0 11 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 361 0 0 74 0 0 1074 0 216 1130 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 19 30 28 5Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 3 3 1Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Prot NAProtected Phases 4 8 6 5 2Permitted Phases 4 8 6Actuated Green, G (s) 22.4 22.4 25.7 9.7 39.4Effective Green, g (s) 21.9 21.9 25.4 9.2 39.1Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.37 0.13 0.57Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.7 4.0 3.7Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Lane Grp Cap (vph) 372 467 1129 229 1853v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.35v/s Ratio Perm c0.31 0.05 c0.35v/c Ratio 0.97 0.16 0.95 0.94 0.61Uniform Delay, d1 23.2 16.9 21.2 29.6 9.9Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.14 1.23Incremental Delay, d2 38.5 0.1 17.4 24.5 0.6Delay (s) 61.7 17.0 38.6 58.2 12.8Level of Service E B D E BApproach Delay (s) 61.7 17.0 38.6 20.0Approach LOS E B D C

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 32.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service CHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.0% ICU Level of Service FAnalysis Period (min) 15Description: Railroad tracks along Clement are no longer in service.Semi-Actuated: detectors for SBL only.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions8: Park St & Clement Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak



HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions9: Fernside Blvd/Blanding Ave & Tilden Way/Fruitvale Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 27 422 95 277 656 228 61 159 154 118 144 16Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3361 1770 3242 1837 1555 1770 1563Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.79 1.00 0.65 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3361 1770 3242 1467 1555 1179 1563Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Adj. Flow (vph) 28 444 100 292 691 240 64 167 162 124 152 17RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 18 0 0 25 0 0 0 83 0 0 12Lane Group Flow (vph) 28 526 0 292 906 0 0 231 79 0 276 5Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 21 4 1Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 2% 2% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 5% 5% 2%Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA PermProtected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4Actuated Green, G (s) 2.2 21.9 17.9 37.6 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7Effective Green, g (s) 2.2 21.9 17.9 37.6 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.30 0.24 0.51 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 1.5 3.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 51 1001 431 1658 433 459 348 461v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.16 c0.17 c0.28v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 0.05 c0.23 0.00v/c Ratio 0.55 0.53 0.68 0.55 0.53 0.17 0.79 0.01Uniform Delay, d1 35.2 21.5 25.2 12.2 21.7 19.2 23.8 18.3Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 6.3 0.5 3.3 0.4 1.3 0.2 11.7 0.0Delay (s) 41.5 22.0 28.5 12.5 22.9 19.4 35.6 18.3Level of Service D C C B C B D BApproach Delay (s) 22.9 16.4 21.5 34.6Approach LOS C B C C


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Baseline plus Project Conditions10: Constitution Avenue & Atlantic Avenue Timing Plan: PM Peak


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 84 231 92 58 236 178 80 634 51 207 1412 135Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.7 4.2 4.2 3.7 4.2 4.2Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3388 1770 3311 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3388 1770 3311 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Adj. Flow (vph) 88 243 97 61 248 187 84 667 54 218 1486 142RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 39 0 0 119 0 0 0 32 0 0 51Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 301 0 61 316 0 84 667 22 218 1486 91Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA PermProtected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6Permitted Phases 2 6Actuated Green, G (s) 11.7 11.7 12.2 12.2 5.3 31.9 31.9 9.0 35.6 35.6Effective Green, g (s) 11.7 11.7 12.2 12.2 5.3 31.9 31.9 9.0 35.6 35.6Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.40 0.40 0.11 0.45 0.45Clearance Time (s) 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.7 4.2 4.2 3.7 4.2 4.2Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 262 502 273 511 230 1430 640 391 1596 714v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.09 0.03 c0.10 0.02 0.19 c0.06 c0.42v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.06v/c Ratio 0.34 0.60 0.22 0.62 0.37 0.47 0.03 0.56 0.93 0.13Uniform Delay, d1 30.1 31.4 29.2 31.2 35.2 17.3 14.2 33.1 20.5 12.6Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.3 0.2 1.6 0.4 0.1 0.0 1.0 10.1 0.0Delay (s) 30.4 32.7 29.4 32.7 35.6 17.3 14.2 34.0 30.5 12.6Level of Service C C C C D B B C C BApproach Delay (s) 32.2 32.3 19.0 29.6Approach LOS C C B C


Appendix F – Level of Service Worksheets: Arterial Level of Service

Arterial Level of Service2/13/2015

Alameda - Hagstrom Project 1/11/2015 Baseline AM Synchro 8 ReportTJKM Transportation Consultants Page 1

Arterial Level of Service: NB Park St

Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial ArterialCross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOSClement Ave IV 25 16.6 22.8 39.4 0.08 6.9 FBlanding Ave IV 25 19.0 9.5 28.5 0.07 9.1 DTotal IV 35.6 32.3 67.9 0.15 7.8 E

Arterial Level of Service: SB Park St

Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial ArterialCross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOSBlanding Ave IV 25 21.6 9.4 31.0 0.10 11.4 DClement Ave IV 25 19.0 6.6 25.6 0.07 10.1 DTotal IV 40.6 16.0 56.6 0.17 10.8 D


Alameda - Hagstrom Project 1/11/2015 Baseline PM Synchro 8 ReportTJKM Transportation Consultants Page 1




Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial ArterialCross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOSBlanding Ave IV 25 21.6 20.6 42.2 0.10 8.4 EClement Ave IV 25 19.0 13.0 32.0 0.07 8.1 ETotal IV 40.6 33.6 74.2 0.17 8.3 E


Alameda - Hagstrom Project 1/11/2015 Baseline Plus Project AM Synchro 8 ReportTJKM Transportation Consultants Page 1




Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial ArterialCross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOSBlanding Ave IV 25 21.6 9.4 31.0 0.10 11.4 DClement Ave IV 25 19.0 6.6 25.6 0.07 10.1 DTotal IV 40.6 16.0 56.6 0.17 10.8 D


Alameda - Hagstrom Project 1/11/2015 Baseline Plus Project PM Synchro 8 ReportTJKM Transportation Consultants Page 1




Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial ArterialCross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOSBlanding Ave IV 25 21.6 21.0 42.6 0.10 8.3 EClement Ave IV 25 19.0 13.1 32.1 0.07 8.1 ETotal IV 40.6 34.1 74.7 0.17 8.2 E

traffic impact study for hagstrom residential development · 22/06/2015 · information presented...

Documents