Agenda packet — Livingston City Council, September 6, 2022 (part 3 of 3)

June 8, 2020
Terry Farmer
BaseCamp Environmental, Inc.

Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Livingston Truck Stop Project, Merced County
Dear Mr. Farmer:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Nancy Gonzalez-Lopez
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

COMMISSIONER
Marshall McKay
Wintun

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

COMMISSIONER
Julie TumamaitStenslie
Chumash

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

APPENDIX D

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Transportation Engineers

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
FOR

MOONGLO TRUCK STOP
Livingston, CA
Prepared For:

HAWKINS & ASSOCIATES
435 Mitchell Road
Modesto, CA 95354
Prepared By:

KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.
3853 Taylor Road, Suite G
Loomis, California 95650
(916) 660-1555
July 24, 2020
3620-16
Moonglo Truck Stop.rpt

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR

MOONGLO TRUCK STOP
Livingston, CA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 1 EXISTING SETTING ................................................................................................................................ 3 Existing Street and Highway System ............................................................................................... 3 Study Intersections ........................................................................................................................... 4 Alternative Transportation Modes ................................................................................................... 5 REGULATORY SETTING ..................................................................................................................... 14 Merced County Association of Governments ................................................................................ 16 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................................... 18 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 18 Trip Generation .............................................................................................................................. 18 Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................................ 20 Other Transportation Modes .......................................................................................................... 22 PROJECT IMPACTS .............................................................................................................................. 25 Traffic Operations Analysis ........................................................................................................... 25 Traffic Safety Impacts / Access ..................................................................................................... 32 Impacts to Alternative Transportation Modes ............................................................................... 32 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 34 Approach ........................................................................................................................................ 34 Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................................. 35 Future Traffic Operating Conditions ............................................................................................. 39 ACCESS AND CIRCULATION ............................................................................................................. 43 Key Issues ...................................................................................................................................... 43 FINDINGS/ MITIGATION MEASURES / RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 44 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................54 Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 1
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR

MOONGLO TRUCK STOP
Livingston, CA

INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes KD Anderson & Associates analysis of the potential Transportation impacts associated with development of the Moonglo Truck Stop Project in Livingston, California. The 20+ acre project site is located in the area north of State Route 99 and east of Hammatt Avenue as noted in Figure 1. The project as assumed herein would be developed in two phases. The first phase involves construction of a truck stop. The second phase involves construction of three freestanding quick serve restaurants on the site.

The purpose of this analysis is to identify the potential transportation-related impacts of the project within the context of current conditions in Livingston as well as the cumulative impacts of the entire project within the context of future traffic conditions in the Livingston area. This analysis includes evaluation of existing traffic operating conditions in the area based upon current weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes. The extent to which improvements may already be needed to meet minimum standards has been determined. The characteristics of the proposed project have been determined based on probable peak hour and daily trip generation, regional trip distribution and local trip assignment. Forecasts for future year traffic conditions, including other development identified by the City of Livingston have been analyzed with and without the proposed project. The project’s impact to alternative transportation modes has also been considered. Mitigation measures needed to ensure satisfactory operation of study area intersections under each development scenario are recommended. figure
1 SITE PLAN
3620-16 RA 7/24/2020
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 3
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)

EXISTING SETTING
Existing Street and Highway System
Streets and Highways. The Moonglo Truck Stop will be served by a state highway and several major Livingston roadways. Primary regional access is provided by State Route 99. Other access is available via Hammatt Avenue and Campbell Blvd.

State Route 99 is the primary north-south transportation corridor through Merced County. In the vicinity of the project site, it has a west-northwest to east-southeast alignment. SR 99 is a controlled access freeway with a six-lane width southeast of Hammatt Avenue and a four-lane width northwest of Hammatt Avenue. Project access to SR 99 is primarily provided via the Hammatt Avenue interchange, which is immediately adjoined to the site and by the Sultana Drive – Liberty Avenue interchange which is two miles to the east via Campbell Blvd. The most recent traffic count data available from Caltrans (2017) indicate that SR 99 carries an average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume of 60,000 to 62,000 vehicles per day and peak hour volume of 5,500 to 5,800 in the vicinity of the project site (California Department of Transportation 2020). Trucks comprise 24% of the daily traffic volume on SR 99 in this area.

Hammatt Avenue is designated an arterial street in the Circulation Element of the General Plan – Livingston, California (Livingston 1999). The Hammatt Avenue interchange is one of two interchanges providing the Livingston area with access to SR 99. Within the study area, Hammatt Avenue is a north-south two lane roadway, although the Circulation Element of the Livingston General Plan notes that a five lane section is planned. Hammatt Avenue begins at an intersection on Peach Avenue and continues north across SR 99 to its northern terminus at Olive Avenue at the northern City limits. The posted speed limit is 40 mph in the area of the project.

Hammatt Avenue’s southern terminus is at Peach Avenue. North of F Street in the vicinity of the interchange with SR 99, the adjacent land uses include existing, approved and proposed nonresidential uses. Traffic count data collected in 2019 indicated a daily traffic volume on Hammatt Avenue south of SR 99 of 9,222 vehicles per day. The daily volume north of SR 99 is estimated to be 10,800 ADT based on the peak hour traffic counts collected for this analysis.

Campbell Blvd is also designated an arterial street in the Circulation Element. Campbell Blvd lies parallel to and north of SR 99 and extends from the SR 99 / Winton Parkway interchange across Hammatt Avenue into Merced County and the SR 99 / Sultana Drive – Liberty Avenue interchange. Within the study area, Campbell Blvd is a two-lane roadway. Ultimately the road’s 110 foot right of way can accommodate two travel lanes in each direction and a center left turn median area. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. In the study area east of Hammatt Avenue, adjacent land uses are primarily light industrial. The daily traffic volume is estimated to be 1,800 ADT on Campbell Blvd east of Hammatt Avenue.

F Street is an east-west street that traverses Livingston in the area south of SR 99. F Street originates at the Flint Avenue / Robin Avenue intersection and continues easterly across Hammatt Avenue to Dwight Way. This two-lane roadway is designated a Collector in the Circulation Element. The posted speed limit is 25 mph west of Hammatt Avenue. The land uses along F Street west of Hammatt Avenue are primarily residential, while agricultural and Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 4
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
commercial uses exist in the east. Based on the peak hour volume collected for the study the daily traffic volume west of Hammatt Avenue is estimated to be 3,850 ADT.

Industrial Drive is a local street that provides access to the commercial area east of Hammatt Avenue and north of Campbell Blvd. This two-lane street intersects Campbell Blvd about 500 feet east of the Hammatt Avenue intersection and extends northerly for 1,100 feet to Walnut Avenue. The land uses along Industrial Drive are light-industrial / warehousing.

Connection to SR 99. The SR 99 / Hammatt Avenue interchange is a diamond configuration with roughly 550 feet between ramp intersections. Under Caltrans convention SR 99 is a northsouth freeway, and the ramps are thus designated “northbound” and “southbound” even though the alignment of the freeway through Livingston is east to west. Campbell Blvd intersects Hammatt Avenue about 430 feet from the SR 99 NB ramps intersection, and the F Street intersection is about 725 feet from the SR 99 SB ramps. The SR 99 off-ramps terminate at allway stop controlled intersections. The SB off-ramp is 1,330 feet long (gore to limit line), and the NB off-ramp is 1,240 feet long. The on-ramp areas are of similar length. Both the NB on-ramp and SB on-ramp area about 1,350 feet long and are followed by a 250 foot long auxiliary lanes.

Caltrans publishes daily traffic volume information for freeway ramps, and the most recent data is summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1
STGATE ROUTE 99 RAMPS DAILY VOLUMES
Direction on SR 99 Location Year Daily Volume
Southbound
Off-ramp to Winton Parkway 2016 8,338
On-ramp from Winton Parkway 2016 1,291
Off-ramp to Hammatt Avenue 2012 2,540
On-ramp from Hammatt Avenue 2012 2,850
Northbound
Off-ramp to Hammatt Avenue 2016 2,829
On-ramp from Hammatt Avenue 2016 1,057
Off-ramp to Winton Parkway 2016 2,991
On-ramp from Winton Parkway 2012 6,100
Study Intersections
Study Locations. In urban areas the quality of flow of traffic is often governed by the operation of intersections, and the operation of the following four existing intersections was analyzed for this study:

1. Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd

2. Hammatt Avenue & SR 99 Northbound Ramps

2. Hammatt Avenue & SR 99 Southbound Ramps

3. Hammatt Avenue & F Street
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 5
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
The Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd intersection is controlled by stop signs on the eastbound and westbound Campbell Blvd approaches. The three-lane Hammatt Avenue approaches each have separate left turn, through and right turn lanes. The eastbound Campbell Blvd approach has a separate right turn lane, and the westbound approach near the project is a single lane.

The Hammatt Avenue / SR 99 NB ramps intersection is controlled by all-way stop signs.

Each approach has two lanes, with a separate left turn lane on the northbound approach and separate right turn lanes on southbound Hammatt Avenue and on the off-ramp. The intersection limit lines have been pulled back to accommodate the turning requirements of trucks.

The Hammatt Avenue / SR 99 SB ramps intersection is also controlled by all-way stop signs, and the intersection layout is similar to the NB Ramp intersection. Each approach has two lanes, with a separate left turn lane on the southbound approach and right turn lanes on northbound Hammatt Avenue and on the off-ramp. The intersection limit lines have been pulled back to accommodate the turning requirements of trucks.

The Hammatt Avenue / F Street intersection is controlled by all-way stop signs. Each approach has a single lane.

Alternative Transportation Modes
Sidewalks. Concrete sidewalks exist at various locations along most City of Livingston streets but become less prevalent in outlying areas of the community where development has not yet occurred. As noted in Table 2, there are sidewalks on one side of Hammatt Avenue through the study area and on the north side of Campbell Blvd west of Hammatt Avenue.

TABLE 2

SIDEWALK INVENTORY
Street From To Side Sidewalk
Hammatt Avenue
Walnut Avenue Campbell Blvd West Yes
East Partial
Campbell Blvd NB SR 99 ramps West Yes
East No
NB SR 99 ramps SB SR 99 ramps West Yes
East No
SB SR 99 ramps F Street West Yes
East No
Campbell Blvd East Avenue Hammatt Avenue North Yes
South No
Hammatt Avenue Dwight Way North No
South No
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 6
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
Bicycle Facilities. According to Caltrans guidelines, bicycle facilities are generally divided into four categories:
 Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). A completely separate facility designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with vehicle and pedestrian cross-flow minimized.
 Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane). A striped lane designated for the use of bicycles on a street or highway. Vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian cross-flow are permitted at designated locations.
 Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). A route designated by signs or pavement markings for bicyclists within the vehicular travel lane (i.e., shared use) of a roadway.
 Class IV Bikeway (Separated Bikeway). A bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation required between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible posts, inflexible barriers, or on-street parking.

The City of Livingston adopted a Bicycle Plan in November 2005. Both the Bicycle Plan and Livingston’s General Plan identify the need to establish a safe and efficient transportation system that provides adequate access throughout the city, as well as routes that provide alternatives to motor vehicle travel. The City of Livingston currently has no designated bicycle facilities in the immediate area of the project site.

Public Transit. There are a variety of transit options available in Merced County. The level of transit service available to Merced County residents has increased since transit was introduced to the area in 1974. Historically, public transit has developed in response to the basic transportation needs of Merced’s transit-dependent population and has maintained that standard of service.

Bus Service. The Bus, Merced's Regional Transit System, was formed from the consolidation of four former local public transit service providers in July 1996. Today “The Bus” is the single public transportation service provider for all of Merced County.

The Bus is administered and governed by the Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County.

The authority is made up of an 11 member board of elected officials: one each from the cities of Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, Livingston, Los Banos, and Merced, along with five members of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Merced, California.

Currently, buses are operating on 16 fixed routes with another set of buses providing Paratransit service. The Bus carries approximately 1,000,000 passengers per year. (http://www.mercedthebus.com/).

Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 7
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
The Bus provides two routes in the Livingston area:
 Route L, the Livingston Commuter, operates between Livingston and the City of Merced. In the vicinity of the project site, this route provides service along Walnut Avenue to a stop at the Franci Street intersection approximately ½ mile north of the project site.
 Route T, the Turlock Commuter, operates between Turlock and the City of Merced. This route provides service along Hammatt Avenue to the Walnut Avenue / Franci Street stop.

Dial-A-Ride. Dial-A-Ride service is primarily for use by senior citizens, the handicapped, or those without a regularly scheduled fixed route bus operating within one mile of their residence. Dial-A-Ride is available to the general public except in the cities of Merced and Los Banos.

In the cities of Merced and Los Banos, Dial-A-Ride service is reserved for the exclusive use by the elderly (age 60 and older) and the handicapped. All Dial-A-Ride users in these two cities must register for Dial-A-Ride service.

Dial-A-Ride is generally open for service from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. However, service hours may vary from community to community depending on ridership demand.

Traffic Operational Analysis
Methods. To quantitatively evaluate traffic conditions and to provide a basis for comparison of operating conditions with and without project-generated traffic, Level of Service (LOS) was determined at study intersections.

LOS is a quantitative measure of traffic operating conditions using a letter grade A through F.

LOS A through F represents progressively worsening traffic conditions. The characteristics associated with the various LOS for intersections are presented in Table 3. The City of Livingston designates LOS C as their minimum standard, while the Circulation Element of the 2030 Merced County General Plan (County of Merced 2013) establishes LOS C as the minimum acceptable condition in rural portions of the County and LOS D as the urban standard.

Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 8
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
TABLE 3

LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Level of
Service Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Roadway (Daily) "A" Uncongested operations, all queues
clear in a single-signal cycle.

Delay < 10.0 sec
Little or no delay.

Delay < 10 sec/veh
Completely free flow.
"B" Uncongested operations, all queues
clear in a single cycle.

Delay > 10.0 sec and < 20.0 sec
Short traffic delays.

Delay > 10 sec/veh and
< 15 sec/veh
Free flow, presence of other
vehicles noticeable.
"C" Light congestion, occasional backups
on critical approaches.

Delay > 20.0 sec and < 35.0 sec
Average traffic delays.

Delay > 15 sec/veh and
< 25 sec/veh
Ability to maneuver and
select operating speed
affected.
"D" Significant congestions of critical
approaches but intersection functional.

Cars required to wait through more
than one cycle during short peaks. No
long queues formed. Delay > 35.0 sec
and < 55.0 sec
Long traffic delays.

Delay > 25 sec/veh and
< 35 sec/veh
Unstable flow, speeds and
ability to maneuver
restricted.
"E" Severe congestion with some long
standing queues on critical approaches.

Blockage of intersection may occur if
traffic signal does not provide for
protected turning movements. Traffic
queue may block nearby intersection(s)
upstream of critical approach(es).

Delay > 55.0 sec and < 80.0 sec
Very long traffic delays, failure,
extreme congestion.

Delay > 35 sec/veh and
< 50 sec/veh
At or near capacity, flow
quite unstable.
"F" Total breakdown, stop-and-go
operation. Delay > 80.0 sec
Intersection blocked by external
causes. Delay > 50 sec/veh
Forced flow, breakdown.

Sources: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition.

LOS were calculated for study intersections using the applicable methodology contained in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board 2016). The text that follows summarizes this methodology.

Signalized Intersections. The methodology employed for determining LOS at signalized intersections makes use of data describing traffic volume, intersection geometry and traffic signal timing to calculate the overall average delay per vehicle passing through the intersection. This average delay is compared to the prescribed thresholds to identify the applicable LOS. When signalized, the study intersections were evaluated using SYNCHRO software (Trafficware 2020) and SimTraffic micro-simulation for this traffic impact study.

Unsignalized Intersections. The procedure for calculating the LOS at unsignalized intersections is based on the relative availability of gaps in traffic and the delay experienced for each movement that must yield the right-of-way. The number of gaps is a function of the volume and speed of conflicting traffic, type of control (stop or yield), and intersection geometrics.

While the length of average delays and LOS can be calculated for each movement, an overall Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 9
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
“weighted” LOS can be calculated, and overall LOS is the basis for analysis of intersection controlled by all-way stop signs. All study intersections were evaluated using SYNCHRO software (Trafficware 2020) and HCM methods.

LOS at unsignalized intersections that are controlled by side street stops is indicative of the magnitude of the delay incurred by motorists turning at the intersection. However, because these calculations exclude the condition of through traffic flow (which is assumed to flow freely), unsignalized poor LOS may not be judged to be significant unless the volume of traffic also satisfies warrants for traffic signals.

While the unsignalized LOS may indicate very long delays (e.g., LOS E or F) traffic conditions are generally not assumed to be significant unless a significant number of motorists are delayed.

For this analysis, the satisfaction of traffic signal warrants has been used to suggest the significance of unsignalized LOS. Although satisfying signal warrants signifies that an intersection has unacceptable operating conditions, it does not mean that installation of a signal is the only way to mitigate those conditions. It is often possible to improve an intersection with additional lanes or improved geometrics so that signalization is not necessary.

Roundabouts. Caltrans policy regarding applicable traffic controls on state highways is based on Policy Directive 13-02. This directive requires that Caltrans consider the relative merits of alternative traffic controls when it becomes necessary to stop traffic on state highways.

Roundabouts LOS is calculated based on HCM delays using SIDRA software.

Traffic Signal Warrants Procedures. Traffic signal warrants are a series of standards which provide guidelines for determining if a traffic signal is appropriate. Because available data are limited to a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes un-signalized intersections were evaluated using the Peak Hour Warrant (Warrant Number 3) from the California Department of Transportation document Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA’s MUTCD 2010 Edition, as amended for use in California) (MUTCD) (California Department of Transportation 2012). “Urban” analysis criteria were employed based on the speed limit speed limit on Hammatt Avenue (i.e., <40 mph).

Intersection Queues. The length of peak period queues at study intersections was determined as a byproduct of HCM LOS analysis at unsignalized intersections and as a result of the simulation at signalized locations.

Standards. In this study, project-related impacts and the need for improvements are based on minimum LOS established by agencies responsible for maintaining roadways. The City of Livingston Circulation Element of the General Plan – Livingston, California (Livingston 1999) designates LOS C as their minimum standard.

The City of Livingston is in the process of updating its General Plan, and it is possible that the City policies regarding traffic circulation goals will change as the document responds to the requirements of SB 743. The City may consider Level of Service goals which are more consistent with those adopted by other Merced County communities (i.e., LOS D).

Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 10
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
The Merced County General Plan Circulation Element establishes LOS C as the minimum acceptable condition in rural portions of the County and LOS D as the urban standard.

The Caltrans document Transportation Concept Report – State Route 99 - District 10 (California Department of Transportation 2017) (TCR) identifies LOS D as the concept LOS in rural portions of SR 99 and LOS D as the concept LOS in urban portions. The TCR identifies the portion of SR 99 southeast of Hammatt Avenue as rural, and the portion between Hammatt Avenue and the Winton Parkway as urban.

More detail on the minimum LOS established by agencies is presented in the Regulatory Setting section of this traffic impact study.

Existing Traffic Volumes. To quantify existing traffic conditions, available peak hour intersection turning movement count data was reviewed and selected for study intersections.

Traffic counts made on Tuesday November 5, 2019 were available for the Hammatt Avenue intersections at F Street and at the SR 99 interchange, and data collected in 2018 for the ARCO project traffic study was available for the Campbell Blvd intersection. All count data was collected during the 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. morning peak period and the 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. evening peak period when schools were in normal session. The Campbell Blvd / Hammatt Avenue traffic counts were adjusted to match the newer count volumes on Hammatt Avenue at the interchange.

Existing peak hour traffic volume data, as well as current intersection traffic controls and intersection lane geometry, are presented in Figure 2.

KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 2

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
3620-16 RA 7/24/2020
2 1
3 4
3 1
2 4
Hammatt Ave/ Cambell Ave
R1-1
R1-1
Hammatt Ave/ SR 99 NB Ramps
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
Hammatt Ave/ SR 99 SB Ramps
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
Hammatt Ave/ F St
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
(4) 3
(272) 393
(21) 19
64 (69)211 (125)253 (371)
5 (12)
14 (22)
39 (42)
(16) 4
(18) 9
(148) 111
(326) 362(137) 181
157 (110)315 (400)
211 (171)
1 (2)
95 (116)
(170) 153(271) 303
355 (273)143 (120)
(237) 118
(1) 1
(164) 87
(47) 38
(211) 197(161) 159
3 (7)21 (261 (188)
27)
32 (53)
9 (17)
0 (11)
(171) 207
(11) 6
(31) 23
Stop Sign
Legend
AM Peak Hour Volume
R1-1
XX
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
9 t -u-+ .J:L ++
p
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 12
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
Current Peak Hour Traffic Conditions. Current a.m. and p.m. peak hour LOS were calculated at existing study intersections under Existing conditions. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4. The LOS calculation worksheets for Existing conditions are presented in the Appendix.

As shown in Table 4, two of the study intersections currently operate with peak hour Level of Service that exceed the City’s minimum LOS C standard.

The westbound approach at the Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd intersection operates at LOS F in the a.m. peak hour and LOS E in the p.m. peak hour. However, current traffic volumes do not reach the level that satisfy peak hour traffic signal warrants. Measures to improve operation at this location would involve widening the intersection to provided auxiliary lanes, installing a traffic signal or constructing a roundabout intersection. The City of Livingston is currently in the process of preparing construction plans for intersection improvements, including a traffic signal, for this location.

The Hammatt Avenue / SR 99 NB ramps intersection operates at LOS E in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. Current volumes reach the level that satisfies peak hour traffic signal warrants in the a.m. peak hour. Measures to improve operation at this location could involve widening the intersection approaches to provided auxiliary lanes, installing a traffic signal or constructing a roundabout intersection.

Levels of Service at other intersections satisfy the LOS C minimum. Current traffic volumes at the Hammatt Avenue / SR 99 SB ramps intersection satisfy peak hour traffic signal warrants in the p.m. peak hour.

TABLE 4

EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Intersection Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Warrants
Met?
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd
Eastbound approach
Westbound approach
EB/WB Stop 14.5

68.0 B
F

14.2 44.7
B
E
No
Hammatt Avenue / SR 99 NB ramps AWS 36.5 E 26.1 D No
Hammatt Avenue / SR 99 SB ramps AWS 23.3 C 19.8 C No
Hammatt Avenue / F Street AWS 14.1 B 14.2 B No
LOS = Level of Service
Bold Values Exceed LOS C
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 13
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
Current Peak Hour Conditions - Freeway Ramp Junctions. Freeway ramp junction Level of Service is predicated on the hourly mainline traffic volume as well as the volume of traffic on specific ramps. As noted earlier, peak hour ramp volumes were identified from new traffic counts at ramp terminal intersections. Mainline weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour directional volumes were identified from Caltrans PeMS count station data. For this analysis the mainline data was reviewed, and the 75th percentile volumes for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday counts completed in 2019 were used for ramp operational calculations.

Table 5 identifies current Levels of Service at freeway ramp junctions on SR 99 at Hammatt Avenue. As shown, all operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour.

TABLE 5
EXISTING SR 99 RAMP JUNCTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Location Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing Existing
Ramp
Volume
(vph)
Density
(pc/ln/mi) LOS
Ramp
Volume
(vph)
Density
(pc/ln/mi) LOS
SB Hammatt Avenue off Diverge 206 27.7 C 402 34.8 D
SB Hammatt Avenue on Merge 296 25.8 C 290 30.4 D
NB Hammatt Avenue off Diverge 307 31.3 D 289 29.2 D
NB Hammatt Avenue on Merge 338 28.4 D 247 26.0 C
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 14
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)

REGULATORY SETTING
The following information is a description of the existing regulatory setting conditions in the project study area. The study area includes streets and highways that are governed by various state and local jurisdictions. Each has adopted policies and minimum LOS standards for their facilities.

Caltrans
Caltrans is responsible for state highways, their ramps and for intersections where freeway ramps intersect the local street system. Caltrans generally strives to maintain LOS C on its facilities but recognizes that circumstances may limit their ability to do so. The following four documents are relevant.

Traffic Study Guidelines. The Caltrans document Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (California Department of Transportation 2002) identifies circumstances under which Caltrans determines that a traffic impact study would be required. The document also details information that is to be included in the study, analysis scenarios, and guidance on acceptable analysis methodologies.

State Route 99 Transportation Concept Report. The Caltrans document Transportation Concept Report – State Route 99 - District 10 (California Department of Transportation 2017) (TCR) is applicable to the highway. A TCR is a long-term planning document that each Caltrans district prepares for every state highway or portion thereof in its jurisdiction. This document usually represents the first step in Caltrans’ long-range corridor planning process. The purpose of a TCR is to determine how a highway will be developed and managed so that it delivers the targeted LOS and quality of operations that are feasible to attain over a 20-year period. These are indicated in the “route concept.” In addition to the 20-year route concept level, the TCR includes an “ultimate concept,” which is the ultimate goal for the route beyond the 20-year planning horizon. Ultimate concepts must be used cautiously, however, because unforeseen changes in land use and other variables make forecasting beyond 20 years difficult. TCRs do not necessarily consider the amount, type, and location of development within local agency General Plans. The SR 99 TCR identifies LOS C as the concept LOS in rural portions and LOS D as the concept LOS in urban portions. In the Livingston area, the portion of SR 99 southeast of Hammatt Avenue is considered rural, and the portion between the Winton Parkway and Hammatt Avenue is considered urban.

Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-02. Caltrans policy regarding applicable traffic controls has recently been expanded based on Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-02. This directive requires that Caltrans consider the relative merits of alternative traffic controls when it becomes necessary to stop traffic on state highways. Roundabouts are the default intersection control, but all-way stops and traffic signals are to be considered. The policy directive requires preparation of an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) to determine the preferred traffic control.

Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 15
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
Caltrans Encroachment Permit. Improvements made to the state highway by private parties or local agencies are processed under a permit from Caltrans.

Merced County
General Plan. The 2030 Merced County General Plan (County of Merced 2013) Circulation Element focuses on providing roadways for growing automobile demands and alternative modes of transportation. This requires improving those alternative modes through regional coordination, improved funding, better land use and design, and fair pricing. The overarching goal of the element seeks a balanced transportation system that moves people and goods in a safe and efficient way that minimizes environmental impacts, supports urban land uses, and serves rural needs. The following are two policies of the General Plan Circulation Element related to LOS standards:
“Policy CIR-1.5: County Level of Service Standards (RDR) Implement a Countywide roadway system that achieves the following level-ofservice (LOS) standards during peak traffic periods:
“a) For roadways located within rural areas: LOS "C" or better. “b) For roadways located outside Urban Communities that serve as connectors between Urban Communities: LOS of “D” or better. “c) For roadways located within Urban Communities: LOS of "D" or better.
“Policy CIR-1.6: Level of Service “E” Exception (RDR)
Allow a level of service "E" or worse only on a minor component of the circulation system (such as a left turn movement from a local roadway) if the major component of the circulation system (such as a through movement on a collector or arterial roadway) would be significantly compromised in the process of improving the level of service of the minor component.” Merced County has jurisdiction of non-state roadways outside of the Livingston city limits.

City of Livingston
General Plan. The City of Livingston is responsible for streets within the city limits. The City of Livingston Circulation Element of the General Plan – Livingston, California (Livingston 1999) designates LOS C as their minimum standard:
“The City designates Service Level ‘C’ as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (published by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council) as the minimum desirable service level at which arterial streets and collector streets should operate. All new facilities in these categories shall be Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 16
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
designed to operate at this level or better for a period of at least 20 years following their construction.”
Merced County Association of Governments
2018 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/STS). The Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) has prepared the 2018 update to the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) to address current regional goals and priorities. Ultimately this plan seeks to ensure that the Merced County transportation system will continue to operate efficiently over the next 25 years with sufficient capacity to meet demand and that mobility options are available for all of Merced County’s residents. The RTP focuses on our regional transportation infrastructure needs, while the SCS addresses planned growth patterns that have been defined by local cities and the County. Linking the RTP and SCS binds these two processes together, ensuring that planned additions and modifications to the regional transportation network are addressing both existing and future needs.

Table 10.2 – 2018 RTP/STS Tier I Projects List identifies anticipated improvement projects anticipated at various locations in the County, including the Livingston area projects noted in Table 6. Of these projects, completion of SR 99 to 6 lanes through Livingston and possible improvements to the SR 99 / Hammatt Avenue interchange are in the immediate environs of the proposed project.

Regional Transportation Impact Fee. The Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) administers the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) program. Many local governments have or are considering development fee programs to mitigate traffic impacts within their jurisdiction. However, transportation impacts beyond their jurisdictions are not included.

The Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program provides additional revenue to mitigate transportation impacts on the regional road network. (http://www.mcagov.org/150/RegionalTransportation-Impact-Fee) Currently Livingston and other Merced County cities do not collect this fee.

Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 17
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
TABLE 6
2018 RTP/STS TIER I PROJECTS LIST – LIVINGSTON AREA
Jurisdiction Project Limits / Description Type Year Cost (mil’s)
Funding
Sources
Caltrans SR 99,
Livingston Widening
Widen freeway to 6 lanes from Hammatt Avenue to
Stanislaus County line
Road
Capacity
2024 $75.0 STIP, TCEP
(SB1)
Livingston
Livingston Transit
Center
Main Street along UP ROW Transit 2027 $2.9 Measure V
B Street
Corridor Improvements
Winton Parkway to 1st Street Complete
Streets
2022 $3.9 Measure V
Main Street
Corridor Improvements
Swan St to Peach Ave Complete
Streets
2022 $13.0 Measure V
SR 99 / Winton Pkwy
on-ramp widening
SR 99 and Joseph Gallo Dr Road Op’s /
Safety
2019 1.24 Measure V
Roundabout
@ Main St & B St
Road Op’s /
Safety
2018 $.554 FTIP
Winton Pkwy Extension B Street to F Street Road
Capacity
2025 $5.0 Measure V/SB-1/
STIP/local
Roadway Rehabilitation Various Locations Road
Maintenance
2022 $4.4 Measure V/SB-1/
STIP/local
Infill Sidewalk Program Various locations Active
(bike/ped)
2023 $2.6 Measure V/SB-1/
STIP/local
Widen / reconstruct Hammatt Ave and Winton Pkwy interchanges and Main Street crossing with SR 99. Winton Pkwy is the top priority followed by Hammatt Ave
Road Op’s /
Safety
2020 $15.0 Measure V/SB-1/
STIP/local
Roundabout
@ Briarwood & B St
Road Op’s /
Safety
2022 $3.5 Measure V/SB-1/
I STIP/local
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 18
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Project Description
The project includes two phases. The first phase is a truck stop with separate areas for automobile and truck fueling, along with a tire shop. The second phase involves construction of three free standing quick-serve restaurants. The project is divided into western and eastern halves. The western half focusses on customers arriving by automobile and has access to Campbell Blvd at locations roughly 300 and 550 feet east of Hammatt Avenue. The later driveway is opposite the existing Industrial Drive intersection. The eastern area includes truck fueling and truck services, and there is no vehicular connection between the western and eastern two areas. The truck area has three driveways located roughly 780, 1,240 and 1,760 feet east of Hammatt Avenue.

Trip Generation
Approach. The number of vehicle trips that are expected to be generated by development of the project has been estimated based on trip generation rates that are applicable to the nature and size of project land uses. Specific trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) were used when available for known uses Trip Generation Rates. The number of vehicle trips that are expected to be generated by development of the truck stop and accompanying uses have been estimated based on trip generation rates that are applicable to the nature and size of project land uses. Trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition have been employed where available. ITE trip generation rates that may be applicable are presented in Table 7. As indicated, rates are available for Truck Stops based on the building floor area in 1,000 sf (ksf).

TABLE 7

ITE TRIP GENERATION RATES
Land Use
ITE
Code Unit
Trips per Unit
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Tire Store 848 ksf 28.52 64% 36% 2.72 43% 57% 3.98
Fast Food Restaurant
With Drive thru 934 ksf 470.95 51% 49% 40.19 52% 48% 32.67 Truck Stop 950 ksf 455.53 50% 50% 26.49 53% 47% 22.73
Trip Generation Forecasts. Identified trips generation rates were applied to the project.

Gross Trip Generation. Resulting gross trip generation estimates for the identified uses in the Moonglo project are presented in Tables 8 and 9. As shown, under Phase 1 the truck stop Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 19
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
would generate 5,996 gross daily trips with 353 trips in the a.m. and 310 trips in the p.m. peak hour. At buildout the total gross trip generation is 9,858 daily trips, with 682 trips the a.m. peak hour and 578 trips in the p.m. peak hour.

Internal Trips. A share of the trips attracted to each use are likely to be made by persons who also elect to visit another part of the project as part of the same stop. Initially, 50% of the trips generated by the tire shops have been assumed to be made by truck stop customers. At buildout it has been assumed that 15% of the trips generated by fast food restaurant customers would be made by persons who would also visit the truck stop, primarily for fuel. While internal trips are limited under Phase 1, after accounting for these internal trips, at buildout the project is expected to generate 8,580 external daily trips, with 572 external trips in the a.m. peak hour and 482 external trips in the p.m. peak hour.

TABLE 8
PROJECT PHASE 1 TRIP GENERATION FORECASTS
Land Use Unit Quantity
Trips
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Project Phase 1
Tire Store ksf 4.2 120 7 4 11 7 10 17
Internal Trips to Truck Stop 50% <60> <3> <2> <5> <3> <5> <8> External Trips 60 4 2 6 4 5 9
Pass-by Trips 5% <3> <0> <0> <0> <0> <0> <0>
Truck Stop – Auto’s (60%) ksf 12.9 3,526 103 103 206 93 83 176 Internal to Tire Shop <20> <0> <0> <0> <0> <0> <0>
External 3,506 103 103 202 93 83 176
Pass-by Trips 25% <877> <26> <26> <52> <22> <22> <44>
Truck Stop – Trucks (40%) ksf 12.9 2,350 68 68 136 62 55 117 Internal to Tire Shop <40> <2> <3> <5> <5> <3> <8>
External 2,310 66 65 131 57 52 109
Pass-by 5% <116> <3> <3> <6> <3> <3> <6>
Phase 1 – Gross Total 5,996 178 175 353 162 148 310
Internal <120> <5> <5> <10> <8> <8> <16>
External 5,876 173 170 343 154 140 294
Pass-by <996> <29> <29> <58> <25> <25> <50>
Primary & Link Diverted Trips 4,880 144 141 285 129 125 244 ksf = 1,000 square feet
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 20
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
TABLE 9

PROJECT BUILD OUT TRIP GENERATION FORECASTS
Land Use Unit Quantity
Trips
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Project Build Out
Tire Store ksf 4.2 120 7 4 11 7 10 17
Internal Trips to Truck Stop 50% <60> <3> <2> <5> <3> <5> <8> External Trips 60 4 2 6 4 5 9
Pass-by Trips 5% <3> <0> <0> <0> <0> <0> <0>
Fast Food Restaurant ksf 8.2 3,862 168 162 330 139 129 268 Internal Trip to Truck Stop 15% <579> <25> <25> <50> <21> <19> <40> External Trips 3,483 143 137 280 118 110 228
Pass-by Trips 25% <871> <35> <35> <70> <29> <28> <57>
Truck Stop – Auto’s (60%) ksf 12.9 3,526 102 103 205 93 83 176 Internal to Tire Shop and Restaurants <347> <16> <17> <33> <14> <14> <28> External Trips 3,179 86 86 172 79 69 148
Pass-by Trips 25% <795> <21> <21> <42> <18> <18> <36>
Truck Stop – Trucks (40%) ksf 12.9 2,350 68 68 136 62 55 117 Internal to Tire Shop and Restaurants <292> <11> <11> <22> <10> <10> <20> External Trips 2,058 57 57 114 52 45 97
Pass-by Trips 5% <103> <3> <3> <6> <2> <2> <4>
Project Build Out - Gross Total 9,858 345 337 682 301 277 578 Internal Trips <1,278> <55> <55> <110> <48> <48> <96>
External Trips 8,580 290 282 572 253 229 482
Pass-by Trips <1,772> <59> <59> <118> <49> <48> <97>
Primary & Link Diverted Trips 6,808 231 223 454 204 181 385 ksf = 1,000 square feet
Trip Distribution
The geographic distribution of project-related trips used in this analysis is based on consideration of the nature of the proposed uses and their likely trade areas.

I
I
I
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 21
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
As a regional travel center, many of the trips associated with the truck stop and adjoining restaurants will be drawn from the stream of traffic passing the site on SR 99. Truck traffic is expected to be drawn primarily from vehicles that are already part of the 9,500+ trucks with 4 axles or more that are on this section of SR 99 daily. Truck trips could also be drawn from the traffic on Campbell Blvd and Hammatt Avenue that are traveling between businesses in Livingston and the freeway.

Due to its location, automobile trips would also be expected to be drawn from existing traffic on the state highway, but a greater share of the project’s automobile traffic may originate elsewhere in Livingston.

Pass-by Trips. Typically, the external trips associated with retail-service uses are divided between “primary”, “diverted linked” and “pass-by” trips. Primary or “new” trips represent those trips specifically made for the purpose of visiting the site. These trips would affect the project access as well as the local and regional circulation system. Pass-by trips are those made as part of another trip by patrons who simply turn into the project. Pass-by trips would not affect the regional circulation system. Link diverted trips are those that already occur on part of the regional circulation system but may use local streets to reach the project. In this case, trips drawn from existing traffic on SR 99 to the project are diverted linked trips.

Pass-by trips would be drawn from traffic already at the Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd intersection. Today roughly 1,100 vehicles pass thru the intersection during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, although only 12% to 15% of that traffic continue on Campbell Blvd along the project site. ITE data indicates that roughly half of the trips attracted to fast food restaurants and 56-62% of the trips to gasoline stations are “pass-by” trips. In this case those general percentages appear to be high relative to the current peak traffic volume at the Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd intersection, and alternative assumptions have been made.

For this analysis it has been assumed that 5% of the external truck trips will be “pass-by” and the remainder will be primary or link diverted trips. Automobile trips have been assumed to be 25% pass-by from the Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd intersection and 75% primary or linkdiverted trips. After accounting for pass-by trips, phase 1 of the project is projected to generate 6,808 daily primary-link diverted trips, with 454 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 385 trips in the pm peak hour.

Link diverted trips are primarily traffic on SR 99 that would pull off the freeway to visit the project and then return.

Primary Trip / Link Diverted Trip Distribution. Table 10 presents the assumptions made regarding the directional distribution of automobile and truck primary and link diverted trips generated by the project. As noted, this analysis conservatively assumes that 65% of the external truck trips and 45% of the external automobile trips drawn to the site will come from traffic already on SR 99.

Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 22
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
TABLE 10

PRIMARY TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Direction Route
Percentage
Trucks Automobiles
Primary
Link
Diverted Primary
Link
Diverted
North Hammatt Ave beyond Campbell Blvd 5% 0% 10% 0%
West State Route 99 beyond Hammatt Ave 10% 30% 10% 20%
Campbell Blvd west of Hammatt Ave 5% 0% 5% 0%
F Street west of Hammatt Ave 0% 0% 5% 0%
South Hammatt Ave south of F Street 5% 0% 10% 0%
East State Route 99 beyond Hammatt Ave 10% 30% 15% 20%
Campbell Blvd beyond project 0% 5% 0% 5%
Total 35% 65% 55% 45%
Highlighted trips are “Pass-by” trips
Trip Assignment. The trips generated by Phase 1 of the project were assigned to the study area street system based on the location of site access and the regional distribution patterns noted previously. Figure 3 presents the resulting project trip assignment for Phase 1. Figure 4 presents the trip assignment for project build out.

Other Transportation Modes
While the project primarily caters to customers who will arrive by automobile or truck, some trips will be made by other modes.

Pedestrians / Bicyclists. It is likely that some project employees and customers will arrive on foot or by bicycle. This would be the case if employees living in residential areas to the northwest or south walk or ride to the site. Similarly, on-site food services may attract patrons from the same areas, or employees of business on Industrial Drive may walk to the site.

Transit Users. The nature of the project’s uses limits its potential for transit use, as few customers would be likely to use that mode. However, some employees may take advantage of The Bus existing routes through Livingston and walk from the Walnut Avenue / Franci Street stop.

KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 3

PROJECT (PHASE I) ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
3620-16 RA 7/24/2020
2 1
3 4
3 1
2 4
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
(20) 26
(-6) -11
(0) 0
-132 (123) 7 (-8)-5 (-3)
21 (20)
12 (9)
133 (109)
(0) 0
(10) 10
(-3) -3
(63) 76(36) 43
0 (0)65 (61)
55 (51)
0 (0)
0 (0)
(45) 55(18) 22
0 (0)22 (20)
(41) 44
(0) 0
(0) 0
(0) 0
(12) 14
(6) 7
0 (0)15 (14)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
(7) 7
(0) 0
(0) 0
Hammatt Ave/ Cambell Ave
Hammatt Ave/ SR 99 NB Ramps
Hammatt Ave/ SR 99 SB Ramps
Hammatt Ave/ F St
Stop Sign
Legend
AM Peak Hour Volume
R1-1
XX
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
9 t -u-+ .J:L ++
p
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 4

PROJECT (BUILDOUT) ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
3620-16 RA 7/24/2020
2 1
3 4
3 1
2 4
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
(43) 54
(-12) -23
(0) 0
-14 (-286 (283)
16)
-11 (-6)
41 (43)
25 (20)
254 (246)
(0) 0
(23) 22
(-7) -6
(82) 82
(145) 145
0 (0)141 (141)
119 (119)
0 (0)
0 (0)
(104) 104
(41) 41
0 (0)47 (47)
(94) 94
(0) 0
(0) 0
(0) 0
(27) 27(14) 14
0 (0)31 (31)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
(16) 16
(0) 0
(0) 0
Hammatt Ave/ Cambell Ave
Hammatt Ave/ SR 99 NB Ramps
Hammatt Ave/ SR 99 SB Ramps
Hammatt Ave/ F St
Stop Sign
Legend
AM Peak Hour Volume
R1-1
XX
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 25
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)

PROJECT IMPACTS
Traffic Operations Analysis
Traffic volumes associated with the operation of the Moonglo Truck Stop project’s Phase 1 and at Build Out were superimposed onto current background traffic to create the Existing plus Project condition assuming development of the portion of the project. Figures 5 and 6 present Existing Plus Project a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes.

Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service. Resulting Existing Plus Project peak hour LOS are presented in Table 11. In each case the existing truck percentage on each approach has been updated to reflect the contribution of trucks associated with the proposed project, and new truck percentages were input to the LOS calculations. The LOS calculation worksheets for Existing Plus Project conditions are presented in the Appendix.

Existing Plus Project Phase 1. As shown in Table 11, the addition of project generated traffic results in longer delays on the westbound approach at the Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd intersection that are indicative of LOS F in both the a.m. and the p.m. peak hour. Measures to improve the Level of Service at this intersection were reviewed. Installing an all-way stop was considered but would still produce an overall Level of Service of LOS F at the intersection. A traffic signal would be needed, or a roundabout could be installed. More information regarding recommended improvements is included under “Mitigation Measures”.

The Hammatt Avenue / SR 99 NB ramps intersection is projected to operate at LOS F in the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. A traffic signal would be needed, or a roundabout could be installed.

More information regarding recommended improvements is included under “Mitigation Measures”.

The Hammatt Avenue / SR 99 SB ramps intersection is projected to operate at LOS D in the a.m. peak hour. To deliver LOS C a traffic signal would be needed, or a roundabout could be installed. More information regarding recommended improvements is included under “Mitigation Measures”.

Conditions at the F Street intersection will satisfy the City’s LOS C minimum standard.

Existing Plus Project Build Out. As shown in Table 11, the same three intersections are projected to operate with Levels of Service that exceed the City’s LOS C minimum, but the SR 99 SB ramps intersection is projected to operate at LOS E in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the a.m. peak hour. Information describing needed improvements is described under “Mitigation Measures”.

Traffic Signal Warrants. Existing Plus Project traffic volumes have been compared to peak hour traffic signal warrant requirements. As was noted in Table 12, the two SR 99 ramp intersections would continue to carry volumes that satisfy peak hour warrants. With the project the Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd intersection would also carry volumes that would satisfy peak hour warrant requirements.

Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 26
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Conditions- Freeway Ramps. Table 13 identifies current and Existing Plus Project Build Out Levels of Service and peak hour volumes on the ramps at the SR 99 / Hammatt Avenue interchange. As shown, with one exception, with project build out all ramps operate at LOS C or D during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour and meet Caltrans minimum LOS D standard for SR 99. The exception is the SB off ramp, which is projected to operate at LOS E in the p.m. peak hour. Because conditions at this location are barely into LOS E (i.e.,

35.0 pc/ln/mi) at buildout, conditions with Phase 1 would remain at LOS D. While LOS E exceeds the LOS D goal, the 2018 RTP indicates that SR 99 is expected to be widened to 6-lanes in the near future (refer to Table 6). With this improvement this ramp diverge will satisfy the minimum LOS D goal.

KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 5

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT (PHASE I) TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
3620-16 RA 7/24/2020
2 1
3 4
3 1
2 4
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
Hammatt Ave/ Cambell Ave
Hammatt Ave/ SR 99 NB Ramps
Hammatt Ave/ SR 99 SB Ramps
Hammatt Ave/ F St
(30) 29
(260) 382
(21) 19
206 (119)246 (355)196 (203)
26 (40)
26 (34)
172 (160)
(16) 4
(32) 19
(141) 108
(389) 438(173) 224
157 (110)380 (461)
266 (222)
1 (2)
95 (116)
(215) 208(289) 225
377 (293)143 (120)
(278) 162
(1) 1
(164) 87
(47) 38
(223) 211(167) 166
3 (7)21 (276 (202)
27)
32 (53)
9 (17)
0 (11)
(178) 214
(11) 6
(31) 23
Stop Sign
Legend
AM Peak Hour Volume
R1-1
XX
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
9 t -u-+ .J:L ++
p
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 6

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT (BUILDOUT) TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
3620-16 RA 7/24/2020
2 1
3 4
3 1
2 4
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
Hammatt Ave/ Cambell Ave
Hammatt Ave/ SR 99 NB Ramps
Hammatt Ave/ SR 99 SB Ramps
Hammatt Ave/ F St
(36) 49
(260) 370
(21) 19
200 (119)239 (355)280 (259)
41 (46)
36 (37)
250 (211)
(16) 4
(35) 27
(141) 105
(422) 480(191) 248
157 (110)419 (491)
298 (248)
1 (2)
95 (116)
(239) 237(298) 236
390 (303)143 (120)
(298) 187
(1) 1
(164) 87
(47) 38
(229) 219(170) 170
3 (7)21 (284 (208)
27)
32 (53)
9 (17)
0 (11)
(181) 219
(11) 6
(31) 23
Stop Sign
Legend
AM Peak Hour Volume
R1-1
XX
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
9 t -u-+ .J:L ++
p
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 29
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
TABLE 11

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing
Existing Plus Project
Existing
Existing Plus Project
Phase 1 Build Out Phase 1 Build Out
Average
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Average
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Average
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Average
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Average
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Average
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Hammatt Ave / Campbell Blvd
Eastbound approach
Westbound approach
EB/WB
Stop

14.5 68.0
B
F

19.0 >300
C
F

25.4 >300
D
F

14.2 44.7
B
E

19.3 >300
C
F

22.0 >300
C
F
Hammatt Ave /
SR 99 NB ramps AWS 36.5 E 88.5 F 125.7 F 26.1 D 60.0 F 86.4 F Hammatt Ave /
SR 99 SB ramps AWS 23.3 C 29.7 D 35.7 E 19.8 C 24.8 C 28.4 D Hammatt Ave /
F Street AWS 14.1 B 19.7 C 21.7 C 14.2 B 19.3 C 20.3 C
LOS = Level of Service.

Bold Values Exceed LOS C
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 30
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
TABLE 12

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Intersection Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing
Existing Plus Project
Existing
Existing Plus Project
Phase 1 Build Out Phase 1 Build Out
Major
Minor Met?
Major
Minor Met
Major
Minor Met?
Major
Minor Met?
Major
Minor Met?
Major
Minor Met?
Hammatt Ave /
Campbell Blvd EB/WB Stop 943
No
1,078
Yes
1,157
Yes
862
No
988
No
1,050
Yes
124 251 327 182 234 294
Hammatt Ave /
SR 99 NB ramps AWS
1,015
Yes
1,199
Yes
1,304
Yes
978
No
1,133
Yes
1,214
Yes
307 362 394 289 340 366
Hammatt Ave /
SR 99 SB ramps AWS
954
No
1,053
No
1,106
Yes
834
Yes
917
Yes
960
Yes
206 250 275 402 443 463
Hammatt Ave /
F Street AWS
679
No
715
No
735
No
641
No
673
No
688
No
236 243 248 213 220 223
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 31
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
TABLE 13

EXISTING PLUS MOONGLO TRUCK STOP PROJECT BUILD OUT

RAMP JUNCTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Location Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing
Existing Plus
Project Build Out Existing
Existing Plus
Project Build Out
Ramp
Vol
(vph)
Density
(pc/ln/mi) LOS
Ramp
Vol
(vph)
Density
(pc/ln/mi) LOS
Ramp
Vol
(vph)
Density
(pc/ln/mi) LOS
Ramp
Vol
(vph)
Density
(pc/ln/mi) LOS
SB Hammatt Ave off Diverge 206 27.7 C 275 28.0 C 402 34.8 D 463 35.0 D-E 1 SB Hammatt Ave on Merge 296 25.8 C 380 26.1 C 290 30.4 D 359 30.6 D NB Hammatt Ave off Diverge 307 31.3 D 394 31.6 D 289 29.2 D 366 29.5 D NB Hammatt Ave on Merge 338 28.4 D 424 28.6 D 247 26.0 C 301 26.0 C Bold values exceed LOS D.
1with 6 lane SR 99 LOS C 25.8 pc/mi/ln
KD Anderson
& Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 7

CUMULATIVE WITHOUT PROJECT

Transportation Engineers
figure 8

CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT (PHASE I)

Transportation Engineers
figure 9

CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT (BUILDOUT)

TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
3620-16 RA 10/27/2020
2 1
3 4
3124
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
Hammatt Ave/ Cambell Ave
Hammatt Ave/ SR 99 NB Ramps
Hammatt Ave/ SR 99 SB Ramps
Hammatt Ave/ F St (41) 66 (313) 411 (42) 59 386 (233) 256 (408) 356 (279) 53 (59)
50 (44)
312 (229)
(49) 34 (48) 39
(266) 214
(573) 633(236) 306
176 (120)603 (621)
394 (299)
1 (2)
116 (182)
(299) 307(456) 441
521 (399)206 (158)
(344) 260
(1) 1
(184) 93
(51) 41
(374) 290(196) 203
3 (7)21 (437 (307)
27)
38 (55)
9 (17)
0 (11)
(210) 252 (11) 6 (31) 23
Stop Sign
Legend
AM Peak Hour Volume
R1-1
XX (XX
) PM Peak Hour Volume
9 t -u-+ .J:L ++
p
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 32
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
Traffic Safety Impacts / Access
95th Percentile Queues. Table 14 presents the volume of traffic in lanes at all-way stop controlled intersections as well as the 95th percentile queues calculated for existing conditions and with buildout of the project. Queue lengths that exceed available storage in turn lanes or reach adjoining intersections could create an appreciable safety issue. In this case, while existing 95th% queues can be accommodated by the existing circulation system, with buildout of the Moonglo project the queue of southbound traffic extending back from the Hammatt Avenue / SR 99 NB ramps intersection would reach the Campbell Blvd intersection in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. This would be a safety issue to be addressed by increasing intersection capacity in a manner that is consistent with the improvements needed to address Level of Service.

Truck Turning Requirements. Turning requirements are important with regards to legal truck circulation. The project will attract full size trucks already permitted on SR 99 (i.e., STAA) turning into and out of the site via the Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd intersection and at the SR 99 ramps intersections.

Review of the current layout of each intersection indicates that STAA vehicles can travel legally from the SR 99 interchange to the project site (see plot in appendix). This issue will need to be confirmed as improvement plans are developed, and the City may need to make a formal application for STAA designation on the affected portions of Hammatt Avenue and Campbell Blvd.

Impacts to Alternative Transportation Modes
The project may result in pedestrians and bicyclists who would travel between the site and the balance of the Livingston area. While the number of pedestrians is not likely to be appreciable, development of a safe path of travel from the site westerly is necessary. As noted in the discussion of existing conditions, a sidewalk exists on the west side of Hammatt Avenue through the study area. While the project will complete standard frontage improvements that include sidewalks, a safe crossing across Hammatt Avenue to the west sidewalks needs to be developed with the project.

Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 33
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
TABLE 14

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION QUEUES
Intersection Lane
Storage
(feet)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing
Existing Plus Project
Existing
Existing Plus Project
Phase 1 Build Out Phase 1 Build Out
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Hammatt Ave /
Campbell Blvd
WB n.a 58 65 224 580 327 945 76 60 23 500 294 725
Hammatt Ave /
SR 99 NB ramps
Off ramp 460 307 55 362 80 394 105 289 40 340 60 366 75 NB left 150 157 40 157 40 157 40 110 <25 110 <25 110 <25 NB through 425 315 105 380 175 419 235 400 175 461 290 491 355 SB through 390 543 385 662 765 728 1,000 463 245 562 500 613 660 Hammatt Ave /
SR 99 SB ramps
Off ramp 360 206 30 250 45 275 60 402 80 444 120 463 145 SB left 125 153 35 208 55 237 75 170 45 215 70 239 85
SB through 425 203 85 225 55 236 65 271 85 289 105 298 120 NB through 725 498 255 530 320 533 370 393 175 413 220 423 245 Hammatt Ave /
F Street
SB through 710 394 105 415 175 427 195 274 120 437 185 446 200 NB through n.a. 285 65 300 65 308 80 222 45 236 50 242 55 Bold Values Exceed available storage
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 34
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)

CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS
This section of the transportation impact study describes traffic operating conditions under longterm future cumulative conditions. This scenario provides a description of background long-term future conditions and, in comparison with the Cumulative Plus Project condition, allows identification of project-related impacts under cumulative conditions.

Approach
Section 15355(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states,
“The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.”
Cumulative traffic volume forecasts were prepared using a method consistent with Section 15130(b)(1)(A) of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states cumulative impact may be assessed using “A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, . . .”
Approved Projects. The background projects assumed for this analysis were identified in consultation with City of Livingston staff and represent those development projects likely to add traffic the study area. The projects and traffic volumes presented in the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Hammatt Avenue ARCO Project - Livingston, CA (BaseCamp Environmental, Inc. 2019) were assumed but were supplemented with additional future projects presented in the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Sanghera Apartments (KDA 2020). These projects are noted in Table 15.

Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 35
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
TABLE 15

APPROVED PROJECTS LIST
Project Location Type Quantity
ARCO Traffic Study Projects
Liberty Square – Manzanita Homes East side of Hammatt Ave, north of Walnut SFR 23 lots Kishi – Manzanita Homes Both sides of Hammatt Ave, north of Walnut SFR 151 lots Country Villas IV S.E. corner of Trigger Lane & Walnut Avenue SFR 66 lots La Tierra (Rancho Estrada) F St and Robin Street SFR 41 lots Mansionettes at Davante Villas South of F Street , east of Bridgeport Village SFR 21 lots Sun Valley Estates 13311 W. Peach SFR 111 lots
9-lot Gallo Commercial Center NE of intersection of Robin Ave and B St Comm 15.9 acres Livingston Community Health B Street east of Winton Pkwy Office 12.28 ac Motel 6 and Future Pad Winton Pkwy & Joseph Gallo Dr Comm Lupita’s Auto Sales Building F Street and Hammatt Ave Comm 6.0 ksf Moreno Duplexes 832 7th St MFR 2 units
ARCO AM/PM SW corner of Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd comm 2.37 ac Sanghera Apartments Traffic Study
Restaurant Walnut Avenue & Hammatt Avenue comm 1.25 ksf Industrial Laundry Campbell Blvd & Industrial Drive ind 83.5 ksf Automobile Sales Campbell Blvd / East Avenue comm 1.26 ksf Sanghera Apartments Main Street & Peach Avenue MFR 450 units Traffic Volumes
Trip generation, trip distribution and traffic assignment for the future projects were developed using data from the two traffic studies. Application of the methods described above results in long-term future Cumulative No Project peak hour traffic volumes presented in Figure 7.

The Cumulative Plus Project conditions have also been developed. Resulting Cumulative plus Project Phase 1 and Build Out volumes are shown in Figures 8, and 9, respectively.

Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 39
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
Future Traffic Operating Conditions
Potential Circulation System Improvements. While improvements to the SR 99 / Hammatt Avenue interchange are include in the list of 2018 RTP Tier 1 projects, the status of potential local improvements is uncertain. This analysis assumes that no improvements to intersections at the SR 99 / Hammatt Avenue interchange are made. Similarly, while the City of Livingston is pursuing a project to improve and signalize the Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd intersection, because the design of that project has not been determined, this cumulative analysis conservatively assumes that current traffic controls remain. Alternatively, based on the information contained in the RTP, it is reasonable to assume that SR 99 will be widened to 6- lanes through Livingston under Cumulative conditions.

Intersection Levels of Service. Projected Levels of Service at study area intersections with and without the Moonglo Truck Stop project are noted in Table 16. As indicated if the other development projects proceed as assumed with no improvements then all of the un-signalized study intersections on Hammatt Avenue are projected to operate with Levels of Service which exceed the City’s LOS C standard. The project’s trips will exacerbate conditions that are forecast to be deficient.

Traffic signals with auxiliary lanes or roundabout intersections would be required to improve forecast traffic conditions with and without the project. The level of improvement required at each location to satisfy the City’s minimum LOS C policy is noted in the following section (Mitigations).

Traffic Signal Warrants. If background development occurs as anticipated, the projected traffic volumes at each location will satisfy peak hour traffic signal warrants without the Moonglo Truck project, as noted in Table 17.

Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Conditions- Freeway Ramp Junctions. As indicated in the evaluation of ramp terminal LOS under Existing Plus Project conditions, the planned widening of SR 99 to 6 lanes will appreciably improve conditions at the SR 99 / Hammatt Avenue ramp junctions. No further analysis of ramp merge - diverge is necessary.

Intersection Queues. As indicated in Table 18, if background development occurs and no improvements are made, then the southbound through traffic queues on Hammatt Avenue at the SR 99 NB ramps will extend beyond the Campbell Blvd intersection. If the Moonglo project is built out, then this queue will be longer, and the northbound queue will extend through the SB ramps intersection to F Street if no improvements are made. The improvements needed to address LOS will also deal with this issue.

Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 40
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
TABLE 16

CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Cumulative
Cumulative Plus Project
Cumulative
Cumulative Plus Project
Phase 1 Build Out Phase 1 Build Out
Average
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Average
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Average
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Average
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Average
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Average
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Hammatt Ave / Campbell Blvd
Eastbound approach
Westbound approach
EB/WB
Stop
118.7
>300
F
F
>300
>300
F
F
>300
>300
F
F

57.5 >300
F
F
137.3
>300
F
F
193.8
>300
F
F
Hammatt Ave / SR 99 NB ramps AWS 118.5 F 188.0 F 236.2 F 109.4 F 171.7 F 205.0 F Hammatt Ave / SR 99 SB ramps AWS 87.3 F 103.1 F 114.3 F 56.6 F 69.9 F 78.2 F Hammatt Ave / F Street AWS 43.3 E 54.8 F 61.0 F 60.5 F 70.6 F 74.2 F LOS = Level of Service.

Bold Values Exceed LOS C
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 41
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
TABLE 17

CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Intersection Control
AM Peak Hour Volume PM Peak Hour Volume
Cumulative
Cumulative Plus Project
Cumulative
Cumulative Plus Project
Phase 1 Build Out Phase 1 Build Out
Major
Minor Met?
Major
Minor Met
Major
Minor Met?
Major
Minor Met?
Major
Minor Met?
Major
Minor Met?
Hammatt Ave / Campbell Blvd EB/WB
Stop
1,242
Yes
1,377
Yes
1,456
Yes
1,128
Yes
1,254
No
1,316
Yes
271 278 364 349 356 359
Hammatt Ave / SR 99 NB ramps
AWS
1,350
Yes
1,534
Yes
1,639
Yes
1,309
Yes
1,469
Yes
1,550
Yes
392 447 479 406 457 483
Hammatt Ave / SR 99 SB ramps
AWS
1,283
Yes
1,382
Yes
1,435
Yes
1,186
Yes
1,269
Yes
1,312
Yes
260 304 329 468 509 529
Hammatt Ave / F Street
AWS
923
Yes
959
Yes
979
Yes
915
Yes
947
No
962
Yes
265 272 277 242 249 252
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 42
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
TABLE 18

CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION QUEUES
Intersection Control
Storage
(feet)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Cumulative
Cumulative Plus
Project Buildout Cumulative
Cumulative Plus
Project Buildout
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Hammatt Ave / Campbell Blvd WB n.a. 85 320 364 n.a. 337 1,135 Hammatt Ave / SR 99 NB ramps Off ramp 460 376 90 511 200 356 65 516 105 NB left 150 156 40 176 50 108 <25 120 30
NB through 425 430 240 603 660 511 380 660 695
SB through 390 702 900 939 1,680 617 660 889 1,240
Hammatt Ave / SR 99 SB ramps Off ramp 360 254 45 354 115 449 135 555 215 SB left 125 203 55 307 130 230 80 335 145
SB through 425 374 150 441 275 347 165 471 360
NB through 725 578 490 727 1,015 466 320 570 580
Hammatt Ave / F Street SB through 710 461 260 534 510 491 290 636 620 NB through n.a. 324 105 461 255 260 70 350 120
Bold Values Exceed available storage
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 43
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)

ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Key Issues
The adequacy of site access has been evaluated within the context of issues which will ensure safe traffic operation under long term conditions and improvements found to be needed at the adjoining Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd intersection.

STAA Truck Access. The project will be required by the City to make frontage improvements along Campbell Blvd that are consistent with the long term plan for this road (i.e. 5-lane section), and the project’s three truck driveways are very broad. Within that context the final layout of site driveway will need to confirm that STAA truck turns can be accommodated without encroaching into opposing travel lanes, and this evidence will be part of an application to Caltrans for STAA designation. The City of Livingston will be the agency working with Caltrans for STAA designation on the route to the Hammatt Avenue intersection. If the project proponent wishes STAA access to the SR 99 / Sultana Blvd interchange in Merced County as well, then similar evidence will be required and an STAA application through Merced County would be required.

Access at Industrial Drive. The project proposes automobile access at a driveway on Campbell Blvd at a location opposite Industrial Drive. By aligning the driveway and intersection potential conflicts between opposing vehicles can be minimized. Left turn lanes will need to be created on Campbell Blvd as part of project frontage improvements. The final design of intersection improvements will need to accommodate the concurrent turning requirements of trucks accessing Industrial Drive and automobiles - RV’s entering and exiting the project.

Access near Hammatt Avenue. The western driveway is located about 300 feet from Hammatt Avenue (centerline to centerline) and roughly 210 feet of storage will exist in the left turn lane between the driveway and the crosswalk anticipated at Campbell Blvd. the queuing analysis indicates that under mitigated conditions with other approved projects the 95th percentile queues extending back from Hammatt Avenue could be reach 320 feet, including vehicles that might have turned left from the driveway. Under these conditions it is likely that the City will need to prohibit left turns at the western driveway.

Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 44
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)

FINDINGS/ MITIGATION MEASURES / RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this section is to summarize significant project impacts and to describe measures which will reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. "Unacceptable" conditions are identified as those which exceed the City of Livingston’s Level of Service C threshold.

The feasibility of completing identified improvements has been discussed, and the extent to which funding is available to complete cumulative mitigation measures has been evaluated. The Moonglo Truck Stop project’s fair share of cumulative mitigation measures follows as Table 23 and has differentiated the shares associated with the initial development and build out.

Current Conditions
Currently two of the four study intersections addressed herein operate with Levels of Service which exceed the City’s LOS C minimum. However, peak hour traffic signal warrants are not satisfied during more than one time period, and the length of existing peak period queues does not exceed the available storage area length or extend back into adjoining intersections.

Adequate Levels of Service are delivered at freeway ramps junctions. Therefore, no capacity improvements are needed in this area of Livingston at this time.

Existing Plus Moonglo Truck Stop Project Phase 1
Three traffic impacts have been identified for Existing Plus Project conditions:

Impact Phase 1-1: Impact to Level of Service at intersections on Hammatt Avenue. With Phase 1 the addition of project generated automobile and truck traffic onto the adjacent street system will result in two intersections operating with delays that are indicative of LOS F, and on intersections operating at LOS D. Peak hour traffic signal warrants will be satisfied both time periods at the Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd intersection and during one time period at the two SR 99 ramp intersections. This is a significant traffic impact.

The following improvements are needed to deliver a Level of Service that satisfies the City’s minimum LOS C standard, as noted in Table 19. Those improvements also result in the queues shown in Table 20.
 A traffic signal at the Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd intersection, and with Campbell Blvd east of Hammatt Avenue improved along the project frontage.  A traffic signal or roundabout at the Hammatt Avenue / SR 99 NB ramps.  A traffic signal or roundabout at the Hammatt Avenue / SR 99 SB ramps.  Install a system to coordinate the operation of these traffic signals.

As noted in the analysis, under Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-02 Caltrans is required to consider the relative merits of alternative traffic controls at intersections. The policy directive requires preparation of an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) to determine the preferred traffic control, although the scope of the ICE evaluation can vary (i.e., preliminary or complete Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 45
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
ICE report). An ICE report would consider the feasibility of either a traffic signal or roundabout intersection within the context of both short term and long term conditions and would compare the investments required to implement each alternative in terms of right of way and cost.

Caltrans may not be able to support installation of a traffic signal at ramp intersections without that analysis.

Mitigation 1: The City of Livingston is currently working to design and construct intersection improvements to the Campbell Blvd / Hammatt Avenue intersection, and that work will include a traffic signal. Phase 1 should contribute its fair share to the cost of this improvement. This mitigation is consistent with the City’s requirements for other approved development projects.

Mitigation 2: Phase 1 should contribute its fair share to the cost of traffic signals or roundabouts at the SR 99 NB ramps / Hammatt Avenue intersection and at the SR 99 / SB ramps / Hammatt Avenue intersection.

Mitigation 3: Phase 1 should contribute its fair share to the cost of preparing a preliminary ICE report to provide a screening assessment of the feasibility of a roundabout or traffic signal at the SR 99 ramps intersections.

Impact Phase 1-2: Impact to Pedestrian Circulation and Safety. Phase 1 may result in pedestrians wishing to walk between the site and the balance of Livingston.

A safe route along Campbell Blvd and a safe crossing on Hammatt Avenue are needed.

Mitigation: Phase 1 should install frontage improvements along Campbell Blvd, including sidewalks. Standard pedestrian crossing controls and ADA accessible ramps should be included in the Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd traffic signal, and the project should contribute its fair share to the cost of those features.

Impact Phase 1-3: Impact to Safety based on Truck Turning. The project will add truck traffic to the intersections on Hammatt Avenue, and today those intersections do not appear to have been designated for STAA truck access. While improvements to accommodate trucks turning in this area do not appear to be necessary, this is not a legal route. Unless designed correctly, improvements to the Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd intersection and project access on Campbell Blvd may interfere with STAA truck access. Without an STAA truck designation on the route, these trucks could be cited - ticketed by the CHP. This is a potentially significant safety impact.

Mitigation: Improvements to the Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd intersection should be designed to accommodate STAA trucks, and the project should contribute its fair share to the cost of those features. Project access shall be designed to accommodate STAA trucks. Phase 1 shall contribute its fair share to the cost of a Caltrans STAA route designation application to be completed by the City and shall contribute its fair share to the cost of improvements needed to accommodate STAA trucks.

Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 46
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
TABLE 19

MITIGATED EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing Plus Project Existing Plus Project
Phase 1 Build Out Phase 1 Build Out
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Hammatt Ave / Campbell Blvd Signal 21.6 C 26.0 C 18.8 B 20.0 C Hammatt Ave / SR 99 NB ramps Signal 18.6 B 20.2 C 14.8 B 15.2 B Hammatt Ave / SR 99 SB ramps Signal 19.3 B 21.3 C 19.6 B 22.4 C LOS = Level of Service.

Bold Values Exceed LOS C
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 47
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
TABLE 20

MITIGATED EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION QUEUES Intersection Location
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Storage
(feet)
Existing Plus Project Existing Plus Project
Phase 1 Build Out Phase 1 Build Out
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Hammatt Ave /
Campbell Blvd
EB right 40 108 70 108 85 141 75 141 95
WB left+thru n.a 198 200 286 205 194 175 248 180
NB left 165 206 180 206 170 119 135 119 130
SB left 175 29 100 49 160 30 80 36 85
NB through 375 246 180 246 200 355 195 355 240
Hammatt Ave /
SR 99 NB ramps
Off ramp 460 362 130 394 145 340 140 366 150
NB left 150 157 175 157 170 110 125 110 125
NB through 425 380 225 419 160 461 140 491 170
SB through 390 662 355 728 410 562 280 613 320
Hammatt Ave /
SR 99 SB ramps
Off ramp 360 250 175 275 200 444 210 463 240
SB left 125 208 180 237 180 215 180 239 195
SB through 425 225 150 236 180 289 230 298 285
NB through 725 530 335 533 370 413 250 423 310
Hammatt Ave /
F Street
SB through 710 415 175 427 195 437 185 446 200
NB through n.a. 300 65 308 80 236 50 242 55
Bold Values Exceed available storage
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 48
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
Existing Plus Build Out of Moonglo Truck Stop Project
This traffic impact has been identified for Existing Plus Project Build Out condition. Tables 21 and 22 identify mitigated Levels of Service and Queues, respectively.

Impact Build Out-1: Impact to Level of Service at intersections Hammatt Avenue. With Build Out the addition of project generated automobile and truck traffic onto the adjacent street system will result in two intersections operating with delays that are indicative of LOS F, and one intersection operating at LOS E. Peak hour traffic signal warrants will be satisfied both time periods at the Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd intersection at during on time period at the two SR 99 ramp intersections. This is a significant traffic impact.

Mitigation: In addition to the improvements note for Phase 1, project should contribute its fair share to the cost of the following improvements shown in bold which are needed to deliver a Level of Service that satisfies the City’s minimum LOS C standard:
 A traffic signal at the Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd intersection, and with Campbell Blvd east of Hammatt Avenue improved along the project frontage, and add a 200 foot long eastbound right turn lane on Campbell Blvd with right turn overlap phases on the NB to EB and EB to SB movements.
 A traffic signal or roundabout at the Hammatt Avenue / SR 99 NB ramps  A traffic signal or roundabout at the Hammatt Avenue / SR 99 SB ramps Background Cumulative Conditions without Moonglo Truck Stop Project If other identified projects are completed, then all four study intersections will operate with LOS F which exceeds the City of Livingston’s LOS C standard (Table 16), and all four intersections will carry traffic volumes that satisfy peak hour traffic signal warrants. The following improvements would be needed without the Moonglo project to satisfy the City’s minimum LOS C standard.
 A traffic signal at the Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd intersection and add a 200 foot long eastbound right turn lane on Campbell Blvd with a right turn overlap phase.  A traffic signal or roundabout at the Hammatt Avenue / SR 99 NB ramps  A traffic signal or roundabout at the Hammatt Avenue / SR 99 SB ramps  A traffic signal at the Hammatt Avenue / F Street intersection Cumulative Plus Phase 1 of Moonglo Truck Stop Project
This traffic impact has been identified for Cumulative Plus Project Phase 1 condition.

Impact Cumulative Plus Phase 1: Impact to Level of Service at intersections Hammatt Avenue. The addition of project generated automobile and truck traffic onto the adjacent street system with background cumulative traffic will exacerbate conditions at four intersections Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 49
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
operating with delays that are indicative of LOS F, and peak hour traffic signal warrants will be satisfied at all four locations.

Mitigation: In addition to the improvements noted for the background Cumulative condition, the project should also contribute its fair share to the cost of following improvements shown in Bold which are needed to deliver a Level of Service that satisfies the City’s minimum LOS C standard.  A traffic signal at the Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd intersection with Campbell Blvd east of Hammatt Avenue improved along the project frontage to include a westbound left turn lane , and add a 200 foot long Eastbound right turn lane on Campbell Blvd with a right turn overlap phase, convert the Southbound right turn lane to a through+right turn lane and add a northbound to eastbound overlap phase.
 A traffic signal or roundabout at the Hammatt Avenue / SR 99 NB ramps, and construct a southbound right turn lane on Hammett Avenue that extends to Campbell Blvd.  A traffic signal or roundabout at the Hammatt Avenue / SR 99 SB ramps.  A traffic signal at the Hammatt Avenue / F Street intersection.

Impact Cumulative Plus Buildout 1: Impact to Level of Service at intersections Hammatt Avenue. The addition of project generated automobile and truck traffic onto the adjacent street system with background cumulative traffic will exacerbate conditions at four intersections operating with delays that are indicative of LOS F, and peak hour traffic signal warrants will be satisfied at all four locations.

Mitigation. The same improvements noted for the Cumulative Plus Phase 1 condition are needed to deliver LOS C with project buildout.

Impact Cumulative Buildout 2: Impact at Western Driveway. Under these conditions the 95th percentile queue extending back on Campbell Blvd from Hammatt Avenue is projected to extend beyond the western driveway, and a safety impact may be created.

There are two methods for dealing with this issue. One alternative would reconfigure the westbound Campbell Blvd approach to allow left turns from two lanes. This change would equalize traffic volumes in each lane and reduce the queue lengths. This method would be preferable because it would provide separate lanes for trucks headed to the northbound and southbound SR 99 on-ramps. The choice would however require that the layout of the Hammatt Avenue / Campbell Blvd intersection be wider to accommodate the concurrent turning paths of two STAA trucks.

The alternative approach would be to prohibit left turns at the western driveway.

Mitigation. Either: The City of Livingston shall monitor the operation of the western driveway.

If determined to be needed by the City, the project proponents shall fund construction of a median treatment or other measure acceptable to the City to prohibit left turns, or Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 50
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
The project proponents shall contribute their fair share to the cost of expanding the design of the Hammett Avenue / Campbell Blvd intersection to accommodate left turns by trucks from two lanes.

Project Fair Share Percentages
Calculation Methods The calculation of the project’s fair share percentage at each intersection is based on its share of the future traffic at each location. Table 23 tabulates the components of total Cumulative Plus Project traffic forecasts at each location and identifies the existing p.m. peak hour traffic, as well as the traffic caused by the project and by other approved projects.

Caltrans traffic study guidelines provide a framework for calculating the fair share, but as noted in Table 23 there is a consideration that could guide the results. Under the typical process, it is assumed that the development causing new traffic at the location would contribute to the cost of improvements. That assumption suggests that existing traffic has no responsibility for the improvement because current operating conditions are acceptable and that the need for the improvement is solely the result of new growth. This assumption also suggests that no other source of funds for improvements will be available. Under this assumption the fair share is the projects traffic divided by the total future traffic less current volumes.

The alternative approach assumes that the exiting traffic contributes to the need for long term improvements. In this case the share is project traffic divided by total future traffic. Application of this method requires the assumption that a source of funds other than the project and future development will be available. This could be the case were the City of Livingston had secured funds for improvements and it was necessary to allocate the share of the cost that may be the City’s “responsibility”. This approach is less applicable when no other source for funds has been identified, as is normally the case.

Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 51
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
TABLE 21

MITIGATED CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Cumulative
Cumulative Plus Project
Cumulative
Cumulative Project
Phase 1 Build Out Phase 1 Build Out
Average
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Average
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Average
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Average
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Average
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Average
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Hammatt Ave / Campbell Blvd Signal 26.2 C 32.6 C 28.5 C 20.0 C 18.5 B 23.7 C Hammatt Ave / SR 99 NB ramps Signal 21.5 C 27.7 C 17.6 B 19.5 B 15.8 B 19.8 B Hammatt Ave / SR 99 SB ramps Signal 23.1 C 31.5 C 34.9 C 23.0 C 31.7 C 34.7 C Hammatt Ave / F Street Signal 14.5 B 13.3 B 16.2 B 13.2 B 15.3 B 15.7 B LOS = Level of Service.

Bold Values Exceed LOS C
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 52
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
TABLE 22

MITIGATED CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION QUEUES Intersection Lane
Storage
(feet)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Cumulative
Cumulative Plus Project
Cumulative
Cumulative Plus Project
Phase 1 Build Out Phase 1 Build Out
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Hammatt Ave /
Campbell Blvd
EB right 40 220 135 214 150 214 105 273 140 266 120 266 135 WB thru 500 37 165 83 100 95 105 54 125 94 95 103 115
WB left 210 58 - 205 280 269 325 60 - 178 250 229 300
NB left 165 397 210 386 215 386 250 239 180 233 180 233 205 SB left 175 12 95 50 160 58 140 9 60 35 75 41 115
NB through 375 270 365 256 460 256 355 424 185 408 225 408 320 Hammatt Ave /
SR 99 NB ramps
Off ramp 460 393 170 447 380 479 285 406 180 457 175 483 220 NB left 150 176 180 176 200 176 175 120 145 120 130 120 170 NB through 425 462 255 527 360 566 210 530 170 591 115 621 305 SB through 390 488 395 564 375 606 360 477 385 540 320 573 360 SB right 224 267 291 85 182 - 218 100 236 130
Hammatt Ave /
SR 99 SB ramps
Off ramp 360 260 160 304 250 329 230 468 220 509 280 528 320 SB left 125 203 180 258 195 287 200 230 200 275 200 299 205 SB through 425 400 195 422 410 433 575 429 330 447 490 456 595 NB through 725 474 445 702 540 715 630 527 350 547 515 557 485 Hammatt Ave /
F Street
SB through 710 493 220 514 290 526 240 594 290 612 310 621 340 NB through n.a. 430 215 445 225 453 220 321 170 335 190 341 215 EB through n.a. 265 235 272 190 277 240 242 190 249 230 252 235 Bold Values Exceed available storage
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 53
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)
TABLE 23

FAIR SHARE CALCULATION
Location
A B C D Fair Share Percentage
Existing
Project Only
Other
Growth
Cumulative
Plus
Project
A s Share of
New Growth Only2
As a Share of
All Cumulative Traffic2
Phase 1
only
Balance of
Moonglo
Project Phase 1
Balance of
Moonglo
Project
Other
Growth
Phase 1
Only
Balance of
Moonglo
Project
Other
Growth
Other
Agency
Based on PM Peak Hour Traffic
Hammatt Ave /
Campbell Blvd
1,120 291 125 471 2,007 33% 14% 53% 15% 6% 23% 56%
Hammatt Ave /
SR 99 NB ramps
1,262 211 107 453 2,033 27% 14% 59% 10% 5% 25% 62%
Hammatt Ave /
SR 99 SB ramps
1,236 124 63 418 1,841 21% 10% 69% 7% 4% 22% 67%
Hammatt Ave /
F Street
935 39 18 305 1,297 11% 5% 84% 3% 1% 24% 72%
B/ (D-A) is the fair share as a percentage of new future traffic only B/D is fair share based on all cumulative traffic
Traffic Impact Analysis for Moonglo Truck Stop Page 54
Livingston, California (July 24, 2020)

APPENDICES
(under separate cover)
Transportation Engineers

TECHNICAL APPENDIX
FOR

MOONGLO TRUCK STOP

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Livingston, CA
Prepared For:

HAWKINS & ASSOCIATES
435 Mitchell Road
Modesto, CA 95354
Prepared By:

KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.
3853 Taylor Road, Suite G
Loomis, California 95650
(916) 660-1555
July 24, 2020
3620-16
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 19-07420-003 Day:

City: Livingston Date:

AM 159 197 38 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 161 211 47 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 0 0 0
0 53 0 32
0 17 0 9
0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0
207 0 171 0 TEV 956 0 935 0 0 0 0
6 0 11 0 PHF 0.79 0.91
23 0 31 0
0 0 0 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 27 188 7 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 21 261 3 AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
253
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
Hammatt Ave & F St
Tuesday
11/05/2019

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
47 COUNT PERIODS
Bikes (AM)

PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
500
412
0 4-Way Stop
F St

EASTBOUND
Hammatt Ave
220
0 Hammatt Ave

SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM

NORTHBOUND
65 0
F St
07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
189 0 205
AM NOON PM1
0 0
0 0 0 1 0 1
2 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 1
4 0
1 0
0 3
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
010
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/AN/AN/A

N/AN/AN/A
0 9
32 23
6 207
15919738
212613
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/AN/AN/A

N/AN/AN/A
11 17
53 31
11 171
16121147
271887
1 3
0 0
2 0
000
001

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
0780-16
t. -t---t---
.. -----+-----+-
.!) ~ -t---t---
., c;- -----+-----+-
-+
""
c:;>
_J_ • _L _J_ • _L ; t.
.t <S> t. .. <e> .. .. ~ ..

7., '\ t ,.,
' 7.,.,., '\ '
_J_ • _L <I~ ~ 1< .o~ _J_ • _L ; t. ~ ~& °<>,i, 0
; t.
.. <e> .. ~ ~ -1~ 0
~" I I jf o <&• 7., '\ t ,., ' '\ '
:~:

7.,.,.,
_J_ • _L .. .. _J_ • _L ; t.
o" I I '~ ; t.
.. <e> .. 0 -1~ 'I-~ ~ <&• 7., '\ t ,., ' 0 "'Cb 0~ ~ 7.,.,., '\ ' .o~ "' ~o <I~ National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Hammatt Ave & F St
City: Livingston Project ID: 19-07420-003
Control: 4-Way Stop Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 1 44 0 0 3 23 9 0 13 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 99
7:15 AM 8 55 1 0 8 38 31 0 51 0 3 0 0 2 8 0 205
7:30 AM 4 78 1 0 7 72 51 0 51 3 8 0 0 2 8 0 285
7:45 AM 9 85 1 0 16 64 55 0 57 2 5 0 0 3 7 0 304
8:00 AM 0 43 0 0 7 23 22 0 48 1 7 0 0 2 9 0 162
8:15 AM 1 26 2 0 6 21 14 1 24 0 3 0 1 1 11 0 111
8:30 AM 2 31 3 0 8 23 21 0 27 3 1 0 0 1 7 0 127
8:45 AM 3 30 1 0 7 25 20 0 18 2 1 0 0 2 9 0 118

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 28 392 9 0 62 289 223 1 289 13 30 0 1 13 61 0 1411 APPROACH %'s : 6.53% 91.38% 2.10% 0.00% 10.78% 50.26% 38.78% 0.17% 87.05% 3.92% 9.04% 0.00% 1.33% 17.33% 81.33% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:15 AM 38 37 44 07:45 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 21 261 3 0 38 197 159 0 207 6 23 0 0 9 32 0 956 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.583 0.768 0.750 0.000 0.594 0.684 0.723 0.000 0.908 0.500 0.719 0.000 0.000 0.750 0.889 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 4 53 1 0 13 54 58 0 39 3 6 0 2 4 7 0 244
4:15 PM 4 44 2 0 15 41 32 0 38 6 8 0 3 4 12 0 209
4:30 PM 5 45 0 0 17 41 41 0 46 2 8 0 1 5 19 0 230
4:45 PM 9 49 2 0 6 48 48 0 40 0 7 0 3 6 10 0 228
5:00 PM 7 49 2 0 12 63 40 0 50 4 9 0 2 4 14 0 256
5:15 PM 6 45 3 0 12 59 32 0 35 5 7 0 5 2 10 0 221
5:30 PM 5 43 1 0 11 66 40 0 37 4 5 0 4 3 10 0 229
5:45 PM 8 36 1 0 11 37 44 0 27 4 3 0 1 1 7 0 180

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 48 364 12 0 97 409 335 0 312 28 53 0 21 29 89 0 1797 APPROACH %'s : 11.32% 85.85% 2.83% 0.00% 11.53% 48.63% 39.83% 0.00% 79.39% 7.12% 13.49% 0.00% 15.11% 20.86% 64.03% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:30 PM 291 289 296 05:00 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 27 188 7 0 47 211 161 0 171 11 31 0 11 17 53 0 935 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.750 0.959 0.583 0.000 0.691 0.837 0.839 0.000 0.855 0.550 0.861 0.000 0.550 0.708 0.697 0.000

0.786
Total

0.913

0.845

WESTBOUND

0.810

SOUTHBOUND

0.925 0.911
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM

SOUTHBOUND
PM
AM
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM

NORTHBOUND

0.750

EASTBOUND
11/5/2019
F St

NORTHBOUND
F St

0.932

WESTBOUND
Hammatt Ave Hammatt Ave

0.730 0.922

EASTBOUND
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Hammatt Ave & F St
City: Livingston Project ID: 19-07420-003
Control: 4-Way Stop Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00%
PEAK HR : 07:15 AM 38 37 44 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 6
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 8
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:30 PM 291 289 296 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 7
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.00 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.375 0.000 0.000 Bikes
Hammatt Ave Hammatt Ave F St F St
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
11/5/2019
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM

0.292

0.250 0.250 0.333
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM

0.250

0.250
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Hammatt Ave & F St Project ID: 19-07420-003
City: Livingston Date: 11/5/2019
NS/EW Streets:

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
8:15 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 5
APPROACH %'s : 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% PEAK HR : 07:15 AM 37 36 43 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.250
Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
4:30 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 4
5:00 PM 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3
5:15 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 4
5:30 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2
5:45 PM 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 2 3 3 2 1 0 4 4 19
APPROACH %'s : 40.00% 60.00% 60.00% 40.00% 100.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% PEAK HR : 04:30 PM 288 286 293 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 1 2 1 1 0 3 4 12
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.500 0.250 0.250 0.375 0.333
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)

WEST LEG
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
F St
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM

0.750 0.250 0.750 0.250 0.438

PM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG

0.250 0.250 0.250

AM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG
Hammatt Ave Hammatt Ave F St
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 19-07420-004 Day:

City: Livingston Date:

AM 0 303 153 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 0 271 170 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
118 0 237 0 TEV 1160 0 1236 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 0 PHF 0.82 0.93
87 0 164 0
0 0 0 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 0 273 120 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 0 355 143 AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
435
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
Hammatt Ave & SB SR 99 Ramp
Tuesday
11/05/2019

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
297

COUNT PERIODS
Bikes (AM)

PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
473
510
0 3-Way Stop (NB/SB/EB)
SB SR 99 Ramp

EASTBOUND
Hammatt Ave
390
0 Hammatt Ave

SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM

NORTHBOUND
291
0 SB SR 99 Ramp
07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
0 0 0
AM NOON PM0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
4 0
2 0
0 3
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
010
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/AN/AN/A

N/AN/AN/A
0 0
0 87
1 118
0303153
0355143
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/AN/AN/A

N/AN/AN/A
0 0
0 164
1 237
0271170
0273120
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
t. -t---t---
.. -----+-----+-
.!) ~ -t---t---
., c;- -----+-----+-
-+
""
c:;>
_J_ • _L _J_ • _L ; t.
.t <S> t. .. <e> .. .. ~ ..

7., '\ t ,.,
' 7.,.,., '\ '
_J_ • _L <I~ ~ 1< .o~ _J_ • _L ; t. ~ ~& °<>,i, 0
; t.
.. <e> .. ~ ~ -1~ 0
~" I I jf o <&• 7., '\ t ,., ' '\ '
:~:

7.,.,.,
_J_ • _L .. .. _J_ • _L ; t.
o" I I '~ ; t.
.. <e> .. 0 -1~ 'I-~ ~ <&• 7., '\ t ,., ' 0 "'Cb 0~ ~ 7.,.,., '\ ' .o~ "' ~o <I~ National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Hammatt Ave & SB SR 99 Ramp
City: Livingston Project ID: 19-07420-004
Control: 3-Way Stop (NB/SB/EB) Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 47 16 0 35 20 0 0 20 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 156
7:15 AM 0 71 36 0 39 53 0 0 22 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 243
7:30 AM 0 105 34 0 43 110 0 0 22 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 345
7:45 AM 0 112 37 0 34 98 0 0 46 1 26 0 0 0 0 0 354
8:00 AM 0 67 36 0 37 42 0 0 28 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 218
8:15 AM 0 45 17 0 19 31 0 0 28 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 152
8:30 AM 0 50 16 0 32 29 0 0 23 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 173
8:45 AM 0 40 16 0 41 35 0 0 24 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 171

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 537 208 0 280 418 0 0 213 1 155 0 0 0 0 0 1812 APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 72.08% 27.92% 0.00% 40.11% 59.89% 0.00% 0.00% 57.72% 0.27% 42.01% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:15 AM 38 37 44 07:45 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 355 143 0 153 303 0 0 118 1 87 0 0 0 0 0 1160 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.792 0.966 0.000 0.890 0.689 0.000 0.000 0.641 0.250 0.702 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 62 31 0 45 73 0 0 48 1 47 0 0 0 0 0 307
4:15 PM 0 77 25 0 25 57 0 0 52 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 271
4:30 PM 0 75 36 0 45 59 0 0 64 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 319
4:45 PM 0 69 33 0 42 63 0 0 66 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 312
5:00 PM 0 81 31 0 35 77 0 0 48 1 36 0 0 0 0 0 309
5:15 PM 0 64 26 0 37 67 0 0 51 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 284
5:30 PM 0 59 30 0 56 64 0 0 72 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 331
5:45 PM 0 45 26 0 54 67 0 0 48 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 267

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 532 238 0 339 527 0 0 449 2 313 0 0 0 0 0 2400 APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 69.09% 30.91% 0.00% 39.15% 60.85% 0.00% 0.00% 58.77% 0.26% 40.97% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:45 PM 292 289 296 05:30 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 273 120 0 170 271 0 0 237 1 164 0 0 0 0 0 1236 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.843 0.909 0.000 0.759 0.880 0.000 0.000 0.823 0.250 0.820 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.819
Total

0.934

0.824

WESTBOUND

SOUTHBOUND

0.877 0.919
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM

SOUTHBOUND
PM
AM
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM

NORTHBOUND

0.836

EASTBOUND
11/5/2019
SB SR 99 Ramp

NORTHBOUND
SB SR 99 Ramp

WESTBOUND
Hammatt Ave Hammatt Ave

0.745 0.705

EASTBOUND
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Hammatt Ave & SB SR 99 Ramp
City: Livingston Project ID: 19-07420-004
Control: 3-Way Stop (NB/SB/EB) Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
APPROACH %'s :

PEAK HR : 04:45 PM 292 289 296 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Bikes
Hammatt Ave Hammatt Ave SB SR 99 Ramp SB SR 99 Ramp
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
11/5/2019
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM

0.250

0.250
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Hammatt Ave & SB SR 99 Ramp Project ID: 19-07420-004 City: Livingston Date: 11/5/2019
NS/EW Streets:

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3
APPROACH %'s : 33.33% 66.67%
PEAK HR : 07:15 AM 37 36 43 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500
Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 8
APPROACH %'s : 37.50% 62.50%
PEAK HR : 04:45 PM 289 286 293 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 7
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.375 0.333
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)

WEST LEG
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
SB SR 99 Ramp
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM

0.583 0.583

PM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG

0.500 0.500

AM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG
Hammatt Ave Hammatt Ave SB SR 99 Ramp
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 19-07420-005 Day:

City: Livingston Date:

AM 181 362 0 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 137 326 0 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 0 0 0
0 171 0 211
0 2 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 116 0 95
0 0 0 0 TEV 1322 0 1262 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 PHF 0.86 0.94
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 110 400 0 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 157 315 0 AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
442
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
Hammatt Ave & NB SR 99 Ramp
Tuesday
11/05/2019

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
0 COUNT PERIODS
Bikes (AM)

PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
526
571
0 3-Way Stop (NB/SB/WB)
NB SR 99 Ramp

EASTBOUND
Hammatt Ave
457
0 Hammatt Ave

SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM

NORTHBOUND
0 0
NB SR 99 Ramp
07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
339 0 249
AM NOON PM0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 1
4 0
1 0
0 3
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
010
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/AN/AN/A

N/AN/AN/A
95 1
211
0 0
0 1813620
1573150
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/AN/AN/A

N/AN/AN/A
116
2 171
0 0
0 1373260
1104000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
t. -t---t---
.. -----+-----+-
.!) ~ -t---t---
., c;- -----+-----+-
-+
""
c:;>
_J_ • _L _J_ • _L ; t.
.t <S> t. .. <e> .. .. ~ ..

7., '\ t ,.,
' 7.,.,., '\ '
_J_ • _L <I~ ~ 1< .o~ _J_ • _L ; t. ~ ~& °<>,i, 0
; t.
.. <e> .. ~ ~ -1~ 0
~" I I jf o <&• 7., '\ t ,., ' '\ '
:~:

7.,.,.,
_J_ • _L .. .. _J_ • _L ; t.
o" I I '~ ; t.
.. <e> .. 0 -1~ 'I-~ ~ <&• 7., '\ t ,., ' 0 "'Cb 0~ ~ 7.,.,., '\ ' .o~ "' ~o <I~ National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Hammatt Ave & NB SR 99 Ramp
City: Livingston Project ID: 19-07420-005
Control: 3-Way Stop (NB/SB/WB) Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 26 39 0 0 0 48 45 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 29 0 195
7:15 AM 45 50 0 0 0 74 53 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 48 0 290
7:30 AM 46 77 0 0 0 125 50 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 55 0 385
7:45 AM 33 124 0 0 0 101 40 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 62 0 385
8:00 AM 33 64 0 0 0 62 38 0 0 0 0 0 18 1 46 0 262
8:15 AM 25 47 0 0 0 42 23 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 40 0 188
8:30 AM 18 55 0 0 0 50 36 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 51 0 221
8:45 AM 19 46 0 0 0 64 32 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 69 0 241

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 245 502 0 0 0 566 317 0 0 0 0 0 135 2 400 0 2167 APPROACH %'s : 32.80% 67.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 64.10% 35.90% 0.00% 25.14% 0.37% 74.49% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:15 AM 38 37 44 07:30 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 157 315 0 0 0 362 181 0 0 0 0 0 95 1 211 0 1322 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.853 0.635 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.724 0.854 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.742 0.250 0.851 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 28 80 0 0 0 90 39 0 0 0 0 0 27 1 28 0 293
4:15 PM 32 97 0 0 0 59 42 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 21 0 276
4:30 PM 32 106 0 0 0 87 37 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 25 0 304
4:45 PM 29 106 0 0 0 73 39 0 0 0 0 0 35 1 40 0 323
5:00 PM 38 91 0 0 0 89 30 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 40 0 310
5:15 PM 20 93 0 0 0 74 36 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 41 0 292
5:30 PM 23 110 0 0 0 90 32 0 0 0 0 0 31 1 50 0 337
5:45 PM 18 74 0 0 0 100 32 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 57 0 305

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 220 757 0 0 0 662 287 0 0 0 0 0 208 4 302 0 2440 APPROACH %'s : 22.52% 77.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 69.76% 30.24% 0.00% 40.47% 0.78% 58.75% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:45 PM 292 289 296 05:30 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 110 400 0 0 0 326 137 0 0 0 0 0 116 2 171 0 1262 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.724 0.909 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.906 0.878 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.829 0.500 0.855 0.000

0.858
Total

0.936

WESTBOUND

0.881

SOUTHBOUND

0.944 0.949
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM

SOUTHBOUND
PM
AM
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM

NORTHBOUND

0.752

EASTBOUND
11/5/2019
NB SR 99 Ramp

NORTHBOUND
NB SR 99 Ramp

0.882

WESTBOUND
Hammatt Ave Hammatt Ave

0.776

EASTBOUND
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Hammatt Ave & NB SR 99 Ramp
City: Livingston Project ID: 19-07420-005
Control: 3-Way Stop (NB/SB/WB) Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
APPROACH %'s :

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
11/5/2019
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM

0.250

0.250
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Hammatt Ave & NB SR 99 Ramp Project ID: 19-07420-005 City: Livingston Date: 11/5/2019
NS/EW Streets:

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3
APPROACH %'s : 33.33% 66.67%
PEAK HR : 07:15 AM 37 36 43 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250
Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 4
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 5 10
APPROACH %'s : 100.00% 0.00% 44.44% 55.56%
PEAK HR : 04:45 PM 289 286 293 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 8
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.375 0.333
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)

WEST LEG
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
NB SR 99 Ramp
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM

0.500 0.250 0.583

PM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG

0.250 0.250

AM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG
Hammatt Ave Hammatt Ave NB SR 99 Ramp

HCM 6th TWSC AM EXISTING
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd 06/05/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 9 111 39 14 5 211 253 64 3 393 19
Future Vol, veh/h 4 9 111 39 14 5 211 253 64 3 393 19
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 40 - - - 160 - 150 170 - 260
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 4 10 121 42 15 5 229 275 70 3 427 21
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1211 1236 427 1242 1187 275 448 0 0 345 0 0 Stage 1 433 433 - 733 733 -------
Stage 2 778 803 - 509 454 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 159 176 628 152 188 764 1112 - - 1214 - - Stage 1 601 582 - 412 426 -------
Stage 2 389 396 - 547 569 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 123 139 628 98 149 764 1112 - - 1214 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 123 139 - 98 149 -------
Stage 1 477 581 - 327 338 -------
Stage 2 293 314 - 433 568 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14.5 68 3.6 0.1

HCM LOS B F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1112 - - 134 628 116 1214 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.206 - - 0.105 0.192 0.543 0.003 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.1 - - 35 12.1 68 8 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - E B F A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - - 0.3 0.7 2.6 0 - -
lt t .,, lt t .,,
HCM 6th AWSC AM EXISTING
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps 06/05/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 36.5
Intersection LOS E
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 95 1 211 157 315 0 0 362 181
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 95 1 211 157 315 0 0 362 181
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 103 1 229 171 342 0 0 393 197
Number of Lanes 000011110010
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 2
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 0
HCM Control Delay 14.1 17.5 65.6

HCM LOS B C F

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 99% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 1% 0% 67%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 0% 100% 33%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 157 315 96 211 543
LT Vol 157 0 95 0 0
Through Vol 0 315 1 0 362
RT Vol 0 0 0 211 181
Lane Flow Rate 171 342 104 229 590
Geometry Grp 77776
Degree of Util (X) 0.334 0.622 0.23 0.427 1.013
Departure Headway (Hd) 7.054 6.543 7.935 6.71 6.181
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 507 548 451 534 584
Service Time 4.833 4.322 5.716 4.49 4.245
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.337 0.624 0.231 0.429 1.01
HCM Control Delay 13.4 19.6 13.1 14.5 65.6
HCM Lane LOS B C B B F
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.5 4.2 0.9 2.1 15.3
t
HCM 6th AWSC AM EXISTING
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps 06/05/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh23.3
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 118 1 87 0 0 0 0 355 143 153 303 0
Future Vol, veh/h 118 1 87 0 0 0 0 355 143 153 303 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 128 1 95 0 0 0 0 386 155 166 329 0
Number of Lanes 0 11000010110
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 0
Conflicting Approach RightNB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 2
HCM Control Delay 12.1 35.9 14.6

HCM LOS B E B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 0% 99% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 71% 1% 0% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 29% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 498 119 87 153 303
LT Vol 0 118 0 153 0
Through Vol 355 1 0 0 303
RT Vol 143 0 87 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 541 129 95 166 329
Geometry Grp 67777
Degree of Util (X) 0.872 0.276 0.169 0.301 0.55
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.799 7.672 6.45 6.522 6.014
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 623 468 555 550 599
Service Time 3.838 5.427 4.204 4.268 3.76
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.868 0.276 0.171 0.302 0.549
HCM Control Delay 35.9 13.3 10.5 12.1 15.9
HCM Lane LOS EBBBC
HCM 95th-tile Q 10.1 1.1 0.6 1.3 3.3
HCM 6th AWSC AM EXISTING
4: Hammatt Ave & F St 06/05/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh14.4
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 207 6 23 0 9 32 21 261 3 38 197 159
Future Vol, veh/h 207 6 23 0 9 32 21 261 3 38 197 159
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 225 7 25 0 10 35 23 284 3 41 214 173
Number of Lanes 0 10010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 13.6 9.5 13.5 16

HCM LOS B A B C

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 7% 88% 0% 10%
Vol Thru, % 92% 3% 22% 50%
Vol Right, % 1% 10% 78% 40%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 285 236 41 394
LT Vol 21 207 0 38
Through Vol 261 6 9 197
RT Vol 3 23 32 159
Lane Flow Rate 310 257 45 428
Geometry Grp 1111
Degree of Util (X) 0.475 0.43 0.074 0.611
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.517 6.041 5.981 5.139
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 651 595 594 698
Service Time 3.571 4.099 4.065 3.189
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.476 0.432 0.076 0.613
HCM Control Delay 13.5 13.6 9.5 16
HCM Lane LOS B B A C
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.6 2.2 0.2 4.2
4 4 4 4
HCM 6th TWSC PM EXISTING
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd 06/05/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 13 18 148 42 22 12 125 371 69 4 272 21 Future Vol, veh/h 13 18 148 42 22 12 125 371 69 4 272 21 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 40 - - - 160 - 150 170 - 260
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 14 20 161 46 24 13 136 403 75 4 296 23
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1035 1054 296 1081 1002 403 319 0 0 478 0 0 Stage 1 304 304 - 675 675 -------
Stage 2 731 750 - 406 327 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 210 226 743 195 242 647 1241 - - 1084 - - Stage 1 705 663 - 444 453 -------
Stage 2 413 419 - 622 648 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 172 200 743 129 214 647 1241 - - 1084 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 172 200 - 129 214 -------
Stage 1 627 660 - 395 403 -------
Stage 2 339 373 - 471 645 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14.2 44.7 1.8 0.1

HCM LOS B E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1241 - - 187 743 170 1084 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.109 - - 0.18 0.217 0.486 0.004 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 - - 28.4 11.2 44.7 8.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - D B E A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 0.6 0.8 2.3 0 - -
lt t .,, lt t .,,
HCM 6th AWSC PM EXISTING
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps 06/05/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 26.1
Intersection LOS D
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 116 2 171 110 400 0 0 326 137
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 116 2 171 110 400 0 0 326 137
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 126 2 186 120 435 0 0 354 149
Number of Lanes 000011110010
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 2
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 0
HCM Control Delay 13.1 23.6 37.1

HCM LOS B C E

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 98% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 2% 0% 70%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 0% 100% 30%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 110 400 118 171 463
LT Vol 110 0 116 0 0
Through Vol 0 400 2 0 326
RT Vol 0 0 0 171 137
Lane Flow Rate 120 435 128 186 503
Geometry Grp 77776
Degree of Util (X) 0.227 0.765 0.279 0.341 0.867
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.841 6.332 7.826 6.605 6.202
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 523 570 458 541 584
Service Time 4.61 4.1 5.604 4.383 4.264
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.229 0.763 0.279 0.344 0.861
HCM Control Delay 11.6 26.9 13.6 12.8 37.1
HCM Lane LOS B D B B E
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.9 6.9 1.1 1.5 9.7
t
HCM 6th AWSC PM EXISTING
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps 06/05/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh19.8
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 237 1 164 0 0 0 0 273 120 170 271 0
Future Vol, veh/h 237 1 164 0 0 0 0 273 120 170 271 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 258 1 178 0 0 0 0 297 130 185 295 0
Number of Lanes 0 11000010110
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 0
Conflicting Approach RightNB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 2
HCM Control Delay 16.1 27.7 16.1

HCM LOS C D C

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 69% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 31% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 393 238 164 170 271
LT Vol 0 237 0 170 0
Through Vol 273 1 0 0 271
RT Vol 120 0 164 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 427 259 178 185 295
Geometry Grp 67777
Degree of Util (X) 0.766 0.543 0.314 0.369 0.546
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.453 7.559 6.336 7.181 6.67
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 560 476 565 499 539
Service Time 4.519 5.332 4.109 4.958 4.447
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.762 0.544 0.315 0.371 0.547
HCM Control Delay 27.7 19 12 14.1 17.3
HCM Lane LOS D C B B C
HCM 95th-tile Q 6.9 3.2 1.3 1.7 3.3
HCM 6th AWSC PM EXISTING
4: Hammatt Ave & F St 06/05/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh14.2
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 171 11 31 11 17 53 27 188 7 47 211 161 Future Vol, veh/h 171 11 31 11 17 53 27 188 7 47 211 161 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 186 12 34 12 18 58 29 204 8 51 229 175
Number of Lanes 0 10010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 12.8 10 12 17

HCM LOS B A B C

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 12% 80% 14% 11%
Vol Thru, % 85% 5% 21% 50%
Vol Right, % 3% 15% 65% 38%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 222 213 81 419
LT Vol 27 171 11 47
Through Vol 188 11 17 211
RT Vol 7 31 53 161
Lane Flow Rate 241 232 88 455
Geometry Grp 1111
Degree of Util (X) 0.375 0.386 0.144 0.644
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.598 5.995 5.896 5.091
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 639 597 604 706
Service Time 3.66 4.057 3.974 3.143
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.377 0.389 0.146 0.644
HCM Control Delay 12 12.8 10 17
HCM Lane LOS B B A C
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.7 1.8 0.5 4.7
4 4 4 4

Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM EX PLUS PROJ
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd 06/22/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 4 27 105 250 36 41 200 239 280 49 370 19 Future Volume (vph) 4 27 105 250 36 41 200 239 280 49 370 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 40 0 0 160 150 170 260
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.983 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.994 0.963 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1718 1583 0 1551 0 1770 1863 1392 1641 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.994 0.963 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1718 1583 0 1551 0 1770 1863 1392 1641 1863 1583 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 1727 235 457 1038
Travel Time (s) 39.3 5.3 12.5 28.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 11% 2% 18% 6% 12% 2% 2% 16% 10% 2% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 4 29 114 272 39 45 217 260 304 53 402 21 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 33 114 0 356 0 217 260 304 53 402 21 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 6th TWSC AM EX PLUS PROJ
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd 06/22/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 332.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 27 105 250 36 41 200 239 280 49 370 19 Future Vol, veh/h 4 27 105 250 36 41 200 239 280 49 370 19 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 40 - - - 160 - 150 170 - 260
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 11 2 18 6 12 2 2 16 10 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 29 114 272 39 45 217 260 304 53 402 21
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1396 1506 402 1284 1223 260 423 0 0 564 0 0 Stage 1 508 508 - 694 694 -------
Stage 2 888 998 - 590 529 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.61 6.22 7.28 6.56 6.32 4.12 - - 4.2 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.61 - 6.28 5.56 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.61 - 6.28 5.56 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.099 3.318 3.662 4.054 3.408 2.218 - - 2.29 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 119 116 648 ~ 131 176 755 1136 - - 969 - - Stage 1 547 524 - 408 438 -------
Stage 2 338 310 - 467 521 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 72 89 648 ~ 67 135 755 1136 - - 969 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 72 89 - ~ 67 135 -------
Stage 1 443 495 - 330 354 -------
Stage 2 229 251 - 342 492 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 25.4 $ 1629.6 2.5 1

HCM LOS D F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1136 - - 86 648 81 969 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.191 - - 0.392 0.176 4.388 0.055 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 71.6 11.7$ 1629.6 8.9 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - F B F A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - 1.6 0.6 37.8 0.2 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon lt t .,, lt t .,,
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM EX PLUS PROJ
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps 06/22/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 95 1 298 157 419 0 0 480 248 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 95 1 298 157 419 0 0 480 248
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 500 150 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.954
Flt Protected 0.953 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0000 1633 1509 1703 1792 0 0 1710 0
Flt Permitted 0.953 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0000 1633 1509 1703 1792 0 0 1710 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 1324 1231 570 457
Travel Time (s) 30.1 28.0 15.5 12.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 11% 2% 7% 6% 6% 2% 2% 6% 6% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 103 1 324 171 455 0 0 522 270
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 104 324 171 455 0 0 792 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 6th AWSC AM EX PLUS PROJ
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps 06/22/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 125.7
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 95 1 298 157 419 0 0 480 248
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 95 1 298 157 419 0 0 480 248
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 11 27662266
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 103 1 324 171 455 0 0 522 270
Number of Lanes 000011110010
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 2
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 0
HCM Control Delay 20.1 36.4 253.4

HCM LOS C E F

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 99% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 1% 0% 66%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 0% 100% 34%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 157 419 96 298 728
LT Vol 157 0 95 0 0
Through Vol 0 419 1 0 480
RT Vol 0 0 0 298 248
Lane Flow Rate 171 455 104 324 791
Geometry Grp 77776
Degree of Util (X) 0.353 0.879 0.238 0.619 1.499
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.112 7.595 8.998 7.597 6.82
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 447 483 402 479 538
Service Time 5.812 5.295 6.698 5.297 4.861
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.383 0.942 0.259 0.676 1.47
HCM Control Delay 15.2 44.3 14.5 21.9 253.4
HCM Lane LOS C E B C F
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.6 9.4 0.9 4.1 40.1
t
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM EX PLUS PROJ
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps 06/22/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 187 1 87 0 0 0 0 390 143 237 236 0 Future Volume (vph) 187 1 87 0 0 0 0 390 143 237 236 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 400 0 0 0 0 150 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.964
Flt Protected 0.953 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1647 1455 0000 1748 0 1671 1810 0
Flt Permitted 0.953 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1647 1455 0000 1748 0 1671 1810 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 1380 1074 792 570
Travel Time (s) 31.4 24.4 21.6 15.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 10% 2% 11% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 7% 8% 5% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 203 1 95 0 0 0 0 424 155 258 257 0
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 204 95 0 0 0 0 579 0 258 257 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
4' .,, ------ f+ "i t
HCM 6th AWSC AM EX PLUS PROJ
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps 06/22/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 6
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 35.7
Intersection LOS E
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 187 1 87 0 0 0 0 390 143 237 236 0
Future Vol, veh/h 187 1 87 0 0 0 0 390 143 237 236 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 10 2 11 222247852
Mvmt Flow 203 1 95 0 0 0 0 424 155 258 257 0
Number of Lanes 011000010110
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 0
Conflicting Approach Right NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 2
HCM Control Delay 15.4 63.5 16.2

HCM LOS C F C

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 0% 99% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 73% 1% 0% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 27% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 533 188 87 237 236
LT Vol 0 187 0 237 0
Through Vol 390 1 0 0 236
RT Vol 143 0 87 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 579 204 95 258 257
Geometry Grp 67777
Degree of Util (X) 1.004 0.458 0.176 0.51 0.468
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.237 8.065 6.697 7.132 6.569
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 579 445 533 502 546
Service Time 4.297 5.841 4.472 4.911 4.348
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1 0.458 0.178 0.514 0.471
HCM Control Delay 63.5 17.5 10.9 17.2 15.1
HCM Lane LOS F C B C C
HCM 95th-tile Q 14.8 2.4 0.6 2.9 2.5
t
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM EX PLUS PROJ
4: Hammatt Ave & F St 06/22/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 219 6 23 0 9 32 21 284 3 38 219 170 Future Volume (vph) 219 6 23 0 9 32 21 284 3 38 219 170 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.987 0.895 0.999 0.946
Flt Protected 0.958 0.997 0.996
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1761 0 0 1162 0 0 1806 0 0 1658 0
Flt Permitted 0.958 0.997 0.996
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1761 0 0 1162 0 0 1806 0 0 1658 0
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 2253 1120 2586 792
Travel Time (s) 61.4 30.5 70.5 21.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 59% 2% 5% 2% 52% 5% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 238 7 25 0 10 35 23 309 3 41 238 185
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 270 0 0 45 0 0 335 0 0 464 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0000
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 6th AWSC AM EX PLUS PROJ
4: Hammatt Ave & F St 06/22/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 8
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 21.1
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 219 6 23 0 9 32 21 284 3 38 219 170
Future Vol, veh/h 219 6 23 0 9 32 21 284 3 38 219 170
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 59 2 5 2 52 5 2
Mvmt Flow 238 7 25 0 10 35 23 309 3 41 238 185
Number of Lanes 010010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 15.5 10.3 15.7 29.4

HCM LOS C B C D

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 7% 88% 0% 9%
Vol Thru, % 92% 2% 22% 51%
Vol Right, % 1% 9% 78% 40%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 308 248 41 427
LT Vol 21 219 0 38
Through Vol 284 6 9 219
RT Vol 3 23 32 170
Lane Flow Rate 335 270 45 464
Geometry Grp 1111
Degree of Util (X) 0.542 0.482 0.082 0.797
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.823 6.441 6.662 6.179
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 613 555 541 580
Service Time 3.911 4.535 4.662 4.257
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.546 0.486 0.083 0.8
HCM Control Delay 15.7 15.5 10.3 29.4
HCM Lane LOS C C B D
HCM 95th-tile Q 3.2 2.6 0.3 7.7

HCM 6th TWSC AM EX PLUS PROJ
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd REDUCED
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 139.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 19 108 172 26 26 206 246 196 29 382 19 Future Vol, veh/h 4 19 108 172 26 26 206 246 196 29 382 19 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 40 - - - 160 - 150 170 - 260
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 11 2 18 6 12 2 2 16 10 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 21 117 187 28 28 224 267 213 32 415 21
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1329 1407 415 1274 1215 267 436 0 0 480 0 0 Stage 1 479 479 - 715 715 -------
Stage 2 850 928 - 559 500 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.61 6.22 7.28 6.56 6.32 4.12 - - 4.2 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.61 - 6.28 5.56 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.61 - 6.28 5.56 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.099 3.318 3.662 4.054 3.408 2.218 - - 2.29 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 132 133 637 ~ 133 178 748 1124 - - 1042 - - Stage 1 568 540 - 397 429 -------
Stage 2 355 335 - 486 537 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 89 103 637 ~ 76 138 748 1124 - - 1042 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 89 103 - ~ 76 138 -------
Stage 1 455 523 - 318 344 -------
Stage 2 251 268 - 369 520 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 19 $ 871.3 2.9 0.6

HCM LOS C F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1124 - - 100 637 90 1042 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.199 - - 0.25 0.184 2.705 0.03 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9 - - 52.6 11.9$ 871.3 8.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - F B F A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - 0.9 0.7 23.1 0.1 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon lt t .,, lt t .,,
HCM 6th AWSC AM EX PLUS PROJ
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps REDUCED
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 88.5
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 95 1 266 157 380 0 0 438 224
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 95 1 266 157 380 0 0 438 224
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 11 27662266
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 103 1 289 171 413 0 0 476 243
Number of Lanes 000011110010
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 2
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 0
HCM Control Delay 17.3 26.2 178

HCM LOS C D F

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 99% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 1% 0% 66%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 0% 100% 34%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 157 380 96 266 662
LT Vol 157 0 95 0 0
Through Vol 0 380 1 0 438
RT Vol 0 0 0 266 224
Lane Flow Rate 171 413 104 289 720
Geometry Grp 77776
Degree of Util (X) 0.346 0.78 0.236 0.545 1.322
Departure Headway (Hd) 7.764 7.249 8.714 7.319 6.614
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 466 504 414 497 554
Service Time 5.464 4.949 6.414 5.019 4.651
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.367 0.819 0.251 0.581 1.3
HCM Control Delay 14.5 31.1 14.1 18.4 178
HCM Lane LOS B D B C F
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.5 7 0.9 3.2 30.6
t
HCM 6th AWSC AM EX PLUS PROJ
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps REDUCED
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh29.7
Intersection LOS D
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 162 1 87 0 0 0 0 377 143 208 225 0
Future Vol, veh/h 162 1 87 0 0 0 0 377 143 208 225 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 10 2 11 222247852
Mvmt Flow 176 1 95 0 0 0 0 410 155 226 245 0
Number of Lanes 0 11000010110
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 0
Conflicting Approach RightNB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 2
HCM Control Delay 14 49.9 14.5

HCM LOS B E B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 0% 99% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 72% 1% 0% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 28% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 520 163 87 208 225
LT Vol 0 162 0 208 0
Through Vol 377 1 0 0 225
RT Vol 143 0 87 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 565 177 95 226 245
Geometry Grp 67777
Degree of Util (X) 0.949 0.389 0.172 0.436 0.433
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.044 7.908 6.544 6.935 6.374
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 599 454 546 518 563
Service Time 4.094 5.675 4.31 4.698 4.135
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.943 0.39 0.174 0.436 0.435
HCM Control Delay 49.9 15.7 10.7 15 14
HCM Lane LOS E C B B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 12.7 1.8 0.6 2.2 2.2
HCM 6th AWSC AM EX PLUS PROJ
4: Hammatt Ave & F St REDUCED
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh19.7
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 214 6 23 0 9 32 21 276 3 38 211 166
Future Vol, veh/h 214 6 23 0 9 32 21 276 3 38 211 166
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 59 2 5 2 52 5 2
Mvmt Flow 233 7 25 0 10 35 23 300 3 41 229 180
Number of Lanes 0 10010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 15 10.1 15 26.8

HCM LOS B B B D

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 7% 88% 0% 9%
Vol Thru, % 92% 2% 22% 51%
Vol Right, % 1% 9% 78% 40%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 300 243 41 415
LT Vol 21 214 0 38
Through Vol 276 6 9 211
RT Vol 3 23 32 166
Lane Flow Rate 326 264 45 451
Geometry Grp 1111
Degree of Util (X) 0.522 0.467 0.081 0.768
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.759 6.365 6.536 6.126
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 620 563 551 586
Service Time 3.842 4.453 4.536 4.199
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.526 0.469 0.082 0.77
HCM Control Delay 15 15 10.1 26.8
HCM Lane LOS B B B D
HCM 95th-tile Q 3 2.5 0.3 7
4 4 4 4

Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM EX PLUS PROJ
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd 06/22/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 16 35 141 211 37 46 119 355 259 36 260 21 Future Volume (vph) 16 35 141 211 37 46 119 355 259 36 260 21 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 40 0 0 160 150 170 260
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.979 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.985 0.965 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1786 1583 0 1561 0 1770 1863 1392 1583 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.985 0.965 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1786 1583 0 1561 0 1770 1863 1392 1583 1863 1583 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 2229 214 446 1204
Travel Time (s) 50.7 4.9 12.2 32.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 6% 2% 18% 5% 9% 2% 2% 16% 14% 2% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 17 38 153 229 40 50 129 386 282 39 283 23 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 55 153 0 319 0 129 386 282 39 283 23 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 6th TWSC PM EX PLUS PROJ
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd 06/22/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 160.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 35 141 211 37 46 119 355 259 36 260 21 Future Vol, veh/h 16 35 141 211 37 46 119 355 259 36 260 21 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 40 - - - 160 - 150 170 - 260
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 6 2 18 5 9 2 2 16 14 2 2
Mvmt Flow 17 38 153 229 40 50 129 386 282 39 283 23
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1191 1287 283 1112 1028 386 306 0 0 668 0 0 Stage 1 361 361 - 644 644 -------
Stage 2 830 926 - 468 384 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.56 6.22 7.28 6.55 6.29 4.12 - - 4.24 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.56 - 6.28 5.55 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.56 - 6.28 5.55 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.054 3.318 3.662 4.045 3.381 2.218 - - 2.326 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 164 161 756 ~ 173 231 647 1255 - - 868 - - Stage 1 657 619 - 436 463 -------
Stage 2 364 342 - 546 606 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 114 138 756 ~ 97 198 647 1255 - - 868 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 114 138 - ~ 97 198 -------
Stage 1 589 591 - 391 415 -------
Stage 2 272 307 - 389 579 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 22 $ 818.3 1.3 1.1

HCM LOS C F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1255 - - 129 756 121 868 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.103 - - 0.43 0.203 2.641 0.045 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 - - 52.4 11$ 818.3 9.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - F B F A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 1.9 0.8 29 0.1 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon lt t .,, lt t .,,
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM EX PLUS PROJ
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps 06/22/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 116 2 248 110 491 0 0 422 191 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 116 2 248 110 491 0 0 422 191 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 500 150 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.958
Flt Protected 0.953 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0000 1663 1495 1770 1776 0 0 1723 0
Flt Permitted 0.953 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0000 1663 1495 1770 1776 0 0 1723 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 1324 1231 570 446
Travel Time (s) 30.1 28.0 15.5 12.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 9% 2% 8% 2% 7% 2% 2% 5% 7%
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 126 2 270 120 534 0 0 459 208
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 128 270 120 534 0 0 667 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 6th AWSC PM EX PLUS PROJ
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps 06/22/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 86.4
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 116 2 248 110 491 0 0 422 191
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 116 2 248 110 491 0 0 422 191
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222928272257
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 126 2 270 120 534 0 0 459 208
Number of Lanes 000011110010
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 2
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 0
HCM Control Delay 17 60.3 153.4

HCM LOS C F F

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 98% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 2% 0% 69%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 0% 100% 31%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 110 491 118 248 613
LT Vol 110 0 116 0 0
Through Vol 0 491 2 0 422
RT Vol 0 0 0 248 191
Lane Flow Rate 120 534 128 270 666
Geometry Grp 77776
Degree of Util (X) 0.241 1.015 0.295 0.521 1.259
Departure Headway (Hd) 7.663 7.236 8.776 7.417 6.801
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 471 507 412 491 533
Service Time 5.363 4.936 6.476 5.117 4.849
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.255 1.053 0.311 0.55 1.25
HCM Control Delay 12.8 70.9 15.1 17.9 153.4
HCM Lane LOS B F C C F
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.9 14.2 1.2 3 26.4
t
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM EX PLUS PROJ
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps 06/22/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 298 1 164 0 0 0 0 303 120 239 298 0 Future Volume (vph) 298 1 164 0 0 0 0 303 120 239 298 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 400 0 0 0 0 150 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.962
Flt Protected 0.953 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1725 1524 0000 1763 0 1687 1792 0
Flt Permitted 0.953 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1725 1524 0000 1763 0 1687 1792 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 1380 1074 792 570
Travel Time (s) 31.4 24.4 21.6 15.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 2% 6% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 8% 7% 6% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 324 1 178 0 0 0 0 329 130 260 324 0
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 325 178 0 0 0 0 459 0 260 324 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
4' .,, ------ f+ "i t
HCM 6th AWSC PM EX PLUS PROJ
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps 06/22/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 6
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 28.4
Intersection LOS D
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 298 1 164 0 0 0 0 303 120 239 298 0
Future Vol, veh/h 298 1 164 0 0 0 0 303 120 239 298 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 526222228762
Mvmt Flow 324 1 178 0 0 0 0 329 130 260 324 0
Number of Lanes 011000010110
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 0
Conflicting Approach Right NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 2
HCM Control Delay 23.6 42.3 21.6

HCM LOS C E C

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 72% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 28% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 423 299 164 239 298
LT Vol 0 298 0 239 0
Through Vol 303 1 0 0 298
RT Vol 120 0 164 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 460 325 178 260 324
Geometry Grp 67777
Degree of Util (X) 0.881 0.729 0.332 0.564 0.655
Departure Headway (Hd) 7.002 8.079 6.698 7.809 7.278
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 520 452 533 465 499
Service Time 5.002 5.779 4.497 5.526 4.995
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.885 0.719 0.334 0.559 0.649
HCM Control Delay 42.3 29.6 12.8 20.2 22.8
HCM Lane LOS E D B C C
HCM 95th-tile Q 9.8 5.8 1.4 3.4 4.7
t
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM EX PLUS PROJ
4: Hammatt Ave & F St 06/22/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 181 11 31 11 17 53 27 208 7 47 229 170 Future Volume (vph) 181 11 31 11 17 53 27 208 7 47 229 170 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.981 0.911 0.996 0.949
Flt Protected 0.961 0.993 0.995 0.995
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1756 0 0 1367 0 0 1846 0 0 1688 0
Flt Permitted 0.961 0.993 0.995 0.995
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1756 0 0 1367 0 0 1846 0 0 1688 0
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 2253 1120 2586 792
Travel Time (s) 61.4 30.5 70.5 21.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 38% 2% 2% 2% 43% 2% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 197 12 34 12 18 58 29 226 8 51 249 185
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 243 0 0 88 0 0 263 0 0 485 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0000
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 6th AWSC PM EX PLUS PROJ
4: Hammatt Ave & F St 06/22/2020
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 8
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 20.3
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 181 11 31 11 17 53 27 208 7 47 229 170 Future Vol, veh/h 181 11 31 11 17 53 27 208 7 47 229 170 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 38 2 2 2 43 2 2
Mvmt Flow 197 12 34 12 18 58 29 226 8 51 249 185
Number of Lanes 010010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1111
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1111
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1111
HCM Control Delay 14.2 10.7 13.4 28.9

HCM LOS B B B D

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 11% 81% 14% 11%
Vol Thru, % 86% 5% 21% 51%
Vol Right, % 3% 14% 65% 38%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 242 223 81 446
LT Vol 27 181 11 47
Through Vol 208 11 17 229
RT Vol 7 31 53 170
Lane Flow Rate 263 242 88 485
Geometry Grp 1111
Degree of Util (X) 0.429 0.428 0.158 0.801
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.871 6.36 6.46 5.951
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 608 560 558 606
Service Time 3.965 4.458 4.46 4.028
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.433 0.432 0.158 0.8
HCM Control Delay 13.4 14.2 10.7 28.9
HCM Lane LOS B B B D
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.1 2.1 0.6 7.9

HCM 6th TWSC PM EX PLUS PROJ
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd REDUCED
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 85.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 32 141 160 34 40 119 355 203 30 260 21 Future Vol, veh/h 16 32 141 160 34 40 119 355 203 30 260 21 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 40 - - - 160 - 150 170 - 260
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 6 2 18 5 9 2 2 16 14 2 2
Mvmt Flow 17 35 153 174 37 43 129 386 221 33 283 23
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1144 1214 283 1099 1016 386 306 0 0 607 0 0 Stage 1 349 349 - 644 644 -------
Stage 2 795 865 - 455 372 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.56 6.22 7.28 6.55 6.29 4.12 - - 4.24 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.56 - 6.28 5.55 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.56 - 6.28 5.55 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.054 3.318 3.662 4.045 3.381 2.218 - - 2.326 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 177 178 756 177 235 647 1255 - - 915 - - Stage 1 667 626 - 436 463 -------
Stage 2 381 365 - 555 614 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 128 154 756 ~ 105 203 647 1255 - - 915 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 128 154 - ~ 105 203 -------
Stage 1 598 603 - 391 415 -------
Stage 2 290 327 - 402 592 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 19.3 $ 493.2 1.4 0.9

HCM LOS C F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1255 - - 144 756 133 915 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.103 - - 0.362 0.203 1.912 0.036 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 - - 43.6 11$ 493.2 9.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - E B F A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 1.5 0.8 19.9 0.1 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon lt t .,, lt t .,,
HCM 6th AWSC PM EX PLUS PROJ
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps REDUCED
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 60
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 116 2 222 110 461 0 0 389 173
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 116 2 222 110 461 0 0 389 173
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222928272257
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 126 2 241 120 501 0 0 423 188
Number of Lanes 000011110010
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 2
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 0
HCM Control Delay 15.5 44.2 103.1

HCM LOS C E F

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 98% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 2% 0% 69%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 0% 100% 31%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 110 461 118 222 562
LT Vol 110 0 116 0 0
Through Vol 0 461 2 0 389
RT Vol 0 0 0 222 173
Lane Flow Rate 120 501 128 241 611
Geometry Grp 77776
Degree of Util (X) 0.238 0.938 0.293 0.462 1.127
Departure Headway (Hd) 7.414 6.988 8.546 7.192 6.643
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 488 521 423 504 550
Service Time 5.114 4.688 6.246 4.892 4.682
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.246 0.962 0.303 0.478 1.111
HCM Control Delay 12.4 51.8 14.7 15.9 103.1
HCM Lane LOS B F B C F
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.9 11.6 1.2 2.4 20
t
HCM 6th AWSC PM EX PLUS PROJ
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps REDUCED
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh24.8
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 278 1 164 0 0 0 0 293 120 215 289 0
Future Vol, veh/h 278 1 164 0 0 0 0 293 120 215 289 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 26222228762
Mvmt Flow 302 1 178 0 0 0 0 318 130 234 314 0
Number of Lanes 0 11000010110
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 0
Conflicting Approach RightNB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 2
HCM Control Delay 20.3 36.4 19.2

HCM LOS C E C

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 71% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 29% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 413 279 164 215 289
LT Vol 0 278 0 215 0
Through Vol 293 1 0 0 289
RT Vol 120 0 164 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 449 303 178 234 314
Geometry Grp 67777
Degree of Util (X) 0.842 0.662 0.326 0.491 0.613
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.752 7.863 6.584 7.559 7.03
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 534 458 542 474 509
Service Time 4.832 5.646 4.366 5.356 4.826
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.841 0.662 0.328 0.494 0.617
HCM Control Delay 36.4 24.9 12.6 17.5 20.5
HCM Lane LOS E C B C C
HCM 95th-tile Q 8.7 4.7 1.4 2.7 4.1
HCM 6th AWSC PM EX PLUS PROJ
4: Hammatt Ave & F St REDUCED
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh19.3
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 178 11 31 11 17 53 27 202 7 47 223 167 Future Vol, veh/h 178 11 31 11 17 53 27 202 7 47 223 167 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 38 2 2 2 43 2 2
Mvmt Flow 193 12 34 12 18 58 29 220 8 51 242 182
Number of Lanes 0 10010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 13.9 10.6 13 27

HCM LOS B B B D

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 11% 81% 14% 11%
Vol Thru, % 86% 5% 21% 51%
Vol Right, % 3% 14% 65% 38%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 236 220 81 437
LT Vol 27 178 11 47
Through Vol 202 11 17 223
RT Vol 7 31 53 167
Lane Flow Rate 257 239 88 475
Geometry Grp 1111
Degree of Util (X) 0.415 0.419 0.156 0.78
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.826 6.301 6.376 5.915
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 613 567 566 608
Service Time 3.916 4.392 4.376 3.989
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.419 0.422 0.155 0.781
HCM Control Delay 13 13.9 10.6 27
HCM Lane LOS B B B D
HCM 95th-tile Q 2 2.1 0.5 7.4
4 4 4 4

HCM 6th TWSC AM CUMULATIVE NO PROJ
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd 07/23/2020
MOONGLO LIVINGSTON Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 120
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 34 17 220 58 25 12 397 270 70 12 434 59 Future Vol, veh/h 34 17 220 58 25 12 397 270 70 12 434 59 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 40 - - - 160 - 150 170 - 260
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 37 18 239 63 27 13 432 293 76 13 472 64
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1713 1731 472 1816 1719 293 536 0 0 369 0 0 Stage 1 498 498 - 1157 1157 -------
Stage 2 1215 1233 - 659 562 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 71 88 592 ~ 60 90 746 1032 - - 1190 - - Stage 1 554 544 - 239 271 -------
Stage 2 222 249 - 453 510 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 29 51 592 ~ 18 52 746 1032 - - 1190 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 29 51 - ~ 18 52 -------
Stage 1 322 538 - 139 157 -------
Stage 2 105 145 - 258 504 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 118.7 $ 1645.4 5.9 0.2

HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1032 - - 34 592 26 1190 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.418 - - 1.63 0.404 3.972 0.011 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 11 - -$ 565.5 15.1$ 1645.4 8.1 - - HCM Lane LOS B - - F C F A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.1 - - 6.1 1.9 12.7 0 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon lt t .,, lt t .,,
HCM 6th AWSC AM CUMULATIVE NO PROJ
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps 07/23/2020
MOONGLO LIVINGSTON Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 118.5
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 116 1 275 176 462 0 0 488 224
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 116 1 275 176 462 0 0 488 224
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222922622222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 126 1 299 191 502 0 0 530 243
Number of Lanes 000011110010
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 2
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 0
HCM Control Delay 18.7 46.5 238

HCM LOS C E F

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 99% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 1% 0% 69%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 0% 100% 31%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 176 462 117 275 712
LT Vol 176 0 116 0 0
Through Vol 0 462 1 0 488
RT Vol 0 0 0 275 224
Lane Flow Rate 191 502 127 299 774
Geometry Grp 77776
Degree of Util (X) 0.395 0.958 0.292 0.577 1.463
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.046 7.459 8.971 7.603 6.807
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 450 492 403 478 534
Service Time 5.746 5.159 6.671 5.303 4.846
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.424 1.02 0.315 0.626 1.449
HCM Control Delay 15.9 58.2 15.3 20.2 238
HCM Lane LOS C F C C F
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.9 12 1.2 3.6 38
t
HCM 6th AWSC AM CUMULATIVE NO PROJ
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps 07/23/2020
MOONGLO LIVINGSTON Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh87.3
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 166 1 93 0 0 0 0 474 206 203 400 0
Future Vol, veh/h 166 1 93 0 0 0 0 474 206 203 400 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 11 222272252
Mvmt Flow 180 1 101 0 0 0 0 515 224 221 435 0
Number of Lanes 0 11000010110
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 0
Conflicting Approach RightNB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 2
HCM Control Delay 15.1 170.4 24.6

HCM LOS C F C

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 0% 99% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 70% 1% 0% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 30% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 680 167 93 203 400
LT Vol 0 166 0 203 0
Through Vol 474 1 0 0 400
RT Vol 206 0 93 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 739 182 101 221 435
Geometry Grp 67777
Degree of Util (X) 1.306 0.405 0.192 0.422 0.777
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.362 8.556 7.317 7.283 6.822
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 577 423 493 499 535
Service Time 4.39 6.256 5.017 4.983 4.522
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.281 0.43 0.205 0.443 0.813
HCM Control Delay 170.4 17 11.7 15.2 29.4
HCM Lane LOS F C B C D
HCM 95th-tile Q 30.6 1.9 0.7 2.1 7.1
HCM 6th AWSC AM CUMULATIVE NO PROJ
4: Hammatt Ave & F St 07/23/2020
MOONGLO LIVINGSTON Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh43.3
Intersection LOS E
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 236 6 23 0 9 38 21 406 3 41 263 189
Future Vol, veh/h 236 6 23 0 9 38 21 406 3 41 263 189
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 53 2 2 2 49 2 2
Mvmt Flow 257 7 25 0 10 41 23 441 3 45 286 205
Number of Lanes 0 10010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 20.1 11.8 33.5 67.4

HCM LOS C B D F

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 5% 89% 0% 8%
Vol Thru, % 94% 2% 19% 53%
Vol Right, % 1% 9% 81% 38%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 430 265 47 493
LT Vol 21 236 0 41
Through Vol 406 6 9 263
RT Vol 3 23 38 189
Lane Flow Rate 467 288 51 536
Geometry Grp 1111
Degree of Util (X) 0.83 0.583 0.11 1.008
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.391 7.285 7.876 6.774
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 566 493 458 536
Service Time 4.461 5.358 5.876 4.841
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.825 0.584 0.111 1
HCM Control Delay 33.5 20.1 11.8 67.4
HCM Lane LOS D C B F
HCM 95th-tile Q 8.5 3.7 0.4 14.4
4 4 4 4

HCM 6th TWSC PM CUMULATIVE NO PROJ
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd 07/23/2020
MOONGLO LIVINGSTON Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 66.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 49 27 273 60 29 25 239 424 89 9 325 42 Future Vol, veh/h 49 27 273 60 29 25 239 424 89 9 325 42 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 40 - - - 160 - 150 170 - 260
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 53 29 297 65 32 27 260 461 97 10 353 46
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1432 1451 353 1540 1400 461 399 0 0 558 0 0 Stage 1 373 373 - 981 981 -------
Stage 2 1059 1078 - 559 419 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 112 131 691 94 140 600 1160 - - 1013 - - Stage 1 648 618 - 300 328 -------
Stage 2 271 295 - 513 590 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 69 101 691 ~ 34 108 600 1160 - - 1013 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 69 101 - ~ 34 108 -------
Stage 1 503 612 - 233 255 -------
Stage 2 176 229 - 276 584 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 57.5 $ 734.3 2.9 0.2

HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1160 - - 78 691 55 1013 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.224 - - 1.059 0.429 2.253 0.01 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9 - - 213.4 14.1$ 734.3 8.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - F B F A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 - - 5.9 2.2 12.4 0 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon lt t .,, lt t .,,
HCM 6th AWSC PM CUMULATIVE NO PROJ
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps 07/23/2020
MOONGLO LIVINGSTON Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 109.4
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 182 2 222 120 530 0 0 477 182
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 182 2 222 120 530 0 0 477 182
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222522822222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 198 2 241 130 576 0 0 518 198
Number of Lanes 000011110010
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 2
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 0
HCM Control Delay 17.6 83.2 191.8

HCM LOS C F F

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 99% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 1% 0% 72%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 0% 100% 28%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 120 530 184 222 659
LT Vol 120 0 182 0 0
Through Vol 0 530 2 0 477
RT Vol 0 0 0 222 182
Lane Flow Rate 130 576 200 241 716
Geometry Grp 77776
Degree of Util (X) 0.272 1.106 0.452 0.462 1.352
Departure Headway (Hd) 7.986 7.365 8.89 7.594 6.999
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 453 495 408 478 523
Service Time 5.686 5.065 6.59 5.294 4.999
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.287 1.164 0.49 0.504 1.369
HCM Control Delay 13.6 99 18.7 16.6 191.8
HCM Lane LOS B F C C F
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.1 17.8 2.3 2.4 31
t
HCM 6th AWSC PM CUMULATIVE NO PROJ
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps 07/23/2020
MOONGLO LIVINGSTON Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh56.6
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 283 1 184 0 0 0 0 369 158 230 429 0
Future Vol, veh/h 283 1 184 0 0 0 0 369 158 230 429 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 25222226222
Mvmt Flow 308 1 200 0 0 0 0 401 172 250 466 0
Number of Lanes 0 11000010110
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 0
Conflicting Approach RightNB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 2
HCM Control Delay 23.1 105.6 41.1

HCM LOS C F E

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 70% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 30% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 527 284 184 230 429
LT Vol 0 283 0 230 0
Through Vol 369 1 0 0 429
RT Vol 158 0 184 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 573 309 200 250 466
Geometry Grp 67777
Degree of Util (X) 1.128 0.7 0.387 0.534 0.931
Departure Headway (Hd) 7.092 8.484 7.246 7.987 7.472
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 516 429 500 455 490
Service Time 5.128 6.184 4.946 5.687 5.172
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.11 0.72 0.4 0.549 0.951
HCM Control Delay 105.6 28.7 14.4 19.5 52.7
HCM Lane LOS F D B C F
HCM 95th-tile Q 19.2 5.3 1.8 3.1 11.1
HCM 6th AWSC PM CUMULATIVE NO PROJ
4: Hammatt Ave & F St 07/23/2020
MOONGLO LIVINGSTON Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh60.5
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 200 11 31 11 17 55 27 287 7 51 356 187 Future Vol, veh/h 200 11 31 11 17 55 27 287 7 51 356 187 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 36 2 2 2 39 2 2
Mvmt Flow 217 12 34 12 18 60 29 312 8 55 387 203
Number of Lanes 0 10010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 17.8 12.3 19.5 106.8

HCM LOS C B C F

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 8% 83% 13% 9%
Vol Thru, % 89% 5% 20% 60%
Vol Right, % 2% 13% 66% 31%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 321 242 83 594
LT Vol 27 200 11 51
Through Vol 287 11 17 356
RT Vol 7 31 55 187
Lane Flow Rate 349 263 90 646
Geometry Grp 1111
Degree of Util (X) 0.611 0.509 0.18 1.141
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.619 7.387 7.656 6.362
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 548 492 472 568
Service Time 4.619 5.387 5.656 4.434
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.637 0.535 0.191 1.137
HCM Control Delay 19.5 17.8 12.3 106.8
HCM Lane LOS C C B F
HCM 95th-tile Q 4.1 2.8 0.6 21.2
4 4 4 4

HCM 6th TWSC AM CUM PLUS PROJ
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd BUILDOUT
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 34 39 214 312 50 53 386 256 356 66 411 59 Future Vol, veh/h 34 39 214 312 50 53 386 256 356 66 411 59 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 40 - - - 160 - 150 170 - 260
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 8 2 14 4 9 2 2 13 8 2 2
Mvmt Flow 37 42 233 339 54 58 420 278 387 72 447 64
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1959 2096 447 1879 1773 278 511 0 0 665 0 0 Stage 1 591 591 - 1118 1118 -------
Stage 2 1368 1505 - 761 655 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.58 6.22 7.24 6.54 6.29 4.12 - - 4.18 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.58 - 6.24 5.54 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.58 - 6.24 5.54 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.072 3.318 3.626 4.036 3.381 2.218 - - 2.272 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 48 50 612 ~ 51 82 744 1054 - - 896 - - Stage 1 493 485 - ~ 238 280 -------
Stage 2 181 179 - 380 460 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - ~ 28 612 - ~ 45 744 1054 - - 896 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - ~ 28 - - ~ 45 -------
Stage 1 297 446 - ~ 143 169 -------
Stage 2 68 108 - ~ 196 423 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 4.1 1.2

HCM LOS - -
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1054 - - - 612 - 896 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.398 - - - 0.38 - 0.08 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.7 - - - 14.4 - 9.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - - B - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.9 - - - 1.8 - 0.3 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon lt t .,, lt t .,,
HCM 6th AWSC AM CUM PLUS PROJ
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps BUILDOUT
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 271.6
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 116 1 394 176 603 0 0 633 306
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 116 1 394 176 603 0 0 633 306
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222925652245
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 126 1 428 191 655 0 0 688 333
Number of Lanes 000011110010
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 2
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 0
HCM Control Delay 35.1 157.8 494.8

HCM LOS E F F

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 99% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 1% 0% 67%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 0% 100% 33%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 176 603 117 394 939
LT Vol 176 0 116 0 0
Through Vol 0 603 1 0 633
RT Vol 0 0 0 394 306
Lane Flow Rate 191 655 127 428 1021
Geometry Grp 77776
Degree of Util (X) 0.422 1.353 0.294 0.833 2.044
Departure Headway (Hd) 9.224 8.682 9.691 8.3 7.599
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 394 426 374 441 490
Service Time 6.924 6.382 7.391 6 5.599
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.485 1.538 0.34 0.971 2.084
HCM Control Delay 18.5 198.5 16.4 40.7 494.8
HCM Lane LOS C F C E F
HCM 95th-tile Q 2 26.3 1.2 8 67.2
t
HCM 6th AWSC AM CUM PLUS PROJ
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps BUILDOUT
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh125.5
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 260 1 93 0 0 0 0 521 206 307 441 0
Future Vol, veh/h 260 1 93 0 0 0 0 521 206 307 441 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 2 11 222227862
Mvmt Flow 283 1 101 0 0 0 0 566 224 334 479 0
Number of Lanes 0 11000010110
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 0
Conflicting Approach RightNB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 2
HCM Control Delay 23.3 260.1 43

HCM LOS C F E

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 72% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 28% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 727 261 93 307 441
LT Vol 0 260 0 307 0
Through Vol 521 1 0 0 441
RT Vol 206 0 93 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 790 284 101 334 479
Geometry Grp 67777
Degree of Util (X) 1.514 0.656 0.197 0.697 0.931
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.898 8.988 7.634 8.208 7.655
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 529 406 473 444 479
Service Time 4.927 6.688 5.334 5.908 5.355
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.493 0.7 0.214 0.752 1
HCM Control Delay 260.1 27.3 12.2 27.7 53.6
HCM Lane LOS F D B D F
HCM 95th-tile Q 40.6 4.5 0.7 5.2 10.9
HCM 6th AWSC AM CUM PLUS PROJ
4: Hammatt Ave & F St BUILDOUT
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh66.1
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 252 6 23 0 9 38 21 437 3 41 290 203
Future Vol, veh/h 252 6 23 0 9 38 21 437 3 41 290 203
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 2 2 2 2 50 2 3 2 58 3 2
Mvmt Flow 274 7 25 0 10 41 23 475 3 45 315 221
Number of Lanes 0 10010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 22.4 12.4 42 114.6

HCM LOS C B E F

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 5% 90% 0% 8%
Vol Thru, % 95% 2% 19% 54%
Vol Right, % 1% 8% 81% 38%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 461 281 47 534
LT Vol 21 252 0 41
Through Vol 437 6 9 290
RT Vol 3 23 38 203
Lane Flow Rate 501 305 51 580
Geometry Grp 1111
Degree of Util (X) 0.887 0.617 0.112 1.153
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.725 7.718 8.389 7.15
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 541 470 430 511
Service Time 4.725 5.718 6.389 5.153
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.926 0.649 0.119 1.135
HCM Control Delay 42 22.4 12.4 114.6
HCM Lane LOS E C B F
HCM 95th-tile Q 10.1 4.1 0.4 20.3
4 4 4 4

HCM 6th TWSC AM CUM PLUS PROJ
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd PHASE I
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1670.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 34 27 217 191 37 33 392 263 202 38 423 59 Future Vol, veh/h 34 27 217 191 37 33 392 263 202 38 423 59 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 40 - - - 160 - 150 170 - 260
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 8 2 14 4 9 2 2 13 8 2 2
Mvmt Flow 37 29 236 208 40 36 426 286 220 41 460 64
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1828 1900 460 1845 1744 286 524 0 0 506 0 0 Stage 1 542 542 - 1138 1138 -------
Stage 2 1286 1358 - 707 606 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.58 6.22 7.24 6.54 6.29 4.12 - - 4.18 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.58 - 6.24 5.54 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.58 - 6.24 5.54 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.072 3.318 3.626 4.036 3.381 2.218 - - 2.272 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 59 67 601 ~ 53 85 737 1043 - - 1029 - - Stage 1 525 510 - 232 274 -------
Stage 2 202 211 - 408 484 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 12 38 601 ~ 8 48 737 1043 - - 1029 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 12 38 - ~ 8 48 -------
Stage 1 311 490 - ~ 137 162 -------
Stage 2 85 125 - 224 465 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s$ 398.3 $ 11818.7 4.9 0.6

HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1043 - - 17 601 11 1029 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.409 - - 3.9 0.392 25.791 0.04 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.8 - -$ 1762.4 14.8$ 11818.7 8.6 - - HCM Lane LOS B - - F B F A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2 - - 8.9 1.9 37 0.1 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon lt t .,, lt t .,,
HCM 6th AWSC AM CUM PLUS PROJ
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps PHASE I
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 188
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 116 1 330 176 527 0 0 564 267
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 116 1 330 176 527 0 0 564 267
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222925652245
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 126 1 359 191 573 0 0 613 290
Number of Lanes 000011110010
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 2
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 0
HCM Control Delay 24 89.6 359.4

HCM LOS C F F

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 99% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 1% 0% 68%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 0% 100% 32%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 176 527 117 330 831
LT Vol 176 0 116 0 0
Through Vol 0 527 1 0 564
RT Vol 0 0 0 330 267
Lane Flow Rate 191 573 127 359 903
Geometry Grp 77776
Degree of Util (X) 0.408 1.14 0.293 0.694 1.74
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.583 8.045 9.352 7.973 7.208
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 423 458 387 456 515
Service Time 6.283 5.745 7.052 5.673 5.208
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.452 1.251 0.328 0.787 1.753
HCM Control Delay 17.1 113.8 15.9 26.9 359.4
HCM Lane LOS C F C D F
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.9 18.3 1.2 5.2 52.4
t
HCM 6th AWSC AM CUM PLUS PROJ
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps PHASE I
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh103.1
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 210 1 93 0 0 0 0 496 206 258 422 0
Future Vol, veh/h 210 1 93 0 0 0 0 496 206 258 422 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 2 11 222227862
Mvmt Flow 228 1 101 0 0 0 0 539 224 280 459 0
Number of Lanes 0 11000010110
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 0
Conflicting Approach RightNB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 2
HCM Control Delay 18.2 208.7 32

HCM LOS C F D

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 71% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 29% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 702 211 93 258 422
LT Vol 0 210 0 258 0
Through Vol 496 1 0 0 422
RT Vol 206 0 93 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 763 229 101 280 459
Geometry Grp 67777
Degree of Util (X) 1.396 0.525 0.195 0.564 0.855
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.588 8.836 7.487 7.766 7.216
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 557 411 482 468 505
Service Time 4.616 6.536 5.187 5.466 4.916
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.37 0.557 0.21 0.598 0.909
HCM Control Delay 208.7 20.9 12 20 39.3
HCM Lane LOS F C B C E
HCM 95th-tile Q 35.1 3 0.7 3.4 8.9
HCM 6th AWSC AM CUM PLUS PROJ
4: Hammatt Ave & F St PHASE I
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh54.8
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 243 6 23 0 9 38 21 421 3 41 277 196
Future Vol, veh/h 243 6 23 0 9 38 21 421 3 41 277 196
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 2 2 2 2 50 2 3 2 58 3 2
Mvmt Flow 264 7 25 0 10 41 23 458 3 45 301 213
Number of Lanes 0 10010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 20.9 12.1 35.8 93.1

HCM LOS C B E F

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 5% 89% 0% 8%
Vol Thru, % 95% 2% 19% 54%
Vol Right, % 1% 8% 81% 38%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 445 272 47 514
LT Vol 21 243 0 41
Through Vol 421 6 9 277
RT Vol 3 23 38 196
Lane Flow Rate 484 296 51 559
Geometry Grp 1111
Degree of Util (X) 0.846 0.592 0.11 1.092
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.584 7.563 8.108 7.034
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 556 482 445 520
Service Time 4.584 5.563 6.108 5.039
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.871 0.614 0.115 1.075
HCM Control Delay 35.8 20.9 12.1 93.1
HCM Lane LOS E C B F
HCM 95th-tile Q 8.9 3.8 0.4 17.7
4 4 4 4

HCM 6th TWSC PM CUM PLUS PROJ
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd BUILDOUT
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1236.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 49 48 266 229 44 59 233 408 279 41 313 42 Future Vol, veh/h 49 48 266 229 44 59 233 408 279 41 313 42 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 40 - - - 160 - 150 170 - 260
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 4 2 12 4 6 2 2 12 10 2 2
Mvmt Flow 53 52 289 249 48 64 253 443 303 45 340 46
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1587 1682 340 1573 1425 443 386 0 0 746 0 0 Stage 1 430 430 - 949 949 -------
Stage 2 1157 1252 - 624 476 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.54 6.22 7.22 6.54 6.26 4.12 - - 4.2 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.54 - 6.22 5.54 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.54 - 6.22 5.54 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.036 3.318 3.608 4.036 3.354 2.218 - - 2.29 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 87 93 702 ~ 85 134 606 1172 - - 827 - - Stage 1 603 580 - 300 336 -------
Stage 2 239 242 - 457 553 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 39 69 702 ~ 16 99 606 1172 - - 827 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 39 69 - ~ 16 99 -------
Stage 1 473 549 - ~ 235 263 -------
Stage 2 137 190 - ~ 230 523 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 193.8 $ 7270.1 2.3 1

HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1172 - - 50 702 22 827 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.216 - - 2.109 0.412 16.403 0.054 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - -$ 687.8 13.7$ 7270.1 9.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - F B F A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - - 10.6 2 45.3 0.2 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon lt t .,, lt t .,,
HCM 6th AWSC PM CUM PLUS PROJ
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps BUILDOUT
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 205
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 182 2 299 120 621 0 0 573 236
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 182 2 299 120 621 0 0 573 236
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222526232245
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 198 2 325 130 675 0 0 623 257
Number of Lanes 000011110010
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 2
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 0
HCM Control Delay 22.2 164.8 351

HCM LOS C F F

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 99% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 1% 0% 71%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 0% 100% 29%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 120 621 184 299 809
LT Vol 120 0 182 0 0
Through Vol 0 621 2 0 573
RT Vol 0 0 0 299 236
Lane Flow Rate 130 675 200 325 879
Geometry Grp 77776
Degree of Util (X) 0.278 1.348 0.457 0.63 1.719
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.522 8.019 9.428 8.116 7.466
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 424 459 384 449 492
Service Time 6.222 5.719 7.128 5.816 5.466
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.307 1.471 0.521 0.724 1.787
HCM Control Delay 14.5 193.9 19.8 23.6 351
HCM Lane LOS B F C C F
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.1 27.7 2.3 4.2 49.6
t
HCM 6th AWSC PM CUM PLUS PROJ
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps BUILDOUT
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh78.2
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 344 1 184 0 0 0 0 399 158 299 456 0
Future Vol, veh/h 344 1 184 0 0 0 0 399 158 299 456 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 25222226542
Mvmt Flow 374 1 200 0 0 0 0 434 172 325 496 0
Number of Lanes 0 11000010110
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 0
Conflicting Approach RightNB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 2
HCM Control Delay 35.7 142.7 60.3

HCM LOS E F F

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 72% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 28% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 557 345 184 299 456
LT Vol 0 344 0 299 0
Through Vol 399 1 0 0 456
RT Vol 158 0 184 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 605 375 200 325 496
Geometry Grp 67777
Degree of Util (X) 1.225 0.866 0.391 0.726 1.036
Departure Headway (Hd) 7.438 8.687 7.41 8.439 7.903
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 490 420 488 432 461
Service Time 5.438 6.387 5.11 6.139 5.603
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.235 0.893 0.41 0.752 1.076
HCM Control Delay 142.7 46.8 14.8 30.5 79.9
HCM Lane LOS F E B D F
HCM 95th-tile Q 23.2 8.6 1.8 5.7 14.4
HCM 6th AWSC PM CUM PLUS PROJ
4: Hammatt Ave & F St BUILDOUT
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh74.2
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 210 11 31 11 17 55 27 307 7 51 374 196 Future Vol, veh/h 210 11 31 11 17 55 27 307 7 51 374 196 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 36 2 2 2 39 2 2
Mvmt Flow 228 12 34 12 18 60 29 334 8 55 407 213
Number of Lanes 0 10010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 19 12.7 21.7 133.7

HCM LOS C B C F

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 8% 83% 13% 8%
Vol Thru, % 90% 4% 20% 60%
Vol Right, % 2% 12% 66% 32%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 341 252 83 621
LT Vol 27 210 11 51
Through Vol 307 11 17 374
RT Vol 7 31 55 196
Lane Flow Rate 371 274 90 675
Geometry Grp 1111
Degree of Util (X) 0.655 0.536 0.183 1.212
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.784 7.583 7.951 6.465
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 537 479 454 560
Service Time 4.784 5.583 5.951 4.554
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.691 0.572 0.198 1.205
HCM Control Delay 21.7 19 12.7 133.7
HCM Lane LOS C C B F
HCM 95th-tile Q 4.7 3.1 0.7 24.7
4 4 4 4

HCM 6th TWSC PM CUM PLUS PROJ
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd PHASE I
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 578.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 49 41 266 178 41 53 233 408 223 35 313 42 Future Vol, veh/h 49 41 266 178 41 53 233 408 223 35 313 42 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 40 - - - 160 - 150 170 - 260
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 4 2 12 4 6 2 2 12 10 2 2
Mvmt Flow 53 45 289 193 45 58 253 443 242 38 340 46
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1538 1607 340 1555 1411 443 386 0 0 685 0 0 Stage 1 416 416 - 949 949 -------
Stage 2 1122 1191 - 606 462 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.54 6.22 7.22 6.54 6.26 4.12 - - 4.2 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.54 - 6.22 5.54 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.54 - 6.22 5.54 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.036 3.318 3.608 4.036 3.354 2.218 - - 2.29 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 94 104 702 ~ 87 137 606 1172 - - 872 - - Stage 1 614 588 - 300 336 -------
Stage 2 250 259 - 467 561 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 46 78 702 ~ 23 103 606 1172 - - 872 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 46 78 - ~ 23 103 -------
Stage 1 481 562 - 235 263 -------
Stage 2 147 203 - 242 536 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 137.3 $ 3814.6 2.4 0.8

HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1172 - - 57 702 33 872 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.216 - - 1.716 0.412 8.959 0.044 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - -$ 502.7 13.7$ 3814.6 9.3 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - F B F A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - - 9.1 2 35.9 0.1 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon lt t .,, lt t .,,
HCM 6th AWSC PM CUM PLUS PROJ
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps PHASE I
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 171.7
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 182 2 273 120 591 0 0 540 218
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 182 2 273 120 591 0 0 540 218
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222526232245
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 198 2 297 130 642 0 0 587 237
Number of Lanes 000011110010
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 2
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 0
HCM Control Delay 20.3 136 296.4

HCM LOS C F F

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 99% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 1% 0% 71%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 0% 100% 29%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 120 591 184 273 758
LT Vol 120 0 182 0 0
Through Vol 0 591 2 0 540
RT Vol 0 0 0 273 218
Lane Flow Rate 130 642 200 297 824
Geometry Grp 77776
Degree of Util (X) 0.275 1.268 0.457 0.575 1.595
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.309 7.808 9.26 7.954 7.325
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 436 469 392 457 503
Service Time 6.009 5.508 6.96 5.654 5.325
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.298 1.369 0.51 0.65 1.638
HCM Control Delay 14.1 160.8 19.5 20.9 296.4
HCM Lane LOS B F C C F
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.1 24.4 2.3 3.5 43.3
t
HCM 6th AWSC PM CUM PLUS PROJ
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps PHASE I
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh69.9
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 324 1 184 0 0 0 0 389 158 275 447 0
Future Vol, veh/h 324 1 184 0 0 0 0 389 158 275 447 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 25222226542
Mvmt Flow 352 1 200 0 0 0 0 423 172 299 486 0
Number of Lanes 0 11000010110
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 0
Conflicting Approach RightNB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 2
HCM Control Delay 30.2 128.6 53.3

HCM LOS D F F

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 71% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 29% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 547 325 184 275 447
LT Vol 0 324 0 275 0
Through Vol 389 1 0 0 447
RT Vol 158 0 184 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 595 353 200 299 486
Geometry Grp 67777
Degree of Util (X) 1.189 0.809 0.388 0.66 1.003
Departure Headway (Hd) 7.338 8.637 7.361 8.298 7.763
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 499 420 492 439 471
Service Time 5.338 6.337 5.061 5.998 5.463
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.192 0.84 0.407 0.681 1.032
HCM Control Delay 128.6 39 14.7 25.7 70.3
HCM Lane LOS F E B D F
HCM 95th-tile Q 21.7 7.3 1.8 4.7 13.3
HCM 6th AWSC PM CUM PLUS PROJ
4: Hammatt Ave & F St PHASE I
MOONGLO TRUCK STOP Synchro 10 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh70.6
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 207 11 31 11 17 55 27 301 7 51 368 193 Future Vol, veh/h 207 11 31 11 17 55 27 301 7 51 368 193 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 36 2 2 2 39 2 2
Mvmt Flow 225 12 34 12 18 60 29 327 8 55 400 210
Number of Lanes 0 10010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 18.7 12.6 21.1 126.7

HCM LOS C B C F

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 8% 83% 13% 8%
Vol Thru, % 90% 4% 20% 60%
Vol Right, % 2% 12% 66% 32%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 335 249 83 612
LT Vol 27 207 11 51
Through Vol 301 11 17 368
RT Vol 7 31 55 193
Lane Flow Rate 364 271 90 665
Geometry Grp 1111
Degree of Util (X) 0.644 0.529 0.183 1.194
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.744 7.535 7.876 6.46
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 539 482 458 559
Service Time 4.744 5.535 5.876 4.525
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.675 0.562 0.197 1.19
HCM Control Delay 21.1 18.7 12.6 126.7
HCM Lane LOS C C B F
HCM 95th-tile Q 4.6 3 0.7 23.8
4 4 4 4

SimTraffic Performance Report MITIG8 Exist + Reduced Project AM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report

Page 1 ends

1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 17.2 24.3 16.2 29.0 21.6
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 16.1 19.4 19.3 18.6
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach EB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s) 22.8 20.1 16.8 19.3
4: Hammatt Ave & F St Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 27.7 8.4 8.6 8.6 13.2
5: West Access & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.8 2.7 18.8 3.7
6: Central Access/Industrial Rd & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.5 1.2 7.4 4.2 1.8
7: East Access & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.3 0.2 5.5 1.7
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 236.2
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 Exist + Reduced Project AM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection: 1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd
Movement EB EB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L T R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 111 67 177 184 285 110 177 332 73
Average Queue (ft) 29 45 136 112 73 32 33 167 13
95th Queue (ft) 78 71 201 181 181 79 100 280 55
Link Distance (ft) 1679 162 369 1008
Upstream Blk Time (%) 10 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 34 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 40 160 150 170 260
Storage Blk Time (%) 5 9 3 0 0 0 10
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 2 13 2 0 0 5
Intersection: 2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LT R L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 139 187 174 320 371
Average Queue (ft) 64 73 105 82 204
95th Queue (ft) 119 130 173 222 355
Link Distance (ft) 1195 533 369
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 4 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 16 1
Intersection: 3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps
Movement EB EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 207 88 389 170 195
Average Queue (ft) 105 36 178 113 53
95th Queue (ft) 175 67 333 180 151
Link Distance (ft) 1346 725 533
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 4 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 0
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 Exist + Reduced Project AM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection: 4: Hammatt Ave & F St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 255 87 218 269
Average Queue (ft) 127 28 81 111
95th Queue (ft) 221 71 160 216
Link Distance (ft) 2225 1091 2524 725
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: West Access & Campbell Blvd
Movement EB EB WB NB
Directions Served T TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 20 15 107 200
Average Queue (ft) 1 1 20 67
95th Queue (ft) 10 8 74 141
Link Distance (ft) 162 162 113 269
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Central Access/Industrial Rd & Campbell Blvd Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT TR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 29 61 64 118 31
Average Queue (ft) 2 4 3 58 12
95th Queue (ft) 16 29 32 101 36
Link Distance (ft) 113 113 274 264 724
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 Exist + Reduced Project AM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection: 7: East Access & Campbell Blvd
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 11 116
Average Queue (ft) 0 53
95th Queue (ft) 9 91
Link Distance (ft) 253
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 93
SimTraffic Performance Report MITIG8 Existing plus Reduced Project PM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 1
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 16.1 24.5 14.7 23.6 18.8
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 16.6 13.2 15.2 14.8
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach EB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 17.8 20.4 20.5 19.6
4: Hammatt Ave & F St Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 21.3 11.1 8.1 6.3 10.4
5: West Access & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.9 3.4 25.9 4.9
6: Central Access/Industrial Rd & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.6 0.7 6.8 4.2 1.7
7: East Access & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.1 5.0 1.7
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 356.4
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 Existing plus Reduced Project PM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 2
Intersection: 1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd
Movement EB EB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L T R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 139 65 156 167 267 174 100 208 81
Average Queue (ft) 47 52 128 69 97 48 32 109 14
95th Queue (ft) 105 72 177 132 194 122 77 184 57
Link Distance (ft) 2182 140 356 1176
Upstream Blk Time (%) 12 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 37 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 40 160 150 170 260
Storage Blk Time (%) 10 11 0 2 0 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 15 5 1 6 0 0 1
Intersection: 2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LT R L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 152 141 150 199 344
Average Queue (ft) 77 67 69 56 154
95th Queue (ft) 137 123 125 137 281
Link Distance (ft) 1195 533 356
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1
Intersection: 3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps
Movement EB EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 242 92 296 173 297
Average Queue (ft) 130 47 139 114 85
95th Queue (ft) 211 81 250 178 227
Link Distance (ft) 1346 725 533
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 6 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 19 0
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 Existing plus Reduced Project PM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 3
Intersection: 4: Hammatt Ave & F St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 176 114 170 242
Average Queue (ft) 97 47 65 87
95th Queue (ft) 161 88 132 180
Link Distance (ft) 2225 1091 2524 725
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: West Access & Campbell Blvd
Movement EB EB WB NB
Directions Served T TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 15 35 116 192
Average Queue (ft) 1 2 26 71
95th Queue (ft) 8 16 87 159
Link Distance (ft) 140 140 183 430
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Central Access/Industrial Rd & Campbell Blvd Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT TR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 34 7 21 114 55
Average Queue (ft) 4 0 1 51 19
95th Queue (ft) 21 4 11 93 46
Link Distance (ft) 183 183 250 628 735
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 Existing plus Reduced Project PM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 4
Intersection: 7: East Access & Campbell Blvd
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 5 64
Average Queue (ft) 0 29
95th Queue (ft) 0 51
Link Distance (ft) 604
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 87
SimTraffic Performance Report Existing plus Project AM
Reduced Alternative 07/17/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 1
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 15.8 24.4 17.0 28.1 21.5
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 16.1 18.2 16.0 16.8
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach EB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s) 23.8 18.6 16.4 18.7
4: Hammatt Ave & F St Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 27.6 9.2 7.7 9.0 13.1
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.3
Total Del/Veh (s) 361.5
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing plus Project AM
Reduced Alternative 07/17/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 2
Intersection: 1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd
Movement EB EB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L T R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 94 68 177 184 312 125 139 308 121
Average Queue (ft) 26 44 141 108 89 32 32 162 16
95th Queue (ft) 71 71 206 182 229 80 90 280 70
Link Distance (ft) 1679 162 369 1008
Upstream Blk Time (%) 12 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 39 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 40 160 150 170 260
Storage Blk Time (%) 5 8 4 1 0 8 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 2 17 2 0 4 0
Intersection: 2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LT R L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 167 194 170 310 348
Average Queue (ft) 66 76 109 67 173
95th Queue (ft) 131 140 173 197 321
Link Distance (ft) 1195 533 369
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 4 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 15 1
Intersection: 3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps
Movement EB EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 203 85 383 174 352
Average Queue (ft) 107 34 167 108 59
95th Queue (ft) 173 67 319 174 202
Link Distance (ft) 1346 725 533
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 4 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 0
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing plus Project AM
Reduced Alternative 07/17/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 3
Intersection: 4: Hammatt Ave & F St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 253 92 188 262
Average Queue (ft) 123 30 73 116
95th Queue (ft) 217 74 141 221
Link Distance (ft) 2225 1091 2524 725
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 99
SimTraffic Performance Report MITIG8 Exist + Full Project AM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 1
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.5 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 18.1 28.1 16.9 41.6 26.0
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.6 0.0 0.1 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 16.2 17.2 24.7 20.2
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach EB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s) 22.3 25.7 16.7 21.3
4: Hammatt Ave & F St Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 25.1 9.4 8.3 8.1 12.3
5: West Access & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.7 4.4 31.2 6.1
6: Central Access/Industrial Rd & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.5 1.3 8.2 5.2 1.9
7: East Access & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.3 0.2 5.5 1.7
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 325.6
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 Exist + Full Project AM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 2
Intersection: 1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd
Movement EB EB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L T R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 87 103 177 182 285 159 194 428 73
Average Queue (ft) 26 44 150 103 88 39 62 207 12
95th Queue (ft) 66 83 204 171 199 109 157 359 53
Link Distance (ft) 1679 162 369 1008
Upstream Blk Time (%) 16 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 55 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 160 150 170 260
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 1 0 0 18
Queuing Penalty (veh) 15 3 0 0 13
Intersection: 2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LT R L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 154 180 172 244 382
Average Queue (ft) 64 85 106 52 262
95th Queue (ft) 117 143 169 159 407
Link Distance (ft) 1195 533 369
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 12
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 4 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 16 0
Intersection: 3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps
Movement EB EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 231 93 422 174 300
Average Queue (ft) 111 36 213 124 49
95th Queue (ft) 197 70 370 181 180
Link Distance (ft) 1346 725 533
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 5 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 11 0
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 Exist + Full Project AM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 3
Intersection: 4: Hammatt Ave & F St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 244 86 198 248
Average Queue (ft) 122 36 80 104
95th Queue (ft) 211 77 154 204
Link Distance (ft) 2225 1091 2524 725
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: West Access & Campbell Blvd
Movement EB EB WB NB
Directions Served T TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 4 4 122 237
Average Queue (ft) 0 0 36 84
95th Queue (ft) 3 3 108 175
Link Distance (ft) 162 162 113 269
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Central Access/Industrial Rd & Campbell Blvd Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT TR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 37 44 54 118 35
Average Queue (ft) 4 2 5 57 13
95th Queue (ft) 21 19 33 97 37
Link Distance (ft) 113 113 274 264 724
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 Exist + Full Project AM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 4
Intersection: 7: East Access & Campbell Blvd
Movement NB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 113
Average Queue (ft) 54
95th Queue (ft) 94
Link Distance (ft) 253
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 129
SimTraffic Performance Report MITIG8 Existing plus Full Buildout PM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 1
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.6 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 17.6 24.5 15.5 27.6 20.0
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.5 0.0 0.1 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 18.2 12.2 16.5 15.2
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach EB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 20.2 23.8 23.2 22.4
4: Hammatt Ave & F St Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 22.1 11.5 7.6 7.8 11.3
5: West Access & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.7 4.0 22.6 4.4
6: Central Access/Industrial Rd & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.5 0.8 7.0 3.9 1.7
7: East Access & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.3 0.1 5.1 1.7
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 462.0
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 Existing plus Full Buildout PM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 2
Intersection: 1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd
Movement EB EB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L T R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 95 121 160 158 322 175 122 218 42
Average Queue (ft) 38 52 130 69 114 54 35 118 13
95th Queue (ft) 79 96 178 130 239 151 85 192 39
Link Distance (ft) 2182 140 356 1176
Upstream Blk Time (%) 16 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 47 2
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 160 150 170 260
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 3 0 0 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 13 1 0 1
Intersection: 2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LT R L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 155 180 158 234 356
Average Queue (ft) 66 80 67 73 175
95th Queue (ft) 123 149 123 168 318
Link Distance (ft) 1195 533 356
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1
Intersection: 3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps
Movement EB EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 267 94 387 174 406
Average Queue (ft) 149 46 171 128 127
95th Queue (ft) 240 78 311 193 284
Link Distance (ft) 1346 725 533
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 6 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 19 4
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 Existing plus Full Buildout PM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 3
Intersection: 4: Hammatt Ave & F St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 215 124 153 318
Average Queue (ft) 108 47 61 104
95th Queue (ft) 184 97 116 229
Link Distance (ft) 2225 1091 2524 725
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: West Access & Campbell Blvd
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served T LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 5 143 161
Average Queue (ft) 0 31 65
95th Queue (ft) 4 99 126
Link Distance (ft) 140 183 430
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Central Access/Industrial Rd & Campbell Blvd Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 45 40 116 59
Average Queue (ft) 4 1 51 22
95th Queue (ft) 23 14 96 49
Link Distance (ft) 183 250 628 735
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 Existing plus Full Buildout PM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 4
Intersection: 7: East Access & Campbell Blvd
Movement NB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 58
Average Queue (ft) 26
95th Queue (ft) 48
Link Distance (ft) 604
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 92
SimTraffic Performance Report EPAP AM
07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 1
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.8
Total Del/Veh (s) 18.9 43.3 21.8 33.3 26.2
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 20.7 18.2 24.8 21.5
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach EB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s) 24.1 27.6 17.6 23.1
4: Hammatt Ave & F St Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 30.1 11.1 11.1 9.0 14.5
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 1247.1
Queuing and Blocking Report EPAP AM
07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 2
Intersection: 1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd
Movement EB EB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L T R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 101 168 142 184 377 40 167 418 250
Average Queue (ft) 43 72 61 163 147 10 21 215 51
95th Queue (ft) 86 135 118 208 365 28 93 370 179
Link Distance (ft) 1679 162 369 1008
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 11
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 160 150 170 260
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 18 0 17 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 61 2 13 0
Intersection: 2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LT R L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 181 214 174 351 384
Average Queue (ft) 79 88 110 84 235
95th Queue (ft) 145 170 177 252 395
Link Distance (ft) 1195 533 369
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 11
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 4 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 20 3
Intersection: 3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps
Movement EB EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 183 92 484 173 292
Average Queue (ft) 97 42 263 115 66
95th Queue (ft) 161 78 446 178 192
Link Distance (ft) 1346 725 533
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 4 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 17 0
Queuing and Blocking Report EPAP AM
07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 3
Intersection: 4: Hammatt Ave & F St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 273 110 248 277
Average Queue (ft) 143 34 119 117
95th Queue (ft) 236 87 213 221
Link Distance (ft) 2225 1091 2524 725
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 139
SimTraffic Performance Report EPAP PM
07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 1
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 17.5 39.0 13.9 28.1 20.0
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 19.5 12.7 26.1 19.5
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach EB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 19.3 25.3 23.9 23.0
4: Hammatt Ave & F St Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 25.3 14.6 10.4 9.9 13.2
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.3
Total Del/Veh (s) 904.6
Queuing and Blocking Report EPAP PM
07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 2
Intersection: 1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd
Movement EB EB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L T R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 119 177 147 181 234 87 89 343 96
Average Queue (ft) 54 78 65 107 86 14 14 151 21
95th Queue (ft) 98 139 126 178 185 54 61 278 65
Link Distance (ft) 2182 1244 355 1176
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 160 150 170 260
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2 1 0 7
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 10 3 0 4
Intersection: 2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LT R L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 209 146 171 230 373
Average Queue (ft) 106 66 78 65 232
95th Queue (ft) 180 115 143 168 386
Link Distance (ft) 1195 533 355
Upstream Blk Time (%) 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 17
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 1
Intersection: 3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps
Movement EB EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 246 140 414 174 429
Average Queue (ft) 135 59 200 133 160
95th Queue (ft) 217 110 350 197 331
Link Distance (ft) 1346 725 533
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 8 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 35 5
Queuing and Blocking Report EPAP PM
07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 3
Intersection: 4: Hammatt Ave & F St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 226 119 231 356
Average Queue (ft) 115 52 85 141
95th Queue (ft) 189 98 168 288
Link Distance (ft) 2225 1091 2524 725
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 80
SimTraffic Performance Report MITIG8 EPAP plus Reduced Project AM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 1
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.8
Total Del/Veh (s) 18.6 24.5 19.1 34.8 24.2
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 23.3 13.7 11.2 14.8
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach EB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.3 0.3 0.2 0.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 31.1 36.9 28.8 32.6
4: Hammatt Ave & F St Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 37.5 11.1 12.1 9.9 16.2
5: West Access & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.9 2.3 16.1 2.7
6: Central Access/Industrial Rd & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.6 0.7 11.4 4.6 2.1
7: East Access & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.4 0.1 5.5 1.3
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 332.4
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 EPAP plus Reduced Project AM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 2
Intersection: 1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R L TR L T R L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 118 143 178 116 184 364 116 188 292 242 Average Queue (ft) 50 61 140 40 158 164 23 40 157 105
95th Queue (ft) 98 113 199 90 214 367 68 111 254 187
Link Distance (ft) 1669 163 163 360 1002
Upstream Blk Time (%) 12 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 24 0 4
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 160 160 170 260
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 13 0 0 0 8 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 60 1 0 0 26 0
Intersection: 2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 162 266 173 301 280 101
Average Queue (ft) 78 122 104 46 114 33
95th Queue (ft) 142 217 170 218 247 70
Link Distance (ft) 1195 533 360 360
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 17 0
Intersection: 3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps
Movement EB EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 312 86 693 174 506
Average Queue (ft) 145 39 320 162 233
95th Queue (ft) 245 69 632 196 498
Link Distance (ft) 1346 725 533
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 7
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 23 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 99 4
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 EPAP plus Reduced Project AM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 3
Intersection: 4: Hammatt Ave & F St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 329 99 301 304
Average Queue (ft) 162 38 123 115
95th Queue (ft) 265 85 237 229
Link Distance (ft) 2225 1091 2524 725
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: West Access & Campbell Blvd
Movement EB EB WB WB NB
Directions Served T TR LT T LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 30 10 109 64 144
Average Queue (ft) 2 1 23 4 64
95th Queue (ft) 16 8 81 33 116
Link Distance (ft) 163 163 110 110 269
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Central Access/Industrial Rd & Campbell Blvd Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT TR LT TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 42 38 45 5 171 46
Average Queue (ft) 6 2 3 0 68 22
95th Queue (ft) 27 18 20 3 130 46
Link Distance (ft) 110 110 274 274 264 603
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 EPAP plus Reduced Project AM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 4
Intersection: 7: East Access & Campbell Blvd
Movement NB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 82
Average Queue (ft) 35
95th Queue (ft) 63
Link Distance (ft) 249
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 248
SimTraffic Performance Report MITIG8 EPAP plus Reduced Project PM 07/21/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 1
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.6 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 15.7 18.4 15.3 28.0 18.5
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 22.1 10.5 17.0 15.8
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach EB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 23.2 44.5 27.5 31.7
4: Hammatt Ave & F St Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 28.9 12.2 11.8 11.9 15.3
5: West Access & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.8 2.2 14.9 2.5
6: Central Access/Industrial Rd & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.7 0.4 9.4 5.2 1.5
7: East Access & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.4 0.1 6.8 1.3
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 415.2
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 EPAP plus Reduced Project PM 07/21/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 2
Intersection: 1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R L TR L T R L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 112 151 157 118 184 308 182 105 200 170 Average Queue (ft) 52 65 108 45 109 110 34 34 109 61
95th Queue (ft) 98 116 174 95 180 223 113 75 181 123
Link Distance (ft) 2167 142 142 346 1170 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%) 9 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 19 1 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 160 160 170
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 2 0 0 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 7 8 0 0 1
Intersection: 2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 213 207 155 168 366 156
Average Queue (ft) 101 96 71 42 177 38
95th Queue (ft) 175 173 129 115 319 100
Link Distance (ft) 1195 533 346 346
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 0
Intersection: 3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps
Movement EB EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 328 178 565 174 544
Average Queue (ft) 170 57 301 144 186
95th Queue (ft) 279 121 516 201 489
Link Distance (ft) 1346 725 533
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 10
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 16 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 72 9
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 EPAP plus Reduced Project PM 07/21/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 3
Intersection: 4: Hammatt Ave & F St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 256 129 268 365
Average Queue (ft) 132 46 96 163
95th Queue (ft) 220 97 189 311
Link Distance (ft) 2225 1091 2524 725
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: West Access & Campbell Blvd
Movement EB EB WB WB NB
Directions Served T TR LT T LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 30 32 130 42 141
Average Queue (ft) 2 2 16 2 55
95th Queue (ft) 16 21 75 23 106
Link Distance (ft) 142 142 183 183 430
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Central Access/Industrial Rd & Campbell Blvd Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT TR LT LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 48 13 34 136 42
Average Queue (ft) 9 1 1 55 20
95th Queue (ft) 35 8 13 103 45
Link Distance (ft) 183 183 250 628 792
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 EPAP plus Reduced Project PM 07/21/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 4
Intersection: 7: East Access & Campbell Blvd
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 10 81
Average Queue (ft) 0 36
95th Queue (ft) 6 62
Link Distance (ft) 604
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 135
SimTraffic Performance Report MITIG8 EPAP plus Full Devel AM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 1
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 20.4 31.5 21.2 43.1 28.5
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 29.7 15.6 12.8 17.6
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach EB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.2 0.4 0.3 0.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 30.2 40.5 31.5 34.9
4: Hammatt Ave & F St Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 34.5 10.1 12.3 10.1 16.2
5: West Access & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 2.2 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.9 5.1 51.6 7.4
6: Central Access/Industrial Rd & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.6 1.1 12.2 5.5 2.4
7: East Access & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.4 0.2 5.7 1.4
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.3
Total Del/Veh (s) 462.9
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 EPAP plus Full Devel AM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 2
Intersection: 1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R L TR L T R L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 151 126 180 139 220 372 220 206 280 241 Average Queue (ft) 54 57 157 50 178 155 46 59 167 114
95th Queue (ft) 116 102 204 104 248 354 138 139 261 196 Link Distance (ft) 1669 163 163 360 1002 1002
Upstream Blk Time (%) 24 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 50 0 13
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 160 160 170
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 17 1 0 0 11
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 91 8 0 0 7
Intersection: 2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 160 322 173 272 346 124
Average Queue (ft) 79 156 106 75 132 34
95th Queue (ft) 140 283 172 210 283 82
Link Distance (ft) 1195 533 360 360
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 19 2
Intersection: 3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps
Movement EB EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 260 98 690 175 536
Average Queue (ft) 140 40 355 159 267
95th Queue (ft) 227 76 627 201 571
Link Distance (ft) 1346 725 533
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 16
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 22 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 98 10
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 EPAP plus Full Devel AM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 3
Intersection: 4: Hammatt Ave & F St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 264 98 368 320
Average Queue (ft) 161 33 128 119
95th Queue (ft) 241 75 266 238
Link Distance (ft) 2225 1091 2524 725
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: West Access & Campbell Blvd
Movement EB EB WB WB NB
Directions Served T TR LT T LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 16 28 126 82 289
Average Queue (ft) 0 1 44 2 100
95th Queue (ft) 6 10 118 26 218
Link Distance (ft) 163 163 110 110 269
Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 0 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Central Access/Industrial Rd & Campbell Blvd Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT TR LT LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 43 37 64 150 51
Average Queue (ft) 6 3 6 62 19
95th Queue (ft) 27 24 36 113 44
Link Distance (ft) 110 110 274 264 603
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 EPAP plus Full Devel AM 07/20/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 4
Intersection: 7: East Access & Campbell Blvd
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 21 81
Average Queue (ft) 1 36
95th Queue (ft) 13 61
Link Distance (ft) 249
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 324
SimTraffic Performance Report MITIG8 EPAP plus Full Develop PM 07/21/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 1
1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.8 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 20.2 25.4 20.1 33.2 23.7
2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.3 0.0 0.1 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 26.3 16.9 18.6 19.8
3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach EB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 28.5 37.2 37.4 34.7
4: Hammatt Ave & F St Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 31.0 11.7 13.4 11.4 15.7
5: West Access & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.2 12.7 1.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.8 5.7 55.5 7.1
6: Central Access/Industrial Rd & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.7 1.1 10.2 5.1 1.9
7: East Access & Campbell Blvd Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 0.4 0.1 7.3 1.4
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 596.8
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 EPAP plus Full Develop PM 07/21/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 2
Intersection: 1: Hammatt Ave & Campbell Blvd
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R L TR L T R L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 155 168 160 138 184 338 185 167 257 207 Average Queue (ft) 62 74 133 58 132 178 61 46 125 70
95th Queue (ft) 121 133 178 116 206 321 170 114 221 140 Link Distance (ft) 2167 142 142 346 1170 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%) 19 1 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 41 2 8
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 160 160 170
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 3 6 0 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 24 31 1 2
Intersection: 2: Hammatt Ave & SR99 NB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 258 255 174 400 356 217
Average Queue (ft) 109 123 94 119 201 46
95th Queue (ft) 194 221 167 304 361 131
Link Distance (ft) 1195 533 346 346
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 11 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 6
Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 8
Intersection: 3: Hammatt Ave & SR99 SB Ramps
Movement EB EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 344 119 566 174 547
Average Queue (ft) 208 57 266 157 311
95th Queue (ft) 321 102 484 206 593
Link Distance (ft) 1346 725 533
Upstream Blk Time (%) 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 22
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 28 5
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 129 15
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 EPAP plus Full Develop PM 07/21/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 3
Intersection: 4: Hammatt Ave & F St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 259 112 255 465
Average Queue (ft) 140 43 113 159
95th Queue (ft) 233 90 214 340
Link Distance (ft) 2225 1091 2524 725
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: West Access & Campbell Blvd
Movement EB EB WB WB NB
Directions Served T TR LT T LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 20 10 158 106 248
Average Queue (ft) 1 1 40 7 86
95th Queue (ft) 10 7 129 53 249
Link Distance (ft) 142 142 183 183 430
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 0 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Central Access/Industrial Rd & Campbell Blvd Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT TR LT TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 44 6 70 24 129 53
Average Queue (ft) 8 0 4 0 52 23
95th Queue (ft) 32 5 35 3 102 47
Link Distance (ft) 183 183 250 250 628 792
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report MITIG8 EPAP plus Full Develop PM 07/21/2020
Moonglo SimTraffic Report
KD Anderson & Associates Page 4
Intersection: 7: East Access & Campbell Blvd
Movement NB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 85
Average Queue (ft) 37
95th Queue (ft) 63
Link Distance (ft) 604
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 305
MITIGATION MONITORING/
REPORTING PROGRAM

FOR THE
LIVINGSTON TRUCK STOP COMPLEX
Livingston, Ca.

August 2022
Prepared for:

City of Livingston
1416 C Street
Livingston, CA 95334
Prepared by:

BaseCamp Environmental, Inc.
802 W. Lodi Avenue
Lodi, CA 95240
209-224-8213
aseCamp Environmental
Livingston Truck Stop Complex, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 1-1 MITIGATION MONITORING/REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE
LIVINGSTON TRUCK STOP COMPLEX
Livingston, CA

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Livingston California (City) is considering adoption of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for and approval of the Livingston Truck Stop Complex (the “project”). This document is the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project, which will be adopted by the City in conjunction with the IS/MND and consideration of the proposed project. The primary source document for the MMRP is the Final IS/MND, a separate document.

1.1 THE PROJECT
The project proposes to develop approximately 18.9 acres of currently vacant property as a travel center that would serve trucks and passenger vehicles, primarily those traveling on nearby State Route (SR) 99. The project would initially construct a travel center building that includes a convenience store and a quick-serve restaurant and a second building that would house a tire center and space for another quick-serve restaurant. Nine fuel dispensers serving trucks and ten fuel dispensers serving passenger vehicles would be installed, each dispenser with two pumps. Subsequent development would add three quick-serve restaurants with associated parking. A storm drainage retention basin would be constructed at the eastern end of the project site. The project would require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and site plan and design review approvals.

1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING
To ensure that mitigation measures included in an IS/MND are implemented, CEQA requires the adoption of a mitigation monitoring and/or reporting program (CEQA Guidelines Section 15074). The Guidelines require that the lead agency:
" . . . adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects."
These requirements are met by the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program table for the project shown in Section 2.0 of this document. The table lists all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the project as identified in the Final IS/MND, Livingston Truck Stop Complex, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 1-2 identifies all of the mitigation measures needed to reduce these effects to a less than significant level, and identifies the entities that would be responsible for implementing and monitoring implementation of the mitigation measures.

Livingston Truck Stop Complex, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 2-1

2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING/REPORTING PLAN
The following table summarizes the significant environmental effects that could result from approval of the Livingston Truck Stop Complex, based on the analysis contained in the IS/MND. The table identifies 1) each significant effect, 2) how each significant effect would be mitigated, 3) the responsibility for implementation of the mitigation measures, and 4) the responsibility for monitoring of mitigation measures. The table follows the same sequence as the impact analysis in the IS/MND. Environmental issue areas where no significant effect would occur are also listed for the sake of continuity.

IMPACT/MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBILITY AND

TIMING/SCHEDULE
MONITORING/REPORTING RESPONSIBILITY
SOURCE
INFORMATION
Livingston Truck Stop Complex, Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program Table Page 2-2

3.1 AESTHETICS
The IS/MND does not identify significant effects or mitigation measures in this issue area.

3.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
The IS/MND does not identify significant effects or mitigation measures in this issue area.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
The IS/MND does not identify significant effects or mitigation measures in this issue area.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The IS/MND does not identify significant effects or mitigation measures in this issue area.

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potential Impacts on Historical and Archeological Resources.

CULT-1 If any subsurface cultural resources are encountered during construction of the project, the City of Livingston
Community Development Department shall be notified and
all construction activities in the vicinity of the encounter shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can examine these materials and determine their significance. If the find is determined to be significant, then the archaeologist shall recommend further mitigation measures that would reduce potential effects on the find to a level that is less than significant. Recommended measures may include, but are
not limited to, 1) preservation in place, or 2) excavation, recovery, and curation by qualified professionals. The
project developer shall be responsible for retaining qualified professionals, implementing recommended mitigation
Developer will be
responsible for retaining
archaeologist to examine
cultural resources if
encountered.

Archaeologist will specify
actions needed to protect
resources as required.

Developer will implement
archaeologist
recommendations.

Community Development Department
will oversee archaeologist study and
implementation of recommendations.

IS/MND,
Section 3.5
IMPACT/MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBILITY AND

TIMING/SCHEDULE
MONITORING/REPORTING RESPONSIBILITY
SOURCE
INFORMATION
Livingston Truck Stop Complex, Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program Table Page 2-3 measures, and documenting mitigation efforts in a written report to the City’s Community Development Department,
consistent with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines.

Potential Impacts on Human Burials
CULT-2: If project construction encounters evidence of human burial or scattered human remains, the contractor shall
immediately notify the County Coroner and the City, which shall in turn notify the appropriate tribal representatives. The City shall notify other federal and State agencies as required.

The City will be responsible for compliance with the
requirements of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and with any direction provided by the County
Coroner. If the human remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native
American Heritage Commission, which will notify and
appoint a Most Likely Descendant. The Most Likely
Descendant shall work with the City and a qualified
archaeologist to decide the proper treatment of the human remains and any associated funerary objects in accordance with California Public Resources Code Sections 5097.98
and 5097.991. Avoidance is the preferred means of
disposition of the burial resources.

Same as CULT-1.

Developer will be
responsible for immediate
notification of the
identified agencies.

Community Development Department
will respond to notification and oversee
required activities pursuant thereto.

IS/MND,
Section 3.5

3.6 ENERGY
The IS/MND does not identify significant effects or mitigation measures in this issue area.

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Potential Impacts on Soil Erosion
GEO-1 Prior to commencement of construction activity, the developer shall prepare and implement a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project and file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in compliance with the Construction
General Permit and City of Livingston storm water
Developer will be
responsible for
preparation and
implementation of
SWPPP requirements.

Public Works Department will be
responsible for overseeing compliance
with SWRCB requirements.

IS/MND,
Section 3.7
IMPACT/MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBILITY AND

TIMING/SCHEDULE
MONITORING/REPORTING RESPONSIBILITY
SOURCE
INFORMATION
Livingston Truck Stop Complex, Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program Table Page 2-4 requirements. The SWPPP shall be available on the
construction site at all times. The developer shall
incorporate an Erosion Control Plan consistent with all applicable provisions of the SWPPP within the site
improvement and building plans. The developer also shall submit the SWRCB Waste Discharger’s Identification
Number to the City prior to approval of development or
grading plans.

Potential Impacts on Paleontological Resources and Unique Geological Features GEO-2 If any subsurface paleontological resources are encountered during construction of the project, the City of Livingston Community Development Department shall be notified and
all construction activities in the vicinity of the encounter shall be halted until a qualified paleontologist can examine these materials and determine their significance. If the find is determined to be significant, then the paleontologist shall recommend mitigation measures that would reduce potential effects on the find to a level that is less than significant.

Recommended measures may include, but are not limited to, 1) preservation in place, or 2) excavation, recovery, and curation by qualified professionals. The project developer shall be responsible for retaining qualified professionals, implementing recommended mitigation measures, and
documenting mitigation efforts in a written report to the City’s Community Development Department, consistent
with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines.

Developer will be
responsible for retaining
paleontologist to examine
resources if encountered.

Paleontologist will
specify actions needed to
protect resources as
required. Developer will
implement paleontologist
recommendations.

Community Development Department
will oversee paleontologist study and
implementation of recommendations.

IS/MND,
Section 3.7

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The IS/MND does not identify significant effects or mitigation measures in this issue area.

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The IS/MND does not identify significant effects or mitigation measures in this issue area.

IMPACT/MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBILITY AND

TIMING/SCHEDULE
MONITORING/REPORTING RESPONSIBILITY
SOURCE
INFORMATION
Livingston Truck Stop Complex, Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program Table Page 2-5

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potential Impacts on Surface Water Quality
HYDRO-1 The developer shall submit a Storm Water Quality Plan for the project that shall include post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) as required by the City’s
Storm Water Management Program. The Storm Water
Quality Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Livingston Public Works Department prior to approval of project improvement plans.

HYDRO-2 If required, the developer shall execute a Maintenance Agreement with the City for stormwater BMPs prior to
receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. The developer shall remain the responsible party and provide funding for the operation, maintenance and replacement costs of the
proposed treatment devices built for the project.

HYDRO-3 The developer shall comply with applicable requirements of, and pay all associated fees as required by, the City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program as set forth in its NPDES Storm Water Permit.

The developer will be
responsible for submittal
of storm water quality
plans, execution of a
maintenance agreement
and compliance with
other Storm Water
Quality Control Plan
requirements.

The Department of Public Works will be
responsible for review and approval of
storm water quality plans and ensuring
that required signatures and fee payments
are submitted by the developer.

IS/MND,
Section

3.10 3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
The IS/MND does not identify significant effects or mitigation measures in this issue area.

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
The IS/MND does not identify significant effects or mitigation measures in this issue area.

IMPACT/MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBILITY AND

TIMING/SCHEDULE
MONITORING/REPORTING RESPONSIBILITY
SOURCE
INFORMATION
Livingston Truck Stop Complex, Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program Table Page 2-6

3.13 NOISE
The IS/MND does not identify significant effects or mitigation measures in this issue area.

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
The IS/MND does not identify significant effects or mitigation measures in this issue area.

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
The IS/MND does not identify significant effects or mitigation measures in this issue area.

3.16 RECREATION
The IS/MND does not identify significant effects or mitigation measures in this issue area.

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Conflict with Applicable Plans, Ordinances and Policies TRANS-1 The project applicant or successors in interest shall be required to pay fair-share costs of a traffic signal at the Hammatt Avenue/Campbell Boulevard intersection.

TRANS-2: The project applicant or successors in interest shall be required to pay fair-share costs of traffic signals or
roundabouts at the Hammatt Avenue intersections with the SR 99 northbound ramps and the SR 99 southbound ramps.

The project applicant or successors in interest shall be required to pay fair-share costs of preparing a preliminary Intersection Control Evaluation report to provide a screening assessment of the feasibility of a roundabout or traffic signal at the SR 99 ramps intersections.

Developer will be
responsible for payment
of proportional share
costs of transportation
improvements as required
by the Livingston City
Council.

The Department of Public Works will be
responsible for review, approval and
inspection of improvements required by
the Livingston City Council.

IS/MND,
Section

3.17 IMPACT/MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBILITY AND

TIMING/SCHEDULE
MONITORING/REPORTING RESPONSIBILITY
SOURCE
INFORMATION
Livingston Truck Stop Complex, Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program Table Page 2-7 TRANS-3 The project applicant or successors in interest shall be required to pay fair-share costs of the addition of an
eastbound right-turn lane, approximately 200 feet in length, on Campbell Boulevard with right turn overlap phases on the northbound-to-eastbound and eastbound-to-southbound movements.

TRANS-4 The project applicant or successors in interest shall install frontage improvements along Campbell Boulevard,
including sidewalks, during Phase 1 development of the
project site.

Traffic Hazards
TRANS-5 Improvements to the Hammatt Avenue/ Campbell
Boulevard intersection shall be designed to accommodate STAA trucks, and the project shall contribute its fair share to the cost of those features. Project access shall be designed to accommodate STAA trucks. Phase 1 shall contribute its fair share to the cost of a Caltrans STAA route designation application to be completed by the City and shall contribute its fair share to the cost of improvements needed to
accommodate STAA trucks.

Developer will be
responsible for payment
of proportional share
costs of transportation
improvements as required
by the Livingston City
Council.

The Department of Public Works will be
responsible for review, approval and
inspection of improvements required by
the Livingston City Council.

IS/MND,
Section

3.17 3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potential Impacts on Historical and Archeological Resources.

Same as CULT-1
IMPACT/MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBILITY AND

TIMING/SCHEDULE
MONITORING/REPORTING RESPONSIBILITY
SOURCE
INFORMATION
Livingston Truck Stop Complex, Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program Table Page 2-8 Potential Impacts on Human Burials
Same as CULT-2

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The IS/MND does not identify significant effects or mitigation measures in this issue area.

3.20 WILDFIRE
Potential Impacts on Emergency Response Plans and Emergency Evacuation Plans.

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Findings on Cultural Resources
Same as CULT-1 and CULT-2
Findings on Cumulative Transportation Impacts
CUMUL-1 The project applicant or successors in interest shall be required to pay fair-share costs of improvements at the Hammatt Avenue/Campbell Boulevard intersection as
described in Mitigation Measures TRANS-1 and TRANS-3,
along with an addition of a westbound left-turn lane on Campbell Boulevard east of Hammatt Avenue, a conversion of the southbound right-turn lane to a through/right-turn lane, and the addition of a northbound-to-eastbound overlap phase.

CUMUL-2 The project applicant or successors in interest shall be required to pay fair-share costs of traffic signals or
Developer will be
responsible for payment
of proportional share
costs of transportation
improvements as required
by the Livingston City
Council.

The Department of Public Works will be
responsible for review, approval and
inspection of improvements required by
the Livingston City Council.

IS/MND,
Section

3.17 IMPACT/MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBILITY AND

TIMING/SCHEDULE
MONITORING/REPORTING RESPONSIBILITY
SOURCE
INFORMATION
Livingston Truck Stop Complex, Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program Table Page 2-9 roundabouts at the Hammatt Avenue intersections with the SR 99 northbound ramps and the SR 99 southbound ramps
as described in Mitigation Measure TRANS-2, along with
the construction of a southbound right-turn lane on Hammett Avenue that extends to Campbell Boulevard.

CUMUL-3 The project applicant or successors in interest shall. be required to pay fair-share costs of a traffic signal at the Hammatt Avenue/F Street intersections.

CUMUL-4 The project applicant or successors in interest shall select and implement one of two alternatives related to traffic queuing at the western driveway:
1) Reconfiguration of the westbound Campbell Boulevard
approach to allow left turns from two lanes. This change would equalize traffic volumes in each lane and reduce the queue lengths. This would require that the layout of the Hammatt Avenue/Campbell Boulevard intersection be wider to accommodate the concurrent turning paths of two STAA trucks. The project applicant or successors in interest shall be required to pay fair-share costs of improvements
proposed by this alternative.
2) Left turns at the western driveway shall be prohibited. If determined to be needed by the City, the project proponents shall fund construction of a median treatment or other
measure acceptable to the City to prohibit left turns.

Findings on Adverse Effects on Human Beings
Addressed by Mitigation Measures TRANS-1 to TRANS-5

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Account # Order Number Identification Order PO Amount Cols Depth 19355 304285 Print Legal Ad - IPL0085591 $154.89 1 68 L Attention: Tina Whitsitt

CITY OF LIVINGSTON LEGALS ADS
1416 C ST
LIVINGSTON, CA 95334
Declaration of Publication
2015.5 C.C.P.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.

County of Merced )
I am a citizen of the United States; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the
printer of the Merced Sun Star, a newspaper of general
circulation, printed and published in the city of Merced, County of Merced, and which newspaper has been
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of Merced, State of
California, under the date of July 14, 1964 Case Number 33224 that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire
issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement
thereof on the following dates, to wit:

No. of Insertions: 1
Beginning Issue of: 08/26/2022
Ending Issue of: 08/26/2022
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at Dallas, Texas on:

Date: 26th, day of August, 2022
Notary Public in and for the state of Texas, residing in Dallas County
Extra charge for lost or duplicate affidavits.

Legal document please do not destroy!
h~JvicCLATCHY

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF LIVINGSTON
To All Interested Parties:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the
Livingston City Council will hold a
Public Hearing at a Regular Meeting
on Tuesday, September 6, 2022, at
7:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in the City
Council Chambers, 1416 "C" Street,
Livingston, CA, to consider; Site Plan
and Design Review Application and
Conditional Use Penn it for a proposed
truck stop development comprised of
a travel central bui lding, consisting of
a convenience store and a quick service restaurant, a second building that will house a tire center and space for
another quick service restaurant, nine
fueling dispensers to service trucks
and ten passenger vehicles; subsequent development that would add three quick service restaurants and
associate parking and relocation and
development of a new storm drainage
retention basin on the eastern portion
of the property. The subject property is
located on the south side of Campbell
Boulevard, east of Hammatt Avenue in
Livingston, CA. APNs # 023-070-012,
013, 014 and APN 023-060-010. The
subject property is owned by SGM
Moonglo Inc. Except for an existing
stonn drainage basin, the subject
property is currently vacant and is
zoned PF (Public Facility) and C-3,
(Service Commercial) with a PF Public
Facility, HC, Highway Commercial and
SC, Service Commercial General Plan
designation.

The City Counci l will consider adoption of a Mitigation Negative Declaration (MND) under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act. The Public comment period on
the proposed MND occurred from
December 30, 2020 through January
19, 2021.

Staff report, project plans and other
materials for the above project wi ll
be available for review at the City
of Livingston, 1416 "C" Street, after
September 2, 2022. Any persons interested in the above application are invited to submit comments in writing
or orally prior to or at the Public Hearing. Please submit written comments to: Miguel Galvez, Contract City Planner, City of Livingston, by mail at 1416 "C" Street, Livingston, CA 95334 or by
email at [email protected]
and mabeloe @livinqstoncity.com
For additional infonnation, please call
(209) 394-8041, Ext. 112.

Dated: August 11, 2022
Isl Miguel Galvez
Contract City Planner
IPL0085591
Aug 26 2022
Beaufort Gazette
Belleville Nev1S-Democrat
Bellingham Herald
Bradenton Herald
Centre Daily Time-s
Charlotte Observer
Columbus Ledger-Enquirer
Fresno Bee
The Herald - Rock Hill
Herald Sun - Durham
Idaho Statesman
Island Packet
Kansas City Star
Lexington Herald-Leader
Merced Sun-Star
Miami Herald
el Nuevo Herald - Miami
Modesto Bee
Raleigh Ne-.vs & Observer
The Olympian
Sacramento Beae
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
The State - Columbia
Sun Herald - Biloxi
Sun N;;,,vs - Myrtle Beach
The News Tribune Tacoma
The Telegraph - Macon
San Luis Obispo Tribune
Tri-City Herald
Wichita Eagle
S1EfNI scorr 111EARD
M'J.Ndarf ID t f1H7U951
~~2,\21122
_______________________________________
_________________________________________ _______________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ Print Form
Notice of Determination Appendix D
To: From:

Office of Planning and Research Public Agency: ___________________________ U.S. Address: ________________________________ Mail: Street Address: _______________________________________ P.O. Box 3044 1400 Tenth St., Rm 113 Contact: _________________________________ Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: __________________________________ County Clerk
Lead Agency (if different from above): County of: _________________________________ Address: __________________________________ Address: ________________________________ Contact: _________________________________
Phone: __________________________________
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.

State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted to State Clearinghouse):______________________________ Project Title: _________________________________________________________________________ Project Applicant: _____________________________________________________________________ Project Location (include county):_________________________________________________________ Project Description:

This is to advise that the ____________________________________________ has approved the above ( Lead Agency or Responsible Agency)
described project on _______________ and has made the following determinations regarding the above (date)
described project.

1. The project [ will will not] have a significant effect on the environment.

2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

3. Mitigation measures [ were were not] made a condition of the approval of the project.

4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan [ was was not] adopted for this project.

5. A statement of Overriding Considerations [ was was not] adopted for this project.

6. Findings [ were were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval, or the negative Declaration, is available to the General Public at:

Signature (Public Agency): _____________________________ Title: ____________________________ Date: _______________________________ Date Received for filing at OPR: ____________________ Authority cited: Sections 21083, Public Resources Code.

Reference Section 21000-21174, Public Resources Code. Revised 2011 □
□
□
□
□
□ □
□
□
□
□
□
□ □
□ □
i--- ,

STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion and Direction for Use of Remaining American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds
MEETING DATE: September 6, 2022
PREPARED BY:

REVIEWED BY:

Jennifer Riedeman, Finance Director
Vanessa L. Portillo, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff seeks direction from Council on the use of the remaining ARPA funds totaling $588,521 currently budgeted as Projects to be Determined in Fund 1115 - Revenue Stabilization Fund.

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:

On August 11 , 2022, Council adopted the City of Livingston budget for Fiscal Year 2022/23. The City Council requested staff to research how other cities have allocated their ARPA funds.

The City of Livingston was allocated $3.5 Million in ARPA funds and has already spent or allocated the funds as follows:
• Water Well #12
• Employee Stipends
• Ripper/Tractor
• Wastewater Repairs
$2,000,000
377,394
222,225
375,000
On January 6, 2022, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) adopted a final rule implementing the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF). The final rule responds to comments received on the interim final rule and will take effect on April 1, 2022.

Until that time, the interim final rule remains in effect. This statement clarifies the transition from compliance with the interim final rule to compliance with the final rule. Recipients should also review the final rule for additional information.

State, territorial, local, and Tribal governments (together, recipients) must comply with the final rule beginning on April 1, 2022, when the final rule takes effect. Prior to April 1, 2022, recipients may take actions and use funds in a manner consistent with the final rule, and Treasury will not take action to enforce the interim final rule if a use of funds is consistent with the terms of the final rule, regardless of when the SLFRF funds were used. This means that Treasury will not take action to enforce uses of the interim final rule to the extent that the recipient wishes to change its planned uses of SLFRF funds in a manner consistent with the final rule This includes, but is not limited to, the following uses of SLFRF funds:
• Responses to the Negative Economic Impacts of the Public Health Emergency.

The final rule expands the enumerated list of eligible uses of SLFRF funds in this category, including health insurance subsidies and paid sick and family leave, as well as 1 making affordable housing development, childcare, early learning services, and services to address learning loss available to any impacted household.
• Responses to the Disproportionate Public Health and Economic Impacts of the Pandemic in Certain Communities. The final rule expands the list of enumerated eligible uses of SLFRF funds for disproportionately impacted communities, including for investments in neighborhoods that promote improved health and safety outcomes, services to address vacant or abandoned properties, and expanded assistance to small businesses.
• Capital Expenditures to Respond to the Public Health and Negative Economic Impacts of the Pandemic. The final rule clarifies that capital expenditures can be eligible in this category, when meeting certain standards, and provides an enumerated list of eligible capital expenditures.
• Responses to Restore and Bolster Government Employment. The final rule expands the uses of funds available to restore and bolster government employment, including restoring employment by hiring up to 7.5% above a recipient's pre-pandemic baseline employment level, funding for employees that experienced pay reductions or were furloughed, maintaining current compensation levels to prevent layoffs, and worker retention incentives.
• Government Services to the Extent of Revenue Loss. The interim final rule and final rule both permit recipients to use SLFRF funds for government services in an amount equal to revenue lost due to the pandemic. As discussed in the final rule, Treasury is permitting recipients to determine the amount of revenue lost due to the pandemic either according to a formula or by claiming a standard allowance of up to $1 O million, not to exceed their total award allocation. A recipient that plans to use the standard allowance will make a one-time election and report it to Treasury through regular programmatic reporting. In advance of making this election, a recipient may begin to use up to $1 O million of SLFRF funds for government services.

Furthermore, the final rule adjusts the revenue loss calculation formula to (i) permit recipients to calculate revenue loss on a calendar year or fiscal year basis so long as the recipient employs a consistent methodology throughout the period of performance and (ii) include revenue from certain utilities. Treasury will update reporting guidance to clarify how recipients electing to use a fiscal year basis will adjust prior calculations, and a recipient may adjust its prior calculations to reflect these changes prior to April 1, 2022. • Investments in Broadband Infrastructure. The final rule expands eligible areas for investment in broadband infrastructure to include locations where the recipient has identified need for additional broadband investment. Further, the final rule allows for modernization of cybersecurity for existing and new broadband infrastructure, regardless of their speed delivery standards.
• Investments in Water and Sewer Infrastructure. The final rule expands the list of eligible water and sewer infrastructure projects to include a broader set of project types, including certain dam and reservoir rehabilitation projects, additional stormwater 2 projects, private well projects, and a broader range of projects that remediate lead in water.

Prior to April 1, 2022, the interim final rule remains in effect. Accordingly, recipients may obligate and expend funds in a manner consistent with the interim final rule prior to April 1 , 2022. on March 9, 2022, the League of California Cities published,''The American Rescue Plan one year later: How cities are using this transformative funding" and according to this article, funds have been used in the following ways by other cities:

City of Chico
• $4.5 million for countywide system for primary first responders • $1 .2 million for citywide broadband project
• $800,000 for individual and family-oriented shelters for unhoused residents City of Davis
• $1 million to help fund emergency shelters, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing
• $1 .2 million to expand emergency mental health services • $790,000 for public safety reform.

City of Irvine
• $6 million to improve walkability, bike use, and shared transportation options • $5.2 million for the development of parks and open spaces Grover Beach
• $800,000 for homeless services and facilities
• $300,000 in small business support
• $150,000 to support local nonprofits
• $300,000 for sewer line upgrades
Santa Ana
• $16 million in direct assistance to residents
• $1 .5 million for first responder services
• $7 million for a new library branch.

Staff is requesting Council provide direction in bringing forth a recommendation for allocating the remaining $588,521 for an eligible use.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact as the funds are already budgeted in Fund 1115.

ATTACHMENTS:

None
3

Livingston City CouncilSeptember 6, 2022

Livingston City Council
September 6, 2022