7 TABLE 3 Reaction of People and Damage to Buildings from Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels
Velocity Level,
PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.01 Barely perceptible No effect
0.04 Distinctly perceptible Vibration unlikely to cause damage of any type to any structure
0.08 Distinctly perceptible to
strongly perceptible
Recommended upper level of the vibration to which
ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected
0.1 Strongly perceptible Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to fragile buildings with no risk of damage to most buildings
0.25 Strongly perceptible to severe Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to historic and some old buildings.
0.3 Strongly perceptible to severe Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to older residential structures
0.5 Severe - Vibrations considered
unpleasant
Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to new
residential and modern commercial/industrial structures Source: Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, April 2020.
REGULATORY BACKGROUND
This section describes the relevant guidelines, policies, and standards established by State Agencies and the Town of Atherton. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G, are used to assess the potential significance of impacts pursuant to local General Plan policies, Municipal Code standards, or the applicable standards of other agencies. A summary of the applicable regulatory criteria is provided below.
State CEQA Guidelines. CEQA contains guidelines to evaluate the significance of effects of environmental noise attributable to a proposed project. Under CEQA, noise impacts would be considered significant if the project would result in:
(a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
(b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; (c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
8 2022 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2. The current version of the California Building Code (CBC) requires interior noise levels in multi-family residential units attributable to exterior environmental noise sources to be limited to a level not exceeding 45 dBA Ldn in any habitable room.
Town of Atherton General Plan. The Town of Atherton’s General Plan contains policies supporting the goal, “To maintain the serene atmosphere of the Town by minimizing the intrusion of noise generating activities.” The applicable policies contained in the Noise Element are as follows:
Policy N-1.1: To protect the peace, health and safety of Atherton citizens from unnecessary and unreasonable noise produced by any person, machine, animal or device.
Policy N-1.2: Noise contours (General Plan Figures N-1 and N-2) have been prepared in accordance with Section 65302(f) of the government Code and accompanies this Element. The noise contours shall be used as a tool for land use decision making.
Policy N-1.3: If complaints about noise increase in the future, procedures for dealing with complaints in the community will be established.
Policy N-1.4: Minimum Contents of Acoustical Reports – Site specific reports should contain a brief description of the project and the sensitivity of the land use type to noise, an accurate map describing the setting with surrounding uses and noise sources identified, and a quantitative description of the noise environment. For multi-story structures, the report should discuss noise effects for the upper floors. Field noise sample measurements should be taken over several days and the average Ldn calculated should be based on daytime, evening and nighttime readings. If the project is located within the vicinity of a previously collected measurement, as shown on the contour map, a measurement should also be duplicated at that point for purposes of updating the Community Noise Level Contour Map.
Policy N-1.5: Qualifications for Preparing an Acoustical Report – Noise reports should be prepared by an acoustical engineer holding a degree in engineering, architecture, physics or allied discipline able to demonstrate a minimum of two years of experience in the following areas of acoustics: transportation noise forecasting, building acoustics, field measurement of noise and noise mitigation.
Policy N-1.6: Consider requiring noise mitigation for a project that results in Ldn increases that are:
a. 5 dBA or greater and the future Ldn is less than 60 dBA, or b. 3 dBA or greater and the future Ldn is 60 dBA or greater and less than 65 dBA, or
c. 1.5 dBA or greater and the future Ldn is 65 dBA or greater.
9 Policy N-1.7: Recognizing that aircraft and any associated issues thereto are federally regulated, the Town will work with nearby communities and other interested agencies to bring about a reduction of noise levels by private, military, public and commercial airplanes and helicopters.
General Plan Table N-2 summarizes the compatibility of new development relative to existing and future noise levels by identifying normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable and clearly unacceptable noise levels for various land uses.
Source: Town of Atherton General Plan 2019, January 2020.
10 Source: Town of Atherton General Plan 2019, January 2020.
11 Source: Town of Atherton General Plan 2019, January 2020.
12 Town of Atherton Municipal Code. The Municipal Code contains noise limits for noise sources within the Town of Atherton based on the land use of the receiving property. The applicable sections read as follows:
8.16.030 Basic noise regulation.
Except as otherwise permitted under this chapter, no person shall cause and no property owner, tenant, or other agent shall permit on their property a noise produced by any person, machine, animal or device, or any combination thereof, in excess of the sound level limits set forth in this section to emanate from any property, public or private, beyond the property line. Any sound in excess of the sound level limits set forth in this section shall constitute a noise disturbance. For purposes of determining sound levels, sound level measurements shall be made at the outside perimeter of the complaining property.
Sound Level Limits
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 60 dBA
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 50 dBA
A. In the event the alleged offensive noise contains a steady, audible tone, such as a whine, beating, pulsating, throbbing, or hum, the standards set forth in this section shall be reduced by five dBA.
B. In the event the ambient sound level equals or exceeds the sound level limit then the limit shall be five dBA over the ambient. (Ord. 657 § 2, 2023; Ord. 509 § 1 (part), 1999)
8.16.040 Noise disturbance prohibited.
A. Any and all excessively annoying, loud or unusual noises or vibrations (as measured by the sound level limits set forth in Section 8.16.030) that offend the peace and quiet of persons of ordinary sensibilities and which interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property and affect at the same time an entire neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, shall be considered noise disturbances and are prohibited.
B. It shall be unlawful to create, permit, allow, or maintain a noise disturbance in the town of Atherton.
8.16.050 Special provisions and exceptions.
The basic noise regulation specified in Section 8.16.030 may be exceeded without permit in any instances listed below. At all other times, noise from illicit activities shall not exceed the basic noise regulation established in Section 8.16.030:
13 A. Construction.
1. Construction and delivery are exempt from the basic noise regulation during the times and on the days when construction activities are allowed pursuant to the terms and provisions of Chapter 15.40.
2. Residents/property owners when personally operating equipment are exempt from the basic noise regulation when they are personally undertaking construction activities to maintain or improve their property on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays between the hours of ten a.m. and five p.m. Such activities are restricted to the use of hand and power tools only.
8.16.060 Aircraft regulations.
It shall be the policy of the town to work with nearby communities and other interested agencies to bring about a reduction of noise levels by private, military, public and commercial airplanes and helicopters. (Ord. 657 § 2, 2023; Ord. 509 § 1 (part), 1999)
15.40.050 Noise.
Construction shall be permitted only within the noise standards incorporated in Chapter 8.16 of this code. (Ord. 498 § 4, 1998)
15.40.120 Time Limits.
A. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, construction, pickup and delivery shall be prohibited on any property within the town between the hours of five p.m. in the evening and eight a.m. of the following day, Monday through Friday.
B. Construction, pickup and delivery shall be prohibited on any property within the town on Saturday, Sunday and any holiday.
NOISE MEASUREMENT SURVEY
A noise monitoring survey for the project was performed in two parts: from Wednesday, November 1, 2023, through Friday, November 3, 2023, and from Monday, December 11, 2023, through Wednesday, December 13, 2023. The survey included six (6) long-term (LT) noise measurements and twelve (12) short-term (ST) noise measurements to quantify existing ambient noise levels in and around the identified housing opportunity sites. Long-term noise measurement data is provided in Appendix A. Noise measurement locations are shown in Figures 1A and 1B.
Long-Term Noise Measurements
Noise measurement LT-1 was located near 290 Polhemus Avenue, approximately 25 feet east of the Polhemus Avenue centerline and about 135 feet north of the centerline of Alameda de las Pulgas. Traffic along Alameda de las Pulgas was the primary source of noise in the area, with traffic along Polhemus Avenue also contributing to the noise environment. Figures A1 through A3 in Appendix A show the trend in noise levels throughout the measurement period from November 1, 2023 to November 3, 2023.
14 Hourly average noise levels ranged from 55 to 68 dBA Leq during the day and from 38 to 57 dBA Leq at night. The day-night average noise level at this location on Thursday, November 2, 2023 was 61 dBA Ldn.
Noise measurement LT-2 was located near 15 Monte Vista Avenue, approximately 25 feet west of the centerline of Atherton Avenue. Traffic along Atherton Avenue was the primary source of noise in the area. Figures A4 through A6 in Appendix A show the trend in noise levels throughout the measurement period from November 1, 2023 to November 3, 2023. Hourly average noise levels ranged from 59 to 68 dBA Leq during the day and from 45 to 62 dBA Leq at night. The daynight average noise level at this location on Thursday, November 2, 2023 was 66 dBA Ldn.
Noise measurement LT-3 was located near 197 Ravenswood Avenue, approximately 25 feet south of the Middlefield Road centerline and about 200 feet west of the centerline of Ravenswood Avenue. Traffic along Middlefield Road was the primary source of noise in the area, with traffic along Ravenswood Avenue also contributing to the noise environment. Figures A7 through A9 in Appendix A show the trend in noise levels throughout the measurement period from November 1, 2023 to November 3, 2023. Hourly average noise levels ranged from 63 to 72 dBA Leq during the day and from 54 to 66 dBA Leq at night. The day-night average noise level at this location on Thursday, November 2, 2023 was 68 dBA Ldn.
Noise measurement LT-4 was located near 352 Bay Road, approximately 20 feet south of the centerline of the road. Traffic along Bay Road was the primary source of noise in the area. Figures A10 through A12 in Appendix A show the trend in noise levels throughout the measurement period from November 1, 2023 to November 3, 2023. Hourly average noise levels ranged from 61 to 68 dBA Leq during the day and from 51 to 64 dBA Leq at night. The day-night average noise level at this location on Thursday, November 2, 2023 was 67 dBA Ldn.
Noise measurement LT-5 was located at Menlo College, approximately 95 feet south of the El Camino Real centerline and about 40 feet east of the centerline of Alejandra Avenue. Traffic along El Camino Real was the primary source of noise in the area, with traffic along Alejandra Avenue also contributing to the noise environment. Figures A13 through A15 in Appendix A show the trend in noise levels throughout the measurement period from December 11, 2023 to December 13, 2023. Hourly average noise levels ranged from 64 to 71 dBA Leq during the day and from 54 to 66 dBA Leq at night. The day-night average noise level at this location on Tuesday, December 12, 2023 was 69 dBA Ldn.
Noise measurement LT-6 was located at Menlo School, approximately 55 feet west of the Valparaiso Avenue centerline. Traffic along Valparaiso Avenue was the primary source of noise in the area. Figures A16 through A18 in Appendix A show the trend in noise levels throughout the measurement period from December 11, 2023 to December 13, 2023. Hourly average noise levels ranged from 57 to 66 dBA Leq during the day and from 41 to 58 dBA Leq at night. The day-night average noise level at this location on Tuesday, December 12, 2023 was 62 dBA Ldn.
15 FIGURE 1A Long-Term and Short-Term Noise Measurement Locations Source: Google Earth 2023
16 FIGURE 1B Long-Term and Short-Term Noise Measurement Locations Source: Google Earth 2023
17 Short-Term Noise Measurements
A series of twelve attended short-term (10-minute duration) measurements were also made to identify noise sources and to note the level of noise associated with these identifiable events. The attended measurements assist in quantitatively and qualitatively characterizing the noise environments along the major roadways and in the quieter areas of the town. Noise data collected at short-term sites ST-1 through ST-12 are summarized in Table 4.
Short-term noise measurement ST-1 was made on Wednesday, November 1, 2023, between 11:20 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. to document typical noise levels along Ringwood Avenue. This location was approximately 25 feet west of the centerline of Ringwood Avenue. Traffic along Ringwood Avenue produced noise levels ranging from 65 to 86 dBA. The 10-minute Leq measured at ST-1 was 67 dBA.
Short-term noise measurement ST-2 was made on Wednesday, November 1, 2023, between 11:40 a.m. and 11:50 a.m. to document typical noise levels along Ravenswood Avenue. This location was approximately 30 feet west of the centerline of Ravenswood Avenue. Traffic along Ravenswood Avenue produced noise levels ranging from 67 to 81 dBA. A jet flyover produced noise levels up to 53 dBA. The 10-minute Leq measured at ST-2 was 70 dBA.
Short-term noise measurement ST-3 was made on Wednesday, November 1, 2023, between 12:20 p.m. and 12:30 p.m. to document typical noise levels along Watkins Avenue. This location was approximately 115 feet east of the centerline of Watkins Avenue. Traffic along Watkins Avenue produced noise levels ranging from 46 to 53 dBA. A jet produced noise levels up to 69 dBA, while a plane produced noise levels up to 58 dBA. The 10-minute Leq measured at ST-3 was 54 dBA.
Short-term noise measurement ST-4 was made on Friday, November 3, 2023, between 9:30 a.m. and 9:40 a.m. to document typical noise levels along Valparaiso Avenue. This location was approximately 95 feet west of the centerline of Valparaiso Avenue. Traffic along Valparaiso Avenue produced noise levels ranging from 59 to 72 dBA. Minimal traffic along Santiago Avenue also slightly contributed to the noise environment. The 10-minute Leq measured at ST-4 was 61 dBA.
Short-term noise measurement ST-5 was made on Friday, November 3, 2023, between 9:50 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. to document typical noise levels along Faxton Road and Faxton Forrest.
Landscaping equipment was the main nose source in the area, producing noise levels that ranged from 46 to 52 dBA. Two planes produced noise levels up to 52 dBA. A single vehicle passed by at a distance of approximately 15 feet, producing noise levels up to 64 dBA. The 10-minute Leq measured at ST-5 was 50 dBA.
Short-term noise measurement ST-6 was made on Friday, November 3, 2023, between 10:10 a.m. and 10:20 a.m. to document typical noise levels along Monte Vista Avenue. Atherton Avenue traffic was the main nose source in the area, producing noise levels ranging from 44 to 50 dBA.
Two planes produced noise levels ranging from 47 to 55 dBA. A single vehicle passed by at a distance of approximately 15 feet, producing noise levels up to 69 dBA. The 10-minute Leq measured at ST-6 was 49 dBA.
18 Short-term noise measurement ST-7 was made on Monday, December 11, 2023, between 9:50 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. to document typical noise levels at the Menlo College site. El Camino Real traffic was the main nose source in the area, producing noise levels that ranged from 47 to 56 dBA.
Intermittent traffic on Alejandra Avenue produced noise levels ranging from 48 to 58 dBA.
Occasional parking lot noises such as car doors shutting slightly contributed to the noise environment. A distant train horn produced noise levels up to 56 dBA. The 10-minute Leq measured at ST-7 was 53 dBA.
Short-term noise measurement ST-8 was made on Monday, December 11, 2023, between 11:00 a.m. and 11:10 a.m. to document typical noise levels at the Menlo School site. Traffic noise from Valparaiso Avenue was the main nose source, ranging from 50 to 57 dBA. Two jets produced noise levels ranging from 50 to 51 dBA. The 10-minute Leq measured at ST-8 was 51 dBA.
Short-term noise measurement ST-9 was made on Monday, December 11, 2023, between 11:20 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. to document typical noise levels at the Sacred Heart School site. Distant traffic noise ranged from 38 to 42 dBA. Occasional parking lot noises such as car doors shutting slightly contributed to the noise environment. Two planes produced noise levels ranging from 52 to 63 dBA. The 10-minute Leq measured at ST-9 was 52 dBA.
Short-term noise measurement ST-10 was made on Monday, December 11, 2023, between 11:40 a.m. and 11:50 a.m. to document typical noise levels at the Circus Club site. Distant traffic noise ranged from 35 to 40 dBA. Occasional parking lot noises such as car doors shutting slightly contributed to the noise environment. A jet produced noise levels up to 45 dBA. The 10-minute Leq measured at ST-10 was 41 dBA.
Short-term noise measurement ST-11 was made on Monday, December 11, 2023, between 12:10 p.m. and 12:20 p.m. to document typical noise levels at 23 Oakwood Boulevard. Fifteen vehicles passed by, with noise levels ranging from 59 to 69 dBA at approximately 15 feet. Occasional landscaping equipment noise slightly contributed to the noise environment. A plane produced noise levels up to 52 dBA. The 10-minute Leq measured at ST-11 was 53 dBA.
Short-term noise measurement ST-12 was made on Monday, December 11, 2023, between 12:40 p.m. and 12:50 p.m. to document typical noise levels at the California Water Service site. Overhead aircraft were the main noise source. Four planes generated noise levels ranging from 46 to 57 dBA, while two jets produced noise levels up to 45 dBA. Distant landscaping equipment noise slightly contributed to the noise environment. The 10-minute Leq measured at ST-12 was 45 dBA.
19 TABLE 4 Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data Noise Measurement Location
(Date, Time)
Measured Noise Level, dBA
Lmax Lmin L(1) L(10) L(50) L(90) Leq
ST-1: ~25 feet from Ringwood Avenue
centerline
(11/1/2023, 11:20 – 11:30 a.m.)
86 46 77 70 61 50 67
ST-2: ~30 feet from Ravenswood Avenue
centerline
(11/1/2023, 11:40 – 11:50 a.m.)
81 41 77 74 68 50 70
ST-3: ~115 feet from Watkins Avenue
centerline
(11/1/2023, 12:20 – 12:30 p.m.)
69 40 67 55 47 41 54
ST-4: ~95 feet from Valparaiso Avenue
centerline
(11/3/2023, 9:30 – 9:40 a.m.)
72 44 68 64 59 51 61
ST-5: ~15 feet from Faxton Road centerline
(11/3/2023, 9:50 – 10:00 a.m.) 64 44 57 51 49 46 50
ST-6: ~15 feet from Monte Vista Avenue
centerline
(11/3/2023, 10:10 – 10:20 a.m.)
69 39 58 48 43 41 49
ST-7: ~300 feet from El Camino Real
centerline
(12/11/2023, 9:50 – 10:00 a.m.)
73 47 60 55 52 49 53
ST-8: ~240 feet from Valparaiso Avenue
centerline
(12/11/2023, 11:00 – 11:10 a.m.)
57 45 55 53 50 48 51
ST-9: ~330 feet from Park Lane centerline
(12/11/2023, 11:20 – 11:30 a.m.) 67 38 64 53 42 40 52
ST-10: ~550 feet from Park Lane centerline
(12/11/2023, 11:40 – 11:50 a.m.) 54 35 48 44 39 37 41
ST-11: ~15 feet from Oakwood Boulevard
centerline
(12/11/2023, 12:10 – 12:20 p.m.)
69 37 65 57 46 41 53
ST-12: ~20 feet from Reservoir Road
centerline
(12/11/2023, 12:40 – 12:50 p.m.)
57 38 56 47 41 39 45
20 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Noise and Land Use Compatibility
The applicable Atherton General Plan policies and Municipal Code standards were presented in detail in the Regulatory Background section. Noise and Land Use Compatibility guidelines for new development are identified in General Plan Table N-2. Residential land uses are considered “Normally Acceptable” up to 60 dBA Ldn. In the following discussion, the noise and land use compatibility is evaluated for each site.
Menlo College. Three housing opportunity sites are proposed at Menlo College along El Camino Real. The General Plan shows that portions of these sites are within the 65 dBA Ldn noise contour for existing and future noise conditions. Noise measurement data shows that the noise exposure produced by ground transportation at these sites is calculated to be up to 72 dBA Ldn at portions of the sites nearest to the roadway. The noise and land use compatibility designation would be within the “Normally Unacceptable” range of 65 to 75 dBA Ldn. For these sites, the General Plan states that “New construction or development of the specified land use type should be discouraged.
If proposed development is to proceed, a detailed acoustic study must be prepared and needed noise insulation features incorporated into the design.” Menlo School. Two housing opportunity sites are proposed at Menlo School along Valparaiso Avenue. The General Plan shows that portions of these sites are within the 60 dBA Ldn noise contour for existing and future noise conditions. Noise measurement data shows that the noise exposure produced by ground transportation at these sites is calculated to be up to 64 dBA Ldn at portions of the sites nearest to the roadway. The noise and land use compatibility designation would be within the “Conditionally Acceptable” range of 60 to 65 dBA Ldn. For these sites, the General Plan states that “The range of noise levels in this category is higher than those normally acceptable for the specified land use type. A detailed acoustic study should be undertaken to set forth design features that will reduce exterior noise reaching interior use spaces.” 23 Oakwood Boulevard. A housing opportunity site is proposed along Oakwood Boulevard. The General Plan shows that this site is outside of the 60 dBA Ldn noise contour for existing and future noise conditions. Noise measurement data shows that the noise exposure produced by ground transportation at this site is calculated to be less than 60 dBA Ldn throughout the site. The noise and land use compatibility designation would be within the “Normally Acceptable” range of 60 dBA Ldn or less. For thissite, the General Plan states that “The range of noise levels in this category is compatible with the specified land use type. No special noise insulation is required in buildings of conventional construction.”
Sacred Heart School. A housing opportunity site is proposed at Sacred Heart School. The General Plan shows that this site is outside of the 60 dBA Ldn noise contour for existing and future noise conditions. Noise measurement data shows that the noise exposure produced by ground transportation at this site is calculated to be less than 60 dBA Ldn throughout the site. The noise and land use compatibility designation would be within the “Normally Acceptable” range of 60 dBA Ldn or less. For this site, the General Plan states that “No special noise insulation is required in buildings of conventional construction.”
21 Gilmore House. A housing opportunity site is proposed at the Gilmore House along Watkins Avenue. The General Plan shows that this site is outside of the 60 dBA Ldn noise contour for existing and future noise conditions. Noise measurement data shows that the noise exposure produced by ground transportation at this site is calculated to be within the “Conditionally Acceptable” range of 60 to 65 dBA Ldn. For this site, the General Plan states that “A detailed acoustic study should be undertaken to set forth design features that will reduce exterior noise reaching interior use spaces.”
Circus Club. A housing opportunity site is proposed at the Circus Club located on Park Lane. The General Plan shows that this site is outside of the 60 dBA Ldn noise contour for existing and future noise conditions. Noise measurement data shows that the noise exposure produced by ground transportation at this site is calculated to be less than 60 dBA Ldn throughout the site. The noise and land use compatibility designation would be within the “Normally Acceptable” range of 60 dBA Ldn or less. For this site, the General Plan states that “No special noise insulation is required in buildings of conventional construction.”
California Water Service. A housing opportunity site is proposed at the California Water Service property located on Reservoir Road. The General Plan shows that this site is outside of the 60 dBA Ldn noise contour for existing and future noise conditions. Noise measurement data shows that the noise exposure produced by ground transportation at this site is calculated to be less than 60 dBA Ldn throughout the site. The noise and land use compatibility designation would be within the “Normally Acceptable” range of 60 dBA Ldn or less. For this site, the General Plan states that “No special noise insulation is required in buildings of conventional construction.” Bay Road and Ringwood Avenue. Four housing opportunity sites are proposed near the intersection on Bay Road and Ringwood Avenue. The General Plan shows that portions of these sites are within the 60 dBA Ldn noise contour for existing and future noise conditions. Noise measurement data shows that the noise exposure produced by ground transportation at these sites is calculated to be up to 66 dBA Ldn at portions of the sites nearest to the roadway. The noise and land use compatibility designation would be within the “Normally Unacceptable” range of 65 to 75 dBA Ldn. For these sites, the General Plan states that “a detailed acoustic study must be prepared and needed noise insulation features incorporated into the design.” Ravenswood Avenue. Three housing opportunity sites are proposed near the intersection of Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road. The General Plan shows that portions of these sites are within the 60 dBA Ldn noise contour for existing and future noise conditions. Noise measurement data shows that the noise exposure produced by ground transportation at these sites is calculated to be up to 67 dBA Ldn at portions of the sites nearest to the roadway. The noise and land use compatibility designation would be within the “Normally Unacceptable” range of 65 to 75 dBA Ldn. For these sites, the General Plan states that “a detailed acoustic study must be prepared and needed noise insulation features incorporated into the design.” 97 Santiago Avenue. A housing opportunity site is proposed along Santiago Avenue. The General Plan shows that portions of this site are within the 60 dBA Ldn noise contour for existing and future noise conditions. Noise measurement data shows that the noise exposure at this site is calculated to be within the “Normally Unacceptable” range of 65 to 75 dBA Ldn. For this site, the General
22 Plan states that “a detailed acoustic study must be prepared and needed noise insulation features incorporated into the design.”
Faxon Road and Faxon Forest. Four housing opportunity sites are proposed along Faxon Road and Faxon Forest (vacant sites V3-V6). The General Plan shows that these sites are outside of the 60 dBA Ldn noise contour for existing and future noise conditions. Noise measurement data shows that the noise exposure at these sites is calculated to be less than 60 dBA Ldn throughout the sites.
The noise and land use compatibility designations would be within the “Normally Acceptable” range of 60 dBA Ldn or less. For these sites, the General Plan states that “No special noise insulation is required in buildings of conventional construction.” Monte Vista Avenue. Two housing opportunity sites are proposed along Monte Vista Avenue.
The General Plan shows that portions of 15 Monte Vista Avenue are within the 60 dBA Ldn noise contour while 25 Monte Vista Avenue is outside of the 60 dBA Ldn noise contour for existing and future noise conditions. Noise measurement data shows that the noise exposure at 15 Monte Vista Avenue is calculated to be up to 65 dBA Ldn and within the “Conditionally Acceptable” range of 60 to 65 dBA Ldn. For this site, the General Plan states that “A detailed acoustic study should be undertaken to set forth design features that will reduce exterior noise reaching interior use spaces.” Noise measurement data shows that the noise exposure 25 Monte Vista Avenue is calculated to be less than 60 dBA Ldn throughout the site, and the noise and land use compatibility designation would be within the “Normally Acceptable” range of 60 dBA Ldn or less. For this site, the General Plan states that “No special noise insulation is required in buildings of conventional construction.” 290 Polhemus Avenue. A housing opportunity site is proposed along Polhemus Avenue. The General Plan shows that portions of this site are within the 60 dBA Ldn noise contour for existing and future noise conditions. Noise measurement data shows that the noise exposure at this site is calculated to be up to 71 dBA Ldn and within the “Normally Unacceptable” range of 65 to 75 dBA Ldn. For this site, the General Plan states that “a detailed acoustic study must be prepared and needed noise insulation features incorporated into the design.” Noise Control Measures
The Noise Element of the General Plan establishes a framework that will result in new housing to be compatible with the noise environments where they would be located. The following measures, applied individually or in combination, are recommended to implement the policies:
Site Planning - By taking advantage of the natural shape and contour of sites it is often possible to orient buildings and other uses in a way that will reduce or eliminate noise impact. The ways in which site planning can be used to reduce noise impacts are as follows:
• Increase the distance between the noise source and the receiver. • Place non-noise sensitive land uses (parking lots, maintenance facilities, utility areas) between the source and the receiver.
• Use non-noise sensitive structures (garages) to shield noise sensitive areas. • Orient buildings so outdoor areas are shielded from noise.
23 Architectural Treatment - By attention to the types of uses being accommodated in a structure, the noise sensitive use can be moved to the quiet side of the building. Some typical examples are listed:
• Put bedrooms on the side of the house farthest from roadways. • Do not locate outdoor balconies or patios facing major roadways. • Design “U” shaped buildings to shield patios.
Noise Barriers - Solid barriers between the noise source and the noise-sensitive area block out sound waves. The minimum acceptable surface weight for an effective noise barrier is four pounds per square foot (equivalent to ¾ inch plywood) with no cracks or openings. To be effective, the barrier must interrupt the line of sight between the noise source and the receiver. Noise barriers are created by topographical features in some situations. Earth berms can be created by grading to achieve the same result. It should be noted that short barriers are not effective regardless of height because sound waves will pass around the end of them and still reach the receiver. This effect, called flanking, can be minimized by bending the wall or barrier back from the noise source at the ends of the barrier.
Construction Modification - Indoor noise levels due to exterior noise sources can be controlled by the noise reduction characteristics of the building’s shell. In general, windows and doors are the weakest links in the acoustic skin of a building. The amount of insulation and sealing required depends on the amount of noise reduction required. The following approaches may be considered:
• Use solid core doors having an acoustic door gasket.
• Use double-paned glass and gasketed window systems.
• Add insulation material to walls, ceilings and floors.
In addition, residential developers shall comply with relevant noise insulation standards to maintain indoor noise levels at or below 45 dBA Ldn. Where exterior noise levels would exceed 60 dBA Ldn, an analysis detailing the treatments incorporated into the building plans shall be prepared and submitted to the Town Building Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
The report shall demonstrate that the design would achieve an interior level of 45 dBA Ldn or less in all habitable residential areas.
24 NOISE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This section describes the significance criteria used to evaluate project impacts under CEQA, provides a discussion of each project impact, and presents mitigation measures, where necessary, to provide a compatible project in relation to adjacent noise sources and land uses.
Significance Criteria
The following criteria were used to evaluate the significance of environmental noise and vibration resulting from the project:
1. Temporary or Permanent Noise Increases in Excess of Established Standards. A significant impact would be identified if project construction or operations would result in a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels at sensitive receivers in excess of the local noise standards contained in the Atherton General Plan or Municipal Code, as follows:
o Temporary Noise Increase. A significant temporary noise impact would be identified if construction would occur outside of the hours specified in the Municipal Code or if construction noise levels would increase ambient noise levels resulting in measurable annoyance. The noise increase threshold adjusts based on the ambient noise level with the expectation that communities already exposed to high levels of noise can only tolerate a small increase. In contrast, if the existing noise levels are low, it is reasonable to allow a greater change in the community noise.
o Permanent Noise Increase. A significant impact would be identified if traffic noise generated by the project would substantially increase noise levels at sensitive receivers in the vicinity. A substantial increase would occur if: a) the noise level increase is 5 dBA Ldn or greater, with a future noise level of less than 60 dBA Ldn, or b) the noise level increase is 3 dBA Ldn or greater, with a future noise level of 60 to 65 dBA Ldn, or c) the noise level increase is 1.5 dBA Ldn or greater, with a future noise level of 65 dBA Ldn or greater.
2. Generation of Excessive Groundborne Vibration. A significant impact would be identified if the construction of the project would generate excessive vibration levels.
Groundborne vibration levels exceeding 0.25 in/sec PPV would be considered excessive as such levels would have the potential to result in cosmetic damage to historic and some old buildings. Groundborne vibration levels exceeding 0.3 in/sec PPV would have the potential to result in cosmetic damage to buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern, and groundborne vibration levels exceeding 0.5 in/sec PPV would have the potential to result in cosmetic damage to buildings that are structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards.
3. Exposure to Excessive Aircraft Noise Levels. A significant noise impact would be identified if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive aircraft noise levels.
25 Impact 1: Permanent or Temporary Noise Increases in Excess of Established Standards.
Increased vehicle traffic due to the HEU would not result in a substantial permanent increase traffic noise levels along area roadways. Construction activities facilitated by the HEU would result in substantial temporary noise increases that would be in excess of applicable local standards at nearby sensitive receptors if not mitigated.
With proper mitigation and adherence to the applicable local guidelines, this is a less-than-significant impact.
Permanent Noise Increases from Project Traffic
Increases in traffic noise gradually degrade the environment in areas sensitive to noise. According to CEQA, “a substantial increase” is necessary to cause a significant environmental impact. A substantial increase would occur if: a) the noise level increase is 5 dBA Ldn or greater, with a future noise level of less than 60 dBA Ldn, or b) the noise level increase is 3 dBA Ldn or greater, with a future noise level of 60 to 65 dBA Ldn, or c) the noise level increase is 1.5 dBA Ldn or greater, with a future noise level of 65 dBA Ldn or greater. Vehicular traffic on roadways in the Town would increase as development occurs and the Town’s population increases. These projected increases in traffic would, over time, increase noise levels throughout the community.
The results presented in Tables 5 and 6 indicate that project-generated traffic noise levels would not increase substantially due to anticipated traffic volume increases along major roadways in Atherton. The traffic noise levels for the vast majority of roadways in Atherton are expected to increase by 1 dBA Ldn or less in the future, which would be below the significance thresholds.
Only the segment of Encinal Avenue, east of El Camino Real, is projected to experience a noise level increase of 2 dBA Ldn. This increase would occur under cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions and the project’s contribution to the 2 dBA Ldn future noise level increase would be 0.1 dBA, which is also below the significance thresholds. The traffic noise increases attributable to the implementation of the HEU would not result in a substantial permanent increase noise levels in the community. This is a less-than-significant impact.
26 TABLE 5 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Project-Generated Traffic Noise Increases Roadway Location PM Peak Hour Volumes Cumulative Noise Increase (dBA) Existing Cumulative Cumulative
Plus Project
Cumulative
Versus
Existing
Cumulative
Plus Project
Versus
Existing
Project
Contribution
Alameda de las Pulgas North of Atherton Avenue 1211 1298 1311 0.3 0.3 0.0 Alameda de las Pulgas South of Atherton Avenue 1029 1125 1136 0.4 0.4 0.0 Alejandra Avenue West of El Camino Real 405 405 434 0.0 0.3 0.3 Atherton Avenue East of Alameda de las
Pulgas
826 839 847 0.1 0.1 0.0
Atherton Avenue West of Alameda de las
Pulgas
88 102 102 0.6 0.6 0.0
Bay Road North of Ringwood
Avenue/Sonoma Avenue
573 621 641 0.3 0.5 0.2
Bay Road South of Ringwood
Avenue/Sonoma Avenue
762 802 819 0.2 0.3 0.1
El Camino Real North of Selby Lane 3283 3596 3664 0.4 0.5 0.1 El Camino Real South of Selby Lane 3526 3909 3981 0.4 0.5 0.1 El Camino Real North of Fair Oaks Lane 2656 2956 3020 0.5 0.6 0.1 El Camino Real South of Fair Oaks Lane 2570 2879 2941 0.5 0.6 0.1 El Camino Real North of Alejandra Avenue 2745 3048 3109 0.5 0.5 0.0 El Camino Real South of Alejandra Avenue 2666 2969 3031 0.5 0.6 0.1 El Camino Real North of Encinal Avenue 2659 2841 2900 0.3 0.4 0.1 El Camino Real South of Encinal Avenue 2564 2592 2651 0.0 0.1 0.1 El Camino Real North of Valparaiso
Avenue/Glenwood Avenue
2316 2458 2515 0.3 0.4 0.1
El Camino Real South of Valparaiso
Avenue/Glenwood Avenue
2036 2142 2194 0.2 0.3 0.1
Encinal Avenue East of El Camino Real 604 774 784 1.1 1.1 0.0 Encinal Avenue West of El Camino Real 83 83 83 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fair Oaks Lane East of El Camino Real 459 514 520 0.5 0.5 0.0 Fair Oaks Lane West of El Camino Real 725 771 779 0.3 0.3 0.0 Glenwood Avenue East of El Camino Real 562 576 581 0.1 0.1 0.0 Marsh Road East of Middlefield Road 1433 1592 1609 0.5 0.5 0.0 Middlefield Road North of Marsh Road 1025 1239 1252 0.8 0.9 0.1 Middlefield Road South of Marsh Road 1456 1545 1561 0.3 0.3 0.0 Middlefield Road North of Ravenswood
Avenue
921 1017 1029 0.4 0.5 0.1
27 Roadway Location PM Peak Hour Volumes Cumulative Noise Increase (dBA) Existing Cumulative Cumulative
Plus Project
Cumulative
Versus
Existing
Cumulative
Plus Project
Versus
Existing
Project
Contribution
Middlefield Road South of Ravenswood
Avenue
1492 1773 1794 0.7 0.8 0.1
Ravenswood Avenue West of Middlefield Road 927 1116 1129 0.8 0.9 0.1 Ringwood Avenue West of Bay Road 1004 1048 1062 0.2 0.2 0.0 Selby Lane East of El Camino Real 70 70 70 0.0 0.0 0.0
Selby Lane West of El Camino Real 645 743 755 0.6 0.7 0.1 Sonoma Avenue East of Bay Road 149 165 166 0.4 0.5 0.1
Valparaiso Avenue West of El Camino Real 994 1028 1054 0.1 0.3 0.2
28 TABLE 6 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Project-Generated Traffic Noise Increases Roadway Location PM Peak Hour Volumes Cumulative Noise Increase (dBA) Existing Cumulative Cumulative
Plus Project
Cumulative
Versus
Existing
Cumulative
Plus Project
Versus
Existing
Project
Contribution
Alameda de las Pulgas North of Atherton Avenue 1178 1314 1327 0.5 0.5 0.0 Alameda de las Pulgas South of Atherton Avenue 1041 1186 1197 0.6 0.6 0.0 Alejandra Avenue West of El Camino Real 195 195 228 0.0 0.7 0.7 Atherton Avenue East of Alameda de las
Pulgas
569 587 593 0.1 0.2 0.1
Atherton Avenue West of Alameda de las
Pulgas
48 65 65 1.3 1.3 0.0
Bay Road North of Ringwood
Avenue/Sonoma Avenue
408 473 495 0.6 0.8 0.2
Bay Road South of Ringwood
Avenue/Sonoma Avenue
508 596 614 0.7 0.8 0.1
El Camino Real North of Selby Lane 3072 3270 3345 0.3 0.4 0.1 El Camino Real South of Selby Lane 3368 3584 3661 0.3 0.4 0.1 El Camino Real North of Fair Oaks Lane 2524 2758 2828 0.4 0.5 0.1 El Camino Real South of Fair Oaks Lane 2498 2767 2837 0.4 0.6 0.2 El Camino Real North of Alejandra Avenue 2615 2829 2897 0.3 0.4 0.1 El Camino Real South of Alejandra Avenue 2598 2812 2879 0.3 0.4 0.1 El Camino Real North of Encinal Avenue 2686 3007 3076 0.5 0.6 0.1 El Camino Real South of Encinal Avenue 2658 2689 2757 0.1 0.2 0.1 El Camino Real North of Valparaiso
Avenue/Glenwood Avenue
2609 2666 2735 0.1 0.2 0.1
El Camino Real South of Valparaiso
Avenue/Glenwood Avenue
2468 2510 2576 0.1 0.2 0.1
Encinal Avenue East of El Camino Real 534 886 898 2.2 2.3 0.1 Encinal Avenue West of El Camino Real 104 104 105 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fair Oaks Lane East of El Camino Real 334 417 422 1.0 1.0 0.0 Fair Oaks Lane West of El Camino Real 562 682 689 0.8 0.9 0.1 Glenwood Avenue East of El Camino Real 480 520 526 0.3 0.4 0.1 Marsh Road East of Middlefield Road 1634 1676 1692 0.1 0.2 0.1 Middlefield Road North of Marsh Road 1122 1348 1361 0.8 0.8 0.0 Middlefield Road South of Marsh Road 1440 1708 1725 0.7 0.8 0.1 Middlefield Road North of Ravenswood
Avenue
1052 1230 1244 0.7 0.7 0.0
29 Roadway Location PM Peak Hour Volumes Cumulative Noise Increase (dBA) Existing Cumulative Cumulative
Plus Project
Cumulative
Versus
Existing
Cumulative
Plus Project
Versus
Existing
Project
Contribution
Middlefield Road South of Ravenswood
Avenue
1644 1977 2002 0.8 0.9 0.1
Ravenswood Avenue West of Middlefield Road 1044 1189 1204 0.6 0.6 0.0 Ringwood Avenue West of Bay Road 648 690 700 0.3 0.3 0.0 Selby Lane East of El Camino Real 96 96 97 0.0 0.0 0.0
Selby Lane West of El Camino Real 490 560 571 0.6 0.7 0.1 Sonoma Avenue East of Bay Road 62 77 77 0.9 0.9 0.0
Valparaiso Avenue West of El Camino Real 897 954 985 0.3 0.4 0.1
30 Temporary Noise Increases from Project Construction
Background Information on Construction Noise
Noise impacts resulting from construction depend upon the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive areas. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas near noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of time.
Typically, construction activities would be carried out in stages. During each stage of construction, there would be a different mix of equipment operating, and noise levels would vary by stage and vary within stages, based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location at which the equipment is operating. Typical construction noise levels at a distance of 50 feet are shown in Tables 7 and 8. Table 7 shows the average noise level ranges, by construction phase, and Table 8 shows the maximum noise level ranges for different construction equipment. Most demolition and construction noise falls in the range of 80 to 90 dBA at 50 feet from the source. Constructiongenerated noise levels drop off/increase at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling/halving of the distance between the source and receptor. Shielding by buildings or terrain can provide an additional 5 to 10 dBA noise reduction at distant receptors.
TABLE 7 Typical Ranges of Construction Noise Levels at 50 Feet, Leq (dBA) Domestic Housing
Office Building,
Hotel, Hospital,
School, Public
Works
Industrial Parking
Garage, Religious
Amusement &
Recreations, Store,
Service Station
Public Works
Roads & Highways,
Sewers, and
Trenches
I II I II I II I II
Ground
Clearing 83 83 84 84 84 83 84 84
Excavation 88 75 89 79 89 71 88 78
Foundations 81 81 78 78 77 77 88 88
Erection 81 65 87 75 84 72 79 78
Finishing 88 72 89 75 89 74 84 84
I – All pertinent equipment present at site.
II – Minimum required equipment present at site.
Source: U.S.E.P.A., Legal Compilation on Noise, Vol. 1, p. 2-104, 1973.
31 TABLE 8 Construction Equipment 50-foot Noise Emission Limits Equipment Category Lmax Level (dBA)1,2 Impact/Continuous Arc Welder
Auger Drill Rig
Backhoe
Ballast Equalizer3
Ballast Tamper3
Bar Bender
Chain Saw
Compressor (air)
Concrete Mixer
Concrete Pump
Concrete Saw
Concrete Vibrator
Crane
Dozer
Excavator
Front End Loader
Generator
Generator (25 KVA or less)
Gradall
Grader
Grinder Saw
Horizontal Boring Hydro Jack
Hydra Break Ram
Impact Pile Driver
Jackhammer
Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram)
Paver
Pneumatic Tools
Pumps
Rail Saw3
Rock Drill
Scraper
Slurry Trenching Machine
Soil Mix Drill Rig
Street Sweeper
Tie Cutter3
Tie Handler3
Tie Inserter3
Tractor
Truck
Vibratory Compactor
Vibratory Pile Driver
All other equipment with engines larger than 5 HP
73 85
80 82
83 80
85 80
85 82
90 80
85 85
85 80
82 70
85 85
85 80
90 105
85 90
85 85
77 90
85 85
82 80
80 84
80 85
84 84
80 95
85 Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Impact
Impact
Impact
Impact
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Notes: 1 Measured at 50 feet from the construction equipment, with a “slow” (1 sec.) time constant. 2Noise limits apply to total noise emitted from equipment and associated components operating at full power while engaged in its intended operation. 3 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, FTA Report No. 0123, September 2018., 4 Mitigation of Nighttime Construction Noise, Vibrations and Other Nuisances, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 1999.
32 Construction Noise Criteria
Section 8.16.050 A. of the Town of Atherton Municipal Code states that “construction and delivery are exempt from the basic noise regulation during the times and on the days when construction activities are allowed pursuant to the terms and provisions of Chapter 15.40” Chapter 15.10.120 states that “construction, pickup and delivery shall be prohibited on any property within the town between the hours of 5:00 p.m. in the evening and 8:00 a.m. of the following day,” on Saturday and Sunday” Thus, construction noise in the Town of Atherton is exempt from regulation if the above guidelines are adhered to.
Criteria established by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) specify a comparison of the total noise levels resulting from a project plus the ambient noise levels to the ambient noise levels existing without the project, as shown below in Figure 2. Category 1 receivers are daytime only uses and Category 2 receivers are 24-hour uses such as residences. The “Moderate Impact” zone represents the threshold of measurable annoyance. For temporary construction noise, the upper boundary of the “Moderate Impact” zone is used to define a substantial temporary noise increase above ambient conditions. For example, if the existing noise were measured to be 60 dBA Ldn, and the combined noise including the construction of the project would exceed 65 dBA Ldn, the increase in the ambient would be considered substantial, resulting in significant impact. A significant noise impact would also be identified if construction occurred outside of allowable hours. In the Town of Atherton, construction projects shall not take place between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on weekdays, or at any time on Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday without the issuance of a special permit. A significant noise impact would be identified if construction required for the development of housing would generate a substantial temporary noise level increase over ambient noise levels at noise sensitive receivers, during allowable construction days and hours.
FIGURE 2 Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed by Criteria Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2018.
33 Construction Noise Impact Assessment
Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was used to calculate the hourly average noise levels for each phase of construction, assuming the two loudest pieces of equipment would operate simultaneously, as recommend by the FTA for construction noise evaluations. This construction noise model includes representative sound levels for the most common types of construction equipment and the approximate usage factors of such equipment that were developed based on an extensive database of information gathered during the construction of the Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston, Massachusetts (CA/T Project or "Big Dig"). The usage factors represent the percentage of time that the equipment would be operating at full power.
For the purposes of analyzing a credible worst-case scenario, the construction equipment and phasing information of an example multi-family project was used to calculate construction noise levels on an hourly basis (Hourly Leq) and on an average basis throughout an approximate 20- month construction period (Average Ldn). The construction noise levels would represent the majority of residential construction projects anticipated under the HEU, although the duration of the project would vary depending on the size of the project. Equipment expected to be used in each construction phase are summarized in Table 9, along with the quantity of each type of equipment, the reference noise level at 50 feet assuming the operation of the two loudest pieces of construction equipment, and the estimated noise levels at the nearest property lines projected from the center of the construction activity by phase. Construction noise levels were calculated at distances of 100, 200, 400, and 500 feet.
Table 10 summarizes the minimum distances between construction sites and receptors in various ambient noise environments. In relatively quiet noise environments (i.e., 55 dBA Ldn), construction noise can increase ambient noise levels by up to 7 dBA Ldn before a substantial temporary noise increase would occur. Construction activities occurring within 315 feet of sensitive receptors (as measured from the acoustic center of the construction site) would result in a substantial temporary noise increase above ambient conditions. Conversely, in relatively noisy environments (i.e., 75 dBA Ldn), construction noise can increase ambient noise levels by up to 2 dBA Ldn before a substantial temporary noise increase would occur. Construction activities occurring within 80 feet of sensitive receptors (as measured from the acoustic center of the construction site) would result in a substantial temporary noise increase above ambient conditions.
34 TABLE 9 Construction Noise Levels
Phase Construction
Equipment (Quantity)
Calculated Hourly Average Leq and Ldn (dBA) From Operation of Two Loudest Pieces of Construction Equipment
Noise Level
at 50 feet
Noise Level
at 100 feet
Noise Level
at 200 feet
Noise Level
at 400 feet
Noise Level
at 500 feet
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saw (1)*
Excavator (2)
Rubber-Tired Dozer (1)
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (2)*
85 79 73 67 65
Site Preparation
Grader (2)*
Rubber-Tired Dozer (2)
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (2)
84 78 72 66 64
Grading/
Excavation
Excavator (4)
Grader (2)
Rubber Tired Dozer (1)
Concrete/Industrial Saw (2)*
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (2)
86 80 74 68 66
Trenching/
Foundation
Excavator (2)*
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (2)* 82 76 70 64 62
Building
Exterior
Crane (3)
Forklift (2)
Generator Set (1)*
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (2)*
Welders (2)
82 76 70 64 62
Building
Interior/
Architectural
Coating
Aerial Lift (2)
Air Compressor (10)* 77 71 65 59 57
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixer (4)
Paver (4)
Paving Equipment (4)
Roller (4)
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (4)*
83 77 71 65 63
Average Construction Noise Ldn 77 71 65 59 57
*Denotes two loudest pieces of construction equipment per phase
35 TABLE 10 Noise Levels and Distances Defining Noise Impacts Due to Construction Existing
Ambient
Noise Level
(Ldn)
Maximum
Allowable
Construction
Noise Level
(Ldn)
Overall Noise
Level
(Ldn)
Increase
Above
Ambient
(Ldn)
Minimum Distance
to Avoid Substantial
Temporary Noise
Increase (feet)
55 61 62 7 315
60 63 65 5 250
65 66 69 4 175
70 69 73 3 125
75 73 77 2 80
Mitigation Measure 1:
Construction noise in the Town of Atherton is exempt from regulation if the activities occur between eight 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Construction is prohibited between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. and on weekends and holidays. However, the FTA has established criteria to reduce the impacts of construction noise at nearby noise sensitive receptors. To reduce construction noise impacts, construction best management practices are recommended.
Reasonable regulation of the hours of construction, as well as regulation of the arrival and operation of heavy equipment and the delivery of construction materials, are necessary to protect the health and safety of persons, promote the general welfare of the community, and maintain the quality of life. Construction equipment shall be well-maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as possible. The following best management practices will be implemented to reduce noise from construction activities near sensitive receptors:
• Pursuant to the Municipal Code, restrict noise-generating activities at the construction site or in areas adjacent to the construction site to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and prohibit construction activities on Saturday and Sunday, and State, Federal or Local Holidays;
• Consider temporary noise barriers during construction phases involving earth moving equipment (e.g., grading operations) where they would be effective in reducing the construction noise impact, when directly adjoining sensitive receptors. An eight-foot plywood noise barrier could reduce noise levels by at least 5 dBA; • Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists;
• Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment;
36 • Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, as far away as possible from adjacent receptors; • Acoustically shield stationary equipment located near adjacent receptors with temporary noise barriers;
• Locate staging areas and construction material areas as far away as possible from adjacent receptors;
• Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; • Route all construction traffic to and from the project site via designated truck routes and prohibit construction related heavy truck traffic in residential areas where feasible; • Control noise from construction workers’ radios to the point where they are not audible at existing residences that border the project site;
• Notify all adjacent receptors of the construction schedule in writing; • Designate a "disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented; and • Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction.
Implementation of mitigation would limit construction hours and reduce construction noise levels at noise sensitive locations. The highest noise levels would occur during site grading and during periods where construction is located directly adjacent to noise sensitive locations. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 1, construction noise levels at each project site will be reduced to the extent feasible, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.
Impact 2: Exposure to Excessive Groundborne Vibration during Construction.
Construction activities occurring as part of the project could expose sensitive land uses to excessive groundborne vibration. With proper mitigation and adherence to the applicable guidelines, this is a less-than-significant impact.
The California Department of Transportation recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec PPV to avoid damage to buildings that are structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, a vibration limit of 0.3 in/sec PPV for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern, and a vibration limit of 0.25 in/sec PPV for historic and some old buildings.
37 Construction equipment such as pile drivers are known to generate substantial vibration levels that if used in the vicinity of sensitive land uses may expose persons to excessive vibration levels as well as have the potential to damage buildings. Other construction equipment such as bulldozers and vibratory rollers do not create the vibration levels of pile drivers; however, these types of equipment are more likely to operate continuously and closer to sensitive receptors, and they may expose persons to excessive vibration levels. Foundation construction techniques involving impact or vibratory pile driving equipment, which can cause excessive vibration, are not expected with the proposed HEU.
Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. Table 11 presents typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction equipment at a distances of 25 feet to 100 feet. Vibration levels would be higher at distances less than 25 feet and lower at distances greater than 100 feet. Vibration levels would also vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. Vibration levels are highest close to the source, and then attenuate with increasing distance at the rate (Dref/D)1.1, where D is the distance from the source in feet and Dref is the reference distance of 25 feet.
TABLE 11 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 ft.
(in/sec)
PPV at 50 ft.
(in/sec)
PPV at 100 ft.
(in/sec)
Clam shovel drop 0.202 0.094 0.044
Hydromill
(slurry wall)
in soil 0.008 0.004 0.002
in rock 0.017 0.008 0.004
Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.098 0.046
Hoe Ram 0.089 0.042 0.019
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.042 0.019
Caisson drilling 0.089 0.042 0.019
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.035 0.017
Jackhammer 0.035 0.016 0.008
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.001
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2018, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., January 2024.
Table 12 summarizes the minimum safe setback distances to maintain in order to achieve the 0.25 in/sec PPV threshold for historical buildings and the 0.3 in/sec and 0.5 in/sec PPV thresholds for modern buildings.
38 TABLE 12 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment and Minimum Safe Setbacks
Equipment
Minimum Safe
Setback (feet)
0.25 in/sec PPV
Minimum Safe
Setback (feet)
0.30 in/sec PPV
Minimum Safe
Setback (feet)
0.50 in/sec PPV
Clam shovel drop 21 18 11
Hydromill
(slurry wall)
in soil <1 <1 <1
in rock 3 2 2
Vibratory Roller 22 19 12
Hoe Ram 10 9 6
Large bulldozer 10 9 6
Caisson drilling 10 9 6
Loaded trucks 9 8 5
Jackhammer 5 4 3
Small bulldozer <1 <1 <1
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2018, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., January 2024.
A review of the National Register of Historic Places Website1shows that the following four properties are located within the Atherton HEU area:
• 210 Oak Grove Avenue, Menlo Park (1,000-, 1,050-, and 1,100-feet west of 175, 185, and 197 Ravenswood Avenue, respectively)
• 555 Ravenswood Avenue, Menlo Park (1,450-feet southwest of 175 Ravenswood Avenue) • 1100 Merrill Street, Menlo Park (2,120-feet southwest of 175 Ravenswood Avenue, and 2,120-feet east of Menlo School)
• 98 Alejandra Avenue, Atherton (950-feet north of Sacred Heart School, 1,250-feet northeast of the Circus Club, 1,600-feet west of Menlo School, and 1,700-feet southwest of Menlo College,)
All HEU sites would be 950 feet or further from existing historic resources identified by the National Register of Historic Places. Since specific future projects within the Town are unknown at this time, it is conservatively assumed that the construction areas associated with these future projects could be located within the minimum safe setback distances identified in Table 12. For projects that produce vibration levels exceeding the thresholds, construction vibration would be expected to cause both human annoyance and the possibility of cosmetic damage, resulting in a significant impact.
1 National Register of Historic Places Map, Cultural Resources GIS Facility, January 4, 2024. https://www. https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9-b808-4ff8-a2f9-a99909164466
39 Mitigation Measure 2:
Groundborne vibration studies shall be prepared by qualified professionals in accordance with industry-accepted methodology where heavy construction activities involving significant site grading, underground, or foundation work will occur within 25 feet of residential or other vibration sensitive uses. The industry-accepted methodologies include the recommended vibration assessment procedure and thresholds provided by public agencies such as Caltrans or the Federal Highway Administration. The studies should identify necessary construction vibration controls to reduce both human annoyance and the possibility of cosmetic damage. Controls shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures:
• A list of all heavy construction equipment to be used for this project known to produce high vibration levels (tracked vehicles, vibratory compaction, jackhammers, hoe rams, etc.) shall be submitted to the Town by the contractor. This list shall be used to identify equipment and activities that would potentially generate substantial vibration and to define the level of effort for reducing vibration levels below the thresholds. • Place operating equipment on the construction site as far as possible from vibrationsensitive receptors. • Use smaller equipment to minimize vibration levels below the limits. • Avoid using vibratory rollers and tampers near sensitive areas. • Select demolition methods not involving impact tools. • Modify/design or identify alternative construction methods to reduce vibration levels below the limits.
• Avoid dropping heavy objects or materials.
With the implementation of mitigation, short-term construction activities would not expose persons to excessive vibration levels, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.
Impact 3: Excessive Aircraft Noise. Proposed housing opportunity sites would not be within the vicinity of a private airstrip, an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and exposed to excessive noise levels. This is a less-than-significant impact.
The Palo Alto Airport is a general aviation field located northeast of US 101 and southwest of the San Francisco Bay, approximately 2.8 miles east of the Atherton town limits. Figure 5 of the Palo Alto Airport’s 2022 Annual Airport Noise Report shows Palo Alto Airport noise contours as of 20222. No housing sites would be located within two miles of the Palo Alto Airport, and would be well outside of the 55 dBA CNEL noise contour. Based on a review of Figure 5 of the Palo Alto 2 Palo Alto Airport 2022 Annual Airplane Noise Report, June 2022. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/palo-alto-airport/airplane-noise/2022-paoannual-noise-report.pdf
40 Airport’s 2022 Annual Airport Noise Report, aircraft operations would not expose persons to excessive aircraft noise exceeding 65 dBA CNEL.
The San Carlos Airport is a community airport located northeast of US 101 and southwest of the San Francisco Bay, approximately 3.4 miles north of the Atherton town limits. Exhibit E-2 of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan For the Environs of San Carlos Airport (ALUCP) shows future (2023) San Carlos Airport noise contours3. No housing sites would be located within two miles of the San Carlos Airport, and would be well outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. Based on a review of Exhibit E-2 of the ALUCP, aircraft operations would not expose persons to excessive aircraft noise exceeding 65 dBA CNEL.
All proposed housing sites are located outside of the 55 and 60 dB CNEL noise contours for both the Palo Alto Airport and San Carlos Airport. All other airports are located further away from the Town of Atherton. Thus, the project would have a less-than-significant impact as aircraft noise exposure would be considered compatible with proposed housing sites.
Mitigation Measure 3: None required.
3 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan For the Environs of San Carlos Airport, October 2015. https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/SQL_FinalALUCP_Oct15_read.pdf
41
42
43 Appendix A – Long-Term Noise Data
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Atherton Housing Element Update
Transportation Analysis
Prepared for:
M-Group
February 13, 2024
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Hexagon Office: 100 Century Center Court, Suite 501
San Jose, CA 95112
Phone: 408.971.6100
Hexagon Job Number: 23SJ01
Client Name: Mr. Adam Petersen, M-Group
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................i
1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................1
2. Existing Transportation Conditions................................................................................................9
3. Trip Generation Estimates ..........................................................................................................15
4. CEQA Transportation Analysis....................................................................................................17
5. Local Transportation Analysis .....................................................................................................22 Appendices
Appendix A VMT Analysis
Appendix B Traffic Counts
Appendix C Traffic Volumes
Appendix D Level of Service Calculations
Appendix E Signal Warrants
List of Tables
Table 1 HEU Site Inventory.............................................................................................................. 1 Table 2 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay ...................... 7 Table 3 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay .................. 7 Table 4 Existing Transit Facilities................................................................................................... 13 Table 5 Project Trip Generation Estimates..................................................................................... 16 Table 6 Intersection Level of Service Summary ............................................................................. 34 List of Figures
Figure 1 Location of Proposed Multifamily Housing Sites.................................................................. 3 Figure 2 Study Intersections.............................................................................................................. 5 Figure 3 Roadway Classifications ................................................................................................... 10 Figure 4 Existing Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................. 12 Figure 5 Existing Transit Services................................................................................................... 14 Figure 6 Multifamily Housing Trip Distribution ................................................................................. 23 Figure 7 Multifamily Housing Trip Assignment ................................................................................ 24 Figure 8 Existing Lane Configurations............................................................................................. 26 Figure 9 Existing Traffic Volumes.................................................................................................... 27 Figure 10 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes................................................................................ 28 Figure 11 Cumulative Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 29 Figure 12 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes........................................................................... 30
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | i
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the transportation analysis (TA) conducted for the proposed Atherton Housing Element Update (HEU) project. The HEU would result in an increase in 629 residential units within the Town of Atherton. This includes 126 multifamily units at 1000 El Camino Real, 45 multifamily units at 50 Valparaiso Avenue, 20 multifamily units at 150 Valparaiso Avenue, 16 multifamily units at 23 Oakwood Boulevard, 85 multi-family units at opportunity sites, 280 accessory dwelling units, 48 projected Senate Bill (SB 9) lot splits, and 9 vacant sites.
The potential impacts of the HEU were evaluated in accordance with the standards and methodologies set forth by the Town of Atherton.
Project Trip Generation
It is estimated that the proposed HEU would generate 4,594 new daily trips, including 319 net new trips (79 net new inbound and 270 net new outbound) during the AM peak hour and 424 net new trips (266 net new inbound and 158 net new outbound) during the PM peak hour.
CEQA Transportation Analysis
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Impact
Screened Projects
Per the OPR VMT screening criteria, the following projects can be screened from further VMT analysis:
Small Projects
The following projects are individually small and are expected to generate less than 110 daily trips (see Table 5). Therefore, their VMT impact would be less than significant as defined by OPR:
• ADUs, SB 9 units, Vacant Sites – 337 units
• 23 Oakwood Boulevard – 16 units
• 150 Valparaiso Avenue – 20 units
• Gilmore House – 9 units
• Circus Club – 5 units
• CA Water Service – 3 units
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | ii
Projects Near Transit
The proposed multifamily developments at 1000 El Camino Real and 50 Valparaiso Avenue are located adjacent to El Camino Real, which is considered to be a high-quality transit corridor. In the vicinity of the project sites, SamTrans bus route ECR provides fixed route bus service with 15-minute headways during peak commute hours. Per OPR guidelines, project sites located within ½ mile walkshed of a high-quality transit corridor can be assumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.
Projects in Low VMT Areas
Per the C/CAG VMT Estimation Tool, the proposed project at 175, 185, and 197 Ravenswood Avenue is located in a low VMT area i.e. the VMT per resident for those parcels is 7.7 VMT per resident and
10.4 VMT per resident, which is less than the Bay Area regional threshold of 12.4 daily VMT per resident (see Appendix A). Therefore, this project can be assumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.
Projects Not Screened
The project proposed at 999 Ringwood Avenue, 352, 318, and 296 Bay Road is located in an area where the existing VMT is 13.0 daily VMT per resident, which is above the established threshold of 12.4 daily VMT per resident and is referred to as being in a “high-VMT area” (see Appendix A).
VMT Mitigation
Projects in high-VMT areas are required to include a set of VMT reduction measures that would reduce the project VMT to the greatest extent possible. The C/CAG VMT Estimation Tool evaluates a list of selected VMT reduction measures that can be applied to a project to reduce the project VMT. There are four strategy tiers whose effects on VMT can be calculated with the VMT estimation tool:
1. Tier 1: Project characteristics (e.g. density, diversity of uses, design, and affordability of housing) that encourage walking, biking and transit uses;
2. Tier 2: Multimodal infrastructure improvements that increase accessibility for transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians. These improvements include:
o Increase bike access
o Improve connectivity by increasing intersection density o Increase transit accessibility
o Traffic calming measures beyond the project frontage
o Pedestrian network improvements beyond the project frontage
3. Tier 3: Parking measures that discourage personal motorized vehicle-trips. These improvements include:
o Limit parking supply
o Provide bike facilities
4. Tier 4: Transportation demand management (TDM) measures that provide incentives and services to encourage alternatives to personal motorized vehicle-trips. These measures for residential developments include:
o School pool programs
o Bike share programs
o Car share programs
o Subsidized transit program
o Unbundle parking costs from property costs
o Voluntary travel behavior change program
The first three strategies – land use characteristics, multimodal network improvements, and parking – are physical design strategies that can be incorporated into the project design. TDM includes
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | i i i
programmatic measures that aim to reduce VMT by decreasing personal motorized vehicle mode share and by encouraging more walking, biking, and riding transit. TDM measures should be enforced through annual trip monitoring to assess the project’s status in meeting the VMT reduction goals. The project could implement Tier 1-4 mitigation measures and reduce its impact to less than significant.
Local Transportation Analysis
Intersection Traffic Operations
Intersection levels of service were evaluated against the standards of the Town of Atherton. The results of the analysis show that all signalized study intersections are operating at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic under existing conditions. Under cumulative conditions, most study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. The intersection of Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road would operate at an unacceptable LOS E during both peak hours under cumulative conditions.
The results of the analysis show that the added project trips would not cause an adverse operational effect, as defined by Atherton, at any of the signalized study intersections.
Proposed improvements at the four unsignalized study intersections are described below:
El Camino Real & Selby Lane Intersection
Selby Lane at El Camino Real is estimated to experience long delays equivalent to LOS F under all study scenarios. The peak-hour volume signal warrant analysis indicates that peak-hour volumes at the intersection would meet the peak-hour volume warrant under all scenarios, both with and without the project traffic.
Improvement:
It is recommended that a traffic signal be installed at the intersection. With the addition of a traffic signal, the intersection would be expected to operate at an acceptable LOS B under all scenarios.
Alameda de las Pulgas & Atherton Avenue Intersection
The Alameda de las Pulgas & Atherton Avenue intersection would operate with high delays equivalent to LOS E during the PM peak hour under cumulative plus project conditions.
The peak-hour volume signal warrant analysis indicates that peak-hour volumes at the intersection would not meet the peak-hour volume warrant during the PM peak hour under the cumulative plus project scenario, with or without the project traffic. Therefore, signalization is not recommended at this intersection.
Improvement:
A single lane roundabout is recommended at this intersection. The intersection appears big enough to accommodate a roundabout within the right of way, but the feasibility of the roundabout would require further design work. With the addition of a roundabout, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS B or better during both peak hours.
El Camino Real & Alejandra Avenue Intersection
During the AM peak hour, Alejandra Avenue at El Camino Real is estimated to experience long delays equivalent to LOS E under all study scenarios. The added project trips would increase the delay for this approach. The peak-hour volume signal warrant analysis indicates that peak-hour volumes at the intersection would not meet the peak-hour volume warrant under any scenario, with or without the
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | iv
project traffic, therefore signalization is not recommended. There are no other feasible improvements at this intersection.
Bay Road & Ringwood Avenue/Sonoma Avenue Intersection
The Bay Road & Ringwood Avenue/Sonoma Avenue intersection would operate with high delays equivalent to LOS E during the AM peak hour under cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions.
The peak-hour volume signal warrant analysis indicates that peak-hour volumes at the intersection would meet the peak-hour volume warrant under all scenarios, both with and without the project traffic, during the AM peak hour.
Menlo Park’s Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) lists the following improvements for this intersection:
• Convert the east legs of Sonoma Avenue and Ringwood Avenue to one-way couplets with Ringwood Avenue serving eastbound traffic and Sonoma Avenue serving westbound traffic. • Add left-turn lanes, as deemed necessary during the design phase, on eastbound Ringwood Avenue and northbound Bay Road. This would require full use of public right-of-way and the removal of existing landscaping and the relocation of existing utilities. • Install a traffic signal.
Improvement:
With the addition of a traffic signal, the intersection would be expected to operate at an acceptable LOS A during the AM peak hour. Installation of improvements as identified in Menlo Park’s TIF is recommended.
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 1
1. Introduction
This report presents the results of the transportation analysis (TA) conducted for the proposed CEQA clearance document analyzing the Housing Element Update (HEU) for the Town of Atherton, California.
The HEU would result in an increase in 629 residential units within the Town of Atherton. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed multifamily housing sites in the Town. Table 1 shows the breakdown of the projected increase in units.
Table 1
HEU Site Inventory
Scope of Study
The purpose of the study is to identify potential transportation impacts related to the proposed HEU.
Per California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) and CEQA Guidelines, the study includes a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis. The study also includes a local transportation analysis that evaluates potential Site Inventory Projected Units
1000 El Camino Real 126
50 Valparaiso Ave 45
150 Valparaiso Ave 20
23 Oakwood Blvd 16
Multi-Family Residential Opportunity Sites
999 Ringwood Ave, 352, 318, and 296 Bay Rd 36
175, 185, and 197 Ravenswood Ave 32
Gilmore House 9
Circus Club 5
CA Water Service 3
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)s 280
Projected Senate Bill (SB) 9 Lot Splits 48
Vacant Sites 9
Total Projected Units 629
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 2
transportation effects of the HEU in accordance with the standards and methodologies set forth by the Town of Atherton.
CEQA VMT Analysis
In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 743, an analysis of the proposed increase in housing’s potential impacts on VMT was conducted as part of the environmental analysis for the project. The Town of Atherton has not formally adopted a VMT policy, therefore, the VMT thresholds for this project were based on the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)’s recommendations.
Consistent with OPR guidelines, 85 percent of the existing regional average daily VMT per resident was assumed as the VMT threshold of significance. Average VMT per resident for the project parcels was reported from the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County VMT Estimation Tool, and the project average VMT per resident was compared to the Bay Area regional average.
Redwood City Redwood City
Palo
Alto
Menlo Park Menlo Park
West
Menlo Park Menlo Park
Atherton Atherton
Redwood City
Palo
Alto
Menlo Park
West
Menlo Park
Atherton
El Camino Real
Oakwood Oakwood Blvd Oakwood Blvd
Bay Rd
Spring St
Laurel St
Santa Cruz Ave
Alma St
Atherton Ave
Ringwood Ave
Oak Grove Ave
Stockbridge Ave
Park Ln
Almendral Ave
Tuscaloosa Ave
Middlefield Rd
Valparaiso Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
Encinal Ave
Selby Ln
Willow Rd
Isabella Ave
Glenwood Ave
Alameda de Las Pulgas
Ravenswood Ave
Crane St
Menlo Ave
Alejandra Ave
James Ave
Chilco St
Mills St
Live Oak Ave
Fair Oaks Ln
Bay Rd
23 Oakwood 23 Oakwood
Blvd
1000 El Camino 1000 El Camino
Real
50 Valparaiso 50 Valparaiso
Ave
23 Oakwood
Blvd
1000 El Camino
Real
175, 185, and 197 175, 185, and 197
Ravenswood Ave Ravenswood Ave
175, 185, and 197
Ravenswood Ave
999 Ringwood Ave, 99 Ringwood Ave,
352, 318, and 296 Bay Rd 352, 318, and 296 Bay Rd
999 Ringwood Ave,
352, 318, and 296 Bay Rd
Gilmore House Gilmore House ilmore House
50 Valparaiso
Ave
150 Valparaiso 50 Valparaiso
Ave
150 Valparaiso
Circus
Club
Circus
Club
101
Marsh Rd Marsh Rd Marsh Rd
NOTE: California Water Services, ADU, SB 9, and vacant sites are not shown on the map. = Site Locations
LEGEND
Menlo Park Menlo Park
Caltrain Caltrain
Station Station
Menlo Park
Caltrain
Station
Atherton HEU TransportaƟon Analysis
Figure 1
Location of Proposed Multifamily Housing Sites
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 4
Local Transportation Analysis (LTA)
The LTA supplements the VMT analysis by identifying potential adverse traffic operational effects of the proposed housing sites that may arise due to the new development. This includes operations at key intersections providing access to and through the study area.
The intersection operations analysis is based on the AM (7:00 AM and 9:00 AM) and PM (4:00 PM and 6:00 PM) peak-hour level of service for five signalized intersections and four unsignalized intersections in the vicinity of the HEU sites as illustrated in Figure 2. The following intersections were identified for analysis:
1. El Camino Real and Selby Lane (unsignalized)
2. Alameda de las Pulgas and Atherton Avenue (unsignalized)
3. El Camino Real and Atherton Avenue/Fair Oaks Lane
4. Middlefield Road and Marsh Road
5. El Camino Real and Alejandra Avenue (unsignalized)
6. El Camino Real and Encinal Avenue
7. El Camino Real and Valparaiso Avenue/Glenwood Avenue
8. Middlefield Road and Ravenswood Avenue
9. Bay Road and Ringwood Avenue/Sonoma Avenue (unsignalized) Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
• Existing Conditions. Existing traffic volumes at the study intersections were based on new traffic counts conducted in 2023 and and counts collected in 2022 for other traffic studies in the area (see Appendix B).
• Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the proposed new development. Existing plus project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions to determine potential adverse project effects.
• Cumulative Conditions. The cumulative scenario assumed a year 2031 horizon, which represents the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) planning cycle. The cumulative conditions traffic volumes were determined using forecasts from the Countywide transportation demand model.
• Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Cumulative plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to cumulative traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project.
Cumulative plus project conditions were evaluated relative to cumulative conditions to determine potential adverse project effects.
Redwood City Redwood City
Palo
Alto
Menlo Park Menlo Park
West
Menlo Park Menlo Park
Atherton Atherton
Redwood City
Palo
Alto
Menlo Park
West
Menlo Park
Atherton
El Camino Real
Bay Rd
Spring St
Laurel St
Santa Cruz Ave
Alma St
Atherton Ave
Ringwood Ave
Oak Grove Ave
Stockbridge Ave
Park Ln
Almendral Ave
Tuscaloosa Ave
Middlefield Rd
Valparaiso Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
Encinal Ave
Selby Ln
Willow Rd
Isabella Ave
Glenwood Ave
Alameda de Las Pulgas
Ravenswood Ave
Crane St
Menlo Ave
Alejandra Ave
James Ave
Chilco St
Mills St
Live Oak Ave
Fair Oaks Ln
Bay Rd
Oakwood Oakwood Blvd Oakwood Blvd
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
101
Marsh Rd Marsh Rd Marsh Rd
Menlo Park Menlo Park
Caltrain Caltrain
Station Station
Menlo Park
Caltrain
Station
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
Atherton HEU TransportaƟon Analysis
Figure 2
Study Intersections
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 6
Intersection Operations Analysis Methodology
This section presents the methods used to determine the traffic conditions at the study intersections and the potential adverse operational effects due to the project. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, the applicable intersection level of service standards, and the criteria used to determine adverse effects on intersection operations.
Data Requirements
The data required for the analysis were obtained from previous traffic studies, new traffic counts, the Town of Atherton, the City of Menlo Park, and Google Earth. The following data were collected from these sources:
• Existing traffic volumes
• Lane configurations
• Signal timing and phasing
Level of Service Analysis Methodology and Standards
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The analysis methods are described below.
Signalized Intersections
The Town of Atherton utilizes SYNCHRO software and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 2000 Edition methodology to evaluate intersection operations. The HCM method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection.
Control delay is the amount of delay that is attributed to the particular traffic control device at the intersection, and includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The correlation between average delay and level of service is shown in Table 2.
There are four study intersections shared between Atherton and Menlo Park. Menlo Park utilizes Vistro software and Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 7th Edition. In order to be consistent with traffic studies conducted in Menlo Park, these four study intersections were analyzed using Menlo Park’s methodology.
Level of Service Standard
In the Town of Atherton, the level of service standard for highways is LOS E, for minor arterials and collectors is LOS D, and for local streets is LOS C.
Unsignalized Intersections
The study includes the analysis of four unsignalized intersections. Level of service analysis at unsignalized intersections is generally used to determine the need for modification in the type of intersection control (i.e., all-way stop or signalization). Atherton does not have an adopted level of service standard for unsignalized intersections. As part of the evaluation, traffic volumes, delays and traffic signal warrants are evaluated to determine if the existing intersection control is appropriate. The unsignalized study intersections were analyzed on the basis of the Peak-Hour Volume Signal Warrant, (Warrant #3 – Part B) described in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2014 Edition.
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 7
For unsignalized intersections, level of service depends on the average delay experienced by vehicles on the stop-controlled approaches. Thus, for all-way stop controlled intersections, level of service is determined by the average delay for all movements through the intersection. For side street stopcontrolled intersections (two-way or T-intersections), operations are defined by the average control delay experienced by vehicles entering the intersection from the stop-controlled approaches on minor streets or from left-turn approaches on major streets. For two-way or T-intersections, the level of service is reported based on the delay for the worst movement. The level of service definitions for unsignalized intersections is shown in Table 3.
Table 2
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay Table 3
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay Level of
Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (sec.) Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, (Washington, D.C., 2000).
A
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle lengths. up to 10.0
B
Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. 10.1 to 20.0
C
Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. 20.1 to 35.0 F
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. Greater than 80.0 D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
35.1 to 55.0
E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.
55.1 to 80.0
A Little or no traffic delay 10.0 or less
B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0
F Extreme traffic delays greater than 50.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p17-2.
Level of Service Level of Service Average Delay Per Vehicle (Sec.)
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 8
Adverse Operational Effects on Intersections
For this analysis, the criteria used to determine an adverse effect on signalized intersections are based on the Town of Atherton’s Level of Service standards. The Town’s General Plan specifies that a project is considered to have a potentially adverse traffic impact if the addition of project traffic causes:
• Threshold “I” – An intersection on minor arterial streets or local approaches to State-controlled signalized intersections operating at LOS A through D to operate at an unacceptable level (LOS E or F) or have an increase of 23 seconds or greater in average vehicle delay, whichever comes first.
• Threshold “II” - An increase of more than 4 seconds to average delay to vehicles on all critical movements for intersections on minor arterial streets operating at LOS E or F. • Threshold “III” - An increase of more than 4 seconds to average delay to vehicles on the most critical movements for intersections on local approaches to State-controlled intersections operating at LOS E or F.
• Threshold “IV” - An intersection on collector streets operating at LOS A through C to operate at an unacceptable level (LOS D, E or F) or have an increase of 23 seconds or greater in average vehicle delay, whichever comes first.
• Threshold “V” - An increase of more than 4 seconds to average delay to vehicles on all critical movements for intersections on collector streets operating at LOS D, E or F.
Atherton has not adopted an adverse effect criterion for unsignalized intersections. For the purpose of this analysis, potential improvements are discussed at an unsignalized intersection if it operates at LOS E or LOS F and meets the signal warrant under project conditions.
Report Organization
This report has a total of five chapters. Chapter 2 describes existing transportation conditions including the existing roadway network, transit service, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Chapter 3 describes the methods used to estimate project-generated traffic. Chapter 4 describes the CEQA transportation analysis, including the project VMT impact analysis. Chapter 5 describes the local transportation analysis including operations of study intersections and the project’s effects on the study intersections.
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 9
2. Existing Transportation Conditions
This chapter describes the existing conditions of the transportation system within Atherton. It describes the roadway network, transit service, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The analysis of existing intersection operations is included as part of the local transportation analysis (see Chapter 4).
Existing Roadway Network
Regional and local roadways serving the Town of Atherton where housing is proposed in the HEU are described below.
Regional Access
The Town of Atherton contains no freeways; however, the Junipero Serra Freeway (Interstate 280) abuts the western edge of the incorporated Town limits. The single highway through the Town is El Camino Real (State Route 82) which provides for through traffic.
Local Access
Local access in the Town is provided by minor arterials and collectors. These streets provide access to the HEU sites. The roadway network serving Atherton, including classifications from the General Plan, is shown in Figure 3.
Atherton HEU TransportaƟon Analysis
Figure 3
Roadway Classification
Fair Oaks Ln
Glenwood Ave
El Camino Real
Oak Grove Ave
Ravenswood Ave Ringwood Ave
Bay Rd
Selby Ln
Park Ln Alejandra Ave
Stockbridge Ave
Selby Ln
Camino Al Lago
Auston Ave
Tuscaloosa Ave
Almendral Ave
Walsh Rd
Oak Grove Ave
James Ave
Polhemus Ave
Elena Ave
Encinal Avenue
Middlefield Road
Watkins Rd
Marsh Rd
Alameda de las Pulgas
Valparaiso Ave
Atherton Ave
01 0.5 /
Miles
·|}þ82
·|}þ82
Legend
Freeways and Highways
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local Streets
Emergency Evacuation Routes
Town Boundary
§¨¦280
£¤101
Source: Atherton General Plan Update - Circulation Element, December 2018
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 11
Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities in Atherton include bike lanes and bike routes. Bike lanes (Class II facilities) are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes (Class III facilities) are roadways shared between bicycles and vehicles. Bike routes are often designated for use by bicycles with “sharrow” pavement markings and signage. The existing bicycle facilities within the study area are described below and are shown on Figure 4.
Striped bike lanes (Class II bikeway) are present along the following roadways in the Town:
• Selby Lane between Oakwood Boulevard and El Camino Real • Alameda de las Pulgas between City Limits
• Valparaiso Avenue between City Limits
• Middlefield Road between City Limits
• Encinal Avenue between Garwood Way and Middlefield Road • Laurel Street between City Limits
• Ringwood Avenue between City Limits
• Bay Road between City Limits
Bike routes (Class III bikeway) are present along the following roadways in the Town:
• Selby Lane between Selby Lane and Atherton Avenue
• Austin Avenue between Selby Lane and Atherton Avenue
• Atherton Avenue between Alameda de las Pulgas and El Camino Real • Fair Oaks Lane between Alameda de las Pulgas and Middlefield Road • Dinkelspiel Station Lane between Fair Oaks Lane and Watkins Avenue • Watkins Avenue between El Camino Real and Middlefield Road • Alejandra Avenue between Emilie Avenue and El Camino Real • Park Lane between Cam Al Lago and Emilie Avenue
• Cam Al Lago between Alameda de las Pulgas and Park Laneat • Barry Lane between Atherton Avenue and Faxon Lane
• Faxon Lane between Barry Lane and Elena Avenue
• Elena Avenue between Atherton Avenue and Valparaiso Avenue • Emilie Avenue between Alejandra Avenue and Valparaiso Avenue • Glenwood Avenue between Laurel Street and Middlefield Road Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian sidewalks and crosswalks are generally lacking on local streets in Atherton as well as on minor arterials like Middlefield Road, Alameda de las Pulgas, Bay Road, and Marsh Road.
Crosswalks are present at signalized intersections along El Camino Real. The intersections of El Camino Real at Selby Lane and El Camino Real at Stockbridge Avenue have ladder crosswalks with pedestrian yield signs across El Camino Real. The intersections of El Camino Real at Almendral Avenue, El Camino Real at Isabella Avenue, and El Camino Real at Alejandra Avenue have pedestrian hybrid beacons. Continuous sidewalks are absent on the west side of El Camino Real. The multifamily housing sites are proposed near El Camino Real. Continuous sidewalks are absent between the housing sites and El Camino Real.
Redwood City Redwood City
Palo
Alto
Menlo Park Menlo Park
West
Menlo Park Menlo Park
Atherton Atherton
Redwood City
Palo
Alto
Menlo Park
West
Menlo Park
Atherton
101
El Camino Real
Bay Rd
Woodside Rd
Spring St
Santa Cruz Ave
Laurel St
Alma St
Park Ln
Cam A Lago Cam A Lago Cam A Lago
Alameda de Las Pulgas
Atherton Ave
Ringwood Ave
Elena
Avea
e
Elena Ave
Emilie Ave Emilie Ave
Oak Grove Ave
Stockbridge Ave
Almendral Ave
Tuscaloosa Ave
Middlefield Rd
Valparaiso Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
Encinal Ave
Selby Ln
Watkins Ave
Willow Rd
Isabella Ave
Ravenswood Ave
Crane St
Menlo Ave
Alejandra Ave
James Ave
Fair Oaks Ln
Faxon Rd
Hoover St Garwood Garwood Wy
Bay Rd
Selby Ln
Austin Ave Austin Ave
Austin Ave
Barry
Ln
ry
n
Elena
Ave
Emilie Ave
Garwood Wy
Barry
Ln
Menlo Park Menlo Park
Caltrain Caltrain
Station Station
Menlo Park
Caltrain
Station
= Existing Bike Lane (Class II Bikeway)
= Existing Bike Route (Class III Bikeway)
LEGEND
= Site Locations
Atherton HEU TransportaƟon Analysis
Figure 4
Existing Bicycle Facilities
Note: Only bike facilities within the City of Atherton are shown.
Oakwood Oakwood Blvd Oakwood Blvd
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 13
Existing Transit Services
Existing transit service in Atherton is provided by SamTrans (see Figure 5 and Table 4). Three SamTrans regular bus routes (ECR, 296, 397) and five SamTrans school-oriented bus routes (72, 82, 83, 87, 88) serve the City. The regular SamTrans bus routes are described below:
Table 4
Existing Transit Facilities
Bus
Route Description Operating Hours
Peak Hour
Headway Nearby Bus Stops
ECR
Between Daly City BART Station and
Palo Alto Transit Center via El Camino
Real
4:00 AM to 2:00 AM (next
day) 15 min
El Camino Real & Amherst-5th
Avenue, El Camino Real &
Almendral Ave, El Camino Real &
Isabella Ave, El Camino Real &
Encinal Ave, El Camino Real &
Valparaiso Ave
296
Between Redwood City Transit Center
and Bayshore/Donohoe via Middlefield
Road
5:15 AM - 10:45 PM 20 min Middlefield Road & Fair Oaks Lane, Middlefield Road & James Ave
397 Between San Francisco and Palo Alto
Transit Ctr via Middlefield Road 1:00 AM - 6:00 AM 45 min - 60 min Middlefield Road & Fair Oaks Lane, Middlefield Road & James Ave Note: Approximate weekday operation hours and headways during peak commute periods in the project area, as of June 2023.
Redwood City Redwood City
Palo
Alto
Menlo Park Menlo Park
West
Menlo Park Menlo Park
Atherton Atherton
Redwood City
Palo
Alto
Menlo Park
West
Menlo Park
Atherton
El Camino Real
Bay Rd
Spring St
Laurel St
Santa Cruz Ave
Alma St
Atherton Ave
Ringwood Ave
Oak Grove Ave
Stockbridge Ave
Park Ln
Almendral Ave
Tuscaloosa Ave
Middlefield Rd
Valparaiso Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
Encinal Ave
Selby Ln
Willow Rd
Isabella Ave
Glenwood Ave
Alameda de Las Pulgas
Ravenswood Ave
Crane St
Menlo Ave
Alejandra Ave
James Ave
Chilco St
Mills St
Live Oak Ave
Fair Oaks Ln
Bay Rd
Oakwood Oakwood Blvd Oakwood Blvd
ECR
ECR
296
296
101
397
397
Marsh Rd Marsh Rd Marsh Rd
= Site Locations
LEGEND
= SamTrans Routes Connecting to Caltrain Stations
= SamTrans Routes Connecting to BART and
Caltrain Stations
= SamTrans Express Routes
= Bus Stop
Menlo Park Menlo Park
Caltrain Caltrain
Station
Menlo Park
Caltrain
ECR
296,
397
296,
397
296,
397
296,
397
296,
397 296,
397
296,
397
296,
397
296,
397
296,
397 296,
397
296,
397
296,
397
296,
397
296,
397 296,
397
296,
397 296,
397
296,
397
296,
397
ECR ECR
ECR
ECR
ECR
ECR
ECR
ECR
ECR
ECR
ECR
ECR ECR
ECR ECR
ECR
ECR
ECR
Atherton HEU TransportaƟon Analysis
Figure 5
Existing Transit Services
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 15
3. Trip Generation Estimates
This chapter describes the method by which project traffic is estimated. The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the project sites is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. The trip distribution and trip assignment processes are described in Chapter 5.
Trip Generation
AM and PM peak hour trip generation rates resulting from new development are typically estimated using trip rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Trips that would be generated by the proposed multifamily housing were estimated using the ITE trip rates for “Low-Rise Multifamily Housing” (Land use 220). The trip generation is shown per housing development group in Table 5.
Since the locations of all vacant and ADU sites and SB 9 units are not yet known, the baseline intersection volumes were increased by a factor of 1.0% to represent these uses under project conditions. The factor was developed from the Countywide transportation demand model using the proportion of homes assumed to have ADUs and the percentage of home-based trips.
Internal Capture
The 1000 El Camino Real project site is located on the Menlo College property, the 50 Valparaiso Avenue site is located on the Menlo School property, and the 150 Valparaiso Avenue site is located on the Sacred Heart School property. It is anticipated that the housing proposed on the Menlo College property would be primarily for college faculty. Therefore, an internal capture rate of 50 percent was assumed for this development, i.e., a portion of the trips generated by the project will both begin and end within the development. The housing proposed on the Menlo School property may be occupied by school faculty at Menlo School or other schools in Atherton. Therefore, an internal capture of 20 percent was assumed for this development. The housing proposed on the Sacred Heart property would be occupied by faculty, and therefore, an internal capture of 50 percent was assumed for this development.
Net Project Trips
It is estimated that the proposed HEU would generate 4,594 new daily trips, including 319 net new trips (79 net new inbound and 240 net new outbound) during the AM peak hour and 424 net new trips (266 net new inbound and 158 net new outbound) during the PM peak hour (see Table 5).
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 16
Table 5
Project Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Rate1In Out Total Rate1In Out Total
Proposed
1000 ECR (Menlo College)1126 d.u. 6.74 849 0.40 12 38 50 0.51 40 24 64 Internal Capture (50%) (425) (6) (19) (25) (20) (12) (32) Net Project Trips 425 6 19 25 20 12 32
50 Valparaiso (Menlo School)145 d.u. 6.74 303 0.40 4 14 18 0.51 14 9 23 Internal Capture (20%) (61) (1) (3) (4) (3) (2) (5)
Net Project Trips 242 3 11 14 11 7 18
150 Valparaiso (Sacred Heart)120 d.u. 6.74 135 0.40 2 6 8 0.51 6 4 10 Internal Capture (50%) (68) (1) (3) (4) (3) (2) (5)
Net Project Trips 68 1 3 4 3 2 5
Multi-Family Opportunity Sites1
999 Ringwood Ave, 352, 318, and 296 Bay Rd 36 d.u. 6.74 243 0.40 3 11 14 0.51 11 7 18 175, 185, and 197 Ravenswood Ave 32 d.u. 6.74 216 0.40 3 10 13 0.51 10 6 16 Gilmore House 9 d.u. 6.74 61 0.40 1 3 4 0.51 3 2 5
Circus Club 5 d.u. 6.74 34 0.40 0 2 2 0.51 2 1 3
CA Water Service 3 d.u. 6.74 20 0.40 0 1 1 0.51 1 1 2
Multi-Family Opportunity Sites Subtotal 85 d.u. 574 7 27 34 27 17 44 23 Oakwood116 d.u. 6.74 108 0.40 1 5 6 0.51 5 3 8
ADUs, SB 9 units, Vacant Sites2337 d.u. 9.43 3,178 0.70 61 175 236 0.94 200 117 317 Proposed Total 629 d.u 4,594 79 240 319 266 158 424
Notes
d.u. = dwelling units
1 2 Trip generations rate for the proposed ADUs, SB 9 units, and vacant sites are based on the ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition rates for Land Use Code 210 "Single-Family Detached Housing in General Urban/Suburban." Trip generations rate for the proposed Apartments and Condominiums are based on the ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition rates for Land Use Code 220 "Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) - Not Close to Rail Transit in General Urban/Suburban." PM Peak Hour
Size
Daily
Rate1
Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 17
4. CEQA Transportation Analysis
This section describes the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) transportation analysis for the proposed project. The following describes the significance criteria used to identify impacts on the transportation system for the proposed HEU. A significant impact would occur if implementation of the HEU would:
1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
2. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
3. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
4. Result in inadequate emergency access.
(1) Consistency With Program, Plan, Ordinance or Policy Addressing the Safety or Performance of the Circulation System (Criterion 1).
Implementation of the HEU would be subject to and implement General Plan policies applicable to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Additionally, development projects under the HEU would be subject to all applicable Town guidelines, standards, and specifications related to transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.
Specifically, any modifications or new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be subject to and designed in accordance with all applicable General Plan policies. In particular, Circulation Element Policy CIR-3.1 supports the study and evaluation of providing dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit access improvements, along the length of El Camino Real within Atherton by repurposing a vehicle travel lane in one or both directions; Policy CIR-4.1 commits to creating and maintaining Complete Streets serving all users; Policy CIR-4.4 considers incorporating Complete Streets infrastructure in all appropriate projects and phases; Policy CIR-4.6 encourages the development and maintenance of bikeways in accordance with the adopted bicycle and pedestrian master plan; Policy CIR-4.7 encourages separating bicycles from vehicular traffic; Policy CIR-6.2 supports the continued operation and upgrading of passenger rail service operated over the Joint Powers Board right-of-way between Gilroy and San Francisco, and Policy CIR-8.1 requires implementing the Greenhouse Gas programs in the Atherton Climate Action Plan related to reduction of vehicle miles traveled and alternative modes of transportation.
The Town has also adopted a Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan (adopted July 2014) that establishes the Town’s vision for a network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to encourage bicycling and walking as viable modes of travel around the Town. The Plan identifies specific improvement projects around the Town to
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 18
improve the walking and bicycling environment. The plan proposes new or upgraded bicycle facilities and intersection improvements along major roads in the Town including El Camino Real, Alejandra Avenue, Watkins Avenue, Valparaiso Avenue, Middlefield Road, Alameda de las Pulgas, and Marsh Road. Furthermore, the plan recommends converting the westernmost southbound travel lane along El Camino Real to a Class I trail with landscaping and pedestrian crossing improvements, including prioritizing improvements to the Selby Lane/Fifth Avenue and Isabella/Watkins Avenue intersections, called the Grand Boulevard Greenway. The multifamily housing sites are proposed near El Camino Real.
The Town is served by three SamTrans bus routes (ECR, 296, 397). The multifamily housing sites are proposed near the bus route ECR.
Because implementation of the HEU would be subject to all applicable Town guidelines, standards, and specifications, the proposed HEU would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs for transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Therefore, the HEU would result in a less-than-significant impact to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
Mitigation Measure: None required.
(2) Vehicle Miles Traveled (Criterion 2)
Pursuant to SB 743, the California Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines in late 2018. The guidelines state that level of service will no longer be considered to be an environmental impact under CEQA and consider vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) the most appropriate measure of transportation impact. VMT is defined as the total distance traveled by vehicles traveling to and from a land use over a typical day. Since the Town of Atherton has not formally adopted a VMT policy, the VMT analysis is based on the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)’s guidelines.
Per OPR, a project’s VMT is compared to the appropriate thresholds of significance based on the project location and type of development. When assessing a residential project, the project’s VMT is divided by the number of residents expected to occupy the project to determine the VMT per capita.
VMT Thresholds of Significance
OPR’s VMT guidelines include screening criteria for evaluating a project’s VMT impact. Based on the guidelines, the following types of projects may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact:
• Small projects (i.e., fewer than 110 trips per day)
• Projects in low VMT areas*
• Projects near transit (i.e., within ½ mile walkshed of a major transit stop or along a high-quality transit corridor that has a fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours)
• 100 percent affordable residential development
*Note: To determine whether a project is located in a low VMT area, the C/CAG VMT Estimation Tool was used. This tool is based on model forecasts and has been developed by C/CAG to streamline the analysis for development projects located within the County.
For projects that cannot be screened out from the analysis based on the above criteria, consistent with OPR guidelines, 85 percent of the existing regional average daily VMT per resident was assumed as the VMT threshold of significance. Average VMT per resident for the project parcels was reported from C/CAG VMT Estimation Tool, and the project average VMT per resident was compared to the Bay Area
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 19
regional average. As estimated by the C/CAG VMT Estimation Tool, the existing (2015) Bay Area average residential VMT is estimated at 14.6 daily VMT per resident. Therefore, the VMT threshold for this project is 12.4 daily VMT per resident.
VMT Analysis
Screened Projects
Per the OPR VMT screening criteria, the following projects can be screened from further VMT analysis:
Small Projects
The following projects are individually small and are expected to generate less than 110 daily trips (see Table 5). Therefore, their VMT impact would be less than significant as defined by OPR:
• ADUs, SB 9 units, Vacant Sites – 337 units
• 23 Oakwood Boulevard – 16 units
• 150 Valparaiso Avenue – 20 units
• Gilmore House – 9 units
• Circus Club – 5 units
• CA Water Service – 3 units
Projects Near Transit
The proposed multifamily developments at 1000 El Camino Real and 50 Valparaiso Avenue are located adjacent to El Camino Real, which is considered to be a high-quality transit corridor. In the vicinity of the project sites, SamTrans bus route ECR provides fixed route bus service with 15-minute headways during peak commute hours. Per OPR guidelines, project sites located within ½ mile walkshed of a high-quality transit corridor can be assumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.
It is important to note that if the project is designed to have a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75, includes more parking for use by residents than required by the jurisdiction, is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy, or replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units, it would require further VMT analysis.
Projects in Low VMT Areas
Per the C/CAG VMT Estimation Tool, the proposed project at 175, 185, and 197 Ravenswood Avenue is located in a low VMT area i.e. the VMT per resident for those parcels is 7.7 VMT per resident and
10.4 VMT per resident, which is less than the Bay Area regional threshold of 12.4 daily VMT per resident (see Appendix A). Therefore, this project can be assumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.
Projects Not Screened
The project proposed at 999 Ringwood Avenue, 352, 318, and 296 Bay Road is located in an area where the existing VMT is 13.0 daily VMT per resident, which is above the established threshold of 12.4 daily VMT per resident and is referred to as being in a “high-VMT area” (see Appendix A).
VMT Mitigation
Projects in high-VMT areas are required to include a set of VMT reduction measures that would reduce the project VMT to the greatest extent possible. The C/CAG VMT Estimation Tool evaluates a list of selected VMT reduction measures that can be applied to a project to reduce the project VMT. There are four strategy tiers whose effects on VMT can be calculated with the VMT estimation tool:
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 20
5. Tier 1: Project characteristics (e.g. density, diversity of uses, design, and affordability of housing) that encourage walking, biking and transit uses;
6. Tier 2: Multimodal infrastructure improvements that increase accessibility for transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians. These improvements include:
o Increase bike access
o Improve connectivity by increasing intersection density o Increase transit accessibility
o Traffic calming measures beyond the project frontage
o Pedestrian network improvements beyond the project frontage
7. Tier 3: Parking measures that discourage personal motorized vehicle-trips. These improvements include:
o Limit parking supply
o Provide bike facilities
8. Tier 4: Transportation demand management (TDM) measures that provide incentives and services to encourage alternatives to personal motorized vehicle-trips. These measures for residential developments include:
o School pool programs
o Bike share programs
o Car share programs
o Subsidized transit program
o Unbundle parking costs from property costs
o Voluntary travel behavior change program
The first three strategies – land use characteristics, multimodal network improvements, and parking – are physical design strategies that can be incorporated into the project design. TDM includes programmatic measures that aim to reduce VMT by decreasing personal motorized vehicle mode share and by encouraging more walking, biking, and riding transit. TDM measures should be enforced through annual trip monitoring to assess the project’s status in meeting the VMT reduction goals. The project could implement Tier 1-4 mitigation measures and reduce its impact to less than significant. (3) Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Geometric Design Feature or Incompatible Uses (Criterion 3)
Subsequent new residential development, and other future projects under the project, including any new roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure improvements would be designed according to the Town’s General Plan and other Town standards. Future projects would be subject to existing regulations that are aimed at reducing hazardous conditions with respect to circulation.
Additionally, future development resulting from the project would be concentrated on sites that are already developed where impacts related to incompatible traffic related land uses would not likely occur. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to transportation hazards.
(4) Inadequate Emergency Access (Criterion 4)
Based on the proposed locations of new residential development in the Town, adequate emergency access exists; and when specific development projects occur, emergency access within the site must be evaluated. Furthermore, the Town maintains the roadway network that provides access to new development sites in accordance with industry design standards, which ensures that the physical network would be free of obstructions to emergency responders. The Town’s General Plan and other Town standards and regulations include policies that would ensure efficient circulation and adequate access in the Town, which would help facilitate emergency response. Emergency access to new development sites would be subject to review by the Town and responsible emergency service
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 21
agencies, thus ensuring the projects would be designed to meet all emergency access and design standards. The Town also requires the preparation of construction management plans that minimize temporary obstruction of traffic during site construction.
Additional vehicles associated with new development sites could increase delays for emergency response vehicles during peak commute hours. However, emergency responders maintain response plans that include use of alternate routes, sirens, and other methods to bypass congestion and minimize response times. In addition, California law requires drivers to yield the right-of-way to emergency vehicles and remain stopped until the emergency vehicle passes to ensure the safe and timely passage of emergency vehicles.
Based on the above considerations, adequate emergency access would be provided to new development sites, and the impact would be less-than-significant.
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 22
5. Local Transportation Analysis
This chapter describes the local transportation analysis (LTA) including intersection operations analysis for existing, existing plus project, cumulative, and cumulative plus project scenarios, and any adverse effects to intersection level of service caused by the project.
Intersection Operations Analysis
The intersection operations analysis is intended to quantify the operations of Atherton’s intersections and to identify potential negative effects due to the addition of project traffic. Information required for the intersection operations analysis related to project trip distribution, and trip assignment are presented in this section. The study intersections are evaluated based on the Town of Atherton’s intersection analysis methodology and standards in determining potential adverse operational effects due to the HEU, as described in Chapter 1.
Trip Distribution
As part of the project trip distribution, the directions to and from which the project trips would travel are estimated. The trip distribution patterns for the proposed multifamily units were estimated based on existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway network that reflect typical weekday AM and PM peak commute patterns for each land use, the locations of complementary land uses, and freeway access points. The trip distribution patterns are shown on Figure 6. Although not shown on the figure, the proposed sites along Bay Road and Ringwood Avenue are assumed to be mostly accessed by US 101.
Trip Assignment
In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections The peak-hour vehicle trips generated by the proposed multifamily units were assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the trip distribution patterns and the locations of project sites (see Figure 7).
Redwood City Redwood City
Palo
Alto
Menlo Park Menlo Park
West
Menlo Park Menlo Park
Atherton Atherton
Redwood City
Palo
Alto
Menlo Park
West
Menlo Park
Atherton
El Camino Real
Bay Rd
Spring St
Laurel St
Santa Cruz Ave
Alma St
Atherton Ave
Ringwood Ave
Oak Grove Ave
Stockbridge Ave
Park Ln
Almendral Ave
Tuscaloosa Ave
Middlefield Rd
Valparaiso Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
Encinal Ave
Selby Ln
Willow Rd
Isabella Ave
Glenwood Ave
Alameda de Las Pulgas
Ravenswood Ave
Crane St
Menlo Ave
Alejandra Ave
James Ave
Chilco St
Mills St
Live Oak Ave
Fair Oaks Ln
Bay Rd
Oakwood Oakwood Blvd Oakwood Blvd
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
101
Marsh Rd Marsh Rd Marsh Rd
3%
3%
2%
2%
45%
45%
X
= Trip Distribution
= Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX%
Menlo Park Menlo Park
Caltrain Caltrain
Station Station
Menlo Park
Caltrain
Station
Atherton HEU TransportaƟon Analysis
Figure 6
Multifamily Housing Trip Distribution
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 25
Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes Under All Scenarios Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes
The existing lane configurations at the study intersections are shown on Figure 8.
Existing AM and PM traffic volumes at the study intersections were based on new traffic counts conducted in 2023 and new counts collected in 2022 as part of other transportation studies in the area (see Figure 9).
Intersection turning-movement counts used for this analysis are presented in Appendix B. The volume summary sheets with the existing counts are presented in Appendix C.
Existing Plus Project Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes The intersection lane configurations under existing plus project conditions for all intersections are assumed to be the same as under existing conditions.
Project trips were added to existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic volumes (see Figure 10).
Cumulative Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes
The intersection lane configurations under cumulative conditions for all intersections are assumed to be the same as under existing conditions.
The Town’s adopted bicycle and pedestrian plan envisions a safer El Camino Real, including locations for crosswalk upgrades and the potential for a "Grand Boulevard Greenway" trail that can be implemented in phases over time. It recommends converting the westernmost southbound travel lane along El Camino Real to a Class I trail with landscaping and pedestrian crossing improvements.
However, since there is not an approved project or design for this corridor, these improvements were not assumed in the analysis.
The 2031 cumulative conditions traffic volumes were determined by interpolating 2015 forecasts and 2040 forecasts from the Countywide transportation demand model. The cumulative peak-hour intersection volumes are shown on Figure 11.
Cumulative Plus Project Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes The intersection lane configurations under cumulative plus project conditions are assumed to be the same as under cumulative conditions.
Project trips were added to cumulative traffic volumes to obtain cumulative plus project traffic volumes (see Figure 12).
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 31
Traffic Operations at Signalized Intersections
The results of the intersection level of service analysis are shown in Table 6. The detailed intersection level of service calculation sheets for all study scenarios are included in Appendix D.
Existing and Cumulative Conditions
Intersection levels of service were evaluated against the standards of the Town of Atherton. The results of the analysis show that all signalized study intersections are operating at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic under existing conditions. Under cumulative conditions, most study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. The intersection of Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road would operate at an unacceptable LOS E during both peak hours under cumulative conditions.
Project Conditions
The results of the analysis show that the added project trips would not cause an adverse operational effect, as defined by Atherton, at any of the signalized study intersections.
Traffic Operations at Unsignalized Intersections
The study also evaluated four unsignalized intersections. The operation of each intersection is described below:
El Camino Real & Selby Lane Intersection
The El Camino Real and Selby Lane intersection is a two way stop controlled intersection with the stop control on the east and west approaches. During both peak hours, under existing, existing plus project, cumulative, and cumulative plus project scenarios, Selby Lane is estimated to experience long delays equivalent to LOS F. The peak-hour volume signal warrant analysis described below indicates that peak-hour volumes at the intersection would meet the peak-hour volume warrant under all scenarios, both with and without the project traffic.
Improvement:
It is recommended that a traffic signal be installed at the intersection. With the addition of a traffic signal, the intersection would be expected to operate at an acceptable LOS B under all scenarios.
Alameda de las Pulgas & Atherton Avenue Intersection
The Alameda de las Pulgas & Atherton Avenue intersection has four approaches and is stop controlled on all legs. Under existing, existing plus project, and cumulative conditions, during both peak hours, the intersection operates at an acceptable LOS D or better. Under cumulative plus project conditions, the intersection would operate with high delays equivalent to LOS E during the PM peak hour.
The peak-hour volume signal warrant analysis described below indicates that peak-hour volumes at the intersection would not meet the peak-hour volume warrant during the PM peak hour under the cumulative plus project scenario. Therefore, signalization is not recommended at this intersection.
Improvement:
A single lane roundabout is recommended at this intersection. The intersection appears big enough to accommodate a roundabout within the right of way, but the feasibility of the roundabout would require further design work. With the addition of a roundabout, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS B or better during both peak hours.
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 32
El Camino Real & Alejandra Avenue Intersection
The El Camino Real & Alejandra Avenue intersection has three approaches and is stop controlled on the Alejandra Avenue approach. In addition, there is storage for two vehicles to queue within the center median. During the AM peak hour, Alejandra Avenue is estimated to experience long delays equivalent to LOS E under all study scenarios. The added project trips would increase the delay for this approach.
The peak-hour volume signal warrant analysis described below indicates that peak-hour volumes at the intersection would not meet the peak-hour volume warrant under any scenario, with or without the project traffic, therefore signalization is not recommended. There are no other feasible improvements at this intersection.
Bay Road & Ringwood Avenue/Sonoma Avenue Intersection
The Bay Road & Ringwood Avenue/Sonoma Avenue intersection has five approaches and is stop controlled on all legs. Under the existing and existing plus project scenarios during both peak hours, the intersection operates at an acceptable LOS D or better. Under cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions, the intersection would operate with high delays equivalent to LOS E during the AM peak hour.
The peak-hour volume signal warrant analysis described below indicates that peak-hour volumes at the intersection would meet the peak-hour volume warrant under all scenarios, both with and without the project traffic, during the AM peak hour.
Menlo Park’s Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) lists the following improvements for this intersection:
• Convert the east legs of Sonoma Avenue and Ringwood Avenue to one-way couplets with Ringwood Avenue serving eastbound traffic and Sonoma Avenue serving westbound traffic. • Add left-turn lanes, as deemed necessary during the design phase, on eastbound Ringwood Avenue and northbound Bay Road. This would require full use of public right-of-way and the removal of existing landscaping and the relocation of existing utilities. • Install a traffic signal.
Improvement:
With the addition of a traffic signal, the intersection would be expected to operate at an acceptable LOS A during the AM peak hour. Installation of improvements as identified in Menlo Park’s TIF is recommended.
Peak-Hour Signal Warrant Analysis
In conjunction with the traffic operations analysis, a signal warrant analysis was performed to determine if the unsignalized intersections of El Camino Real & Selby Lane, Alameda de las Pulgas & Atherton Avenue, El Camino Real & Alejandra Avenue, and Bay Road & Ringwood Avenue/Sonoma Avenue would warrant traffic signals. These unsignalized study intersections were analyzed on the basis of the Peak-Hour Volume Signal Warrant, (Warrant #3 – Part B) described in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2014 Edition. This method provides an indication of whether peak-hour traffic volumes are, or would be, sufficient to justify installation of a traffic signal.
Intersections that meet the peak hour warrant are subject to further analysis before determining that a traffic signal is necessary. Additional analysis may include unsignalized intersection level of service analysis and/or operational analysis such as evaluating vehicle queuing and delay. The results of the peak-hour signal warrant checks indicate the following:
• All peak-hour volumes at El Camino Real & Selby Lane would warrant signalization under all scenarios.
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 33
• AM peak-hour volumes at Alameda de las Pulgas & Atherton Avenue would meet the signal warrant under cumulative and cumulative plus project scenarios. • All peak-hour volumes at El Camino Real & Alejandra Avenue would not meet the signal warrant under all scenarios.
• AM peak-hour volumes at Bay Road & Ringwood Avenue/Sonoma Avenue would meet the signal warrant under all scenarios.
The peak-hour signal warrant sheets are contained in Appendix E.
Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis February 13, 2024
P a g e | 34
Table 6
Intersection Level of Service Summary
# Control
Peak
Hour
Count
Date
avg. delay
(sec/veh) 1 LOS
avg. delay
(sec/veh) LOS
increase
in
avg. delay
avg.
delay LOS
avg.
delay LOS
increase
in
avg. delay
AM 5/16/2023 >50 F >50 F -- >50 F >50 F --
PM 5/16/2023 >50 F >50 F -- >50 F >50 F --
AM 5/16/2023 20.5 C 21.1 C 0.6 29.3 D 30.7 D 1.4
PM 5/16/2023 24.5 C 25.6 D 1.1 34.5 D 36.1 E 1.6
AM 5/16/2023 40.0 D 40.1 D 0.1 41.8 D 42.5 D 0.7
PM 5/16/2023 28.6 C 29.0 C 0.4 33.4 C 34.1 C 0.7
AM 5/16/2023 14.2 B 14.3 B 0.1 14.8 B 15.0 B 0.2
PM 5/16/2023 16.7 B 16.9 B 0.2 19.2 B 19.5 B 0.3
AM 5/16/2023 41.2 E 50.5 F 9.3 46.0 E 57.6 F 11.6
PM 5/16/2023 18.4 C 19.7 C 1.3 22.0 C 23.9 C 1.9
AM 3/2/2023 47.0 D 49.0 D 2.0 44.8 D 47.0 D 2.2
PM 3/2/2023 26.9 C 27.5 C 0.6 42.2 D 44.4 D 2.2
AM 3/2/2023 31.6 C 32.1 C 0.5 32.3 C 32.8 C 0.5
PM 3/2/2023 28.3 C 28.8 C 0.5 30.5 C 31.1 C 0.6
AM 5/24/2023 43.7 D 44.7 D 1.0 77.5 E 79.4 E 1.9
PM 5/24/2023 33.0 C 34.2 C 1.2 61.4 E 64.1 E 2.7
AM 12/8/2022 29.6 D 31.5 D 1.9 39.3 E 44.9 E 5.6
PM 12/8/2022 12.0 B 12.4 B 0.4 13.6 B 14.2 B 0.6
*
Bold indicates a substandard level of service
1 2
3 8
9 TWSC
AWSC
Signal
Signal
TWSC
Signal
Signal
Signal
AWSC
1 2
3 4
5 The stop-controlled movements face very high delays. Synchro software is unable to compute delay.
El Camino Real & Selby Lane1,3
Alameda de las Pulgas & Atherton
Ave1
El Camino Real & Fair Oaks Lane1
Middlefield Road & Marsh Road1
El Camino Real & Alejandra Ave1
El Camino Real & Encinal Ave2
El Camino Real & Valparaiso
Ave/Glenwood Ave2
Middlefield Road & Ravenswood
Ave2
Bay Road & Ringwood
Ave/Sonoma Ave2
For intersections shared with Atherton and Menlo Park, Vistro software and HCM 7th Edition methodology was used to calculate average delay and LOS.
For signalized and allway stop controlled intersections, level of service (LOS) is based on average delay. For the side-street stop controlled intersections, LOS is based on the average delay experienced by the worst movement.
For intersections wholly within Atherton, Synchro software and HCM 2000 methodology was used to calculate average delay and LOS. 6 7
Intersection
Cumulative Conditions
No Project Cumulative Plus Project
Existing Conditions
No Project Existing Plus Project
Atherton Housing Element Update
Transportation Analysis
Technical Appendices
February 13, 2024
Appendix A
VMT Analysis
C/CAG VMT Estimation Tool Report
Project Details
Timestamp of Analysis: February 12, 2024, 03:57:46 PM
Project Name: Atherton HEU - 175, 185, 195
Ravenswood Ave
Project Description: Atherton HEU
Project Location
jurisdiction:
Atherton
Inside a TPA?
Yes (Pass)
apn TAZ
061281060 1633
061281150 1633
061281050 1585
Analysis Details
Data Version: C/CAG Travel Model
Analysis Methodology: TAZ
Baseline Year: 2015
Project Land Use
Residential:
Single Family DU:
Multifamily DU: 32
Total DUs: 32
Non-Residential:
OKce xSF:
Local Serving Retail xSF:
Industrial xSF:
Residential Affordability (percent of all units):
E%tremely Low Income: 0 k
Very Low Income: 20 k
Low Income: 0 k
ParWing:
Motor Vehicle ParWing:
Bicycle ParWing:
C/CAG VMT Estimation Tool Report
Residential Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Results Land Use Type 1: Residential
VMT .ithout Project 1: Home-Based VMT per Resident
VMT Baseline Description 1: Bay Area Regional Average
VMT Baseline Value 1: 14J6
TAZ: 1585
VMT Threshold Description 1: -15k
Land Use 1 has been Pre-Screened by the Local &urisdiction: N/A .ithout Project .ith Project F Tier 1-3 VMT
Reductions
.ith Project F All VMT Reductions
Project Generated Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) Rate
7J7 7J7 7J7
Low VMT Screening Analysis Yes (Pass) Yes (Pass) Yes (Pass)
C/CAG VMT Estimation Tool Report
Residential Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Results Land Use Type 1: Residential
VMT .ithout Project 1: Home-Based VMT per Resident
VMT Baseline Description 1: Bay Area Regional Average
VMT Baseline Value 1: 14J6
TAZ: 1633
VMT Threshold Description 1: -15k
Land Use 1 has been Pre-Screened by the Local &urisdiction: N/A .ithout Project .ith Project F Tier 1-3 VMT
Reductions
.ith Project F All VMT Reductions
Project Generated Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) Rate
10J4 10J4 10J4
Low VMT Screening Analysis Yes (Pass) Yes (Pass) Yes (Pass)
C/CAG VMT Estimation Tool Report
Project Details
Timestamp of Analysis: February 12, 2024, 03:44:18 PM
Project Name: Atherton HEU - 999 Ringwood Ave, 352,
318, and 296 Bay Road
Project Description: Atherton HEU
Project Location
jurisdiction:
Atherton
Inside a TPA?
No (Fail)
apn TAZ 061091060 2039 061091070 2039
061091050 2039 061091080 2039
Analysis Details
Data Version: C/CAG Travel Model
Analysis Methodology: TAZ
Baseline Year: 2015
Project Land Use
Residential:
Single Family DU:
Multifamily DU: 36
Total DUs: 36
Non-Residential:
OKce xSF:
Local Serving Retail xSF:
Industrial xSF:
Residential Affordability (percent of all units):
E%tremely Low Income: 0 k
Very Low Income: 20 k
Low Income: 0 k
ParWing:
Motor Vehicle ParWing:
Bicycle ParWing:
C/CAG VMT Estimation Tool Report
Residential Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Results Land Use Type 1: Residential
VMT .ithout Project 1: Home-Based VMT per Resident
VMT Baseline Description 1: Bay Area Regional Average
VMT Baseline Value 1: 14J6
VMT Threshold Description 1: -15k
Land Use 1 has been Pre-Screened by the Local &urisdiction: N/A .ithout Project .ith Project F Tier 1-3 VMT
Reductions
.ith Project F All VMT Reductions
Project Generated Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) Rate
13 13 13
Low VMT Screening Analysis No (Fail) No (Fail) No (Fail)
Appendix B
Traffic Counts
SELBY LN SELBY LN EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 EL CAMINO REAL & SELBY LN AM
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 07:45 AM - 08:00 AM
2,156 1,146
22 29
2,219 1,314
270
368
0.97 N
S
W E
0.87 0.79
0.91 0.90
(3,697) (1,854)
(34)
(54)
(573)
(388)
(3,783) (2,145) 1702319
20 1
1 267
0 3
0 0 1,944
7197 1,1046
SELBY LN SELBY LN EL CAMINO REAL
EL CAMINO REAL
3 5
0 0 N
S
W E 2 3
0 0
0 3 0 0
5 0
00 1
0 0
0 0
20 0
0 0
1 0 N
S
W E
2 3
0 0 0 1
0 0
0 0 0
0 Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 2 31 109 0 6 187 0 1 1 0 0 0 364 0 3 0 1 16 3 0 8 2,658 7:15 AM 2 31 132 6 4 330 0 3 1 0 1 0 538 2 6 0 1 13 2 2 11 3,250 7:30 AM 1 39 187 3 5 480 0 2 0 0 0 0 785 3 1 0 1 39 4 1 24 3,673 7:45 AM 2 42 223 6 7 564 0 0 0 0 0 0 971 0 0 0 2 63 6 2 56 3,762 8:00 AM 1 69 270 1 6 470 0 0 0 0 0 0 956 0 4 0 0 60 7 1 71 3,606 8:15 AM 1 54 311 5 3 476 0 1 0 0 0 1 961 0 0 0 1 74 2 2 31 8:30 AM 3 32 300 7 7 434 0 2 0 0 1 0 874 0 1 0 0 70 5 1 12 8:45 AM 6 47 240 12 4 447 0 2 0 0 0 0 815 0 2 0 0 40 2 1 14 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
Lights 196 1,074 5 21 1,896 169 0 0 7 19 2 0 267 1 1 19 3,677 Mediums 1 26 1 2 43 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 76
Total 0 0 7 19 3 0 267 1 1 20 197 1,104 6 23 1,944 170 3,762
ATHERTON AVE ATHERTON AVE ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 2 ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS & ATHERTON AVE AM
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:30 AM - 08:45 AM
745 466
383
443
632 397
52 36
0.95 N
S
W E
0.84 0.95
0.84 0.81
(1,247) (715)
(574)
(627)
(59)
(73)
(1,133) (640)
90 313
175
17 191
18 23
11 0
0 423
010280 107
ATHERTON AVE ATHERTON AVE ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS
ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS
0 1
0 0 N
S
W E 0 1
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 1221
0 0
0 3 0
60 0
0 0
0 0 N
S
W E
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 0 31 0 23 62 0 1 1 0 15 3 160 0 0 0 0 1 10 13 0 1,027 7:15 AM 0 2 25 0 25 80 0 1 1 0 29 2 196 0 0 1 0 2 13 14 2 1,282 7:30 AM 0 1 47 0 33 115 0 3 3 0 45 3 292 1 0 0 0 2 18 18 4 1,453 7:45 AM 0 0 60 0 75 120 0 3 1 0 58 4 379 0 0 0 0 4 31 20 3 1,577 8:00 AM 0 1 61 0 115 105 0 1 9 0 43 5 415 0 1 0 0 6 40 28 1 1,507 8:15 AM 0 3 71 0 69 75 0 2 10 0 49 3 367 0 0 0 0 1 49 31 4 8:30 AM 0 6 88 0 54 123 0 5 3 0 41 5 416 0 0 0 0 7 55 28 1 8:45 AM 0 2 72 0 32 124 0 0 3 0 23 2 309 0 2 1 0 3 28 18 2 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Lights 10 274 106 308 415 7 0 0 0 0 10 22 17 189 16 174 1,548 Mediums 0 6 1 4 8 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 28
Total 0 0 0 0 11 23 18 191 17 175 10 280 107 313 423 9 1,577
FAIR OAKS LN FAIR OAKS LN EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 3 EL CAMINO REAL & FAIR OAKS LN AM
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:15 AM - 08:30 AM
1,787 870
323
135
1,759 811
284
441
0.93 N
S
W E
0.95 0.94
0.91 0.89
(3,161) (1,395)
(525)
(229)
(770)
(434)
(3,032) (1,306) 178159
70 146
107
103
63 118
0 0 1,549
0117 681 13
FAIR OAKS LN FAIR OAKS LN EL CAMINO REAL
EL CAMINO REAL
0 1
0 0 N
S
W E 0 1
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
60 0
0 0
0 0
30 0
0 0
1 0 N
S
W E
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 8 69 0 4 146 0 8 11 0 7 9 308 0 0 0 0 8 14 3 21 2,252 7:15 AM 0 6 95 0 5 268 0 8 8 0 8 32 496 0 0 0 0 6 9 6 45 2,756 7:30 AM 0 19 111 0 13 389 0 10 7 0 8 44 689 0 1 0 0 18 15 2 53 3,125 7:45 AM 0 18 117 0 9 416 0 22 10 0 24 49 759 0 0 0 0 23 13 1 57 3,205 8:00 AM 0 35 179 1 14 371 0 23 21 0 31 37 812 0 1 0 0 39 18 2 41 3,174 8:15 AM 0 39 190 0 23 417 0 39 8 0 30 33 865 0 0 0 0 21 16 4 45 8:30 AM 0 25 195 0 13 345 0 34 24 0 22 27 769 0 0 0 0 20 23 6 35 8:45 AM 0 27 147 0 15 380 0 22 18 0 9 30 728 0 0 0 0 26 17 2 35 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6
Lights 115 657 12 59 1,517 172 0 0 0 1 116 63 102 107 144 67 3,132 Mediums 2 22 1 0 29 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 3 67
Total 0 0 0 1 118 63 103 107 146 70 117 681 13 59 1,549 178 3,205
MARSH RD MARSH RD MIDDLEFIELD RD MIDDLEFIELD RD
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 4 MIDDLEFIELD RD & MARSH RD AM
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:30 AM - 08:45 AM
562 463
721
712
782 674
0 0
0.96 N
S
W E
0.97 0.88
0.84 0.00
(976) (832)
(1,490)
(1,226)
()
()
(1,458) (1,050)
00 255
246
0 475
0 0
0 0
0 307
00217 457 MARSH RD MARSH RD MIDDLEFIELD RD
MIDDLEFIELD RD
0 9
0 0 N
S
W E 3 6
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0390
1 0
0 3 014
3 0
0 0
0 1 N
S
W E
0 0
0 0 0 1
1 0
0 0 0
0 Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 0 8 0 53 24 0 0 0 0 105 0 310 0 0 0 0 0 59 61 0 1,559 7:15 AM 0 0 16 0 52 38 0 0 0 0 108 0 349 0 0 0 0 0 82 53 0 1,720 7:30 AM 0 0 22 0 60 53 0 0 0 0 147 0 431 0 0 0 0 0 75 74 0 1,876 7:45 AM 0 0 38 0 44 80 0 0 0 0 140 0 469 0 1 0 0 0 65 102 0 1,957 8:00 AM 0 0 63 0 63 83 0 0 0 0 97 0 471 0 1 0 0 0 56 109 0 1,957 8:15 AM 0 0 51 0 67 78 0 0 0 0 135 0 505 0 3 0 0 0 64 110 0 8:30 AM 0 0 65 0 81 66 0 0 0 0 103 0 512 0 4 0 0 0 61 136 0 8:45 AM 0 0 50 0 69 65 0 0 0 0 136 0 469 0 2 0 0 0 57 92 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
Lights 0 213 447 252 301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 455 0 235 1,903 Mediums 0 4 9 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 11 52
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 475 0 246 0 217 457 255 307 0 1,957
ALEJANDRA AVE ALEJANDRA AVE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 5 EL CAMINO REAL & ALEJANDRA AVE AM
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:15 AM - 08:30 AM
1,808 937
0 0
1,698 977
123
273
0.90 N
S
W E
0.93 0.00
0.95 0.53
(3,070) (1,493)
()
()
(360)
(150)
(2,918) (1,551) 1950
0 0
0 0
76 0
47 0
0 1,613
9788900
ALEJANDRA AVE ALEJANDRA AVE EL CAMINO REAL
EL CAMINO REAL
0 8
4 0 N
S
W E 4 4
2 2
0 0 0 0
0 2
30 3
0 0
0 0
30 4
0 0
0 2 N
S
W E
0 0
4 0 3 0
2 0
0 0 0
0 Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 1 5 88 0 0 158 0 1 0 0 0 0 268 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 14 1,880 7:15 AM 5 2 118 0 0 255 0 2 0 0 0 0 395 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 12 2,395 7:30 AM 2 7 132 0 0 371 0 5 0 0 0 0 546 1 2 0 0 6 0 0 23 2,810 7:45 AM 3 7 173 0 0 436 0 3 0 0 0 0 671 0 2 1 0 5 0 0 44 2,908 8:00 AM 2 21 242 0 0 440 0 6 0 0 0 0 783 0 2 2 0 14 0 0 58 2,891 8:15 AM 0 39 224 0 0 410 0 20 0 0 0 0 810 0 2 0 0 39 0 0 78 8:30 AM 4 11 251 0 0 327 0 18 0 0 0 0 644 0 2 1 0 18 0 0 15 8:45 AM 4 6 204 0 0 411 0 6 0 0 0 0 654 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 18 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Lights 78 864 0 0 1,579 194 0 0 9 0 46 0 75 0 0 0 2,845 Mediums 0 24 0 0 29 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 56
Total 0 0 9 0 47 0 76 0 0 0 78 890 0 0 1,613 195 2,908
File Name : 24AM FINAL
Site Code : 00000024
Start Date : 3/2/2023
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Vehicles
EL CAMINO REAL
Southbound
ENCINAL AVE
Westbound
EL CAMINO REAL
Northbound
DRIVEWAY
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 3 170 5 0 178 8 1 12 4 25 7 89 4 0 100 0 2 0 0 2 305 07:15 AM 2 242 12 4 260 17 0 12 0 29 12 103 2 0 117 0 1 1 0 2 408 07:30 AM 4 300 25 0 329 19 0 20 0 39 26 150 4 0 180 1 2 0 0 3 551 07:45 AM 12 373 44 1 430 41 1 27 0 69 30 162 2 0 194 0 10 0 1 11 704 Total 21 1085 86 5 1197 85 2 71 4 162 75 504 12 0 591 1 15 1 1 18 1968 08:00 AM 7 362 37 2 408 71 3 44 1 119 31 205 6 0 242 5 2 0 0 7 776 08:15 AM 3 377 31 2 413 49 3 28 0 80 24 249 5 0 278 0 2 2 1 5 776 08:30 AM 4 354 35 2 395 27 3 18 1 49 41 212 6 0 259 3 2 2 1 8 711 08:45 AM 6 357 36 3 402 21 2 21 1 45 30 215 9 0 254 1 1 0 0 2 703 Total 20 1450 139 9 1618 168 11 111 3 293 126 881 26 0 1033 9 7 4 2 22 2966 09:00 AM 4 274 21 2 301 26 4 16 2 48 24 184 11 0 219 0 1 2 0 3 571 09:15 AM 9 267 15 1 292 27 12 19 0 58 22 191 13 0 226 1 2 2 0 5 581 09:30 AM 16 243 15 0 274 15 7 24 4 50 14 193 14 0 221 1 1 4 0 6 551 09:45 AM 1 260 17 0 278 21 4 24 1 50 9 199 5 0 213 4 0 2 1 7 548 Total 30 1044 68 3 1145 89 27 83 7 206 69 767 43 0 879 6 4 10 1 21 2251 Grand Total 71 3579 293 17 3960 342 40 265 14 661 270 2152 81 0 2503 16 26 15 4 61 7185 Apprch % 1.8 90.4 7.4 0.4 51.7 6.1 40.1 2.1 10.8 86 3.2 0 26.2 42.6 24.6 6.6 Total % 1 49.8 4.1 0.2 55.1 4.8 0.6 3.7 0.2 9.2 3.8 30 1.1 0 34.8 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.8
EL CAMINO REAL
Southbound
ENCINAL AVE
Westbound
EL CAMINO REAL
Northbound
DRIVEWAY
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 09:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM
07:45 AM 12 373 44 429 41 1 27 69 30 162 2 194 0 10 0 10 702 08:00 AM 7 362 37 406 71 3 44 118 31 205 6 242 5 2 0 7 773 08:15 AM 3 377 31 411 49 3 28 80 24 249 5 278 0 2 2 4 773 08:30 AM 4 354 35 393 27 3 18 48 41 212 6 259 3 2 2 7 707 Total Volume 26 1466 147 1639 188 10 117 315 126 828 19 973 8 16 4 28 2955 % App. Total 1.6 89.4 9 59.7 3.2 37.1 12.9 85.1 2 28.6 57.1 14.3 PHF .542 .972 .835 .955 .662 .833 .665 .667 .768 .831 .792 .875 .400 .400 .500 .700 .956 Traffic Data Service
San Jose, CA
(408) 622-4787
[email protected]
File Name : 24AM FINAL
Site Code : 00000024
Start Date : 3/2/2023
Page No : 2
EL CAMINO REAL
DRIVEWAY
ENCINAL AVE
EL CAMINO REAL
Right
26 Thru
1466
Left
147
Out In Total
1020 1639 2659
Right
188
Thru
10 Left
117
Out Total In
289 315 604
Left
19 Thru
828
Right
126
Out In Total
1591 973 2564
Left
4 Thru
16 Right
8 Total Out In
55 28 83
Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM
Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North
Traffic Data Service
San Jose, CA
(408) 622-4787
[email protected]
File Name : 25AM FINAL
Site Code : 00000025
Start Date : 3/2/2023
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Vehicles
EL CAMINO REAL
Southbound
GLENWOOD AVE
Westbound
EL CAMINO REAL
Northbound
VALPARAISO AVE
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 21 135 2 2 160 1 16 4 2 23 4 68 8 1 81 4 9 26 0 39 303 07:15 AM 36 192 8 0 236 2 25 7 3 37 6 100 16 3 125 24 16 30 0 70 468 07:30 AM 51 188 9 0 248 9 34 9 3 55 6 122 19 1 148 11 13 37 0 61 512 07:45 AM 55 256 24 1 336 10 61 7 2 80 8 138 21 5 172 14 24 50 0 88 676 Total 163 771 43 3 980 22 136 27 10 195 24 428 64 10 526 53 62 143 0 258 1959 08:00 AM 46 257 32 13 348 7 62 10 4 83 14 181 21 0 216 16 44 59 0 119 766 08:15 AM 49 278 13 1 341 10 62 22 3 97 6 197 44 5 252 23 42 48 1 114 804 08:30 AM 38 223 23 3 287 11 62 12 2 87 10 169 31 1 211 26 20 81 0 127 712 08:45 AM 66 257 21 0 344 9 32 5 2 48 7 186 15 0 208 26 26 55 0 107 707 Total 199 1015 89 17 1320 37 218 49 11 315 37 733 111 6 887 91 132 243 1 467 2989 09:00 AM 55 225 9 1 290 10 33 10 5 58 5 183 13 6 207 11 27 36 0 74 629 09:15 AM 43 216 10 3 272 7 32 5 4 48 17 185 20 3 225 15 15 44 0 74 619 09:30 AM 38 185 17 0 240 8 19 16 5 48 6 166 25 1 198 13 22 43 0 78 564 09:45 AM 47 202 10 0 259 10 28 8 0 46 11 170 16 2 199 18 21 42 0 81 585 Total 183 828 46 4 1061 35 112 39 14 200 39 704 74 12 829 57 85 165 0 307 2397 Grand Total 545 2614 178 24 3361 94 466 115 35 710 100 1865 249 28 2242 201 279 551 1 1032 7345 Apprch % 16.2 77.8 5.3 0.7 13.2 65.6 16.2 4.9 4.5 83.2 11.1 1.2 19.5 27 53.4 0.1 Total % 7.4 35.6 2.4 0.3 45.8 1.3 6.3 1.6 0.5 9.7 1.4 25.4 3.4 0.4 30.5 2.7 3.8 7.5 0 14.1
EL CAMINO REAL
Southbound
GLENWOOD AVE
Westbound
EL CAMINO REAL
Northbound
VALPARAISO AVE
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 09:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM
08:00 AM 46 257 32 335 7 62 10 79 14 181 21 216 16 44 59 119 749 08:15 AM 49 278 13 340 10 62 22 94 6 197 44 247 23 42 48 113 794 08:30 AM 38 223 23 284 11 62 12 85 10 169 31 210 26 20 81 127 706 08:45 AM 66 257 21 344 9 32 5 46 7 186 15 208 26 26 55 107 705 Total Volume 199 1015 89 1303 37 218 49 304 37 733 111 881 91 132 243 466 2954 % App. Total 15.3 77.9 6.8 12.2 71.7 16.1 4.2 83.2 12.6 19.5 28.3 52.1 PHF .754 .913 .695 .947 .841 .879 .557 .809 .661 .930 .631 .892 .875 .750 .750 .917 .930 Traffic Data Service
San Jose, CA
(408) 622-4787
[email protected]
File Name : 25AM FINAL
Site Code : 00000025
Start Date : 3/2/2023
Page No : 2
EL CAMINO REAL
VALPARAISO AVE
GLENWOOD AVE
EL CAMINO REAL
Right
199
Thru
1015
Left
89 Out In Total
1013 1303 2316
Right
37 Thru
218
Left
49 Out Total In
258 304 562
Left
111
Thru
733
Right
37 Out In Total
1155 881 2036
Left
243
Thru
132
Right
91 Total Out In
528 466 994
Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 AM
Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North
Traffic Data Service
San Jose, CA
(408) 622-4787
[email protected]
File Name : 14AM FINAL
Site Code : 00000014
Start Date : 12/8/2022
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Vehicles
MIDDLEFIELD RD
Southbound Westbound
MIDDLEFIELD RD
Northbound
RAVENSWOOD AVE
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 8 32 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 51 0 102 26 0 12 0 38 180 07:15 AM 13 34 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 76 0 137 29 0 4 1 34 218 07:30 AM 20 53 0 0 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 67 3 170 40 0 11 1 52 295 07:45 AM 11 70 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 97 6 231 74 0 25 3 102 414 Total 52 189 0 0 241 0 0 0 0 0 0 340 291 9 640 169 0 52 5 226 1107 08:00 AM 14 53 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 92 9 226 113 0 14 0 127 420 08:15 AM 23 57 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 81 32 197 124 0 44 3 171 448 08:30 AM 29 71 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 74 5 164 75 0 20 5 100 364 08:45 AM 6 39 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 62 5 115 36 0 16 5 57 217 Total 72 220 0 0 292 0 0 0 0 0 0 342 309 51 702 348 0 94 13 455 1449 09:00 AM 9 51 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 59 0 106 44 0 7 3 54 220 09:15 AM 18 67 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 52 1 98 71 0 12 0 83 266 09:30 AM 16 39 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 67 2 119 43 0 20 0 63 237 09:45 AM 11 40 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 91 1 154 26 0 12 1 39 244 Total 54 197 0 0 251 0 0 0 0 0 0 204 269 4 477 184 0 51 4 239 967 Grand Total 178 606 0 0 784 0 0 0 0 0 0 886 869 64 1819 701 0 197 22 920 3523 Apprch % 22.7 77.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48.7 47.8 3.5 76.2 0 21.4 2.4 Total % 5.1 17.2 0 0 22.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 25.1 24.7 1.8 51.6 19.9 0 5.6 0.6 26.1
MIDDLEFIELD RD
Southbound Westbound
MIDDLEFIELD RD
Northbound
RAVENSWOOD AVE
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 09:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM
07:45 AM 11 70 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 128 97 225 74 0 25 99 405 08:00 AM 14 53 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 125 92 217 113 0 14 127 411 08:15 AM 23 57 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 84 81 165 124 0 44 168 413 08:30 AM 29 71 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 85 74 159 75 0 20 95 354 Total Volume 77 251 0 328 0 0 0 0 0 422 344 766 386 0 103 489 1583 % App. Total 23.5 76.5 0 0 0 0 0 55.1 44.9 78.9 0 21.1
PHF .664 .884 .000 .820 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .824 .887 .851 .778 .000 .585 .728 .958
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICE
6280 San Ignacio Ave Suite C
San Jose, CA 95119
[email protected]
File Name : 14AM FINAL
Site Code : 00000014
Start Date : 12/8/2022
Page No : 2
MIDDLEFIELD RD
RAVENSWOOD AVE
MIDDLEFIELD RD
Right
77 Thru
251
Left
0 Out In Total
525 328 853
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out Total In
0 0 0
Left
344
Thru
422
Right
0 Out In Total
637 766 1403
Left
103
Thru
0 Right
386
Total Out In
421 489 910
Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM
Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICE
6280 San Ignacio Ave Suite C
San Jose, CA 95119
[email protected]
File Name : 71AM FINAL
Site Code : 00000071
Start Date : 12/8/2022
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Vehicles
BAY RD
Southbound
SONOMA AVE
Southwestbound
RINGWOOD AVE
Westbound
BAY RD
Northbound
RINGWOOD AVE
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left Hard
Left
Peds App. Total
Hard
Right
Bear
Right
Bear
Left
Hard
Left
Peds App. Total
Hard
Right
Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Bear
Right
Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Bear
Left
Left Peds App. Total Int. Total
07:00 AM 22 12 1 0 7 42 0 1 2 0 3 6 0 1 0 0 3 4 0 0 10 32 0 42 2 0 2 7 0 11 105 07:15 AM 22 14 0 0 0 36 0 3 1 0 0 4 0 0 3 1 0 4 1 0 15 61 1 78 14 2 0 10 0 26 148 07:30 AM 42 23 1 0 9 75 0 3 0 0 5 8 0 0 5 0 6 11 0 0 7 91 0 98 19 0 0 8 0 27 219 07:45 AM 70 29 1 1 14 115 0 7 0 0 10 17 0 1 22 2 6 31 0 0 8 96 2 106 30 2 0 18 0 50 319 Total 156 78 3 1 30 268 0 14 3 0 18 35 0 2 30 3 15 50 1 0 40 280 3 324 65 4 2 43 0 114 791 08:00 AM 67 32 3 1 12 115 1 16 0 0 5 22 0 0 38 3 4 45 0 0 14 86 1 101 46 3 0 34 0 83 366 08:15 AM 47 41 0 2 8 98 3 5 6 0 5 19 0 1 6 0 1 8 2 0 16 80 2 100 70 7 5 33 0 115 340 08:30 AM 35 45 2 0 3 85 1 5 1 0 6 13 0 1 2 0 8 11 1 0 22 62 0 85 70 3 2 37 0 112 306 08:45 AM 33 57 1 0 3 94 1 4 3 0 4 12 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 12 55 3 70 24 0 6 21 0 51 231 Total 182 175 6 3 26 392 6 30 10 0 20 66 0 2 46 3 17 68 3 0 64 283 6 356 210 13 13 125 0 361 1243 09:00 AM 29 28 0 2 4 63 0 6 1 0 6 13 0 1 2 0 2 5 1 1 14 42 2 60 21 0 2 20 0 43 184 09:15 AM 20 28 0 0 2 50 0 2 3 0 2 7 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 14 31 0 46 15 4 1 18 0 38 143 09:30 AM 23 16 0 0 3 42 0 2 1 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 21 35 0 57 19 1 0 13 0 33 139 09:45 AM 14 9 0 0 0 23 0 3 1 0 3 7 0 1 0 0 2 3 1 0 15 29 0 45 17 1 3 12 0 33 111 Total 86 81 0 2 9 178 0 13 6 0 13 32 0 2 2 1 7 12 4 1 64 137 2 208 72 6 6 63 0 147 577 Grand Total 424 334 9 6 65 838 6 57 19 0 51 133 0 6 78 7 39 130 8 1 168 700 11 888 347 23 21 231 0 622 2611 Apprch % 50.6 39.9 1.1 0.7 7.8 4.5 42.9 14.3 0 38.3 0 4.6 60 5.4 30 0.9 0.1 18.9 78.8 1.2 55.8 3.7 3.4 37.1 0 Total % 16.2 12.8 0.3 0.2 2.5 32.1 0.2 2.2 0.7 0 2 5.1 0 0.2 3 0.3 1.5 5 0.3 0 6.4 26.8 0.4 34 13.3 0.9 0.8 8.8 0 23.8
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICE
6280 San Ignacio Ave Suite C
San Jose, CA 95119
[email protected]
File Name : 71AM FINAL
Site Code : 00000071
Start Date : 12/8/2022
Page No : 2
BAY RD
Southbound
SONOMA AVE
Southwestbound
RINGWOOD AVE
Westbound
BAY RD
Northbound
RINGWOOD AVE
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left Hard Left App. Total Hard Right Bear Right Bear Left Hard Left App. Total Hard Right Right Thru Left App. Total Right Bear Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Bear Left Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 09:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM
07:45 AM 70 29 1 1 101 0 7 0 0 7 0 1 22 2 25 0 0 8 96 104 30 2 0 18 50 287 08:00 AM 67 32 3 1 103 1 16 0 0 17 0 0 38 3 41 0 0 14 86 100 46 3 0 34 83 344 08:15 AM 47 41 0 2 90 3 5 6 0 14 0 1 6 0 7 2 0 16 80 98 70 7 5 33 115 324 08:30 AM 35 45 2 0 82 1 5 1 0 7 0 1 2 0 3 1 0 22 62 85 70 3 2 37 112 289 Total Volume 219 147 6 4 376 5 33 7 0 45 0 3 68 5 76 3 0 60 324 387 216 15 7 122 360 1244 % App. Total 58.2 39.1 1.6 1.1 11.1 73.3 15.6 0 0 3.9 89.5 6.6 0.8 0 15.5 83.7 60 4.2 1.9 33.9 PHF .782 .817 .500 .500 .913 .417 .516 .292 .000 .662 .000 .750 .447 .417 .463 .375 .000 .682 .844 .930 .771 .536 .350 .824 .783 .904
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICE
6280 San Ignacio Ave Suite C
San Jose, CA 95119
[email protected]
File Name : 71AM FINAL
Site Code : 00000071
Start Date : 12/8/2022
Page No : 3
BAY RD SONOMA AVE
RINGWOOD AVE
RINGWOOD AVE
BAY RD
Right
219
Thru
147
Left
6 Hard
Left
4 Out In Total
190 376 566
Hard
Right
5 Bear
Right
33 Bear
Left
7 Hard
Left
0 Out
11 In
45 Total
56 Right
Hard
0 Right
3 Thru
68 Left
5 Out Total In
24 76 100
Left
324
Thru
60 Bear
Right
0 Right
3 Out In Total
375 387 762
Left
122
Bear
Left
7 Thru
15 Right
216
Total Out In
644 360 1004
Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM
Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICE
6280 San Ignacio Ave Suite C
San Jose, CA 95119
[email protected]
SELBY LN SELBY LN EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 EL CAMINO REAL & SELBY LN PM
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour: 04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 04:00 PM - 04:15 PM
1,293 1,812
29 34
1,400 1,987
204
267
0.99 N
S
W E
0.98 0.60
0.96 0.90
(2,586) (3,529)
(49)
(78)
(540)
(401)
(2,761) (3,872) 502633
27 2
0 197
0 7
0 0 1,184 19215 1,745
8 SELBY LN SELBY LN EL CAMINO REAL
EL CAMINO REAL
4 5
0 0 N
S
W E 4 1
0 0
2 2 0 0
2 0
10 7
1 0
0 0
50 0
0 0
0 1 N
S
W E
0 2
0 0 5 2
1 0
0 0 0
0 Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 6 45 437 4 6 320 0 1 0 0 0 1 890 0 0 0 1 54 4 3 9 3,513 4:15 PM 8 54 429 11 4 274 0 0 0 0 0 1 859 0 1 0 1 54 11 2 11 3,503 4:30 PM 2 53 464 10 9 285 0 1 0 0 0 0 888 0 0 0 2 42 4 1 17 3,499 4:45 PM 3 63 415 8 7 305 0 5 0 0 0 0 876 0 4 0 0 47 8 2 13 3,458 5:00 PM 3 51 429 6 11 301 0 2 0 0 0 0 880 0 1 0 0 55 3 2 17 3,395 5:15 PM 2 49 419 5 6 298 0 5 0 0 0 0 855 0 9 0 0 43 6 2 20 5:30 PM 4 55 413 9 8 286 0 1 0 0 0 0 847 1 0 0 0 44 7 3 17 5:45 PM 2 51 394 10 6 280 0 4 0 0 0 0 813 0 4 0 1 43 4 6 13 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Lights 214 1,724 8 26 1,169 50 0 0 19 33 7 0 196 0 2 27 3,475 Mediums 1 20 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 36
Total 0 0 19 33 7 0 197 0 2 27 215 1,745 8 26 1,184 50 3,513
ATHERTON AVE ATHERTON AVE ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 2 ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS & ATHERTON AVE PM
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour: 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 04:30 PM - 04:45 PM
413 765
379
190
436 605
21 27
0.96 N
S
W E
0.87 0.94
0.92 0.83
(856) (1,447)
(689)
(383)
(51)
(59)
(906) (1,183) 10082
263
11 105
10 4
7 0
0 321
06495 104
ATHERTON AVE ATHERTON AVE ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS
ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS
0 1
0 2 N
S
W E 1 0
0 0
0 0 1 1
0 0
70 0
0 0
1 013
0 0
0 1
0 0 N
S
W E
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 1 113 0 20 84 0 0 2 0 35 5 338 0 0 0 0 5 43 29 1 1,406 4:15 PM 0 3 130 0 22 84 0 3 5 0 27 2 364 2 0 1 0 5 61 21 1 1,417 4:30 PM 0 1 123 0 20 77 0 1 0 0 24 4 369 1 1 0 0 1 73 41 4 1,418 4:45 PM 0 3 113 0 26 87 0 2 1 0 25 2 335 0 0 0 0 1 49 22 4 1,396 5:00 PM 0 1 122 0 18 78 0 0 0 0 35 2 349 0 0 0 0 5 64 22 2 1,381 5:15 PM 0 1 137 0 18 79 0 4 3 0 21 3 365 1 0 0 0 3 77 19 0 5:30 PM 0 2 120 0 24 101 0 6 0 0 19 2 347 2 0 0 0 3 43 26 1 5:45 PM 0 3 108 0 22 81 0 4 0 0 21 1 320 1 0 0 0 5 51 22 2 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 6 494 102 82 320 10 0 0 0 0 7 4 10 105 11 260 1,411 Mediums 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7
Total 0 0 0 0 7 4 10 105 11 263 6 495 104 82 321 10 1,418
FAIR OAKS LN FAIR OAKS LN EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 3 EL CAMINO REAL & FAIR OAKS LN PM
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour: 04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 04:00 PM - 04:15 PM
991 1,535
162
170
997 1,502
304
257
0.91 N
S
W E
0.80 0.87
0.91 0.89
(1,964) (2,986)
(316)
(313)
(490)
(518)
(1,960) (2,951) 66252
44 63
55 70
86 148
0 0 871
1128 1,341 32
FAIR OAKS LN FAIR OAKS LN EL CAMINO REAL
EL CAMINO REAL
1 1
0 0 N
S
W E 0 1
0 0
1 0 0 0
0 0
10 3
0 3
0 0
30 0
0 0
0 2 N
S
W E
0 0
0 0 0 3
2 0
0 0 0
0 Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 30 345 0 18 265 0 34 23 0 17 12 815 0 1 0 0 22 13 10 26 2,959 4:15 PM 0 36 304 0 3 182 0 43 26 0 11 23 674 0 0 0 0 16 13 5 12 2,861 4:30 PM 0 31 374 0 16 230 0 33 24 0 9 11 782 0 0 0 0 17 13 9 15 2,870 4:45 PM 1 31 318 2 15 194 0 38 13 0 18 17 688 0 0 0 1 15 5 8 13 2,811 5:00 PM 0 38 318 0 17 213 0 23 20 0 13 14 717 0 0 0 0 11 16 12 22 2,790 5:15 PM 0 19 318 1 8 217 0 34 13 0 8 13 683 0 0 0 1 12 18 7 15 5:30 PM 0 22 338 0 9 234 0 23 13 0 12 20 723 0 0 0 0 14 9 12 17 5:45 PM 0 27 325 0 6 201 0 20 13 0 10 13 667 1 0 0 1 18 8 13 13 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Lights 127 1,329 30 52 864 65 0 0 1 2 144 85 70 55 63 43 2,930 Mediums 1 12 2 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 28
Total 0 0 1 2 148 86 70 55 63 44 128 1,341 32 52 871 66 2,959
MARSH RD MARSH RD MIDDLEFIELD RD MIDDLEFIELD RD
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 4 MIDDLEFIELD RD & MARSH RD PM
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour: 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:15 PM - 05:30 PM
516 606
773
861
631 809
0 0
0.93 N
S
W E
0.89 0.91
0.93 0.00
(1,042) (1,201)
(1,432)
(1,751)
()
()
(1,197) (1,675)
00 321
337
0 436
0 0
0 0
0 195
00269 540 MARSH RD MARSH RD MIDDLEFIELD RD
MIDDLEFIELD RD
0 5
0 0 N
S
W E 3 2
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
90 0
0 0
0 015
2 0
0 0
0 0 N
S
W E
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 0 85 0 91 60 0 0 0 0 101 0 555 0 4 0 0 0 72 146 0 2,093 4:15 PM 0 0 69 0 72 59 0 0 0 0 74 0 525 0 1 0 0 0 85 166 0 2,059 4:30 PM 0 0 74 0 95 39 0 0 0 0 82 0 489 0 1 0 0 0 69 130 0 2,097 4:45 PM 0 0 74 0 83 40 0 0 0 0 116 0 524 0 1 0 0 0 80 131 0 2,098 5:00 PM 0 0 63 0 87 40 0 0 0 0 104 0 521 0 0 0 0 0 72 155 0 2,056 5:15 PM 0 0 69 0 79 64 0 0 0 0 106 0 563 0 2 0 0 0 106 139 0 5:30 PM 0 0 63 0 72 51 0 0 0 0 110 0 490 0 2 0 0 0 79 115 0 5:45 PM 0 0 69 0 63 47 0 0 0 0 104 0 482 0 2 0 0 0 72 127 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 264 532 320 191 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 432 0 337 2,076 Mediums 0 5 8 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 22
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 436 0 337 0 269 540 321 195 0 2,098
ALEJANDRA AVE ALEJANDRA AVE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 5 EL CAMINO REAL & ALEJANDRA AVE PM
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour: 04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 04:00 PM - 04:15 PM
1,005 1,611
0 0
1,028 1,580
119
65 0.94
N
S
W E
0.93 0.00
1.00 0.78
(1,961) (3,212)
()
()
(118)
(214)
(2,014) (3,169) 360
1 0
0 0
49 0
70 0
0 968 11291,540
0 ALEJANDRA AVE ALEJANDRA AVE EL CAMINO REAL
EL CAMINO REAL
0 6
2 0 N
S
W E 5 1
0 2
0 0 0 0
0 0
00 2
0 0
0 0
40 0
2 0
0 0 N
S
W E
0 0
0 0 1 1
0 0
0 0 0
0 Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 2 7 408 0 0 254 0 23 0 0 0 0 722 0 1 0 0 12 0 0 16 2,704 4:15 PM 3 9 360 0 0 248 0 20 0 0 0 0 666 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 8 2,652 4:30 PM 1 6 386 0 0 223 0 8 0 0 0 0 646 0 5 0 0 13 0 0 9 2,638 4:45 PM 5 7 386 1 0 243 0 19 0 0 0 0 670 0 0 2 0 6 0 0 3 2,689 5:00 PM 4 9 388 1 0 226 0 18 0 0 0 0 670 0 2 0 0 14 0 0 10 2,640 5:15 PM 7 4 390 0 0 225 0 12 0 0 0 0 652 0 1 2 0 11 0 0 3 5:30 PM 4 4 389 0 0 271 0 9 0 0 0 0 697 0 1 1 0 8 0 0 12 5:45 PM 1 8 381 0 0 205 0 13 0 0 0 0 621 0 3 1 0 10 0 0 3 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 29 1,523 0 0 961 36 0 0 11 1 70 0 49 0 0 0 2,680 Mediums 0 17 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
Total 0 0 11 1 70 0 49 0 0 0 29 1,540 0 0 968 36 2,704
File Name : 24PM FINAL
Site Code : 00000024
Start Date : 3/2/2023
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Vehicles
EL CAMINO REAL
Southbound
ENCINAL AVE
Westbound
EL CAMINO REAL
Northbound
DRIVEWAY
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 8 242 26 2 278 41 1 29 3 74 33 312 11 0 356 3 3 4 1 11 719 04:15 PM 2 215 19 1 237 27 1 27 5 60 31 341 6 0 378 3 2 6 1 12 687 04:30 PM 2 207 15 2 226 48 1 20 1 70 34 375 9 0 418 5 4 5 0 14 728 04:45 PM 4 244 22 3 273 39 2 28 6 75 27 387 12 0 426 11 3 5 1 20 794 Total 16 908 82 8 1014 155 5 104 15 279 125 1415 38 0 1578 22 12 20 3 57 2928 05:00 PM 2 223 26 4 255 44 0 29 2 75 26 334 7 0 367 16 7 5 0 28 725 05:15 PM 2 249 31 3 285 42 0 36 6 84 31 346 8 0 385 6 2 2 0 10 764 05:30 PM 2 233 24 0 259 63 1 22 2 88 28 353 2 0 383 0 1 4 0 5 735 05:45 PM 1 239 21 3 264 27 1 35 3 66 28 353 3 0 384 3 1 2 0 6 720 Total 7 944 102 10 1063 176 2 122 13 313 113 1386 20 0 1519 25 11 13 0 49 2944 06:00 PM 1 228 12 1 242 41 3 31 4 79 20 344 7 0 371 1 1 2 0 4 696 06:15 PM 2 224 11 3 240 28 0 21 0 49 15 321 3 0 339 1 1 3 0 5 633 06:30 PM 3 196 14 2 215 21 0 20 0 41 13 318 1 0 332 3 1 2 0 6 594 06:45 PM 2 185 10 4 201 19 1 20 3 43 14 262 4 0 280 2 1 4 0 7 531 Total 8 833 47 10 898 109 4 92 7 212 62 1245 15 0 1322 7 4 11 0 22 2454 Grand Total 31 2685 231 28 2975 440 11 318 35 804 300 4046 73 0 4419 54 27 44 3 128 8326 Apprch % 1 90.3 7.8 0.9 54.7 1.4 39.6 4.4 6.8 91.6 1.7 0 42.2 21.1 34.4 2.3 Total % 0.4 32.2 2.8 0.3 35.7 5.3 0.1 3.8 0.4 9.7 3.6 48.6 0.9 0 53.1 0.6 0.3 0.5 0 1.5
EL CAMINO REAL
Southbound
ENCINAL AVE
Westbound
EL CAMINO REAL
Northbound
DRIVEWAY
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 06:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM
04:45 PM 4 244 22 270 39 2 28 69 27 387 12 426 11 3 5 19 784 05:00 PM 2 223 26 251 44 0 29 73 26 334 7 367 16 7 5 28 719 05:15 PM 2 249 31 282 42 0 36 78 31 346 8 385 6 2 2 10 755 05:30 PM 2 233 24 259 63 1 22 86 28 353 2 383 0 1 4 5 733 Total Volume 10 949 103 1062 188 3 115 306 112 1420 29 1561 33 13 16 62 2991 % App. Total 0.9 89.4 9.7 61.4 1 37.6 7.2 91 1.9 53.2 21 25.8 PHF .625 .953 .831 .941 .746 .375 .799 .890 .903 .917 .604 .916 .516 .464 .800 .554 .954 Traffic Data Service
San Jose, CA
(408) 622-4787
[email protected]
File Name : 24PM FINAL
Site Code : 00000024
Start Date : 3/2/2023
Page No : 2
EL CAMINO REAL
DRIVEWAY
ENCINAL AVE
EL CAMINO REAL
Right
10 Thru
949
Left
103
Out In Total
1624 1062 2686
Right
188
Thru
3 Left
115
Out Total In
228 306 534
Left
29 Thru
1420
Right
112
Out In Total
1097 1561 2658
Left
16 Thru
13 Right
33 Total Out In
42 62 104
Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM
Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North
Traffic Data Service
San Jose, CA
(408) 622-4787
[email protected]
File Name : 25PM FINAL
Site Code : 00000025
Start Date : 3/2/2023
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Vehicles
EL CAMINO REAL
Southbound
GLENWOOD AVE
Westbound
EL CAMINO REAL
Northbound
VALPARAISO AVE
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 27 226 14 0 267 5 48 10 5 68 8 316 28 2 354 14 29 53 1 97 786 04:15 PM 22 195 12 3 232 12 37 8 5 62 14 311 23 4 352 20 43 60 1 124 770 04:30 PM 24 189 11 1 225 5 26 8 7 46 16 323 26 4 369 13 40 81 0 134 774 04:45 PM 43 210 9 2 264 8 55 7 6 76 12 353 34 1 400 29 29 61 2 121 861 Total 116 820 46 6 988 30 166 33 23 252 50 1303 111 11 1475 76 141 255 4 476 3191 05:00 PM 24 199 6 1 230 13 50 11 4 78 11 293 34 1 339 25 30 71 0 126 773 05:15 PM 26 218 15 1 260 15 28 7 5 55 11 345 17 0 373 20 40 63 0 123 811 05:30 PM 26 200 8 1 235 7 47 12 2 68 14 346 35 3 398 25 35 50 0 110 811 05:45 PM 25 210 15 1 251 10 47 11 6 74 16 322 28 0 366 25 40 53 0 118 809 Total 101 827 44 4 976 45 172 41 17 275 52 1306 114 4 1476 95 145 237 0 477 3204 06:00 PM 31 208 16 2 257 6 34 7 2 49 10 318 21 0 349 19 27 48 0 94 749 06:15 PM 43 186 5 3 237 8 36 5 4 53 12 293 19 2 326 20 25 46 0 91 707 06:30 PM 33 162 6 0 201 11 30 11 1 53 12 250 31 0 293 16 16 32 0 64 611 06:45 PM 36 164 5 1 206 11 26 6 5 48 11 255 18 0 284 16 21 21 0 58 596 Total 143 720 32 6 901 36 126 29 12 203 45 1116 89 2 1252 71 89 147 0 307 2663 Grand Total 360 2367 122 16 2865 111 464 103 52 730 147 3725 314 17 4203 242 375 639 4 1260 9058 Apprch % 12.6 82.6 4.3 0.6 15.2 63.6 14.1 7.1 3.5 88.6 7.5 0.4 19.2 29.8 50.7 0.3 Total % 4 26.1 1.3 0.2 31.6 1.2 5.1 1.1 0.6 8.1 1.6 41.1 3.5 0.2 46.4 2.7 4.1 7.1 0 13.9
EL CAMINO REAL
Southbound
GLENWOOD AVE
Westbound
EL CAMINO REAL
Northbound
VALPARAISO AVE
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 06:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM
04:45 PM 43 210 9 262 8 55 7 70 12 353 34 399 29 29 61 119 850 05:00 PM 24 199 6 229 13 50 11 74 11 293 34 338 25 30 71 126 767 05:15 PM 26 218 15 259 15 28 7 50 11 345 17 373 20 40 63 123 805 05:30 PM 26 200 8 234 7 47 12 66 14 346 35 395 25 35 50 110 805 Total Volume 119 827 38 984 43 180 37 260 48 1337 120 1505 99 134 245 478 3227 % App. Total 12.1 84 3.9 16.5 69.2 14.2 3.2 88.8 8 20.7 28 51.3 PHF .692 .948 .633 .939 .717 .818 .771 .878 .857 .947 .857 .943 .853 .838 .863 .948 .949 Traffic Data Service
San Jose, CA
(408) 622-4787
[email protected]
File Name : 25PM FINAL
Site Code : 00000025
Start Date : 3/2/2023
Page No : 2
EL CAMINO REAL
VALPARAISO AVE
GLENWOOD AVE
EL CAMINO REAL
Right
119
Thru
827
Left
38 Out In Total
1625 984 2609
Right
43 Thru
180
Left
37 Out Total In
220 260 480
Left
120
Thru
1337
Right
48 Out In Total
963 1505 2468
Left
245
Thru
134
Right
99 Total Out In
419 478 897
Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM
Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North
Traffic Data Service
San Jose, CA
(408) 622-4787
[email protected]
File Name : 14PM FINAL
Site Code : 00000014
Start Date : 12/8/2022
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Vehicles
MIDDLEFIELD RD
Southbound Westbound
MIDDLEFIELD RD
Northbound
RAVENSWOOD AVE
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 02:00 PM 9 50 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 52 2 105 84 0 25 0 109 273 02:15 PM 16 43 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 58 80 185 21 0 9 8 38 282 02:30 PM 10 50 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 56 18 122 47 0 21 2 70 252 02:45 PM 7 32 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 52 2 139 102 0 25 4 131 309 Total 42 175 0 0 217 0 0 0 0 0 0 231 218 102 551 254 0 80 14 348 1116 03:00 PM 16 81 0 0 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 60 4 159 107 0 36 0 143 399 03:15 PM 11 57 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 70 8 159 90 0 38 1 129 356 03:30 PM 15 66 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 82 8 172 92 0 27 4 123 376 03:45 PM 17 48 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 59 3 150 94 0 36 0 130 345 Total 59 252 0 0 311 0 0 0 0 0 0 346 271 23 640 383 0 137 5 525 1476 04:00 PM 23 83 0 0 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 58 5 157 96 0 30 0 126 389 04:15 PM 16 86 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 85 2 183 103 0 20 1 124 409 04:30 PM 15 92 0 0 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 66 3 169 135 0 27 2 164 440 04:45 PM 16 86 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 75 2 178 126 0 26 0 152 432 Total 70 347 0 0 417 0 0 0 0 0 0 391 284 12 687 460 0 103 3 566 1670 05:00 PM 20 59 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 70 0 180 111 0 37 0 148 407 05:15 PM 15 90 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 76 0 203 118 0 43 0 161 469 05:30 PM 21 90 0 0 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 79 0 199 114 0 42 0 156 466 05:45 PM 16 70 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 103 3 217 111 0 27 1 139 442 Total 72 309 0 0 381 0 0 0 0 0 0 468 328 3 799 454 0 149 1 604 1784 06:00 PM 18 81 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 73 1 157 110 0 36 0 146 402 06:15 PM 12 90 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 54 2 124 100 0 24 0 124 350 06:30 PM 16 76 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 61 0 127 75 0 21 0 96 315 06:45 PM 8 36 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 76 1 154 76 0 24 0 100 298 Total 54 283 0 0 337 0 0 0 0 0 0 294 264 4 562 361 0 105 0 466 1365 Grand Total 297 1366 0 0 1663 0 0 0 0 0 0 1730 1365 144 3239 1912 0 574 23 2509 7411 Apprch % 17.9 82.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53.4 42.1 4.4 76.2 0 22.9 0.9 Total % 4 18.4 0 0 22.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 23.3 18.4 1.9 43.7 25.8 0 7.7 0.3 33.9
MIDDLEFIELD RD
Southbound Westbound
MIDDLEFIELD RD
Northbound
RAVENSWOOD AVE
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 06:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM
05:00 PM 20 59 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 110 70 180 111 0 37 148 407 05:15 PM 15 90 0 105 0 0 0 0 0 127 76 203 118 0 43 161 469 05:30 PM 21 90 0 111 0 0 0 0 0 120 79 199 114 0 42 156 466 05:45 PM 16 70 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 111 103 214 111 0 27 138 438 Total Volume 72 309 0 381 0 0 0 0 0 468 328 796 454 0 149 603 1780 % App. Total 18.9 81.1 0 0 0 0 0 58.8 41.2 75.3 0 24.7
PHF .857 .858 .000 .858 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .921 .796 .930 .962 .000 .866 .936 .949
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICE
6280 San Ignacio Ave Suite C
San Jose, CA 95119
[email protected]
File Name : 14PM FINAL
Site Code : 00000014
Start Date : 12/8/2022
Page No : 2
MIDDLEFIELD RD
RAVENSWOOD AVE
MIDDLEFIELD RD
Right
72 Thru
309
Left
0 Out In Total
617 381 998
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out Total In
0 0 0
Left
328
Thru
468
Right
0 Out In Total
763 796 1559
Left
149
Thru
0 Right
454
Total Out In
400 603 1003
Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM
Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICE
6280 San Ignacio Ave Suite C
San Jose, CA 95119
[email protected]
File Name : 71PM FINAL
Site Code : 00000071
Start Date : 12/8/2022
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Vehicles
BAY RD
Southbound
SONOMA AVE
Southwestbound
RINGWOOD AVE
Westbound
BAY RD
Northbound
RINGWOOD AVE
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left Hard
Left
Peds App. Total
Hard
Right
Bear
Right
Bear
Left
Hard
Left
Peds App. Total
Hard
Right
Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Bear
Right
Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Bear
Left
Left Peds App. Total Int. Total
04:00 PM 27 40 1 0 1 69 1 3 2 0 1 7 0 1 2 0 0 3 1 1 14 25 0 41 50 1 7 39 1 98 218 04:15 PM 34 24 1 1 1 61 3 4 1 0 1 9 0 2 0 0 1 3 1 2 18 23 1 45 51 3 4 28 0 86 204 04:30 PM 17 24 0 0 7 48 1 2 3 0 4 10 0 0 1 0 2 3 1 0 15 21 0 37 70 0 5 27 0 102 200 04:45 PM 14 22 0 1 1 38 0 1 2 0 1 4 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 16 36 0 52 46 2 11 30 1 90 187 Total 92 110 2 2 10 216 5 10 8 0 7 30 0 4 4 0 4 12 3 3 63 105 1 175 217 6 27 124 2 376 809 05:00 PM 36 28 0 0 2 66 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 1 18 28 1 48 62 4 3 26 0 95 215 05:15 PM 34 14 1 1 0 50 1 2 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 15 40 1 59 61 3 5 36 1 106 220 05:30 PM 18 15 0 0 1 34 3 3 1 0 0 7 0 0 2 1 0 3 1 1 20 40 0 62 55 6 5 27 0 93 199 05:45 PM 27 13 0 0 0 40 2 7 0 0 0 9 0 0 4 1 0 5 0 2 20 24 0 46 41 4 6 34 0 85 185 Total 115 70 1 1 3 190 6 15 3 0 0 24 0 0 8 3 0 11 3 5 73 132 2 215 219 17 19 123 1 379 819 06:00 PM 16 14 1 0 0 31 1 2 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 11 0 33 24 1 4 15 0 44 113 06:15 PM 26 10 1 0 0 37 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 2 2 1 5 0 1 13 21 0 35 24 4 3 22 0 53 133 06:30 PM 19 17 0 0 0 36 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 16 13 0 29 25 3 4 23 0 55 124 06:45 PM 21 13 0 0 0 34 1 4 0 0 0 5 0 2 1 0 0 3 1 1 14 20 0 36 26 1 0 34 0 61 139 Total 82 54 2 0 0 138 2 8 2 1 1 14 0 3 4 3 1 11 1 2 65 65 0 133 99 9 11 94 0 213 509 Grand Total 289 234 5 3 13 544 13 33 13 1 8 68 0 7 16 6 5 34 7 10 201 302 3 523 535 32 57 341 3 968 2137 Apprch % 53.1 43 0.9 0.6 2.4 19.1 48.5 19.1 1.5 11.8 0 20.6 47.1 17.6 14.7 1.3 1.9 38.4 57.7 0.6 55.3 3.3 5.9 35.2 0.3 Total % 13.5 10.9 0.2 0.1 0.6 25.5 0.6 1.5 0.6 0 0.4 3.2 0 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.2 1.6 0.3 0.5 9.4 14.1 0.1 24.5 25 1.5 2.7 16 0.1 45.3
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICE
6280 San Ignacio Ave Suite C
San Jose, CA 95119
[email protected]
File Name : 71PM FINAL
Site Code : 00000071
Start Date : 12/8/2022
Page No : 2
BAY RD
Southbound
SONOMA AVE
Southwestbound
RINGWOOD AVE
Westbound
BAY RD
Northbound
RINGWOOD AVE
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left Hard Left App. Total Hard Right Bear Right Bear Left Hard Left App. Total Hard Right Right Thru Left App. Total Right Bear Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Bear Left Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 06:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM
05:00 PM 36 28 0 0 64 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 3 0 1 18 28 47 62 4 3 26 95 212 05:15 PM 34 14 1 1 50 1 2 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 15 40 58 61 3 5 36 105 218 05:30 PM 18 15 0 0 33 3 3 1 0 7 0 0 2 1 3 1 1 20 40 62 55 6 5 27 93 198 05:45 PM 27 13 0 0 40 2 7 0 0 9 0 0 4 1 5 0 2 20 24 46 41 4 6 34 85 185 Total Volume 115 70 1 1 187 6 15 3 0 24 0 0 8 3 11 3 5 73 132 213 219 17 19 123 378 813 % App. Total 61.5 37.4 0.5 0.5 25 62.5 12.5 0 0 0 72.7 27.3 1.4 2.3 34.3 62 57.9 4.5 5 32.5 PHF .799 .625 .250 .250 .730 .500 .536 .375 .000 .667 .000 .000 .500 .750 .550 .375 .625 .913 .825 .859 .883 .708 .792 .854 .900 .932
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICE
6280 San Ignacio Ave Suite C
San Jose, CA 95119
[email protected]
File Name : 71PM FINAL
Site Code : 00000071
Start Date : 12/8/2022
Page No : 3
BAY RD SONOMA AVE
RINGWOOD AVE
RINGWOOD AVE
BAY RD
Right
115
Thru
70 Left
1 Hard
Left
1 Out In Total
202 187 389
Hard
Right
6 Bear
Right
15 Bear
Left
3 Hard
Left
0 Out
25 In
24 Total
49 Right
Hard
0 Right
0 Thru
8 Left
3 Out Total In
21 11 32
Left
132
Thru
73 Bear
Right
5 Right
3 Out In Total
295 213 508
Left
123
Bear
Left
19 Thru
17 Right
219
Total Out In
270 378 648
Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM
Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICE
6280 San Ignacio Ave Suite C
San Jose, CA 95119
[email protected]
Appendix C
Traffic Volumes
Intersection Number: 1
Synchro Node Number: 1
Intersection Name: El Camino Real and Selby Ln
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 170 1944 42 20 1 1 6 1104 204 267 0 3 3762 Proposed Project Trips 2 27 0 0 0 0 0 37 3 5 0 2 76
Existing + Project Conditions 172 1971 42 20 1 1 6 1141 207 272 0 5 3838 0 Cumulative Conditions 170 1952 42 20 1 1 6 1395 288 267 0 17 4159 0 Cumulative + Project Conditions 172 1979 42 20 1 1 6 1432 291 272 0 19 4235 Intersection Number: 2
Synchro Node Number: 2
Intersection Name: Alameda de las Pulgas and Atherton Ave Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 9 423 313 175 17 191 107 280 10 18 23 11 1577 Proposed Project Trips 0 4 3 2 0 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 16
Existing + Project Conditions 9 427 316 177 17 193 108 284 10 18 23 11 1593 0 Cumulative Conditions 9 429 313 175 20 198 110 355 11 22 23 17 1682 0 Cumulative + Project Conditions 9 433 316 177 20 200 111 359 11 22 23 17 1698 Intersection Number: 3
Synchro Node Number: 3
Intersection Name: El Camino Real and Fair Oaks Ln
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 178 1549 60 70 146 107 13 681 117 103 63 118 3205 Proposed Project Trips 2 25 1 1 2 1 0 34 1 1 1 1 70
Existing + Project Conditions 180 1574 61 71 148 108 13 715 118 104 64 119 3275 0 Cumulative Conditions 178 1551 75 73 151 114 15 961 119 119 86 118 3560 0 Cumulative + Project Conditions 180 1576 76 74 153 115 15 995 120 120 87 119 3630 05/16/23
06/01/23
05/16/23
06/01/23
05/16/23
06/01/23
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
9/29/2023
AM
CEQA Clearance Document - Volume Spreadsheet 2023-09-27
Intersection Number: 4
Synchro Node Number: 4
Intersection Name: Middlefield Rd and Marsh Rd
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 0 307 255 246 0 475 457 217 0 0 0 0 1957 Proposed Project Trips 0 3 3 4 0 5 5 3 0 0 0 0 23
Existing + Project Conditions 0 310 258 250 0 480 462 220 0 0 0 0 1980 0 Cumulative Conditions 0 326 255 388 0 475 474 270 0 0 0 0 2188 0 Cumulative + Project Conditions 0 329 258 392 0 480 479 273 0 0 0 0 2211 Intersection Number: 5
Synchro Node Number: 5
Intersection Name: El Camino Real and Alejandra Ave
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 195 1613 0 0 0 0 0 890 87 76 0 47 2908 Proposed Project Trips 5 23 0 0 0 0 0 24 4 11 0 9 76
Existing + Project Conditions 200 1636 0 0 0 0 0 914 91 87 0 56 2984 0 Cumulative Conditions 195 1657 0 0 0 0 0 1149 87 76 0 47 3211 0 Cumulative + Project Conditions 200 1680 0 0 0 0 0 1173 91 87 0 56 3287 Intersection Number: 6
Synchro Node Number: 6
Intersection Name: El Camino Real and Encinal Ave
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 26 1466 147 188 10 117 126 828 19 8 16 4 2955 Proposed Project Trips 0 30 2 3 0 3 2 24 0 0 0 0 64
Existing + Project Conditions 26 1496 149 191 10 120 128 852 19 8 16 4 3019 0 Cumulative Conditions 26 1486 172 325 10 117 134 828 19 8 16 4 3145 0 Cumulative + Project Conditions 26 1516 174 328 10 120 136 852 19 8 16 4 3209 06/01/23
05/16/23
06/01/23
05/16/23
06/01/23
03/02/23
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
9/29/2023
AM
CEQA Clearance Document - Volume Spreadsheet 2023-09-27
Intersection Number: 7
Synchro Node Number: 7
Intersection Name: El Camino Real and Valparaiso Ave/Glenwood Ave Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 199 1015 89 37 218 49 37 733 111 91 132 243 2954 Proposed Project Trips 4 25 1 1 2 0 0 17 3 7 1 9 70
Existing + Project Conditions 203 1040 90 38 220 49 37 750 114 98 133 252 3024 0 Cumulative Conditions 205 1017 100 37 218 49 37 834 114 91 135 265 3102 0 Cumulative + Project Conditions 209 1042 101 38 220 49 37 851 117 98 136 274 3172 Intersection Number: 8
Synchro Node Number: 8
Intersection Name: Middlefield Rd and Ravenswood Ave
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 83 328 0 0 0 0 0 415 393 356 0 95 1670 Proposed Project Trips 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 4 0 1 23
Existing + Project Conditions 84 332 0 0 0 0 0 421 400 360 0 96 1693 0 Cumulative Conditions 77 369 0 0 0 0 0 468 490 446 0 103 1953 0 Cumulative + Project Conditions 78 373 0 0 0 0 0 474 497 450 0 104 1976 Intersection Number: 9
Synchro Node Number: 9
Intersection Name: Bay Rd and Ringwood Ave/Sonoma Ave
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 219 147 10 8 101 12 3 60 324 216 15 129 1244 Proposed Project Trips 6 9 0 0 1 0 0 3 3 2 0 2 26
Existing + Project Conditions 225 156 10 8 102 12 3 63 327 218 15 131 1270 0 Cumulative Conditions 250 149 10 8 101 28 3 72 324 226 15 132 1318 0 Cumulative + Project Conditions 256 158 10 8 102 28 3 75 327 228 15 134 1344 05/24/23
06/01/23
12/08/22
06/01/23
03/02/23
06/01/23
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
9/29/2023
AM
CEQA Clearance Document - Volume Spreadsheet 2023-09-27
Intersection Number: 1
Synchro Node Number: 1
Intersection Name: El Camino Real and Selby Ln
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 50 1184 59 27 2 0 8 1745 234 197 0 7 3513 Proposed Project Trips 3 37 1 0 0 0 0 33 4 3 0 1 82
Existing + Project Conditions 53 1221 60 27 2 0 8 1778 238 200 0 8 3595 0 Cumulative Conditions 74 1304 59 27 2 0 8 1797 234 241 0 9 3755 0 Cumulative + Project Conditions 77 1341 60 27 2 0 8 1830 238 244 0 10 3837 Intersection Number: 2
Synchro Node Number: 2
Intersection Name: Alameda de las Pulgas and Atherton Ave Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 10 321 82 263 11 105 104 495 6 10 4 7 1418 Proposed Project Trips 0 4 1 3 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 15
Existing + Project Conditions 10 325 83 266 11 106 105 500 6 10 4 7 1433 0 Cumulative Conditions 17 434 82 263 13 111 112 509 9 11 6 9 1576 0 Cumulative + Project Conditions 17 438 83 266 13 112 113 514 9 11 6 9 1591 Intersection Number: 3
Synchro Node Number: 3
Intersection Name: El Camino Real and Fair Oaks Ln
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 66 871 54 44 63 55 32 1341 129 70 86 148 2959 Proposed Project Trips 1 36 1 1 1 1 0 30 2 1 1 1 76
Existing + Project Conditions 67 907 55 45 64 56 32 1371 131 71 87 149 3035 0 Cumulative Conditions 66 1065 54 83 106 55 32 1341 197 77 87 149 3312 0 Cumulative + Project Conditions 67 1101 55 84 107 56 32 1371 199 78 88 150 3388 05/16/23
06/01/23
05/16/23
06/01/23
05/16/23
06/01/23
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
9/29/2023
PM
CEQA Clearance Document - Volume Spreadsheet 2023-09-27
Intersection Number: 4
Synchro Node Number: 4
Intersection Name: Middlefield Rd and Marsh Rd
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 0 195 321 337 0 436 540 269 0 0 0 0 2098 Proposed Project Trips 0 4 3 3 0 5 5 3 0 0 0 0 23
Existing + Project Conditions 0 199 324 340 0 441 545 272 0 0 0 0 2121 0 Cumulative Conditions 0 365 321 337 0 478 540 325 0 0 0 0 2366 0 Cumulative + Project Conditions 0 369 324 340 0 483 545 328 0 0 0 0 2389 Intersection Number: 5
Synchro Node Number: 5
Intersection Name: El Camino Real and Alejandra Ave
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 36 969 0 0 0 0 0 1540 40 49 0 70 2704 Proposed Project Trips 10 25 0 0 0 0 0 26 10 6 0 7 84
Existing + Project Conditions 46 994 0 0 0 0 0 1566 50 55 0 77 2788 0 Cumulative Conditions 36 1124 0 0 0 0 0 1599 40 49 0 70 2918 0 Cumulative + Project Conditions 46 1149 0 0 0 0 0 1625 50 55 0 77 3002 Intersection Number: 6
Synchro Node Number: 6
Intersection Name: El Camino Real and Encinal Ave
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 10 949 103 188 3 115 112 1420 29 33 13 16 2991 Proposed Project Trips 0 29 3 3 0 2 3 34 0 0 0 0 74
Existing + Project Conditions 10 978 106 191 3 117 115 1454 29 33 13 16 3065 0 Cumulative Conditions 10 949 291 321 3 138 120 1420 29 33 13 16 3343 0 Cumulative + Project Conditions 10 978 294 324 3 140 123 1454 29 33 13 16 3417 06/01/23
05/16/23
06/01/23
05/16/23
06/01/23
03/02/23
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
9/29/2023
PM
CEQA Clearance Document - Volume Spreadsheet 2023-09-27
Intersection Number: 7
Synchro Node Number: 7
Intersection Name: El Camino Real and Valparaiso Ave/Glenwood Ave Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 119 827 38 43 180 37 48 1337 120 99 134 245 3227 Proposed Project Trips 7 22 1 2 2 0 0 30 8 6 1 7 86
Existing + Project Conditions 126 849 39 45 182 37 48 1367 128 105 135 252 3313 0 Cumulative Conditions 124 860 38 43 219 37 48 1345 120 100 135 256 3325 0 Cumulative + Project Conditions 131 882 39 45 221 37 48 1375 128 106 136 263 3411 Intersection Number: 8
Synchro Node Number: 8
Intersection Name: Middlefield Rd and Ravenswood Ave
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 81 318 0 0 0 0 0 508 337 481 0 145 1870 Proposed Project Trips 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 8 0 1 27
Existing + Project Conditions 82 324 0 0 0 0 0 514 342 489 0 146 1897 0 Cumulative Conditions 72 469 0 0 0 0 0 540 381 587 0 149 2198 0 Cumulative + Project Conditions 73 475 0 0 0 0 0 546 386 595 0 150 2225 Intersection Number: 9
Synchro Node Number: 9
Intersection Name: Bay Rd and Ringwood Ave/Sonoma Ave
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 115 70 2 6 23 6 8 73 132 219 17 142 813 Proposed Project Trips 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 2 0 4 25
Existing + Project Conditions 118 76 2 6 23 6 8 82 133 221 17 146 838 0 Cumulative Conditions 131 84 2 6 24 20 8 108 132 244 17 142 918 0 Cumulative + Project Conditions 134 90 2 6 24 20 8 117 133 246 17 146 943 05/24/23
06/01/23
12/08/22
06/01/23
03/02/23
06/01/23
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
9/29/2023
PM
CEQA Clearance Document - Volume Spreadsheet 2023-09-27
Appendix D
Level of Service Calculations
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM 1: Selby Lane & El Camino Real 06/09/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 0 267 1 1 20 204 1104 6 42 1944 170 Future Volume (Veh/h) 3 0 267 1 1 20 204 1104 6 42 1944 170 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 0 275 1 1 21 210 1138 6 43 2004 175 Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 2998 3742 756 2590 3826 382 2179 1144 vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 2998 3742 756 2590 3826 382 2179 1144 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 0 100 22 0 0 97 13 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 0 1 351 1 0 616 241 606
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 278 23 210 455 455 234 43 802 802 576
Volume Left 3 1 210 0 0 0 43 0 0 0
Volume Right 275 21 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 175
cSH 0 6 241 1700 1700 1700 606 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity Err 3.83 0.87 0.27 0.27 0.14 0.07 0.47 0.47 0.34 Queue Length 95th (ft) Err Err 179 0 0 0 6 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) Err Err 73.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F F F B
Approach Delay (s) Err Err 11.4 0.2
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay Err
Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM 2: Atherton Ave & Alameda de la Pulgas 06/09/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Volume (vph) 11 23 18 191 17 175 10 280 107 313 423 9 Future Volume (vph) 11 23 18 191 17 175 10 280 107 313 423 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 12 24 19 201 18 184 11 295 113 329 445 9 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total (vph) 55 219 184 11 408 329 454
Volume Left (vph) 12 201 0 11 0 329 0
Volume Right (vph) 19 0 184 0 113 0 9
Hadj (s) -0.13 0.22 -0.57 0.53 -0.16 0.53 0.02
Departure Headway (s) 7.3 7.0 3.2 7.2 6.5 6.8 6.2
Degree Utilization, x 0.11 0.43 0.16 0.02 0.74 0.62 0.79 Capacity (veh/h) 427 480 1121 476 533 523 565
Control Delay (s) 11.3 15.1 6.8 9.2 24.8 18.9 27.2
Approach Delay (s) 11.3 11.3 24.4 23.7
Approach LOS B B C C
Intersection Summary
Delay 20.5
Level of Service C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM 3: Atherton Ave/Fair Oaks Lane & El Camino Real 06/09/2023 Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 118 63 103 107 146 70 117 681 13 60 1549 178 Future Volume (vph) 118 63 103 107 146 70 117 681 13 60 1549 178 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1804 1583 1824 1583 1770 5071 1770 5007 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1804 1583 1824 1583 1770 5071 1770 5007 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 127 68 111 115 157 75 126 732 14 65 1666 191 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 95 0 0 61 0 1 0 0 9 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 195 16 0 272 14 126 745 0 65 1848 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.3 19.3 24.8 24.8 13.4 64.2 8.2 59.0 Effective Green, g (s) 19.3 19.3 24.8 24.8 13.4 64.2 8.2 59.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.48 0.06 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 258 227 336 291 176 2420 107 2196
v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 c0.15 c0.07 0.15 0.04 c0.37
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.07 0.81 0.05 0.72 0.31 0.61 0.84
Uniform Delay, d1 55.3 49.8 52.6 45.1 58.7 21.5 61.6 33.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.9 0.1 13.4 0.1 13.0 0.1 9.4 3.1 Delay (s) 67.2 50.0 66.0 45.2 71.7 21.6 71.0 36.7
Level of Service E D E D E C E D
Approach Delay (s) 61.0 61.5 28.8 37.9
Approach LOS E E C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 40.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 134.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM 4: Marsh Rd & Middlefield Rd 06/09/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 475 246 217 457 255 307
Future Volume (vph) 475 246 217 457 255 307
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1863 1583 717 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 495 256 226 476 266 320
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 90 0 106 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 495 166 226 370 266 320
Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA pt+ov pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 6 6 7 8 6 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 28.1 48.2 17.3 49.9 37.4 37.4
Effective Green, g (s) 28.1 48.2 17.3 49.9 37.4 37.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.65 0.23 0.67 0.50 0.50
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 667 1024 432 1060 580 935
v/s Ratio Prot c0.28 0.10 0.12 0.23 c0.10 0.17
v/s Ratio Perm c0.13
v/c Ratio 0.74 0.16 0.52 0.35 0.46 0.34
Uniform Delay, d1 20.1 5.2 25.0 5.3 11.5 11.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 4.5 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.6 0.2
Delay (s) 24.5 5.3 26.1 5.5 12.0 11.4
Level of Service C A C A B B
Approach Delay (s) 18.0 12.1 11.7
Approach LOS B B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 74.5 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM 5: Alejandra Ave & El Camino Real 06/09/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 76 87 890 1613 195
Future Volume (Veh/h) 47 76 87 890 1613 195
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 52 84 97 989 1792 217
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2
Upstream signal (ft) 582
pX, platoon unblocked 0.92
vC, conflicting volume 2589 706 2009
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1900
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 688
vCu, unblocked vol 2552 706 2009
tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 46 78 65
cM capacity (veh/h) 96 378 281
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 52 84 97 494 494 717 717 575
Volume Left 52 0 97 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 217
cSH 96 378 281 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.54 0.22 0.35 0.29 0.29 0.42 0.42 0.34 Queue Length 95th (ft) 61 21 37 0 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 79.9 17.2 24.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS F C C
Approach Delay (s) 41.2 2.2 0.0
Approach LOS E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM 1: Selby Lane & El Camino Real 06/09/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 7 0 197 0 2 27 234 1745 8 59 1184 50 Future Volume (Veh/h) 7 0 197 0 2 27 234 1745 8 59 1184 50 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 0 199 0 2 27 236 1763 8 60 1196 51 Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 2429 3584 424 2957 3606 592 1247 1771 vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 2429 3584 424 2957 3606 592 1247 1771 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 0 100 66 100 20 94 57 83
cM capacity (veh/h) 3 3 578 2 2 450 554 348
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 206 29 236 705 705 361 60 478 478 290
Volume Left 7 0 236 0 0 0 60 0 0 0
Volume Right 199 27 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 51
cSH 84 34 554 1700 1700 1700 348 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 2.45 0.86 0.43 0.41 0.41 0.21 0.17 0.28 0.28 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 481 76 53 0 0 0 15 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 764.5 287.5 16.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F F C C
Approach Delay (s) 764.5 287.5 1.9 0.8
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 48.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM 2: Atherton Ave & Alameda de la Pulgas 06/09/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Volume (vph) 7 4 10 105 11 263 6 495 104 82 321 10 Future Volume (vph) 7 4 10 105 11 263 6 495 104 82 321 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 4 10 109 11 274 6 516 108 85 334 10 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total (vph) 21 120 274 6 624 85 344
Volume Left (vph) 7 109 0 6 0 85 0
Volume Right (vph) 10 0 274 0 108 0 10
Hadj (s) -0.19 0.22 -0.57 0.53 -0.09 0.53 0.01
Departure Headway (s) 6.6 6.7 3.2 6.0 5.4 6.2 5.7
Degree Utilization, x 0.04 0.22 0.24 0.01 0.94 0.15 0.54 Capacity (veh/h) 494 507 1112 578 659 569 623
Control Delay (s) 9.9 11.6 7.2 7.9 43.2 9.1 14.0
Approach Delay (s) 9.9 8.6 42.9 13.0
Approach LOS A A E B
Intersection Summary
Delay 24.5
Level of Service C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM 3: Atherton Ave/Fair Oaks Lane & El Camino Real 06/09/2023 Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 148 86 70 55 63 44 129 1341 32 54 871 66 Future Volume (vph) 148 86 70 55 63 44 129 1341 32 54 871 66 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1806 1583 1820 1583 1770 5068 1770 5031 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1806 1583 1820 1583 1770 5068 1770 5031 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 163 95 77 60 69 48 142 1474 35 59 957 73 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 61 0 0 42 0 2 0 0 6 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 258 16 0 129 6 142 1507 0 59 1024 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.6 19.6 12.6 12.6 12.8 40.7 5.6 33.5 Effective Green, g (s) 19.6 19.6 12.6 12.6 12.8 40.7 5.6 33.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.42 0.06 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 366 321 237 206 234 2137 102 1746
v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.07 c0.08 c0.30 0.03 0.20
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.05 0.54 0.03 0.61 0.71 0.58 0.59
Uniform Delay, d1 35.8 30.9 39.3 36.6 39.5 23.0 44.3 25.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.1 0.1 2.5 0.1 4.4 1.1 7.7 0.5
Delay (s) 41.8 31.0 41.8 36.7 43.9 24.0 52.0 26.3
Level of Service D C D D D C D C
Approach Delay (s) 39.3 40.4 25.7 27.7
Approach LOS D D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 96.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM 4: Marsh Rd & Middlefield Rd 06/09/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 436 337 269 540 321 195
Future Volume (vph) 436 337 269 540 321 195
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1863 1583 575 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph) 469 362 289 581 345 210
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 113 0 83 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 469 249 289 498 345 210
Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA pt+ov pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 6 6 7 8 8 6 7 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 31.4 57.7 22.6 58.5 48.9 48.9
Effective Green, g (s) 31.4 57.7 22.6 58.5 48.9 48.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.65 0.25 0.66 0.55 0.55
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 622 1022 471 1037 606 1020
v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 0.16 0.16 0.31 c0.14 0.11
v/s Ratio Perm c0.17
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.24 0.61 0.48 0.57 0.21
Uniform Delay, d1 25.5 6.6 29.5 7.7 12.7 10.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.2 0.1 2.4 0.4 1.2 0.1
Delay (s) 30.7 6.8 31.9 8.1 13.9 10.4
Level of Service C A C A B B
Approach Delay (s) 20.3 16.0 12.6
Approach LOS C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 89.3 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM 5: Alejandra Ave & El Camino Real 06/09/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 49 40 1540 969 36
Future Volume (Veh/h) 70 49 40 1540 969 36
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Hourly flow rate (vph) 74 52 43 1638 1031 38
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2
Upstream signal (ft) 582
pX, platoon unblocked 0.60
vC, conflicting volume 1955 363 1069
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1050
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 905
vCu, unblocked vol 1251 363 1069
tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 72 92 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 268 634 648
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 74 52 43 819 819 412 412 244
Volume Left 74 0 43 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 38
cSH 268 634 648 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.28 0.08 0.07 0.48 0.48 0.24 0.24 0.14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 27 7 5 0 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 23.5 11.2 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS C B B
Approach Delay (s) 18.4 0.3 0.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project AM 1: Selby Lane & El Camino Real 09/27/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 0 272 1 1 20 207 1141 6 42 1971 172 Future Volume (Veh/h) 5 0 272 1 1 20 207 1141 6 42 1971 172 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 0 280 1 1 21 213 1176 6 43 2032 177 Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 3046 3815 766 2648 3900 395 2209 1182 vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 3046 3815 766 2648 3900 395 2209 1182 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 0 100 19 0 0 97 9 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 0 0 345 0 0 604 234 587
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 285 23 213 470 470 241 43 813 813 583
Volume Left 5 1 213 0 0 0 43 0 0 0
Volume Right 280 21 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 177
cSH 0 4 234 1700 1700 1700 587 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity Err 6.01 0.91 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.07 0.48 0.48 0.34 Queue Length 95th (ft) Err Err 193 0 0 0 6 0 0 0
Control Delay (s/veh) Err Err 82.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F F F B
Approach Delay (s/veh) Err Err 12.5 0.2
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay Err
Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project AM 2: Atherton Ave & Alameda de la Pulgas 09/27/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Volume (vph) 11 23 18 193 17 177 10 284 108 316 427 9 Future Volume (vph) 11 23 18 193 17 177 10 284 108 316 427 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 12 24 19 203 18 186 11 299 114 333 449 9 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total (vph) 55 221 186 11 413 333 458
Volume Left (vph) 12 203 0 11 0 333 0
Volume Right (vph) 19 0 186 0 114 0 9
Hadj (s) -0.13 0.22 -0.57 0.53 -0.16 0.53 0.02
Departure Headway (s) 7.4 7.0 3.2 7.3 6.6 6.8 6.3
Degree Utilization, x 0.11 0.43 0.17 0.02 0.75 0.63 0.80 Capacity (veh/h) 425 478 1121 475 531 522 563
Control Delay (s/veh) 11.3 15.3 6.8 9.2 25.8 19.4 28.3
Approach Delay (s/veh) 11.3 11.4 25.4 24.5
Approach LOS B B D C
Intersection Summary
Delay 21.1
Level of Service C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project AM 3: Atherton Ave/Fair Oaks Lane & El Camino Real 09/27/2023 Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 119 64 104 108 148 71 118 715 13 61 1574 180 Future Volume (vph) 119 64 104 108 148 71 118 715 13 61 1574 180 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1804 1583 1824 1583 1770 5072 1770 5007 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1804 1583 1824 1583 1770 5072 1770 5007 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 128 69 112 116 159 76 127 769 14 66 1692 194 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 95 0 0 62 0 1 0 0 8 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 197 17 0 275 14 127 782 0 66 1878 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.7 19.7 23.9 23.9 12.8 63.1 8.4 58.7 Effective Green, g (s) 19.7 19.7 23.9 23.9 12.8 63.1 8.4 58.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.47 0.06 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 267 234 327 284 170 2404 111 2208
v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 c0.15 c0.07 c0.15 0.04 c0.38
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.74 0.07 0.84 0.05 0.75 0.33 0.59 0.85
Uniform Delay, d1 54.2 48.8 52.8 45.2 58.6 21.8 60.7 33.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.2 0.1 17.4 0.1 16.3 0.1 8.3 3.4 Delay (s) 64.4 48.9 70.2 45.3 74.9 21.8 69.0 36.6
Level of Service E D E D E C E D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 58.8 64.8 29.2 37.7
Approach LOS E E C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 40.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 133.1 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project AM 4: Marsh Rd & Middlefield Rd 09/27/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 480 250 220 462 258 310
Future Volume (vph) 480 250 220 462 258 310
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1863 1583 709 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 500 260 229 481 269 323
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 92 0 104 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 500 168 229 377 269 323
Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA pt+ov pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 6 6 7 8 6 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 28.7 48.9 17.6 50.8 37.8 37.8
Effective Green, g (s) 28.7 48.9 17.6 50.8 37.8 37.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.65 0.23 0.67 0.50 0.50
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 672 1025 434 1065 575 932
v/s Ratio Prot c0.28 0.11 0.12 0.24 c0.10 0.17
v/s Ratio Perm c0.14
v/c Ratio 0.74 0.16 0.53 0.35 0.47 0.35
Uniform Delay, d1 20.2 5.2 25.3 5.3 11.7 11.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 4.5 0.1 1.2 0.2 0.6 0.2
Delay (s) 24.7 5.3 26.5 5.5 12.3 11.6
Level of Service C A C A B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 18.1 12.3 11.9
Approach LOS B B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 14.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.5 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project AM 5: Alejandra Ave & El Camino Real 09/27/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 56 87 91 914 1636 200
Future Volume (Veh/h) 56 87 91 914 1636 200
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 62 97 101 1016 1818 222
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2
Upstream signal (ft) 582
pX, platoon unblocked 0.91
vC, conflicting volume 2639 717 2040
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1929
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 710
vCu, unblocked vol 2605 717 2040
tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 33 74 63
cM capacity (veh/h) 92 372 273
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 62 97 101 508 508 727 727 586
Volume Left 62 0 101 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 97 0 0 0 0 0 222
cSH 92 372 273 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.67 0.26 0.37 0.30 0.30 0.43 0.43 0.34 Queue Length 95th (ft) 82 26 41 0 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s/veh) 101.3 18.1 25.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F C D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 50.5 2.3 0.0
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project PM 1: Selby Lane & El Camino Real 09/27/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 0 200 0 2 27 238 1778 8 60 1221 53 Future Volume (Veh/h) 8 0 200 0 2 27 238 1778 8 60 1221 53 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 0 202 0 2 27 240 1796 8 61 1233 54 Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 2489 3666 438 3015 3689 603 1287 1804 vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 2489 3666 438 3015 3689 603 1287 1804 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 0 100 64 100 4 94 55 82
cM capacity (veh/h) 1 2 567 2 2 442 535 338
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 210 29 240 718 718 367 61 493 493 301
Volume Left 8 0 240 0 0 0 61 0 0 0
Volume Right 202 27 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 54
cSH 30 28 535 1700 1700 1700 338 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 7.09 1.02 0.45 0.42 0.42 0.22 0.18 0.29 0.29 0.18 Queue Length 95th (ft) Err 83 57 0 0 0 16 0 0 0
Control Delay (s/veh) Err 378.5 17.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F F C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) Err 378.5 2.0 0.8
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 582.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project PM 2: Atherton Ave & Alameda de la Pulgas 09/27/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Volume (vph) 7 4 10 106 11 266 6 500 105 83 325 10 Future Volume (vph) 7 4 10 106 11 266 6 500 105 83 325 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 4 10 110 11 277 6 521 109 86 339 10 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total (vph) 21 121 277 6 630 86 349
Volume Left (vph) 7 110 0 6 0 86 0
Volume Right (vph) 10 0 277 0 109 0 10
Hadj (s) -0.19 0.22 -0.57 0.53 -0.09 0.53 0.01
Departure Headway (s) 6.7 6.7 3.2 6.1 5.4 6.2 5.7
Degree Utilization, x 0.04 0.23 0.25 0.01 0.95 0.15 0.55 Capacity (veh/h) 493 506 1112 576 658 569 623
Control Delay (s/veh) 10.0 11.7 7.2 7.9 45.5 9.1 14.3
Approach Delay (s/veh) 10.0 8.6 45.2 13.3
Approach LOS A A E B
Intersection Summary
Delay 25.6
Level of Service D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project PM 3: Atherton Ave/Fair Oaks Lane & El Camino Real 09/27/2023 Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 149 87 71 56 64 45 131 1371 32 55 907 67 Future Volume (vph) 149 87 71 56 64 45 131 1371 32 55 907 67 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1806 1583 1820 1583 1770 5068 1770 5033 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1806 1583 1820 1583 1770 5068 1770 5033 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 164 96 78 62 70 49 144 1507 35 60 997 74 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 62 0 0 43 0 2 0 0 6 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 260 16 0 132 6 144 1540 0 60 1065 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.6 19.6 12.8 12.8 12.9 41.3 5.6 34.0 Effective Green, g (s) 19.6 19.6 12.8 12.8 12.9 41.3 5.6 34.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.42 0.06 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 363 318 239 208 234 2151 101 1758
v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.07 c0.08 c0.30 0.03 0.21
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.05 0.55 0.03 0.62 0.72 0.59 0.61
Uniform Delay, d1 36.3 31.3 39.6 36.8 39.9 23.2 44.7 26.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.6 0.1 2.7 0.1 4.7 1.2 9.0 0.6
Delay (s) 42.8 31.4 42.3 36.9 44.6 24.3 53.8 26.7
Level of Service D C D D D C D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 40.2 40.9 26.0 28.2
Approach LOS D D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 29.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 97.3 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project PM 4: Marsh Rd & Middlefield Rd 09/27/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 441 340 272 545 324 199
Future Volume (vph) 441 340 272 545 324 199
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1863 1583 569 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph) 474 366 292 586 348 214
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 111 0 80 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 474 255 292 506 348 214
Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA pt+ov pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 6 6 7 8 8 6 7 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 32.1 58.4 23.0 59.6 49.3 49.3
Effective Green, g (s) 32.1 58.4 23.0 59.6 49.3 49.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.65 0.25 0.66 0.55 0.55
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 628 1022 473 1043 599 1015
v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 0.16 0.16 0.32 c0.14 0.11
v/s Ratio Perm c0.18
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.25 0.62 0.48 0.58 0.21
Uniform Delay, d1 25.7 6.8 29.8 7.7 13.0 10.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.1 0.1 2.4 0.4 1.4 0.1
Delay (s) 30.8 6.9 32.2 8.1 14.5 10.7
Level of Service C A C A B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.4 16.1 13.0
Approach LOS C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 16.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.4 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project PM 5: Alejandra Ave & El Camino Real 09/27/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 77 55 50 1566 994 46
Future Volume (Veh/h) 77 55 50 1566 994 46
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Hourly flow rate (vph) 82 59 53 1666 1057 49
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2
Upstream signal (ft) 582
pX, platoon unblocked 0.58
vC, conflicting volume 2021 377 1106
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1082
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 939
vCu, unblocked vol 1310 377 1106
tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 68 90 92
cM capacity (veh/h) 255 621 627
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 82 59 53 833 833 423 423 260
Volume Left 82 0 53 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 49
cSH 255 621 627 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.32 0.10 0.08 0.49 0.49 0.25 0.25 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 33 8 7 0 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s/veh) 25.6 11.4 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 19.7 0.3 0.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project AM - Mit 1: Selby Lane & El Camino Real 09/27/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 0 272 1 1 20 207 1141 6 42 1971 172 Future Volume (vph) 5 0 272 1 1 20 207 1141 6 42 1971 172 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91
Frt 0.87 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1614 1630 1770 5081 1770 5024
Flt Permitted 0.99 0.96 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1607 1568 1770 5081 1770 5024
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 0 280 1 1 21 213 1176 6 43 2032 177
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 250 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 5 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 35 0 0 4 0 213 1182 0 43 2204 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.8 8.8 19.5 84.6 6.5 71.6
Effective Green, g (s) 8.8 8.8 19.5 84.6 6.5 71.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.75 0.06 0.63
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 124 121 304 3790 101 3172
v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.23 0.02 c0.44
v/s Ratio Perm c0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.28 0.03 0.70 0.31 0.43 0.69
Uniform Delay, d1 49.3 48.4 44.2 4.8 51.6 13.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.1 7.1 0.0 2.9 0.7
Delay (s) 50.6 48.5 51.3 4.8 54.5 14.4
Level of Service D D D A D B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 50.6 48.5 11.9 15.2
Approach LOS D D B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 16.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 113.4 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Roundabout Existing plus Project AM - Mit
2: Atherton Ave & Alameda de la Pulgas 09/27/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.4
Intersection LOS B
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 55 407 424 791
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 55 415 432 807
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 1005 328 376 236
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 38 480 684 507
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.8 8.5 9.5 16.2
Approach LOS A A A C
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976
Entry Flow, veh/h 55 415 432 807
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 495 988 940 1085
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.991 0.980 0.982 0.980
Flow Entry, veh/h 55 407 424 791
Cap Entry, veh/h 491 968 923 1063
V/C Ratio 0.111 0.420 0.459 0.744
Control Delay, s/veh 8.8 8.5 9.5 16.2
LOS A A A C
95th %tile Queue, veh 0 2 2 7
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project PM - mit 1: Selby Lane & El Camino Real 09/29/2023
Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 8 0 200 0 2 27 238 1778 8 60 1221 53 Future Volume (vph) 8 0 200 0 2 27 238 1778 8 60 1221 53 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91
Frt 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1618 1629 1770 5082 1770 5053
Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1600 1629 1770 5082 1770 5053
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 8 0 202 0 2 27 240 1796 8 61 1233 54
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 181 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 29 0 0 5 0 240 1804 0 61 1284 0 Turn Type Perm NA NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.8 7.8 17.6 47.4 7.1 36.9
Effective Green, g (s) 7.8 7.8 17.6 47.4 7.1 36.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.23 0.63 0.09 0.49
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 164 167 410 3177 165 2459
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.14 c0.35 0.03 0.25
v/s Ratio Perm c0.02
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.03 0.59 0.57 0.37 0.52
Uniform Delay, d1 31.1 30.6 25.9 8.2 32.2 13.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 2.1 0.2 1.4 0.2
Delay (s) 31.6 30.7 28.0 8.5 33.7 13.6
Level of Service C C C A C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 31.6 30.7 10.8 14.5
Approach LOS C C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 13.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.8 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Roundabout Existing plus Project PM - mit
2: Atherton Ave & Alameda de la Pulgas 09/29/2023
Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.9
Intersection LOS A
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 21 398 636 435
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 21 406 648 444
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 546 544 99 129
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 27 203 468 821
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.8 12.0 8.7 6.6
Approach LOS A B A A
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976
Entry Flow, veh/h 21 406 648 444
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 791 792 1247 1210
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.996 0.980 0.981 0.980
Flow Entry, veh/h 21 398 636 435
Cap Entry, veh/h 788 776 1223 1186
V/C Ratio 0.027 0.512 0.520 0.367
Control Delay, s/veh 4.8 12.0 8.7 6.6
LOS A B A A
95th %tile Queue, veh 0 3 3 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative AM 1: Selby Lane & El Camino Real 06/09/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 0 267 1 1 20 288 1395 6 42 1952 170 Future Volume (Veh/h) 17 0 267 1 1 20 288 1395 6 42 1952 170 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 0 275 1 1 21 297 1438 6 43 2012 175 Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 3280 4224 758 3067 4308 482 2187 1444 vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 3280 4224 758 3067 4308 482 2187 1444 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 0 0 21 0 0 96 0 91
cM capacity (veh/h) 0 0 349 0 0 530 239 465
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 293 23 297 575 575 294 43 805 805 577
Volume Left 18 1 297 0 0 0 43 0 0 0
Volume Right 275 21 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 175
cSH 0 0 239 1700 1700 1700 465 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity Err Err 1.24 0.34 0.34 0.17 0.09 0.47 0.47 0.34 Queue Length 95th (ft) Err Err 370 0 0 0 8 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) Err Err 181.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F F F B
Approach Delay (s) Err Err 31.0 0.3
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay Err
Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative AM 2: Atherton Ave & Alameda de la Pulgas 06/09/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Volume (vph) 17 23 22 198 20 175 11 355 110 313 429 9 Future Volume (vph) 17 23 22 198 20 175 11 355 110 313 429 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 24 23 208 21 184 12 374 116 329 452 9 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total (vph) 65 229 184 12 490 329 461
Volume Left (vph) 18 208 0 12 0 329 0
Volume Right (vph) 23 0 184 0 116 0 9
Hadj (s) -0.12 0.22 -0.57 0.53 -0.13 0.53 0.02
Departure Headway (s) 7.8 7.4 3.2 7.5 6.8 7.1 6.6
Degree Utilization, x 0.14 0.47 0.16 0.02 0.92 0.65 0.84 Capacity (veh/h) 427 470 1121 466 524 491 538
Control Delay (s) 12.1 16.7 6.8 9.5 47.2 21.1 34.3
Approach Delay (s) 12.1 12.3 46.3 28.8
Approach LOS B B E D
Intersection Summary
Delay 29.3
Level of Service D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative AM 3: Atherton Ave/Fair Oaks Lane & El Camino Real 06/09/2023 Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 118 86 119 114 151 73 119 961 15 75 1551 178 Future Volume (vph) 118 86 119 114 151 73 119 961 15 75 1551 178 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1810 1583 1823 1583 1770 5074 1770 5007 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1810 1583 1823 1583 1770 5074 1770 5007 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 127 92 128 123 162 78 128 1033 16 81 1668 191 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 107 0 0 64 0 1 0 0 9 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 219 21 0 285 14 128 1048 0 81 1850 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 21.7 21.7 24.6 24.6 12.8 59.5 10.4 57.1 Effective Green, g (s) 21.7 21.7 24.6 24.6 12.8 59.5 10.4 57.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.44 0.08 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 292 255 334 290 168 2249 137 2130
v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 c0.16 c0.07 0.21 0.05 c0.37
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.08 0.85 0.05 0.76 0.47 0.59 0.87
Uniform Delay, d1 53.7 47.8 53.1 45.2 59.2 26.2 59.8 35.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.3 0.1 18.6 0.1 18.3 0.2 6.7 4.1 Delay (s) 64.0 47.9 71.6 45.2 77.5 26.4 66.5 39.2
Level of Service E D E D E C E D
Approach Delay (s) 58.1 66.0 31.9 40.3
Approach LOS E E C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 41.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 134.2 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative AM 4: Marsh Rd & Middlefield Rd 06/09/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 475 388 270 474 255 326
Future Volume (vph) 475 388 270 474 255 326
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1863 1583 621 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 495 404 281 494 266 340
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 131 0 91 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 495 273 281 403 266 340
Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA pt+ov pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 6 6 7 8 6 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 30.4 50.8 21.1 56.0 41.5 41.5
Effective Green, g (s) 30.4 50.8 21.1 56.0 41.5 41.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.63 0.26 0.69 0.51 0.51
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 665 994 485 1095 544 955
v/s Ratio Prot c0.28 0.17 c0.15 0.25 c0.10 0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.74 0.28 0.58 0.37 0.49 0.36
Uniform Delay, d1 21.9 6.8 26.0 5.1 12.3 11.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 4.5 0.2 1.7 0.2 0.7 0.2
Delay (s) 26.4 6.9 27.7 5.4 13.0 12.0
Level of Service C A C A B B
Approach Delay (s) 17.6 13.5 12.4
Approach LOS B B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.9 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative AM 5: Alejandra Ave & El Camino Real 06/09/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 76 87 1149 1657 195
Future Volume (Veh/h) 47 76 87 1149 1657 195
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 52 84 97 1277 1841 217
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2
Upstream signal (ft) 582
pX, platoon unblocked 0.91
vC, conflicting volume 2782 722 2058
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1950
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 832
vCu, unblocked vol 2761 722 2058
tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 41 77 64
cM capacity (veh/h) 89 369 268
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 52 84 97 638 638 736 736 585
Volume Left 52 0 97 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 217
cSH 89 369 268 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.59 0.23 0.36 0.38 0.38 0.43 0.43 0.34 Queue Length 95th (ft) 67 22 40 0 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 91.8 17.6 25.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS F C D
Approach Delay (s) 46.0 1.8 0.0
Approach LOS E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative PM 1: Selby Lane & El Camino Real 06/09/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 9 0 241 0 2 27 234 1797 8 59 1304 74 Future Volume (Veh/h) 9 0 241 0 2 27 234 1797 8 59 1304 74 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 0 243 0 2 27 236 1815 8 60 1317 75 Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 2580 3770 476 3093 3803 609 1392 1823 vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 2580 3770 476 3093 3803 609 1392 1823 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 0 100 55 100 0 94 52 82
cM capacity (veh/h) 0 2 535 1 2 438 487 332
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 252 29 236 726 726 371 60 527 527 338
Volume Left 9 0 236 0 0 0 60 0 0 0
Volume Right 243 27 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 75
cSH 0 22 487 1700 1700 1700 332 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity Err 1.29 0.48 0.43 0.43 0.22 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) Err 93 65 0 0 0 16 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) Err 542.0 19.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F F C C
Approach Delay (s) Err 542.0 2.2 0.8
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay Err
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative PM 2: Atherton Ave & Alameda de la Pulgas 06/09/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Volume (vph) 9 6 11 111 13 263 9 509 112 82 434 17 Future Volume (vph) 9 6 11 111 13 263 9 509 112 82 434 17 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 6 11 116 14 274 9 530 117 85 452 18 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total (vph) 26 130 274 9 647 85 470
Volume Left (vph) 9 116 0 9 0 85 0
Volume Right (vph) 11 0 274 0 117 0 18
Hadj (s) -0.15 0.21 -0.57 0.53 -0.09 0.53 0.01
Departure Headway (s) 7.1 7.0 3.2 6.3 5.7 6.3 5.8
Degree Utilization, x 0.05 0.25 0.24 0.02 1.02 0.15 0.75 Capacity (veh/h) 465 487 1112 552 627 561 611
Control Delay (s) 10.5 12.3 7.2 8.2 63.5 9.2 23.2
Approach Delay (s) 10.5 8.9 62.7 21.0
Approach LOS B A F C
Intersection Summary
Delay 34.5
Level of Service D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative PM 3: Atherton Ave/Fair Oaks Lane & El Camino Real 06/09/2023 Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 149 87 77 55 106 83 197 1341 32 54 1065 66 Future Volume (vph) 149 87 77 55 106 83 197 1341 32 54 1065 66 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1806 1583 1832 1583 1770 5068 1770 5040 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1806 1583 1832 1583 1770 5068 1770 5040 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 164 96 85 60 116 91 216 1474 35 59 1170 73 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 68 0 0 77 0 2 0 0 5 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 260 17 0 176 14 216 1507 0 59 1238 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.2 20.2 15.5 15.5 15.8 44.3 5.8 34.3 Effective Green, g (s) 20.2 20.2 15.5 15.5 15.8 44.3 5.8 34.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.43 0.06 0.33 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 351 308 273 236 269 2162 98 1665
v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.10 c0.12 c0.30 0.03 0.25
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.74 0.05 0.64 0.06 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.74
Uniform Delay, d1 39.3 34.0 41.6 37.9 42.5 24.3 47.9 30.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.2 0.1 5.1 0.1 15.7 1.0 10.0 1.8 Delay (s) 47.5 34.1 46.7 38.0 58.2 25.3 57.9 32.7
Level of Service D C D D E C E C
Approach Delay (s) 44.2 43.7 29.4 33.8
Approach LOS D D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 103.8 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative PM 4: Marsh Rd & Middlefield Rd 06/09/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 478 337 325 540 321 365
Future Volume (vph) 478 337 325 540 321 365
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1863 1583 473 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph) 514 362 349 581 345 392
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 90 0 68 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 514 272 349 513 345 392
Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA pt+ov pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 6 6 7 8 8 6 7 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 35.7 62.1 27.2 67.4 53.6 53.6
Effective Green, g (s) 35.7 62.1 27.2 67.4 53.6 53.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.63 0.28 0.69 0.55 0.55
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 642 1000 515 1085 546 1015
v/s Ratio Prot c0.29 0.17 0.19 0.32 c0.14 0.21
v/s Ratio Perm c0.20
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.27 0.68 0.47 0.63 0.39
Uniform Delay, d1 28.1 8.0 31.6 7.2 14.9 12.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 7.1 0.1 3.5 0.3 2.4 0.2
Delay (s) 35.2 8.2 35.2 7.5 17.3 13.1
Level of Service D A D A B B
Approach Delay (s) 24.0 17.9 15.1
Approach LOS C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 98.3 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative PM 5: Alejandra Ave & El Camino Real 06/09/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 49 40 1599 1124 36
Future Volume (Veh/h) 70 49 40 1599 1124 36
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Hourly flow rate (vph) 74 52 43 1701 1196 38
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2
Upstream signal (ft) 582
pX, platoon unblocked 0.60
vC, conflicting volume 2152 418 1234
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1215
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 936
vCu, unblocked vol 1585 418 1234
tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 67 91 92
cM capacity (veh/h) 221 584 560
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 74 52 43 850 850 478 478 277
Volume Left 74 0 43 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 38
cSH 221 584 560 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.33 0.09 0.08 0.50 0.50 0.28 0.28 0.16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 7 6 0 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 29.3 11.8 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS D B B
Approach Delay (s) 22.0 0.3 0.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus Project AM 1: Selby Lane & El Camino Real 09/27/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 19 0 272 1 1 20 291 1432 6 42 1979 172 Future Volume (Veh/h) 19 0 272 1 1 20 291 1432 6 42 1979 172 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 20 0 280 1 1 21 300 1476 6 43 2040 177 Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 3328 4297 769 3125 4382 495 2217 1482 vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 3328 4297 769 3125 4382 495 2217 1482 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 0 0 19 0 0 96 0 90
cM capacity (veh/h) 0 0 344 0 0 520 232 450
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 300 23 300 590 590 301 43 816 816 585
Volume Left 20 1 300 0 0 0 43 0 0 0
Volume Right 280 21 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 177
cSH 0 0 232 1700 1700 1700 450 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity Err Err 1.29 0.35 0.35 0.18 0.10 0.48 0.48 0.34 Queue Length 95th (ft) Err Err 391 0 0 0 8 0 0 0
Control Delay (s/veh) Err Err 201.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F F F B
Approach Delay (s/veh) Err Err 33.9 0.3
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay Err
Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus Project AM 2: Atherton Ave & Alameda de la Pulgas 09/27/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Volume (vph) 17 23 22 200 20 177 11 359 111 316 433 9 Future Volume (vph) 17 23 22 200 20 177 11 359 111 316 433 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 24 23 211 21 186 12 378 117 333 456 9 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total (vph) 65 232 186 12 495 333 465
Volume Left (vph) 18 211 0 12 0 333 0
Volume Right (vph) 23 0 186 0 117 0 9
Hadj (s) -0.12 0.22 -0.57 0.53 -0.13 0.53 0.02
Departure Headway (s) 7.9 7.4 3.2 7.5 6.8 7.1 6.6
Degree Utilization, x 0.14 0.48 0.17 0.03 0.94 0.66 0.86 Capacity (veh/h) 426 468 1121 465 523 489 536
Control Delay (s/veh) 12.2 16.9 6.8 9.5 50.2 21.8 36.0
Approach Delay (s/veh) 12.2 12.4 49.2 30.0
Approach LOS B B E D
Intersection Summary
Delay 30.7
Level of Service D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus Project AM 3: Atherton Ave/Fair Oaks Lane & El Camino Real 09/27/2023 Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 119 87 120 115 153 74 120 995 15 76 1576 180 Future Volume (vph) 119 87 120 115 153 74 120 995 15 76 1576 180 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1811 1583 1824 1583 1770 5074 1770 5007 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1811 1583 1824 1583 1770 5074 1770 5007 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 128 94 129 124 165 80 129 1070 16 82 1695 194 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 108 0 0 65 0 1 0 0 9 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 222 21 0 289 15 129 1085 0 82 1880 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 21.9 21.9 24.8 24.8 12.9 60.2 10.5 57.8 Effective Green, g (s) 21.9 21.9 24.8 24.8 12.9 60.2 10.5 57.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.44 0.08 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 292 256 334 289 168 2255 137 2137
v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 c0.16 c0.07 0.21 0.05 c0.38
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.08 0.87 0.05 0.77 0.48 0.60 0.88
Uniform Delay, d1 54.2 48.2 53.7 45.6 59.8 26.6 60.4 35.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.1 0.1 20.2 0.1 18.7 0.2 6.9 4.5 Delay (s) 65.3 48.3 73.8 45.7 78.5 26.7 67.3 40.1
Level of Service E D E D E C E D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 59.1 67.7 32.2 41.3
Approach LOS E E C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 42.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 135.4 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus Project AM 4: Marsh Rd & Middlefield Rd 09/27/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 480 392 273 479 258 329
Future Volume (vph) 480 392 273 479 258 329
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1863 1583 612 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 500 408 284 499 269 343
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 128 0 88 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 500 280 284 411 269 343
Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA pt+ov pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 6 6 7 8 6 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 31.2 51.7 21.4 57.1 41.9 41.9
Effective Green, g (s) 31.2 51.7 21.4 57.1 41.9 41.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.63 0.26 0.70 0.51 0.51
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 672 996 485 1100 538 950
v/s Ratio Prot c0.28 0.18 c0.15 0.26 c0.10 0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.16
v/c Ratio 0.74 0.28 0.59 0.37 0.50 0.36
Uniform Delay, d1 22.0 6.8 26.5 5.1 12.7 12.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 4.5 0.2 1.8 0.2 0.7 0.2
Delay (s) 26.5 7.0 28.3 5.4 13.4 12.3
Level of Service C A C A B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 17.7 13.7 12.8
Approach LOS B B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 15.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 82.1 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus Project AM 5: Alejandra Ave & El Camino Real 09/27/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 56 87 91 1173 1680 200
Future Volume (Veh/h) 56 87 91 1173 1680 200
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 62 97 101 1303 1867 222
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2
Upstream signal (ft) 582
pX, platoon unblocked 0.91
vC, conflicting volume 2832 733 2089
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1978
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 854
vCu, unblocked vol 2815 733 2089
tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 27 73 61
cM capacity (veh/h) 85 363 261
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 62 97 101 652 652 747 747 595
Volume Left 62 0 101 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 97 0 0 0 0 0 222
cSH 85 363 261 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.73 0.27 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.44 0.44 0.35 Queue Length 95th (ft) 90 27 44 0 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s/veh) 118.9 18.5 27.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F C D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 57.6 2.0 0.0
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus project PM 1: Selby Lane & El Camino Real 09/27/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 0 244 0 2 27 238 1830 8 60 1341 77 Future Volume (Veh/h) 10 0 244 0 2 27 238 1830 8 60 1341 77 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Hourly flow rate (vph) 10 0 246 0 2 27 240 1848 8 61 1355 78 Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 2640 3852 491 3152 3887 620 1433 1856 vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 2640 3852 491 3152 3887 620 1433 1856 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 0 100 53 100 0 94 49 81
cM capacity (veh/h) 0 1 524 1 1 431 470 322
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 256 29 240 739 739 378 61 542 542 349
Volume Left 10 0 240 0 0 0 61 0 0 0
Volume Right 246 27 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 78
cSH 0 19 470 1700 1700 1700 322 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity Err 1.56 0.51 0.43 0.43 0.22 0.19 0.32 0.32 0.21 Queue Length 95th (ft) Err 100 71 0 0 0 17 0 0 0
Control Delay (s/veh) Err 711.3 20.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F F C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) Err 711.3 2.3 0.8
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay Err
Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus project PM 2: Atherton Ave & Alameda de la Pulgas 09/27/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Volume (vph) 9 6 11 112 13 266 9 514 113 83 438 17 Future Volume (vph) 9 6 11 112 13 266 9 514 113 83 438 17 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 6 11 117 14 277 9 535 118 86 456 18 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total (vph) 26 131 277 9 653 86 474
Volume Left (vph) 9 117 0 9 0 86 0
Volume Right (vph) 11 0 277 0 118 0 18
Hadj (s) -0.15 0.21 -0.57 0.53 -0.09 0.53 0.01
Departure Headway (s) 7.1 7.0 3.2 6.3 5.7 6.3 5.8
Degree Utilization, x 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.02 1.03 0.15 0.76 Capacity (veh/h) 464 486 1112 552 629 560 611
Control Delay (s/veh) 10.5 12.4 7.2 8.2 67.0 9.2 23.7
Approach Delay (s/veh) 10.5 8.9 66.2 21.5
Approach LOS B A F C
Intersection Summary
Delay 36.1
Level of Service E
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus project PM 3: Atherton Ave/Fair Oaks Lane & El Camino Real 09/27/2023 Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 150 88 78 56 107 84 199 1371 32 55 1101 67 Future Volume (vph) 150 88 78 56 107 84 199 1371 32 55 1101 67 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1806 1583 1831 1583 1770 5068 1770 5041 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1806 1583 1831 1583 1770 5068 1770 5041 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 165 97 86 62 118 92 219 1507 35 60 1210 74 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 69 0 0 78 0 2 0 0 5 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 262 17 0 180 14 219 1540 0 60 1279 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.3 20.3 15.8 15.8 15.7 45.2 5.8 35.3 Effective Green, g (s) 20.3 20.3 15.8 15.8 15.7 45.2 5.8 35.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.43 0.06 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 348 305 275 237 264 2179 97 1693
v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.10 c0.12 c0.30 0.03 0.25
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.05 0.65 0.06 0.83 0.71 0.62 0.76
Uniform Delay, d1 40.0 34.6 42.1 38.3 43.4 24.5 48.6 31.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.9 0.1 5.5 0.1 18.9 1.1 11.2 2.0 Delay (s) 48.9 34.6 47.6 38.4 62.3 25.6 59.8 33.0
Level of Service D C D D E C E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 45.4 44.5 30.2 34.2
Approach LOS D D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 34.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.1 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus project PM 4: Marsh Rd & Middlefield Rd 09/27/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 483 340 328 545 324 369
Future Volume (vph) 483 340 328 545 324 369
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1863 1583 464 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph) 519 366 353 586 348 397
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 88 0 66 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 519 278 353 520 348 397
Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA pt+ov pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 6 6 7 8 8 6 7 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 36.2 62.7 27.5 68.2 54.0 54.0
Effective Green, g (s) 36.2 62.7 27.5 68.2 54.0 54.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.63 0.28 0.69 0.54 0.54
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 645 1000 516 1088 542 1014
v/s Ratio Prot c0.29 0.18 0.19 0.33 c0.14 0.21
v/s Ratio Perm c0.21
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.28 0.68 0.48 0.64 0.39
Uniform Delay, d1 28.3 8.1 32.0 7.2 15.2 13.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 7.2 0.2 3.7 0.3 2.6 0.3
Delay (s) 35.5 8.3 35.7 7.5 17.8 13.3
Level of Service D A D A B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 24.3 18.1 15.4
Approach LOS C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 19.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 99.2 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus project PM 5: Alejandra Ave & El Camino Real 09/27/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 77 55 50 1625 1149 46
Future Volume (Veh/h) 77 55 50 1625 1149 46
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Hourly flow rate (vph) 82 59 53 1729 1222 49
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2
Upstream signal (ft) 582
pX, platoon unblocked 0.60
vC, conflicting volume 2217 432 1271
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1247
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 971
vCu, unblocked vol 1690 432 1271
tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 61 90 90
cM capacity (veh/h) 212 572 542
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 82 59 53 865 865 489 489 293
Volume Left 82 0 53 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 49
cSH 212 572 542 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.39 0.10 0.10 0.51 0.51 0.29 0.29 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 43 9 8 0 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s/veh) 32.4 12.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 23.9 0.4 0.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus Project AM - mit 1: Selby Lane & El Camino Real 09/27/2023
Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 19 0 272 1 1 20 291 1432 6 42 1979 172 Future Volume (vph) 19 0 272 1 1 20 291 1432 6 42 1979 172 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91
Frt 0.87 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1623 1630 1770 5082 1770 5024
Flt Permitted 0.97 0.96 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1586 1574 1770 5082 1770 5024
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 20 0 280 1 1 21 300 1476 6 43 2040 177
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 258 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 5 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 42 0 0 4 0 300 1482 0 43 2212 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.4 9.4 25.4 90.0 6.5 71.1
Effective Green, g (s) 9.4 9.4 25.4 90.0 6.5 71.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.21 0.75 0.05 0.60
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 124 123 376 3830 96 2991
v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.29 0.02 c0.44
v/s Ratio Perm c0.03 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.03 0.80 0.39 0.45 0.74
Uniform Delay, d1 52.1 50.8 44.6 5.1 54.7 17.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.1 11.2 0.1 3.3 1.0
Delay (s) 53.7 50.9 55.8 5.2 58.0 18.4
Level of Service D D E A E B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 53.7 50.9 13.7 19.2
Approach LOS D D B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 19.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 119.4 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group