Lennar Homes 12074.000.002
Vehicular Bridge, 400 and 450 Montague Expressway January 5, 2017 - 7 -
Note that ASTM Test Method D4327 was used in lieu of the ACI designated sulfate test methods as it provides better test results.
SCOUR
Scour is the engineering term for the erosion of the soil surrounding a bridge foundation and is the result of the erosive action of flowing water excavating and carrying away material from the streambed and banks around the piers and abutments of the bridge foundation system.
We understand that a scour evaluation will be performed for the proposed Vehicular Bridge, which is to cross Penitencia Creek. For the purposes of this report, we have assumed that negligible scour will occur at the bottom of the creek. If the future hydraulic study indicates that there is a potential for scour, the foundation recommendations contained herein should be modified as necessary.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of the geotechnical exploration presented in this report, it is our opinion that the proposed bridge is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations provided in the following sections are considered in the bridge design and construction.
FOUNDATION DESIGN
4.1.1 Foundation Type
We understand that the foundation system for the bridge will consist of a 24-inch CIDH pile system.
4.1.2 Foundation Data Provided by Structural Engineer
The below tables show the loading data provided by the project Structural Engineer, CSEG.
TABLE 4.1.2-1
Foundation Design Data
Support
Location Pile Type
Pile Cap
Size (feet) Nominal Resistance (kips) Permissible
Settlement
(inches)
No. of Piles
B L Compression per Support 1 Tension
Abut 1 24-inch
CIDH 3 48 3901 N/A 2 6
Abut 2 24-inch
CIDH 3 48 3901 N/A 2 6
Notes: 1. Nominal resistance includes resistance factor (ɸ = 0.7)
Lennar Homes 12074.000.002
Vehicular Bridge, 400 and 450 Montague Expressway January 5, 2017 - 8 -
TABLE 4.1.2-2
Foundation Design Loads
Support
No.
Service-I Limit State
(kips)
Strength Limit State
(Controlling Group, kips)
Extreme Limit State
(Controlling Group, kips)
Total
Load
Permanent
Loads Compression1 Tension Compression Tension
Per
Support
Per
Pile
Per
Support
Per
Support
Max
Per
Pile
Per
Support
Max
Per
Pile
Per
Support
Max
per
Pile
Per
Support
Max
per
Pile
Abut 1 960 190 750 1890 390 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Abut 2 960 190 750 1890 390 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notes: 1. Nominal resistance includes resistance factor (ɸ = 0.7)
4.1.3 Pile Vertical Capacity
We developed allowable vertical capacity versus depth for a 24-inch-diameter CIDH pile and assumed friction only piles. Our analysis is based on the beta method and is in accordance with the guidelines provided in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Publication FHWA NHI-10-016 (Brown et al, 2010).
Based on the pile data design loads provided by CSEG, we determined the ultimate (geotechnical factor of safety equals one) compression vertical capacities for the CIDH piles as outlined in the table below.
TABLE 4.1.3-1
Pile Data Table
Location
CIDH Pile
Diameter
(inches)
Nominal
Resistance (kips) Design Tip Elevation
(NGVD 29) (feet) Compression1
Abutment 1 24 390 -18
Abutment 2 24 390 -19
Notes: 1. Nominal resistance includes resistance factor (ɸ = 0.7)
2. The structural designer shall calculate the lateral lengths.
We checked the service limit loading against the tolerable settlement and settlement does not control design.
We do not anticipate any vertical pile group effect as long as the center-to-center spacing of each CIDH pile is at least three pile diameters. See Section 4.1.4 for further discussion on lateral pile group effects.
Lennar Homes 12074.000.002
Vehicular Bridge, 400 and 450 Montague Expressway January 5, 2017 - 9 -
4.1.4 Lateral Resistance
Lateral load resistance for pile-supported structures is developed through pile bending/soil interaction. The magnitude of the lateral load resistance is dependent upon several factors, including axial load on the pile, pile stiffness, pile embedment length, conditions of fixity at the pile cap, the physical properties of surrounding soil and the magnitude of allowable lateral deflections.
Based upon the subsurface conditions encountered, we developed L-Pile soil input criteria for lateral pile capacity and load-deflection computation.
TABLE 4.1.4-1
Lateral Pile Analysis Parameters
(Based on 1-B3 and 1-B4 generalized subsurface conditions) Elevation
(NGVD 29)
(Feet)
Generalized
Soil Type
L-Pile
Soil Type
Eff. Unit
Weight
(pci)
Friction
Angle
(deg.)
Undrained
Cohesion, c
(psi)
Strain
Factor,
E50
Modulus of Soil
Reaction, K
(pci)
42 to 37 Clay Soft CLAY
(Matlock) 0.072 - 10.4 0.01 -
37 to 2 Clay Soft CLAY
(Matlock) 0.033 - 13.9 0.007 -
2 to -8 Clay Soft CLAY
(Matlock) 0.033 - 8.7 0.007 -
-8 to -18 Clay Soft CLAY
(Matlock) 0.033 - 17.4 0.007 -
4.1.5 Lateral Capacity Group Reduction
Research has shown that the lateral capacity of a group of piles is generally less than that of a single pile for pile spacing less than 6 to 8 pile diameters. We recommend the multipliers provided in Table 4.1.5-1 to be considered in the LPILE/GROUP analysis. These multipliers are based on AASHTO LRFD BDS where “D” is pile diameter.
TABLE 4.1.5-1
Preliminary Design P-Multiplier Values by Row Position
Design P-Multiplier
Pile Spacing
(Center-to-Center) 3D 5D 7D 8D
Lead Row 0.75 1.0 1.0 1.0
Second Row 0.55 0.85 1.0 1.0
Third and Higher Rows 0.40 0.70 0.90 1.0
Lennar Homes 12074.000.002
Vehicular Bridge, 400 and 450 Montague Expressway January 5, 2017 - 10 -
4.1.6 CIDH Pile Construction
The following guidelines should be used during construction of CIDHs.
1. For center-to-center pile spacing less than six times the pile diameter, no two adjacent piles can be constructed concurrently.
2. The bottoms of drilled holes should be reasonably clean and free of loose soil before reinforcing steel is installed and concrete is placed.
3. We recommend that the excavation of piers be performed under our direct observation to establish that the piers are founded in suitable materials and constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report.
4. Concrete placement by pumping with rigid tremie pipe to the bottom of the drilled hole is recommended. Specifications should require that sufficient space be provided in the reinforcing cage during fabrication to allow the insertion of a tremie tube for concrete placement. The reinforcing cage should be installed and the concrete pumped immediately after drilling is completed.
5. If caving occurs, a temporary casing or wet construction method may be required during construction. Casings should have an outer diameter equal to or exceeding the pile diameter.
Temporary casing should be placed tight-in-hole. Vibratory or impact hammer with or without center-relief drilling can be used to install the temporary casing provided the ground vibrations are monitored for potential movement; casing installation using this method should be suspended if excessive movement is detected. The temporary casing should be retrieved as the concrete is being poured, while always maintaining at least a 5-foot head of concrete inside the casing.
6. During the exploration, groundwater was encountered at approximately 11 feet bgs.
Groundwater level can fluctuate due to seasonal rainfall amount, local irrigation, groundwater recharge program and other man-made conditions. If groundwater is encountered, it should be controlled in accordance with Section 19-3.03B(5) of the Caltrans Standard Specifications (2015).
Drilling operations and concrete placement should be coordinated so that drilled holes are left open a minimum amount of time. Depressions at the tops of the bridge abutment caissons, resulting from drilling operations or from any other cause, should be backfilled to prevent ponding. Concrete collars occurring at the tops of the bridge abutment caissons as a result of over pouring must be removed to prevent unnecessary uplift forces from being applied to the caissons.
At the time of concrete placement, the volume of concrete entering the drilled holes should be monitored to verify that additional loss of ground has not occurred between drilling operations and the pouring of concrete.
Lennar Homes 12074.000.002
Vehicular Bridge, 400 and 450 Montague Expressway January 5, 2017 - 11 -
RETAINING WALLS
4.2.1 Abutment Walls
We understand the abutments of the proposed bridges will be constructed to retain engineered fill. Abutment walls should be designed to resist both lateral loads imposed by earth pressures and any additional lateral loads caused by surcharging from construction equipment and vehicles operating above the walls.
The following Table 4.2.1-1 provides soil design parameters for both existing onsite material as well as Caltrans structure backfill material.
TABLE 4.2.1-1
Soil Design Parameters for Abutment Walls
Soil Properties Onsite Soil Caltrans Structure
Backfill
Density of Retained Engineered Fill 120 pcf
Minimum Friction Angle 20 degrees 32 degrees
Active Pressure 50 pcf 36 pcf
At-rest Pressure 80 pcf 70 pcf
Passive Resistance Section 7.8 of Caltrans SDC (2013)
Seismic Active Increment Pressure* 34 pcf
*The Seismic Active Increment shall be modeled with a triangular distribution The above parameters assume a level backfill at the top of the wall. If lateral movement at the top of abutment walls is restrained, the at-rest pressure should be used for design.
4.2.2 Retaining Wall Drainage
Back drains should be installed behind abutment walls to relieve hydrostatic pressure. Back drains should be constructed with Bridge Detail 3-1 on Sheet BO-3 per Caltrans Standard Plans (2015) or the geocomposite drain alternative per Section 6 of the Caltrans Bridge Design Details (1992), whichever is more stringent. If back drains are not installed, lateral earth pressure values should be increased by 40 pcf to account for hydrostatic pressure.
PAVEMENT DESIGN AND EARTHWORK
Pavement design and earthwork should conform to the recommendations provided in our Geotechnical Exploration report prepared for the adjacent residential development (ENGEO, June 2015).
5.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
This report presents geotechnical recommendations for design of the improvements discussed in Section 1.3. If changes occur in the nature or design of the project, we should be allowed to
Lennar Homes 12074.000.002
Vehicular Bridge, 400 and 450 Montague Expressway January 5, 2017 - 12 -
review this report and provide additional recommendations, if any. It is the responsibility of the owner to transmit the information and recommendations of this report to the appropriate organizations or people involved in design of the project, including but not limited to architects, engineers, and designers. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are solely professional opinions and are valid for a period of no more than 2 years from the date of report issuance.
We strived to perform our professional services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices currently employed in the area; no warranty is expressed or implied. There are risks of earth movement and property damages inherent in building on or with earth materials. We are unable to eliminate all risks or provide insurance; therefore, we are unable to guarantee or warrant the results of our services.
This report is based upon field and other conditions discovered at the time of report preparation.
We developed this report with limited subsurface exploration data. We assumed that our subsurface exploration data is representative of the actual subsurface conditions across the site.
Considering possible underground variability of soil, rock, and groundwater, additional costs may be required to complete the project. We recommend that the owner establish a contingency fund to cover such costs. If unexpected conditions are encountered, notify us immediately to review these conditions and provide additional and/or modified recommendations, as necessary.
Our services did not include excavation sloping or shoring, soil volume change factors, or flood potential. In addition, our geotechnical exploration did not include work to determine the existence of possible hazardous materials. If any hazardous materials are encountered during construction, notify the proper regulatory officials immediately.
This document must not be subject to unauthorized reuse, that is, reusing without our written authorization. Such authorization is essential because it requires us to evaluate the document’s applicability given new circumstances, not the least of which is passage of time.
Actual field or other conditions will necessitate clarifications, adjustments, modifications or other changes to our documents. Therefore, we must be engaged to prepare the necessary clarifications, adjustments, modifications or other changes before construction activities commence or further activity proceeds. If our scope of services does not include construction observation, or if other persons or entities are retained to provide such services, we cannot be held responsible for any or all claims arising from or resulting from the performance of such services by other persons or entities, and from any or all claims arising from or resulting from clarifications, adjustments, modifications, discrepancies or other changes necessary to reflect changed field or other conditions.
We determined the lines designating the interface between layers on the exploration logs using visual observations. The transition between the materials may be abrupt or gradual. The exploration logs contain information concerning samples recovered, indications of the presence of various materials such as clay, sand, silt, rock, existing fill, etc., and observations of groundwater encountered. The field logs also contain our interpretation of the subsurface
Lennar Homes 12074.000.002
Vehicular Bridge, 400 and 450 Montague Expressway January 5, 2017 - 13 -
conditions between sample locations. Therefore, the logs contain both factual and interpretative information. Our recommendations are based on the contents of the final logs, which represent our interpretation of the field logs.
Lennar Homes 12074.000.002
Vehicular Bridge, 400 and 450 Montague Expressway January 5, 2017
REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2012, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 6th Edition.
American Concrete Institute, 2005, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05).
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2005, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE Standard, ASCE/SEI 7-05.
Brown, D.A., C. Morris, L.C. Reese, 1988, Lateral Load Behavior of Pile Group, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 11, November 1988.
California Department of Transportation, 2012, Highway Design Manual.
California Department of Transportation, 2012, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 2.0, November 2012.
California Department of Transportation, 2013, Seismic Design Criteria, Version 1.7, April 2013.
California Department of Transportation, 2015, Bridge Design Practice.
California Department of Transportation, 2015, Standard Plans.
ENGEO; Geotechnical Exploration, 400 and 450 Montague Expressway, Milpitas, California, Project No. 12074.000.000; June 17, 2015.
ENGEO; Preliminary Pedestrian Overcrossing and Vehicular Bridge Foundation Recommendations, Pedestrian Overcrossing and Vehicular Bridge, 400 and 450 Montague Expressway, Milpitas, California; August 20, 2015 (DRAFT); Project No. 12074.000.002.
ENGEO; Preliminary Pile Design Soil Input Criteria, Pedestrian Overcrossing and Vehicular Bridge, 400 and 450 Montague Expressway, Milpitas, California, Project No. 12074.000.002; July 29, 2015.
Brown, D.A., Turner, J.P., and Castelli, R.J., 2010, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Report No. FHWA NHI-10-016.
State of California, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1982, Earthquake Fault Hazard Zones Map (previously named Special Studies Zones Map), Milpitas Quadrangle.
Lennar Homes 12074.000.002
Vehicular Bridge, 400 and 450 Montague Expressway January 5, 2017 REFERENCES (Continued)
State of California, California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2001, Seismic Hazard Zone Report, Milpitas Quadrangle.
State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (DMG), 2004, Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Milpitas Quadrangle.
USGS, 2015, Quaternary Fault and Fold Database.
Wentworth et al., 1999, Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Jose 30 x 60-Minute Quadrangle, California, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File 98-795 Part 7.
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Site Plan
Figure 3 – Regional Geologic Map
Figure 4 – Seismic Hazard Zone Map
Figure 5 – Regional Faulting and Seismicity Map
Figure 6 – Caltrans ARS Curve
FIGURES
(''6
/'6'45
8+%+0+6;/#2
#0&/106#)7'':24'559#;Ä8'*+%7.#4$4+&)'
/+.2+6#5%#.+(140+#
#55*190
1-B3
1-B4
(''6
/'6'45
5+6'2.#0
#0&/106#)7'':24'559#;Ä8'*+%7.#4$4+&)'
/+.2+6#5%#.+(140+#
#55*190
8'*+%7.#4$4+&)'
':2.#0#6+10
$14+0)
'0)'1
1-B4
(''6
/'6'45
4')+10#.)'1.1)+%/#2
#0&/106#)7'':24'559#;Ä8'*+%7.#4$4+&)'
/+.2+6#5%#.+(140+#
#55*190
Qhf1
Qhb
Qhfp
Qhl
Qhc
Qpf
Qhf2
)'1.1)+%%106#%6Ä*'&9*'4'
)4#+10#.14#2241:+/#6'.;.1%#6'&
':2.#0#6+10 $#5+0&'215+65
(.11&2.#+0&'215+65
.'8''&'215+65
564'#/%*#00'.&'215+65
#..78+#.(#0&'215+65
;170)'4
#..78+#.(#0&'215+65
1.&'4
#..78+#.(#0&'215+65
Qhc
':2.#0#6+10
(''6
/'6'45
5'+5/+%*#<#4&<10'/#2
#0&/106#)7'':24'559#;Ä8'*+%7.#4$4+&)'
/+.2+6#5%#.+(140+#
#55*190
.+37'(#%6+10
#4'#59*'4'*+5614+%1%%744'0%'1(.+37'(#%6+1014.1%#. )'1.1)+%#.)'16'%*0+%#.#0&)4170&9#6'4%10&+6+105
+0&+%#6'#216'06+#.(142'4/#0'06)4170&&+52.#%'/'065 57%*6*#6/+6+)#6+10#5&'(+0'&+027$.+%4'5174%'5%1&' 5'%6+10
E
917.&$'4'37+4'&
ORTIGALITA
GREENVILLE
SAN GREGORIO
SAN
ANDREAS
HAYWARD
POINT REYES
SAN
ANDREAS
CONCORD
GREEN VALLEY
VACA
SAN JOAQUIN
ORTIGALITA
TOLAY
RODGERS CREEK
CORDELIA
MIDWAY
SILVER CREEK
SAN JOSE
MONTE VISTA SHANNON
BERROCAL
ZAYANTE
VERGELES
SARGENT
DUNNIGAH HILLS
MAACAMA
CALAVERAS
CARNEGIE CORAL HOLLOW
WEST NAPA
BENNETT VALLEY
HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA
ALEXANDER-REDWOOD HILL
GEYSER PEAK
COLLAYOMI ANTIOCH
BEAR MOUNTAINS
BEAR MOUNTAINS
MELONES
BEAR MOUNTAINS
TAHOE - SIERRA FRONTAL
E A T
V A L L E Y F A U L T
G R E A T
V A L L E Y
F A U L T
SAN ANDREAS Santa Cruz Santa Clara
Merced
San Mateo
Mariposa
Alameda
Stanislaus
Contra Costa
San Joaquin
Marin
Tuolumne
Calaveras
Solano
Amador
Sacramento
Napa Sonoma Alpine
Yolo
El Dorado
Lake
San
Francisco
4')+10#.(#7.6+0)#0&5'+5/+%+6;
#0&/106#)7'':24'559#;Ä8'*+%7.#4$4+&)'
/+.2+6#5%#.+(140+#
#55*190
/+.'5
-+.1/'6'45
5+6'
':2.#0#6+10
/#)0+67&'
/#)0+67&'Ä/#)0+67&'Ä*+5614+%(#7.6*1.1%'0'(#7.6
37#6'40#4;(#7.6
*+5614+%$.+0&6*4756(#7.6<10'
#45%748'
#0&/106#)7'':24'559#;Ä8'*+%7.#4$4+&)'
/+.2+6#5%#.+(140+#
015%#.'
APPENDIX A
Key to Boring Logs
Exploration Logs
APPENDIXA
FINE-GRAINED SOILS MORE
THAN HALF OF MAT'L SMALLER
THAN #200 SIEVE
COARSE-GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN
HALF OF MAT'L LARGER THAN #200
SIEVE
MAJOR TYPES
KEY TO BORING LOGS
DESCRIPTION
GRAVELS MORE
THAN HALF
COARSE FRACTION
IS LARGER THAN
NO. 4 SIEVE SIZE
SANDS MORE THAN
HALF COARSE
FRACTION IS
SMALLER THAN NO.
4 SIEVE SIZE
CLEAN GRAVELS WITH
LESS THAN 5% FINES
GRAVELS WITH OVER
12 % FINES
CLEAN SANDS WITH
LESS THAN 5% FINES
SANDS WITH OVER
12 % FINES
GW - Well graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures
GP - Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures
GM - Silty gravels, gravel-sand and silt mixtures
GC - Clayey gravels, gravel-sand and clay mixtures
SW - Well graded sands, or gravelly sand mixtures
SP - Poorly graded sands or gravelly sand mixtures
SM - Silty sand, sand-silt mixtures
SC - Clayey sand, sand-clay mixtures
ML - Inorganic silt with low to medium plasticity
SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT 50 % OR LESS
SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 %
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
CL - Inorganic clay with low to medium plasticity
OL - Low plasticity organic silts and clays
MH - Elastic silt with high plasticity
CH - Fat clay with high plasticity
OH - Highly plastic organic silts and clays
PT - Peat and other highly organic soils
For fine-grained soils with 15 to 29% retained on the #200 sieve, the words "with sand" or "with gravel" (whichever is predominant) are added to the group name.
For fine-grained soil with >30% retained on the #200 sieve, the words "sandy" or "gravelly" (whichever is predominant) are added to the group name.
GRAIN SIZES
U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE SIZE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS SILTS
AND
200 40 10 4
SAND
3/4 "
GRAVEL
3"
COBBLES
12"
BOULDERS
CLAYS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY
SANDS AND GRAVELS
VERY LOOSE
LOOSE
MEDIUM DENSE
DENSE
VERY DENSE
BLOWS/FOOT
(S.P.T.)
0-4
4-10
10-30
30-50
OVER 50
SILTS AND CLAYS
VERY SOFT
SOFT
MEDIUM STIFF
STIFF
VERY STIFF
HARD
STRENGTH*
0-1/4
1/4-1/2
1/2-1
1-2
2-4
OVER 4
SAMPLER SYMBOLS
Dry
MOISTURE CONDITION
Dusty, dry to touch
Modified California (3" O.D.) sampler
California (2.5" O.D.) sampler
S.P.T. - Split spoon sampler
Shelby Tube
Moist Damp but no visible water
Wet Visible freewater
LINE TYPES
Solid - Layer Break
Continuous Core
_ _ _ _ _ _ Dashed - Gradational or approximate layer break Bag Samples
Grab Samples
NR No Recovery
GROUND-WATER SYMBOLS
Groundwater level during drilling
Stabilized groundwater level
(S.P.T.) Number of blows of 140 lb. hammer falling 30" to drive a 2-inch O.D. (1-3/8 inch I.D.) sampler * Unconfined compressive strength in tons/sq. ft., asterisk on log means determined by pocket penetrometer
1.5*
3.5*
2.5*
1.75*
1.75*
87.2 106.5
27.4 21
15 13
9 12
14 100 psi
250
400
500
600
GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY (CL), grayish brown, stiff, slightly moist, subrounded gravel, (FILL)
FAT CLAY (CH), dark brown, stiff, slightly moist
Becomes very stiff.
Becomes dark gray mottled with orange.
Becomes stiff, moist.
Becomes dark gray to black.
Becomes very stiff, wet.
SILT (ML), dark grayish brown, stiff to very stiff, moist to wet Sample Type
LOG OF BORING 1-B3
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLING METHOD:
HAMMER TYPE:
Blow Count/FootPlasticity IndexFines Content(% passing #200 sieve)Moisture Content(% dry weight)Dry Unit Weight(pcf)Unconfined Strength(tsf) *field approx Atterberg Limits
S. Barua / RB
Geo-Ex Subsurface
SSA, Switch to Mud
140 lb. Auto Trip
Liquid LimitPlastic Limit
DATE DRILLED:
HOLE DEPTH:
HOLE DIAMETER:
SURF ELEV (NGVD 29):
8/17/2016
Approx. 57½ ft.
6.0 in.
Approx. 43 ft.
DESCRIPTION
Depth in Feet
5 10
15 20
25 Log SymbolWater Level
Geotechnical Exploration
Vehicular Bridge
Milpitas, CA
12074.000.002
Elevation in Feet
40 35
30 25
20 LOG - GEOTECHNICAL W/ELEV. 12074000002_MONTAGUE BRIDGE ABUTMENT_GINT LOGS.GPJ ENGEO INC.GDT 9/27/16
2.25*
1.75*
0.75*
1.25*
101.922.9
19 16
13 18
18 51
Switch to mud rotary drilling method
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), dark gray mottled with light gray, stiff, moist, fine-grained sand
FAT CLAY (CH), dark yellowish brown, very stiff, moist
Becomes stiff.
Becomes medium stiff.
Becomes stiff.
Sample Type
LOG OF BORING 1-B3
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLING METHOD:
HAMMER TYPE:
Blow Count/FootPlasticity IndexFines Content(% passing #200 sieve)Moisture Content(% dry weight)Dry Unit Weight(pcf)Unconfined Strength(tsf) *field approx Atterberg Limits
S. Barua / RB
Geo-Ex Subsurface
SSA, Switch to Mud
140 lb. Auto Trip
Liquid LimitPlastic Limit
DATE DRILLED:
HOLE DEPTH:
HOLE DIAMETER:
SURF ELEV (NGVD 29):
8/17/2016
Approx. 57½ ft.
6.0 in.
Approx. 43 ft.
DESCRIPTION
Depth in Feet
30 35
40 45
50 Log SymbolWater Level
Geotechnical Exploration
Vehicular Bridge
Milpitas, CA
12074.000.002
Elevation in Feet
15 10
5 0
-5
LOG - GEOTECHNICAL W/ELEV. 12074000002_MONTAGUE BRIDGE ABUTMENT_GINT LOGS.GPJ ENGEO INC.GDT 9/27/16
1.25*
20.9 104.3 1.75*
22 23
Same as above.
Same as above.
Bottom of boring at approximately 57½ feet below ground surface.
Groundwater encountered during solid-flight drilling operations at approximately 11 feet below ground surface.
Sample Type
LOG OF BORING 1-B3
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLING METHOD:
HAMMER TYPE:
Blow Count/FootPlasticity IndexFines Content(% passing #200 sieve)Moisture Content(% dry weight)Dry Unit Weight(pcf)Unconfined Strength(tsf) *field approx Atterberg Limits
S. Barua / RB
Geo-Ex Subsurface
SSA, Switch to Mud
140 lb. Auto Trip
Liquid LimitPlastic Limit
DATE DRILLED:
HOLE DEPTH:
HOLE DIAMETER:
SURF ELEV (NGVD 29):
8/17/2016
Approx. 57½ ft.
6.0 in.
Approx. 43 ft.
DESCRIPTION
Depth in Feet
55 Log SymbolWater Level
Geotechnical Exploration
Vehicular Bridge
Milpitas, CA
12074.000.002
Elevation in Feet
-10
LOG - GEOTECHNICAL W/ELEV. 12074000002_MONTAGUE BRIDGE ABUTMENT_GINT LOGS.GPJ ENGEO INC.GDT 9/27/16
4.5+*
4.5*
2.0*
2.0*
4.25*
92.128.1
28 15
8 10
50 psi
100
150
250
400
18 LEAN CLAY (CL), dark brown mottled with yellowish brown, hard, slightly moist, rootlets
Same as above.
FAT CLAY (CH), dark yellowish brown mottled with orange, stiff to very stiff, moist, rootlets
Becomes dark grayish brown mottled with orange, no rootlets.
Becomes dark gray, very stiff.
Switch to mud rotary drilling method
Becomes dark grayish brown, hard, moist to wet.
Sample Type
LOG OF BORING 1-B4
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLING METHOD:
HAMMER TYPE:
Blow Count/FootPlasticity IndexFines Content(% passing #200 sieve)Moisture Content(% dry weight)Dry Unit Weight(pcf)Unconfined Strength(tsf) *field approx Atterberg Limits
S. Barua / RB
Geo-Ex Subsurface
SSA, Switch to Mud
140 lb. Auto Trip
Liquid LimitPlastic Limit
DATE DRILLED:
HOLE DEPTH:
HOLE DIAMETER:
SURF ELEV (NGVD 29):
8/18/2016
Approx. 61½ ft.
6.0 in.
Approx. 42 ft.
DESCRIPTION
Depth in Feet
5 10
15 20
25 Log SymbolWater Level
Geotechnical Exploration
Vehicular Bridge
Milpitas, CA
12074.000.002
Elevation in Feet
40 35
30 25
20 LOG - GEOTECHNICAL W/ELEV. 12074000002_MONTAGUE BRIDGE ABUTMENT_GINT LOGS.GPJ ENGEO INC.GDT 9/27/16
1.0*
2.0*
1.5*
1.75*
108.3
97.6 20.2
22 16
7 26
15 19
15 55
1733
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), dark olive brown, medium stiff to stiff, moist, fine-grained sand, <5% subrounded gravel
Becomes fine- to medium-grained sand.
LEAN CLAY (CL), dark yellowish brown mottled with orange, stiff to very stiff, moist
Becomes dark gray mottled with yellowish brown.
FAT CLAY (CH), gray with yellowish brown, stiff, moist
Becomes olive brown mottled with orangeish brown.
Sample Type
LOG OF BORING 1-B4
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLING METHOD:
HAMMER TYPE:
Blow Count/FootPlasticity IndexFines Content(% passing #200 sieve)Moisture Content(% dry weight)Dry Unit Weight(pcf)Unconfined Strength(tsf) *field approx Atterberg Limits
S. Barua / RB
Geo-Ex Subsurface
SSA, Switch to Mud
140 lb. Auto Trip
Liquid LimitPlastic Limit
DATE DRILLED:
HOLE DEPTH:
HOLE DIAMETER:
SURF ELEV (NGVD 29):
8/18/2016
Approx. 61½ ft.
6.0 in.
Approx. 42 ft.
DESCRIPTION
Depth in Feet
30 35
40 45
50 Log SymbolWater Level
Geotechnical Exploration
Vehicular Bridge
Milpitas, CA
12074.000.002
Elevation in Feet
15 10
5 0
-5
LOG - GEOTECHNICAL W/ELEV. 12074000002_MONTAGUE BRIDGE ABUTMENT_GINT LOGS.GPJ ENGEO INC.GDT 9/27/16
1.75*
2.75*
3.5*
17 22
23 Becomes olive brown.
Becomes olive brown mottled with dark gray, very stiff, <5% fine gravel
Becomes olive brown mottled with light brown.
Bottom of boring at approximately 61½ feet below ground surface.
Groundwater encountered during solid-flight drilling operations at approximately 11 feet below ground surface.
Sample Type
LOG OF BORING 1-B4
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLING METHOD:
HAMMER TYPE:
Blow Count/FootPlasticity IndexFines Content(% passing #200 sieve)Moisture Content(% dry weight)Dry Unit Weight(pcf)Unconfined Strength(tsf) *field approx Atterberg Limits
S. Barua / RB
Geo-Ex Subsurface
SSA, Switch to Mud
140 lb. Auto Trip
Liquid LimitPlastic Limit
DATE DRILLED:
HOLE DEPTH:
HOLE DIAMETER:
SURF ELEV (NGVD 29):
8/18/2016
Approx. 61½ ft.
6.0 in.
Approx. 42 ft.
DESCRIPTION
Depth in Feet
55 60
Log SymbolWater Level
Geotechnical Exploration
Vehicular Bridge
Milpitas, CA
12074.000.002
Elevation in Feet
-10
-15
LOG - GEOTECHNICAL W/ELEV. 12074000002_MONTAGUE BRIDGE ABUTMENT_GINT LOGS.GPJ ENGEO INC.GDT 9/27/16
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Test Data
(ENGEO, 2016)
APPENDIXB
Tested By: I. McCauley Checked By: K. Lecce
8-26-16
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI= D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= USCS= AASHTO= *
See Exploration Log
#200 50.9
ASTM D1140
Lennar Homes of California Montague Expressway, Bridge Abutment 12074.000.002
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Sample Number: 1-B3 @ 27-27.5 Depth: 27-27.5
Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PERCENT FINER
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm. 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
% +75mm
Coarse% GravelFine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines Clay
50.9 6 in. 3 in. 2 in. 1½ in. 1 in. ¾ in.
½ in. 3/8 in. #4#10 #20 #30 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200
Particle Size Distribution Report
Tested By: I. McCauley Checked By: K. Lecce
8-26-16
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI= D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= USCS= AASHTO= *
See Exploration Log
#200 54.5
ASTM D1140
Lennar Homes of California Montague Expressway, Bridge Abutment 12074.000.002
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Sample Number: 1-B4 @ 26-26.5 Depth: 26-26.5
Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PERCENT FINER
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm. 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
% +75mm
Coarse% GravelFine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines Clay
54.5 6 in. 3 in. 2 in. 1½ in. 1 in. ¾ in.
½ in. 3/8 in. #4#10 #20 #30 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200
Particle Size Distribution Report
Tested By: K. Lecce M. Havey K. Lecce K. Lecce M. Havey Checked By: I. McCauley See Exploration Log 58 22 36
See Exploration Log 37 16 21 76.6
See Exploration Log 57 21 36
See Exploration Log 33 16 17 78.6
See Exploration Log 33 16 17
12074.000.002 Lennar Homes of California
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS
Project No. Client: Remarks:
Project:
Figure
Depth: 5.5 Sample Number: 1-B1 @ 5-5.5
Depth: 52-52.5 Sample Number: 1-B1 @ 52-52.5
Depth: 6-6.5 Sample Number: 1-B2 @ 6-6.5
Depth: 56-56.5 Sample Number: 1-B2 @ 56-56.5
Depth: 36-36.5 Sample Number: 1-B4 @ 36-36.5 PLASTICITY INDEX 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 LIQUID LIMIT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
CL-ML
CL or OL
CH or OH
ML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
4 7
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
ASTM D4318, wet method
ASTM D4318, wet method
ASTM D1140
ASTM D4318, wet method
ASTM D4318, wet method
ASTM D1140
ASTM D4318, wet method
Montague Expressway, Bridge Abutment
Sample # Remold?
(Y/N)
Test depth
(ft)
Spring
number
Shear
strength
(psf)
1 N 12-12.25 3 1173
2 N 11-11.25 3 1104
3 N 22-22.25 3 2484
4 N 16-16.25 4 2245
DATE: 08/24/16
PHASE NUMBER: 002
Tested by: G. Criste Reviewed by: D. Seibold
PROJECT NAME: Montague Expressway, Bridge Abutment
PROJECT NUMBER: 12074.000.002
Testing remarks:
CLIENT: Lennar Hoimes of California
APPARATUS USED: Wykeham Farrance, Model 27-WF1730/4
LABORATORY MINIATURE VANE SHEAR
ASTM D4648
Sample ID
1-B1 @ 11-13.5
1-B2 @ 10-12.5
1-B3 @ 21-23.5
1-B4 @ 15-17.5
Lab Address: 3420 Fostoria Way Suite E, San Ramon, CA 94583. Phone No. (925) 355-9047
1-B3 @ 42-
42.5 22.91
101.93
97.45 0.62
2.407
5.085
2.113
-
-
2.650
1-B3 @ 42-42.5
24.08 100.00
0.05 1234.9
10.429
3130.6
n/a
4365.4
3130.6
617.4
n/a
Project Information
Project Name:
Project Number:
Project Location:
Client:
K. Lecce
Diameter (in)
Montague Expressway, Bridge Abutment
Lennar Homes of California
Axial Strain @ Failure (%)
Tested By:
0.00 Specific Gravity
Saturation (%)
After Test
Checked By: J. Ruffoni
1-B3
12074.000.002
Friction Angle Ø
σ3 (psf)
Cohesion, c (psf) 0.0
Corrected Peak Deviator Stress
Plastic Limit
Isotropic Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Test
(ASTM D2850)
08/29/16 Date: Date: 8/28/2016
Height (in)
Liquid Limit
Void Ratio
Cell Pressure
Principle Stresses at Failure
Cell (psf)
Test Remarks:
Cohesion at Failure with a Zero Friction Angle
(Ø=0)
Specimen
Before Test
Water Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Saturation (%)
ASTM D854 - Assumed
σ1 (psf)
Water Content (%)
ASTM D4318 - Wet Method
Description: See exploration logs
Height-to-Diameter Ratio
Mohr-Coulomb Parameters with a Non-zero
Friction Angle (Ø≠0)
Back (psf)
Peak Deviator Stress (psf)
Strain Rate (in/min)
0 459
917
1376
1834
2293
0 459 917 1376 1834 2293 2751 3210 3668 4127 4585
Shear Stress (psf)
Normal Stress (psf)
Mohr Circles
1-B3 @ 42-42.5
0 130 259 389 519 648 778 908 1,037 1,167 1,297 0.0 5.3 10.5 15.8 Stress (psf)
Strain (%)
Stress-Strain Curve
Lab address: 12728 Golden Valley Parkway, Lathrop, CA 95330
1-B4 @ 46-
46.5 22.01
97.56 83.84
0.70 2.407
5.080
2.111
-
-
2.650
1-B4 @ 46-46.5
22.63 86.20
0.05 3233.6
14.943
3379.7
n/a
6613.3
3379.7
1616.8
n/a
Project Information
Project Name:
Project Number:
Project Location:
Client:
ASTM D4318 - Wet Method
Description: See exploration logs
Height-to-Diameter Ratio
Mohr-Coulomb Parameters with a Non-zero
Friction Angle (Ø≠0)
Back (psf)
Peak Deviator Stress (psf)
Strain Rate (in/min)
Cohesion at Failure with a Zero Friction Angle
(Ø=0)
Specimen
Before Test
Water Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Saturation (%)
ASTM D854 - Assumed
σ1 (psf)
Water Content (%)
Cell Pressure
Principle Stresses at Failure
Cell (psf)
Test Remarks:
Isotropic Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Test
(ASTM D2850)
08/29/16 Date: Date: 8/28/2016
Height (in)
Liquid Limit
Void Ratio
Checked By: J. Ruffoni
1-B4
12074.000.002
Friction Angle Ø
σ3 (psf)
Cohesion, c (psf) 0.0
Corrected Peak Deviator Stress
Plastic Limit
K. Lecce
Diameter (in)
Montague Expressway, Bridge Abutment
Lennar Homes of California
Axial Strain @ Failure (%)
Tested By:
0.00 Specific Gravity
Saturation (%)
After Test
0 695
1389
2084
2778
3473
0 695 1389 2084 2778 3473 4167 4862 5556 6251 6945
Shear Stress (psf)
Normal Stress (psf)
Mohr Circles
1-B4 @ 46-46.5
0 340 679 1,019 1,358 1,698 2,037 2,377 2,716 3,056 3,395 0.0 5.3 10.6 15.8 Stress (psf)
Strain (%)
Stress-Strain Curve
Lab address: 12728 Golden Valley Parkway, Lathrop, CA 95330
APPENDIX C
Corrosivity Test Data
(CERCO Analytical Inc., 2016)
APPENDIXC
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tyler Wood, LMC DATE: September 4, 2020
FROM: Katie Hogan, PE, CFM JOB#: LENN.04.20
Caitlin Gilmore, PE, QSD
Emily Straley, PE
SUBJECT: East Penitencia Creek Bridge Crossing Hydraulic Analysis
The development at 730 and 750 East Capitol in Milpitas, California is under construction based on approved design plans dated October 12, 2016 on the north side of East Penitencia Creek east of Montague Expressway, as shown in Figure 1. A proposed vehicular bridge crossing to connect the north and south sides of the creek is currently under design. Downstream of the project site, a pedestrian bridge is to be constructed as part of the Centre Pointe development. Schaaf & Wheeler conducted a hydraulic analysis to compare the existing and proposed 100-year water surface elevations along East Penitencia Creek due to the construction of the new vehicular bridge. An investigation into the potential for future flood control projects was also conducted to verify the proposed bridge design does not need to be modified to accommodate for those future projects. This memorandum documents the methodology and results of the hydraulic analysis.
Figure 1 – Location Map
Schaaf & Wheeler
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
870 Market Street, Suite 1278
San Francisco, CA 94102‐2906
t. 415‐433‐4848
f. 415‐433‐1029
s&[email protected]
Tyler Wood, LMC September 4, 2020
Schaaf & Wheeler Page 2
FEMA Effective
The FEMA effective Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) along East Penitencia Creek shows flooding outside of the channel banks, some of which results from overland flow from a spill on Upper Penitencia Creek in San Jose. East Penitencia Creek is mapped as Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Zone AO (1 foot) along the overbanks and Zone A in the channel, as shown in Figure 2. The project is located on FEMA FIRM panel 06085C0067J, effective February 19, 2014. The effective flood profiles in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) indicate a water surface elevation of approximately 45.5 feet (NAVD 88) at the proposed S Milpitas Boulevard bridge location. A more recent (2018) hydrologic and hydraulic study using Infoworks ICM software, however, was developed along East Penitencia creek since the effective map was created.
Figure 2 – Effective SFHA Map
Previous Study
Schaaf & Wheeler (S&W) developed an Infoworks ICM model for the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and FEMA CTP remapping project submitted in 2018 to the City of Milpitas. The City of Milpitas, City of San Jose, and SCVWD have all reviewed the model, and it is currently under review with FEMA.
The proposed FEMA FIRM map is shown in Figure 3 remaps the subject areas as Zone AE with base flood elevations (BFEs). The Zone X areas indicate where the 100-year flood depth was determined to be less than one foot. This model is considered to have the most recent hydrologic data and was used to develop the HEC-RAS steady state model for this study. The results from this 2018 study may be subject to change because the study has not yet been officially adopted by FEMA.
Tyler Wood, LMC September 4, 2020
Schaaf & Wheeler Page 3
Figure 3 – Revised SFHA (2018 ICM Model Results)
Existing Hydraulic Analysis
A steady state HEC-RAS version 5.0.7 model was created along East Penitencia Creek to calculate water surface elevations for existing and proposed bridge conditions. Cross sections were placed along the entire East Penitencia Creek reach from the confluence with Lower Penitencia Creek to the beginning of the open channel at the railroad. Cross sections were spaced an average of 100 LF apart and at critical locations, such as bridge crossings and grade control structures. Figure 4 shows the cross section and structure locations.
Geometry Data
Cross section and bridge geometry were developed using various sources, including SCVWD 2017 survey, 2012 and 2015 surveys for the 730 and 750 East Capitol project, 2013 BART/VTA design survey, and 2006 Santa Clara County LiDAR data used for the ICM model terrain surface. Table 1 lists each data source, its reference datum, and the conversion to NAVD 88 as needed. Table 2 lists the cross sections and their topographic sources. All elevations listed in this memorandum reference the NAVD 88 vertical datum, and the hydraulic models were created referencing NAVD 88 vertical datum.
Tyler Wood, LMC September 4, 2020
Schaaf & Wheeler Page 4
Figure 4 – Cross Section Location Map
Table 1 - Topography Sources
Source Date Datum Conversion
to NAVD 88
SCVWD Survey East Penitencia Creek 2017 NAVD 88 NA
730 and 750 East Capitol Survey 2012 NGVD 29 +2.743
730 and 750 East Capitol Survey 2015 NGVD 29 +2.743
BART/VTA Survey 2013 NAVD 88 NA
Santa Clara County LiDAR/ICM Terrain 2006 NAVD 88 NA
Table 2 - Topography Source by Cross Section
River Stations Channel Source
Overbank
Source
3127 – 2822 2015 Survey 2017 SCVWD
2822 - 2283 2012 & 2015 E Capitol Survey 2012 & 2015 E
Capitol Survey
2243 – 1625 2017 SCVWD & ICM Model Sections 2006 LiDAR
1446 2012 E Capitol Survey 2006 LiDAR
1392 Interpolated Section using ICM Model Sections 2006 LiDAR 1070 ICM Model Sections 2006 LiDAR
Tyler Wood, LMC September 4, 2020
Schaaf & Wheeler Page 5
River Stations Channel Source
Overbank
Source
941 2013 VTA/BART Survey 2006 LiDAR
903-132 2017 SCVWD Survey & ICM Model Sections 2006 LiDAR Montague & McCandless Roads 2013 VTA/BART Survey & ICM Model A profile comparison of the ICM flowline and the profile for this hydraulic analysis (2020 Channel Flowline) is provided in Figure 5. The profiles generally match downstream of the existing grade control structure. However, the ICM model shows the flowline of the channel approximately 4.5 feet lower than the effective FIS profile and 2015 survey near the proposed South Milpitas Boulevard bridge. Further investigation indicated that an existing grade control structure may have not been fully accounted for in the 2017 SCVWD survey and thereby the ICM profile. A site visit conducted on July 24, 2020 confirmed a two-foot concrete drop structure with an approximately 5-foot rock rip rap structure directly upstream, as shown in Figure 6. This grade control structure was captured in the 2015 survey for the 730 and 750 East Capitol development and was included in the hydraulic model for this study.
Figure 5 – ICM Channel Profile versus S&W 2020 Model Profile 20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Elevation (ft, NAVD 88)
East Penitencia River Station from Lower Penitencia Creek Confluence (ft) 2020 Channel Flowline 2018 ICM Profile
Prop S Milpitas Blvd Montague Expy
Proposed Pedestrian Bridge McCandless Drive
Existing Grade
Control Structure
Tyler Wood, LMC September 4, 2020
Schaaf & Wheeler Page 6
Figure 6 - Existing Grade Control Structure Looking Upstream (East) on East Penitencia Creek Hydraulic Parameters
Manning’s roughness values (n-values) were assigned based on the ICM model’s 1D roughness factors.
The channel was assigned a roughness value of 0.035 and the overbanks 0.10 with blocked obstructions for existing buildings. Contraction and expansion coefficients were set to 0.1 and 0.3, respectively, except upstream and downstream of structures where they were revised to 0.3 for contraction and 0.5 for expansion. Ineffective areas were added at cross sections upstream and downstream of structures at a 1:1 ratio upstream of crossings and 4:1 ratio downstream.
Steady Flow Data
The steady flow data was obtained from the 2018 ICM model along the river reaches of East Penitencia Creek. Numerous scenarios involving levee breaches throughout the watershed were investigated as part of the 2018 study. Comparisons to the breach failure scenarios from the Upper Penitencia Creek and Berryessa Creek levee breaches show that the highest peak flowrates along East Penitencia Creek occur during the “All Levees Hold”, or no levee breaches, scenario. This scenario was therefore used to obtain the peak flow rates in the HEC-RAS steady state analysis. Table 3 summarizes the flow change locations and corresponding 100-year flow rates. Flow change locations generally correspond to storm drain inflows and overflows from Upper Penitencia Creek.
Tyler Wood, LMC September 4, 2020
Schaaf & Wheeler Page 7
Table 3 – Flow Change Locations “All Levees Hold” Scenario Location River Station 100-year Q (cfs)
460 LF Downstream Lundy Drive 3127 625
Upstream Montague Expy 1685 665
Downstream Montague Expy 1446 710
580 LF Downstream Montague Expy 903 735
Upstream McCandless Drive 438 760
Upstream Lower Penitencia Confluence 223 777
The peak flowrates on East Penitencia Creek are controlled by the overflow from Upper Penitencia Creek.
Figure 7 shows the hydrograph just upstream of the proposed bridge location. There are two peaks. The first peak occurs at approximately hour 12 from the local drainage system, and the second peak (approximately hour 16) occurs due to overflows from Upper Penitencia Creek. The second peak, or the overflow from Upper Penitencia Creek, results in the maximum peak discharges on East Penitencia Creek.
Figure 7 – East Penitencia Creek 100-year Hydrograph Upstream Proposed South Milpitas Blvd Bridge Boundary Conditions
The 100-year boundary condition at the confluence of East Penitencia with Lower Penitencia Creek was input as a known water surface elevation of 32.4 feet (NAVD 88) from the 2018 ICM model.
Proposed Conditions
The proposed model was created by modifying the existing conditions model to add the proposed pedestrian bridge and the South Milpitas Boulevard vehicular bridge at the locations indicated in Figure 4 above. The pedestrian bridge was input according to RJA January 2019 plans for Centre Pointe included in the attachments to this memorandum. The bridge spans the channel and does not impede flow.
Therefore, ineffective areas and expansion and contraction coefficients were not modified from existing conditions.
The South Milpitas Boulevard bridge was modeled according to the structural plans dated April 2020 completed by Cornerstone Structural Engineering Group included as an attachment to this memorandum. 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Flowrate (cfs)
Time (hours)
Tyler Wood, LMC September 4, 2020
Schaaf & Wheeler Page 8
The proposed vehicular bridge spans the channel, and the low chord is elevated above the existing conditions water surface elevation. However, the presence of flow in the overbanks under existing and proposed conditions warrants modifications to the ineffective areas and expansion and contraction coefficients to represent the abutment obstructions under proposed conditions. Ineffective areas were adjusted based on a 1:1 ratio upstream of the bridge opening and 4:1 downstream. Contraction and expansion coefficients upstream and downstream of the bridge were modified to 0.3 and 0.5, respectively.
The right bank of the creek was also was revised based on fill and grading from the 730 and 750 East Capitol grading plans dated October 12, 2060 by Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
Scour
Bridge scour is the erosion or removal of streambed or bank material from bridge foundations caused by flowing water and is usually considered to have a long-term degradation effect (Mays, 2005). The proposed South Milpitas Boulevard vehicular bridge was evaluated for scour based on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Hydraulic Engineering Circular, HEC-18 (April 2012). Two types of scour conditions were considered: contraction scour, and local scour at the abutments.
Contraction scour, which occurs when there is an increase in flow velocity through a bridge cross section that is narrower than the upstream channel, is the most common type of general scour based on HEC-18.
This type of scour is temporal in nature; there can be an increase and decrease in streambed elevation during the passing of a flood. Contraction scour is minimal for the proposed South Milpitas Boulevard bridge due to the slight encroachment of the left abutment (looking downstream) not causing a change in water surface elevation or velocity. The estimated contraction scour based on the 100-year flood profile is 0.6 ft.
Local scour can be identified by the formation of horseshow vortices at the base of piers or abutments.
When there is an increase in head water on the upstream side of the obstruction, followed by an acceleration of the flow around the nose of the pier or abutment, a horseshoe vortex can form. This type of vortex causes bed material from around the base of the obstruction to be removed. When the loose sediment is transported away from the base region faster than it is replaced, a scour hole develops.
The FHWA scour equations are based on laboratory data for an ideal condition and are to be considered conservative. The equations are based on non-cohesive soils, which is the worst-case condition as soils information was minimal when the analysis was completed, and indefinitely long sustained flow conditions to develop the potential scour holes.
Although the abutments do not project into the channel, abutment scour due to floodplain flow is expected to occur at Abutment 1 (left abutment looking downstream). Abutment 2 does not project into the channel or the floodplain. Abutment scour was calculated based on the 100-year flood profile. The estimated abutment scour at Abutment 1 is 0.7 ft. The total scour depth is the abutment scour plus contraction scour which equals 1.3 ft.
It is recommended that scour countermeasure be incorporated into the bridge design through extending the top of the Abutment 1 footing to a minimum depth of 1 foot below the calculated total scour depth of
1.3 ft, or by some other structural measure that accounts for scour. The velocities through the bridge section are below the suggested maximum permissible velocity of 6 feet per second for a natural grass
Tyler Wood, LMC September 4, 2020
Schaaf & Wheeler Page 9
lined or gravel channel per USACE Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels (1994) so armoring is not required.
East Penitencia Creek is not expected to be subjected to long-term channel degradation or aggradation in the existing condition. Grade control structures are present both upstream and downstream of the proposed bridge location which limits degradation. There is a 5 ft concrete drop structure located approximately 180 ft downstream of the bridge location. The top elevation of the drop structure is 39 ft and the bottom elevation is 34 feet. It is protected from scour by rock riprap but some erosion is occurring. The top of East Penitencia Creek is a siphon located approximately 1,400 ft upstream of the bridge location. The approximate elevation of the siphon outlet is 46 feet.
Degradation could occur at the bridge location should the drop structure fail. The channel invert may change to form an equalized slope between the bottom of the drop structure and siphon outlet elevations. This may result in a channel invert elevation of approximately 36 feet at the bridge location assuming 4 feet of degradation. However, this is a very approximately estimate of change since it is impossible to predict how the channel will stabilize should the drop structure fail and not be repaired.
The Caltrans Scour Summary Table and Scour Data Table per Memo to Designers 16-1 are provided in Tables 4 and 5. The summary tables assume that the downstream control structure remains in place per CalTrans documentation to consider the as-built conditions.
Table 4 - Scour Summary Table - Caltrans
Long Term & Short Term Scour Depths for South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge of E Penitencia Creek
Support No.
Degradation
Scour Depth
(ft)
Contraction
Scour Depth
(ft)
Short Term
(Local) Scour
Depth (ft)
Abutment 1 0 0.6 0.7
Abutment 2 0 0.6 NA
Table 5 - Scour Data Table - Caltrans
Support No.
Long Term (Degradation
and Contraction) Scour
Elevation (ft) (NGVD)*
Long Term (Degradation
and Contraction) Scour
Elevation (ft) (NAVD)*
Short Term
(Local) Scour
Depth (ft)
Abutment 1 36.8 39.5 0.7
Abutment 2 36.8 39.5 NA
* Scour elevation is channel invert minus long term scour depth of 0.6 ft.
Tyler Wood, LMC September 4, 2020
Schaaf & Wheeler Page 10
Future Conditions
The SCVWD requested an investigation of the potential for future flood control projects along East Penitencia Creek that may impact the proposed vehicular bridge design at South Milpitas Boulevard. A review of the 2018 ICM model “All Levees Hold” scenario shows that Upper Penitencia Creek overflows into East Penitencia Creek near the proposed South Milpitas Boulevard bridge crossing. Figure 8 shows the general 100-year “All Levees Hold” flow path per the ICM model results. The 100-year storm overtops Upper Penitencia Creek near Victory Way and continues northwest where it eventually overtops the railroad. Runoff then continues north towards East Penitencia Creek. One overflow path to East Penitencia is through the area upstream of the proposed Milpitas Boulevard bridge, as shown on Figure 9.
A floodwall along the south (left) bank of East Penitencia Creek would block the overflow and cause inundation to potentially increase inundation at the properties and structures behind the future wall. A continued overflow path to East Penitencia Creek is recommended from Upper Penitencia Creek unless Upper Penitencia Creek is contained by a future flood control project.
If a future Upper Penitencia Creek project prevents overflow to East Penitencia Creek, the peak discharges on East Penitencia Creek would be limited to the first peak around hour 12 in Figure 7. These “No Overflow” peak discharges on East Penitencia Creek are lower than the “All Levees Hold” scenario peak discharges. An existing and proposed conditions steady flow plan using only the first peak, or inflows from the East Penitencia Creek watershed, was created in the hydraulic model. Peak discharges are generally limited to the upstream pipe capacities. Table 6 lists the “No Overflow” scenario peak discharges and their flow change locations. The flow changes generally correspond with storm drain inflows.
Table 6 – Flow Change Locations “No Overflow” Scenario
Location River Station 100-year Q (cfs)
460 LF Downstream Lundy Drive 3127 284
Near Vineyard Avenue 2398 310
Downstream Montague Expy 1446 345
Upstream McCandless Drive 658 355
The existing conditions “No Overflow” geometry matches the existing conditions “All Levees Hold” geometry. The 100-year is not contained in the channel on the left bank in this scenario. The proposed conditions was copied from the “All Levees Fail” proposed scenario and modified to include a floodwall along the left bank of East Penitencia Creek to contain the 100-year “No Overflow” discharges and represent the future conditions model.
Tyler Wood, LMC September 4, 2020
Schaaf & Wheeler Page 11
Figure 8 – 100-year All Levees Hold Inundation Depths and Overflow Path
Tyler Wood, LMC September 4, 2020
Schaaf & Wheeler Page 12
Figure 9 – 100-year All Levees Hold Inundation Depths and Overflow Path at East Penitencia Creek Hydraulic Results
The results of the hydraulic analysis are summarized in Table 7. The “All Levees Hold” proposed conditions show 0.01 foot increase upstream of the proposed pedestrian bridge and 0.34 foot increase upstream of the proposed South Milpitas Boulevard bridge. The pedestrian bridge does not cause a significant increase in water surface elevation. The proposed South Milpitas Boulevard bridge spans the channel and the low chord is approximately 2.29 feet above the 100-year “All Levees Hold” proposed water surface elevation. The increase in water surface elevations is likely because the left overbank is used for conveyance as the 100-year storm is not contained in channel. The proposed abutments create obstructions in the overbank.
The future conditions “No Overflow” model shows no increase in water surfaces upstream of the pedestrian bridge and shows 0.38 foot increase in water surface elevation upstream of the proposed South Milpitas Boulevard. This increase is due to both the bridge abutments and the possible future floodwall along the left bank of East Penitencia Creek. This scenario would likely only occur if a future project were completed along Upper Penitencia Creek to prevent overflows to East Penitencia Creek.
Table 8 includes the hydraulic summary table per the CalTrans Memo to Designers 16-1.
Tyler Wood, LMC September 4, 2020
Schaaf & Wheeler Page 13
Table 7 - 100-year Water Surface Elevation Comparison
“All Levees Hold” Future Conditions “No Overflow”
River
Station
Existing
WSE (ft,
NAVD 88)
Proposed
WSE (ft,
NAVD 88)
Difference
(ft)
Existing
WSE (ft,
NAVD 88)
Proposed
WSE (ft,
NAVD 88)
Difference
(ft)
3127 48.72 48.82 0.10 47.05 47.05 0.00
2822 46.26 46.05 ‐0.21 45.47 45.84 0.37
2618 45.43 45.74 0.31 45.08 45.43 0.35
2596 45.39 45.73 0.34 45.02 45.40 0.38
2542 Proposed South Milpitas Boulevard
2497 44.98 45.03 0.05 44.95 45.14 0.19
2471 45.00 45.01 0.01 44.95 45.09 0.14
2398 44.92 44.92 0.00 43.76 43.76 0.00
2375 44.79 44.79 0.00 43.76 43.76 0.00
2354 44.75 44.75 0.00 43.33 43.33 0.00
2316 40.15 40.15 0.00 38.28 38.26 ‐0.02
2283 40.45 40.45 0.00 37.67 37.67 0.00
2243 40.39 40.39 0.00 37.55 37.55 0.00
2075 40.14 40.14 0.00 37.02 37.02 0.00
1934 40.02 40.02 0.00 36.71 36.71 0.00
1685 39.83 39.83 0.00 36.38 36.38 0.00
1625 39.73 39.73 0.00 36.19 36.19 0.00
1530 Montague Expressway
1446 37.85 37.85 0.00 35.02 35.02 0.00
1392 35.94 35.94 0.00 33.79 33.79 0.00
1070 35.85 35.85 0.00 33.62 33.62 0.00
941 35.42 35.42 0.00 33.31 33.31 0.00
903 35.47 35.47 0.00 33.35 33.35 0.00
880 35.46 35.47 0.01 33.35 33.35 0.00
858 Proposed Pedestrian Bridge
836 35.42 35.42 0.00 33.31 33.31 0.00
811 35.35 35.35 0.00 33.26 33.26 0.00
658 35.15 35.15 0.00 33.11 33.11 0.00
438 34.79 34.79 0.00 32.92 32.92 0.00
382 34.77 34.77 0.00 32.91 32.91 0.00
316 McCandless Drive
258 32.98 32.98 0.00 32.50 32.50 0.00
223 32.89 32.89 0.00 32.48 32.48 0.00
132 32.40 32.40 0.00 32.40 32.40 0.00
Tyler Wood, LMC September 4, 2020
Schaaf & Wheeler Page 14
Table 8 - Hydrologic Summary Table - Caltrans
Hydrologic Summary for South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge of E Penitencia Creek Drainage Area: 1.7 square miles
Frequency
Design Flood (100-
year)
Base Flood (100-
year)
Flood of Record
(N/A)
Discharge 625 cfs 625 cfs NA
Water Surface
Elevation at Bridge
45.73 45.73 NA
Conclusions
The proposed bridge structures do not cause an impact over 1 foot cumulatively through East Penitencia Creek. The proposed pedestrian bridge has a slight (0.01 foot) increase, and the proposed South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge has a 0.34 foot increase. The increase in water surface elevation up and downstream of the proposed South Milpitas Bridge is due to the abutments creating an obstruction in the conveyance areas and contraction and expansion in the overbanks. The proposed bridge deck is 2.29 feet above the 100-year water surface elevation and spans the main channel; therefore, the increase is not due to the height of the bridge deck but rather overbank obstruction and hydraulic losses due to expansion and contraction.
Contraction scour and abutment scour are expected to occur at the South Milpitas Bridge. Contraction scour is 0.6 ft and abutment 1 scour is 0.7 feet for a total scour depth of 1.3 feet for the 100 year flood.
Scour at abutment 2 is not expected to occur. Countermeasures are recommended to incorporate the scour potential into the Abutment 1 design by extending the top of the Abutment 1 footing to a minimum depth of 1 foot below the calculated total scour depth of 1.3 feet. Additionally, the downstream drop structure is currently providing scour protection. Bridge designers may want to account for the additional scour that may occur if the drop structure were removed without repair, or seek assurance from Valley Water that the drop structure will be maintained.
The investigated future condition scenario includes assumes proposed bridge conditions with no overflow from Upper Penitencia Creek and a floodwall assumed to be constructed along the left bank of East Penitencia Creek to contain the local 100-year flowrates. Increases in water surface elevation compared to existing conditions are a result of both the proposed South Milpitas Boulevard bridge abutments and the potential future floodwall. This future proposed scenario results in a 100-year water surface elevation of 45.40 feet (NAVD 88). The proposed bridge deck elevation is 50.1 feet (NAVD 88) and provides approximately 4.7 feet of freeboard to the top of the bridge. The proposed bridge deck is at least 4 feet above the 100-year water surface elevation and meets FEMA levee accreditation freeboard requirements for this future scenario.
Attachments
1. Centre Pointe – Penitencia Creek Pedestrian Bridge Across East Penitencia Creek Between McCandless Drive and Montague Expressway Plans, RJA, November 8, 2019
2. S. Milpitas Boulevard Bridge over Penitencia East hannel, Conerstone Structural Engineering Group, April 1, 2020.
Tyler Wood, LMC September 4, 2020
Schaaf & Wheeler Page 15
Record Drawings
CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 26, 1954 OF
Revisions
TY CI
INCORPORATED
ITAS
MILP
Record Drawings
CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 26, 1954 OF
Revisions
TY CI
INCORPORATED
ITAS
MILP
Record Drawings
CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 26, 1954 OF
Revisions
TY CI
INCORPORATED
ITAS
MILP
Record Drawings
CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 26, 1954 OF
Revisions
TY CI
INCORPORATED
ITAS
MILP
Record Drawings
CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 26, 1954 OF
Revisions
TY CI
INCORPORATED
ITAS
MILP
Record Drawings
CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 26, 1954 OF
Revisions
TY CI
INCORPORATED
ITAS
MILP
Record Drawings
CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 26, 1954 OF
Revisions
TY CI
INCORPORATED
ITAS
MILP
Record Drawings
CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 26, 1954 OF
Revisions
TY CI
INCORPORATED
ITAS
MILP
SOUTH MILPITAS BOULEVARD BRIDGE
NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT
Milpitas, California
November 5, 2021
Prepared for:
Matthew Moore
Associate Project Manager
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
1736 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612
Prepared by:
Michael S. Thill
429 East Cotati Avenue
Cotati, CO 94931
(707) 794-0400
I&R Job No.: 21-084
1 INTRODUCTION
The South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge project proposes to construct a bridge across Penitencia East Channel. The proposed bridge would serve vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists and would connect South Milpitas Boulevard on the north side of the channel with Tarob Court and Sango Court on the south side of the channel. The proposed project would require demolition of the existing vacant office building located at 1831-1841 Tarob Court (APN 086-36-030) which is owned by the City of Milpitas.
This report evaluates the project’s potential to result in significant environmental noise or vibration impacts with respect to applicable California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. The report is divided into two sections: 1) the Setting Section provides a brief description of the fundamentals of environmental noise and groundborne vibration, summarizes applicable regulatory criteria, and discusses the results of the ambient noise monitoring survey completed to document existing noise conditions; and 2) the Impacts and Mitigation Measures Section describes the significance criteria used to evaluate project impacts, provides a discussion of each project impact, and presents measures, where necessary, to mitigate the impacts to a less-than-significant level.
SETTING
Fundamentals of Environmental Noise
Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave.
In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 1.
There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the Aweighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA are shown in Table 2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the
2 variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events.
This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration.
The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA.
Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night -- because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep -- 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 dB penalty added to evening (7:00 pm - 10:00 pm) and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10:00 pm - 7:00 am) noise levels. The Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn) is essentially the same as CNEL, with the exception that the evening time period is dropped and all occurrences during this three-hour period are grouped into the daytime period.
Effects of Noise
Sleep and Speech Interference
The thresholds for speech interference indoors are about 45 dBA if the noise is steady and above 55 dBA if the noise is fluctuating. Outdoors the thresholds are about 15 dBA higher. Steady noises of sufficient intensity (above 35 dBA) and fluctuating noise levels above about 45 dBA have been shown to affect sleep. Interior residential standards for multi-family dwellings are set by the State of California at 45 dBA Ldn. Typically, the highest steady traffic noise level during the daytime is about equal to the Ldn and nighttime levels are 10 dB lower. The standard is designed for sleep and speech protection and most jurisdictions apply the same criterion for all residential uses. Typical structural attenuation is 12 to 17 dB with open windows. With standard construction and closed windows in good condition, the noise attenuation factor is around 20 dB for an older structure and 25 dB for a newer dwelling. Sleep and speech interference is therefore of concern when exterior noise levels are about 57 to 62 dBA Ldn with open windows and 65 to 70 dBA Ldn if the windows are closed. Levels of 55 to 60 dBA are common along collector streets and secondary arterials, while 65 to 70 dBA is a typical value for a primary/major arterial. Levels of 75 to 80 dBA are normal noise levels at the first row of development outside a freeway right-of-way. In order to achieve an acceptable interior noise environment, bedrooms facing secondary roadways need to be able to have their windows closed, those facing major roadways and freeways typically need special glass windows.
3 Annoyance
Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that the causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The Ldn as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources. When measuring the percentage of the population highly annoyed, the threshold for ground vehicle noise is about 50 dBA Ldn. At a Ldn of about 60 dBA, approximately 12 percent of the population is highly annoyed.
When the Ldn increases to 70 dBA, the percentage of the population highly annoyed increases to about 25-30 percent of the population. There is, therefore, an increase of about 2 percent per dBA between a Ldn of 60-70 dBA. Between a Ldn of 70-80 dBA, each decibel increase increases by about 3 percent the percentage of the population highly annoyed. People appear to respond more adversely to aircraft noise. When the Ldn is 60 dBA, approximately 30-35 percent of the population is believed to be highly annoyed. Each decibel increase to 70 dBA adds about 3 percentage points to the number of people highly annoyed. Above 70 dBA, each decibel increase results in about a 4 percent increase in the percentage of the population highly annoyed.
4 TABLE 1 Definition of Acoustical Terms Used in this Report Term Definition
Decibel, dB A unit describing, the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20 micro Pascals.
Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in micro Pascals (or 20 micro Newtons per square meter), where 1 Pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of 1 Newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound pressure level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressure (e. g., 20 micro Pascals). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter.
Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and Ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz.
A-Weighted Sound
Level, dBA
The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise.
Equivalent Noise Level,
Leq
The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.
Lmax, Lmin
The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.
L01, L10, L50, L90
The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period.
Day/Night Noise Level,
DNL or Ldn
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Community Noise
Equivalent Level,
CNEL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.
Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.
Source: Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Harris, 1998.
5 TABLE 2 Typical Noise Levels in the Environment
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 dBA Rock band
Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet
100 dBA
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet
90 dBA
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet 80 dBA Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawn mower, 100 feet 70 dBA Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 dBA
Large business office
Quiet urban daytime 50 dBA Dishwasher in next room
Quiet urban nighttime 40 dBA Theater, large conference room Quiet suburban nighttime
30 dBA Library
Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall
(background)
20 dBA
Broadcast/recording studio
10 dBA
0 dBA
Source: Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS), California Department of Transportation, September 2013.
6 Fundamentals of Groundborne Vibration
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.
Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One method is the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. In this report, a PPV descriptor with units of mm/sec or in/sec is used to evaluate construction generated vibration for building damage and human complaints.
Table 3 displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings that continuous or frequent intermittent vibration levels produce. The guidelines in Table 3 represent syntheses of vibration criteria for human response and potential damage to buildings resulting from construction vibration.
Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors.
The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest construction related groundborne vibration levels. Because of the impulsive nature of such activities, the use of the PPV descriptor has been routinely used to measure and assess groundborne vibration and almost exclusively to assess the potential of vibration to cause damage and the degree of annoyance for humans.
The two primary concerns with construction-induced vibration, the potential to damage a structure and the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of life, are evaluated against different vibration limits. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a function of physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated ambient vibration levels, such as people in an urban environment, may tolerate a higher vibration level.
Structural damage can be classified as cosmetic only, such as paint flaking or minimal extension of cracks in building surfaces; minor, including limited surface cracking; or major, that may threaten the structural integrity of the building. Safe vibration limits that can be applied to assess the potential for damaging a structure vary by researcher. The damage criteria presented in Table 3 include several categories for ancient, fragile, and historic structures, the types of structures most at risk to damage. Most buildings are included within the categories ranging from “Historic and some old buildings” to “Modern industrial/commercial buildings”. Construction-induced vibration that can be detrimental to the building is very rare and has only been observed in instances where the structure is at a high state of disrepair and the construction activity occurs immediately adjacent to the structure.
The annoyance levels shown in Table 3 should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at lower levels than those shown, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage.
7 TABLE 3 Reaction of People and Damage to Buildings from Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels
Velocity Level,
PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.01 Barely perceptible No effect
0.04 Distinctly perceptible Vibration unlikely to cause damage of any type to any structure
0.08 Distinctly perceptible to
strongly perceptible
Recommended upper level of the vibration to
which ruins and ancient monuments should be
subjected
0.1 Strongly perceptible
Threshold at which there is a risk of damage
to fragile buildings with no risk of damage to
most buildings
0.25 Strongly perceptible to
severe
Threshold at which there is a risk of damage
to historic and some old buildings.
0.3 Strongly perceptible to
severe
Threshold at which there is a risk of damage
to older residential structures
0.5 Severe - Vibrations
considered unpleasant
Threshold at which there is a risk of damage
to new residential and modern
commercial/industrial structures
Source: Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, April 2020.
Regulatory Background
The State of California and the City of Milpitas have established regulatory criteria that are applicable in this assessment. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G, are used to assess the potential significance of impacts pursuant to local General Plan policies, Municipal Code standards, or the applicable standards of other agencies. A summary of the applicable regulatory criteria is provided below.
State CEQA Guidelines. The CEQA contains guidelines to evaluate the significance of effects of environmental noise attributable to a proposed project. Under CEQA, noise impacts would be considered significant if the project would result in:
(a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; (c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport
8 or public use airport, if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
City of Milpitas General Plan 2040. The primary goal of the Noise Element is to preserve a nuisance-free noise environment for existing and future land uses by minimizing exposure to harmful and excessive noise levels. The following policies and action items are applicable to the proposed project:
N 1-1 Consider the noise compatibility of existing and future development when making land use planning decisions. Require development and infrastructure projects to be consistent with the land use compatibility standards contained in Tables N-1 and N-2 to ensure acceptable noise exposure levels for existing and future development.
N 1-2 Require new development to mitigate excessive noise to the standards indicated in Tables N1 and N-2 through best practices, including building location and orientation, building design features, placement of noise-generating equipment away from sensitive receptors, shielding of noise-generating equipment, placement of noise-tolerant features between noise sources and sensitive receptors, and use of noise-minimizing materials.
N 1-3 Use sound walls for sound attenuation only when other measures are not practical, or when recommended by an acoustical expert as part of a mitigation measure. Sound walls shall be designed to be aesthetically pleasing, and should incorporate features such as vegetation, variations in color and texture, artwork, and other features deemed appropriate by the City.
N 1-5 Require acoustical studies for new discretionary developments and transportation improvements that have the potential to affect existing noise-sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, libraries, care facilities, and residential areas; and for projects that would introduce new noise-sensitive uses into an area where existing noise levels may exceed the thresholds identified in this element.
N 1-6 For projects that are required to prepare an acoustical study to analyze noise impacts, the following criteria shall be used to determine the significance of those impacts:
TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES
• Where existing traffic noise levels are 60 dB Ldn or less at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant;
• Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 60 dB Ldn and up to 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +3 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant; and • Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a + 1.5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant.
9 N 1-8 Require construction activities to comply with standard best practices to reduce noise exposure to adjacent sensitive receptors (see Action N 1d).
N 1-9 Implement a range of traffic control measures, including but not limited to, light timing, asphalt alternatives (such as rubberized asphalt), and speed reduction measures to reduce roadway noise.
Action N-1a Require that new development projects are reviewed for compliance with the noise requirements established in this element, including the standards established in Tables N1 and N-2, prior to project approval.
Action N-1b Require acoustical studies for new development projects which have the potential to generate noise impacts which exceed the standards identified in this element. The studies shall include representative noise measurements, estimates of existing and projected noise levels, and mitigation measures necessary to ensure compliance with the noise standards included in this element. Studies shall be conducted by a qualified acoustical professional.
Action N-1c Require developers to prepare a construction management/noise mitigation plan that defines best management practices to reduce construction noise, and includes proposed truck routes (that comply with Section 12 V-100-12.05 - Truck Routes of the Milpitas Municipal Code) as part of the entitlement process.
Action N-1d During the environmental review process, determine if proposed construction will constitute a significant impact on nearby sensitive receptors and, if necessary, require mitigation measures in addition to the standard best practice controls. Suggested best practices for control of construction noise include:
• Noise-generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the construction site for any purpose, shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. No construction shall occur on National holidays. • All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. • At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from residences. • Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited for a duration of longer than five minutes.
10 • Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noisesensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction activities, to the extent feasible.
• Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing.
• The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for determining the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, poor muffler, etc.) and instituting reasonable measures as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.
Action N-1f Petition State and Regional agencies to install “quiet pavement” materials during roadway improvement and resurfacing activities. Utilize quiet pavement materials on City-owned streets to the greatest extent feasible.
City of Milpitas Municipal Code. Chapter 213 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance contains a Noise Abatement Section that limits noise levels at adjacent properties. Code Section V-213-3 limits construction operations to between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm on weekdays and weekends.
No construction is permitted on holidays.
Existing Noise Environment
Figure 1 shows the project boundary and existing land uses superimposed on an aerial image of the project site. The proposed bridge would extend South Milpitas Boulevard across Penitencia East Channel, at which point, South Milpitas Boulevard would connect with Tarob Court and Sango Court.
A noise monitoring survey was conducted between Tuesday, October 12, 2021 and Thursday, October 14, 2021. The noise monitoring survey included two long-term noise measurements (LT1 and LT-2) and two short-term noise measurement (ST-1 and ST-2). Noise measurement locations are shown in Figure 1 and the daily trends in noise levels for the long-term measurements are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The noise environment in the project vicinity results primarily from vehicular traffic along Sango Court, Tarob Court, South Milpitas Boulevard, East Capitol Avenue and Montague Expressway and from commercial activities at properties accessed via Sango Court and Tarob Court.
Long-term noise measurement LT-1 was made in front of 1972 Tarob Court, near existing multifamily housing. Hourly average noise levels at this location typically ranged from 42 to 60 dBA Leq throughout the day and at night. Daytime maximum instantaneous noise levels typically ranged from 65 to 80 dBA Lmax. The calculated day-night average noise level ranged from 61 to 65 dBA Ldn. High maximum instantaneous noise levels were noted during the 5:00 am, 4:00 pm, and 8:00 pm hours, which increased the hourly average noise levels during those same hours by 5 to 10
11 dBA above typical conditions. When removing just the 5:00 am hour from the data set, the calculated Ldn decreased by 4 dBA and ranged from 57 to 61 dBA Ldn.
Long-term noise measurement LT-2 was made at the north end of Expedition Lane to quantify ambient noise levels at nearby residential and park land uses. Hourly average noise levels at this location typically ranged from 43 to 58 dBA Leq, and maximum instantaneous noise levels typically ranged from 60 to 75 dBA Lmax. The day-night average noise level was 56 dBA Ldn over the course of the measurement period.
Two short-term noise measurements were made to supplement the long-term data. Table 4 summarizes the results of the short-term noise measurements TABLE 4 Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurements (dBA)
Noise Measurement
Location Date, Time Measured Noise Level, dBA
Lmax L(1) L(10) L(50) L(90) Leq
ST-1: South end of S.
Milpitas Boulevard near
Ascend Apartments
10/12/2021,
12:40-12:50 63 60 55 50 48 52
ST-2: In front of 308 Sango
Court
10/12/2021,
12:40-12:50 75 69 59 54 51 58
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., 2021.
12 FIGURE 1 Aerial Photograph, Surrounding Land Uses, and Noise Measurement Locations LT-1
ST-1
LT-2
ST-2
13 FIGURE 2 Daily Trend in Noise Levels at LT-1
14 FIGURE 3 Daily Trend in Noise Levels at LT-2
15 NOISE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This section describes the significance criteria used to evaluate project impacts under CEQA, provides a discussion of each project impact, and presents mitigation measures, where necessary, to provide a compatible project in relation to adjacent noise sources and land uses.
Significance Criteria
The following criteria were used to evaluate the significance of environmental noise resulting from the project:
• A significant noise impact would be identified if the project would generate a substantial temporary or permanent noise level increase over ambient noise levels at existing noisesensitive receptors surrounding the project site and that would exceed applicable noise standards presented in the General Plan or Municipal Code at existing noise-sensitive receptors surrounding the project site.
o A significant temporary noise impact would be identified if construction would occur outside of the hours specified in the Municipal Code. o A significant permanent noise level increase would occur if project-generated traffic would result in a noise level increase of more than 5 dBA Ldnwhere existing traffic noise levels are 60 dBA Ldn or less.
o A significant permanent noise level increase would occur if project-generated traffic would result in a noise level increase of more than 3 dBA Ldnwhere existing traffic noise levels are greater than 60 dBA Ldn and up to 65 dBA Ldn. o A significant permanent noise level increase would occur if project-generated traffic would result in a noise level increase of more than 1.5 dBA Ldn where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dBA Ldn. o A significant noise impact would be identified if the project would expose persons to or generate noise levels that would exceed applicable noise standards presented in the General Plan or Municipal Code.
• A significant impact would be identified if the construction of the project would generate excessive vibration levels surrounding receptors. Groundborne vibration levels exceeding
0.3 in/sec PPV would have the potential to result in cosmetic damage to normal buildings. • A significant noise impact would be identified if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive aircraft noise levels.
16 Impact 1a: Temporary Construction Noise. Existing noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to a temporary increase in construction noise levels, but construction would be conducted during allowable hours and standard best practices would be implemented during all phases of project construction to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Demolition and construction activities proposed by the project are anticipated to last approximately 18 months. Construction of the bridge would take place in a single dry season from June 15 to October 15, 2023, as required by Valley Water. Demolition of the existing building and construction of the proposed roadway connection would occur between Spring 2023 and Fall 2024. Construction work would occur between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday, excluding holidays consistent with the City’s Municipal Code Section V-213-3(b).
No pile driving is required for the project. Equipment may include, but is not limited to graders, scrapers, dozers, backhoes, excavators, lo-drills, haul trucks, concrete pump trucks, concrete mixing trucks, telehandlers, cranes, manlifts, and pickup trucks.
Noise impacts resulting from construction depend upon the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive areas. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of time.
Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially during earth-moving activities when heavy equipment is used. The highest maximum noise levels generated by project construction would typically range from about 80 to 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source. Table 5 shows the hourly average noise level ranges, by construction phase for various types of construction projects. A list of typical maximum instantaneous noise levels measured at 50 feet are provided in Table 6. Typical hourly average construction-generated noise levels for public works projects are about 79 to 88 dBA Leq, as measured at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the site during busy construction periods (e.g., earth moving equipment, impact tools, etc.). Construction-generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of the distance between the source and receptor. Shielding by buildings or terrain can provide an additional 5 to 10 dBA noise reduction at distant receptors.
17 TABLE 5 Typical Ranges of Construction Noise Levels at 50 Feet, Leq (dBA) Domestic Housing
Office Building,
Hotel, Hospital,
School, Public
Works
Industrial
Parking Garage,
Religious
Amusement &
Recreations,
Store, Service
Station
Public Works
Roads &
Highways,
Sewers, and
Trenches
I II I II I II I II
Ground
Clearing 83 83 84 84 84 83 84 84
Excavation 88 75 89 79 89 71 88 78
Foundations 81 81 78 78 77 77 88 88
Erection 81 65 87 75 84 72 79 78
Finishing 88 72 89 75 89 74 84 84
I - All pertinent equipment present at site.
II - Minimum required equipment present at site.
Source: U.S.E.P.A., Legal Compilation on Noise, Vol. 1, p. 2-104, 1973.
TABLE 6 Construction Equipment 50-foot Noise Emission Limits Equipment Category Lmax Level (dBA)1,2 Impact/Continuous Arc Welder
Auger Drill Rig
Backhoe
Bar Bender
Boring Jack Power Unit
Chain Saw
Compressor3
Compressor (other)
Concrete Mixer
Concrete Pump
Concrete Saw
Concrete Vibrator
Crane
Dozer
Excavator
Front End Loader
Generator
Generator (25 KVA or less)
Gradall
Grader
Grinder Saw
Horizontal Boring Hydro Jack
Hydra Break Ram
Impact Pile Driver
Insitu Soil Sampling Rig
Jackhammer
73 85
80 80
80 85
70 80
85 82
90 80
85 85
85 80
82 70
85 85
85 80
90 105
84 85
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Impact
Impact
Continuous
Impact
18 Equipment Category Lmax Level (dBA)1,2 Impact/Continuous Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram)
Paver
Pneumatic Tools
Pumps
Rock Drill
Scraper
Slurry Trenching Machine
Soil Mix Drill Rig
Street Sweeper
Tractor
Truck (dump, delivery)
Vacuum Excavator Truck (vac-truck)
Vibratory Compactor
Vibratory Pile Driver
All other equipment with engines larger than 5
HP
90 85
85 77
85 85
82 80
80 84
84 85
80 95
85 Impact
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Notes:
1 Measured at 50 feet from the construction equipment, with a “slow” (1 sec.) time constant. 2 Noise limits apply to total noise emitted from equipment and associated components operating at full power while engaged in its intended operation. 3 Portable Air Compressor rated at 75 cfm or greater and that operates at greater than 50 psi.
The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was used to calculate the hourly average noise levels anticipated for the worst-case scenario for each construction phase, based on the equipment list provided by the applicant at the time of this study. RCNM includes representative sound levels for the most common types of construction equipment and the approximate usage factors of such equipment that were developed based on an extensive database of information gathered during the construction of the Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston, Massachusetts (CA/T Project or "Big Dig"). The usage factors represent the percentage of time that the equipment would be operating at full power. To estimate the worstcase scenario for each phase of the proposed project, it was assumed that all equipment provided for each phase would operate simultaneously. RCNM calculated construction noise levels ranging from 84 to 86 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the source, which corresponded well with the EPA’s typical range of construction noise levels for domestic housing.
Table 7 summarizes all equipment and quantities expected to be used for each construction phase, the duration of each phase, and the estimated worst-case scenario noise levels expected at the property lines of the nearest surrounding noise-sensitive land use. Construction equipment would likely be spread throughout the sites, but for purposes of modeling the worst-case scenario, all equipment was assumed to be operating in relatively the same area, with the geometrical center of construction equipment being the center of the construction site. Therefore, the propagation distances were estimated from the center of the active construction site to the property lines of the surrounding receptors. No shielding effects were assumed for the estimated noise levels shown in Table 7.
19 TABLE 7 Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Land Uses Phase Construction
Equipment (Quantity)
Calculated Hourly Average Leq, dBA
Source
(50 feet)
West
Commercial
(180 ft)
North
Residential
(200 ft)
East and
South
Residential/
Commercial
(300 ft)
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saw (1)
Excavator (1)
Rubber Tired Dozer (1)
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1)
86 75 74 70
Site
Preparation
Grader (1)
Rubber Tired Dozer (1)
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1)
85 74 73 69
Grading/
Excavation
Excavator (1)
Grader (1)
Rubber Tired Dozer (1)
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (2)
86 75 74 70
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixer (1)
Paver (1)
Paving Equipment (1)
Roller (1)
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1)
84 73 72 68
Bridge
Construction
Drill Rig (1)
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (2)
Crane (1)
Forklift (1)
Cement and Mortar Mixers (3)
Aerial Lift (1)
Concrete Boom Pump (1)
85 74 73 69
The nearest commercial receptors to the west (approximately 180 feet from the acoustic center of the project site) would be exposed to average construction noise levels ranging from 73 to 75 dBA Leq, and the nearest commercial receptors to the south (approximately 300 feet from the acoustic center of the project site) would be exposed to average construction noise levels ranging from 68 to 70 dBA Leq. The nearest residential land uses would be approximately 200 feet north or 300 feet east and would be exposed to average construction noise levels ranging from 68 to 74 dBA Leq.
General Plan Action N-1d suggests the following best practices for control of construction noise:
• Noise-generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the construction site for any purpose, shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. No construction shall occur on National holidays. • All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
20 • At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from residences. • Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited for a duration of longer than five minutes.
• Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noisesensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction activities, to the extent feasible.
• Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing.
• The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for determining the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, poor muffler, etc.) and instituting reasonable measures as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.
The above standard construction best management practices can be incorporated into the project specifications to reduce noise levels emanating from the site and to minimize disruption and annoyance at existing noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. Reasonable regulation of the hours of construction, as well as regulation of the arrival and operation of heavy equipment and the delivery of construction material, are necessary to protect the health and safety of persons, promote the general welfare of the community, and maintain the quality of life. Implementation of the above standard construction controls would reduce construction noise levels emanating from the site, minimizing disruption and annoyance. The implementation of these standard controls would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact 1b: Permanent Noise Level Increase. The proposed project is not expected to cause a substantial permanent traffic noise level increase at the existing residential land uses in the project vicinity. This is a less-than-significant impact.
According to the City of Milpitas General Plan a significant impact would occur if the project generated a noise level increase of more than 5 dBA where existing traffic noise levels are 60 dBA Ldn or less, an increase of 3 dBA or more where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 60 dBA Ldn and up to 65 dBA Ldn, or a noise level increase of more than 1.5 dBA Ldn where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dBA Ldn. Based on to the long-term noise measurement data, the existing traffic noise levels ranted from 56 dBA Ldn to 65 dBA Ldn; therefore, a significant impact would occur if traffic due to the proposed project would permanently increase noise levels by up to 3 dBA Ldn.
21 The project’s traffic study included AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the existing, near term (with and without the project), and 2040 (with and without the project) traffic scenarios. The noise increase attributable to the project was calculated by comparing the near term with project traffic volumes to the near term without project volumes, and the 2040 with project traffic volumes to the 2040 without project volumes. Based on these comparisons, a traffic noise increase of up to 1 dBA Ldn would be expected as a result of the project along S. Milpitas Boulevard, south of E.
Capital Avenue. Along every other roadway segment included in the traffic study, a noise level increase of less than 1 dBA Ldn or less was calculated. This does not represent a significant permanent noise level increase as traffic noise levels would not increase by 3 dBA Ldn or more.
In addition, 2040 traffic noise levels with the project were modeled along area roadways to quantify the future noise level anticipated at existing and planned multi-family residential land uses in the project vicinity. The results of the modeling indicated that traffic noise levels would be 60 dBA Ldn or less at a distance of 33 feet from the centerline of the roadway. This distance represents the minimum setback of existing and planned multi-family residential land uses in the project vicinity. The predicted future traffic noise levels would fall below the 65 dBA Ldn normally acceptable noise and land use compatibility threshold established by the City of Milpitas for new multi-family housing projects, therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on sensitive receptors in the area.
Mitigation Measure 1b: None required.
Impact 2: Generation of Excessive Groundborne Vibration due to Construction.
Construction-related vibration levels are not anticipated to exceed 0.3 in/sec PPV at the nearest structures. This is a less-than-significant impact.
The City of Milpitas does not specify a construction vibration limit. For structural damage, the California Department of Transportation recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec PPV for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, 0.3 in/sec PPV for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern, and a conservative limit of 0.25 in/sec PPV for historic and some old buildings (see Table 3). The
0.5 in/sec PPV threshold would apply to recently constructed buildings to the north (Anton Ascend and Anton Aspire Apartments) and east (Tarob Court Apartments), while the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold would apply to the remaining buildings to the south and west (existing commercial and industrial buildings).
Table 8 presents typical vibration levels from construction equipment at 25, 50, 75, 100 and 125 feet, which represent distances to existing buildings in the project vicinity. Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. Vibration levels are highest close to the source, and then attenuate with increasing distance at the rate (Dref/D)1.1, where D is the distance from the source in feet and Dref is the reference distance of 25 feet.
22 TABLE 8 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
PPV
at 25 ft.
(in/sec)
PPV
at 50 ft.
(in/sec)
PPV
at 75 ft.
(in/sec)
PPV
at 100 ft.
(in/sec)
PPV
at 125 ft.
(in/sec)
Clam shovel drop 0.202 0.094 0.060 0.044 0.034
Hydromill
(slurry wall)
In soil 0.008 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.001
In rock 0.017 0.008 0.005 0.004 0.003
Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.098 0.063 0.046 0.036
Hoe Ram 0.089 0.042 0.027 0.019 0.015
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.042 0.027 0.019 0.015
Caisson drilling 0.089 0.042 0.027 0.019 0.015
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.035 0.023 0.017 0.013
Jackhammer 0.035 0.016 0.010 0.008 0.006
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2018, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., October 2021.
Project construction activities, such as drilling, the use of jackhammers, rock drills and other highpower or vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, etc.) may generate substantial vibration in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. However, as indicated in Table 8, none of these construction activities would be anticipated to exceed 0.5 in/sec PPV or 0.3 in/sec PPV at the nearest structures as all work would occur at distances of 25 feet or greater. The nearest residential land uses to the north would include the Anton Ascend and Anton Aspire Apartments, and the nearest residential land uses to the east would include the Tarob Court Apartments. These apartments would be as close as 25 to 50 feet from project work areas and exposed to worst-case vibration levels of 0.210 in/sec PPV, which is below the 0.5 in/sec PPV threshold for structurally sound buildings designed to modern engineering standards.
Commercial/industrial buildings to the south and west (i.e., 328, 349, 355, and 1700 Sango Court, and 1905 Tarob Court) would also be as close as 25 to 50 feet from project work areas and exposed to worst-case vibration levels of 0.210 in/sec PPV, which is below the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern. Vibration levels would attenuate with distance as shown in Table 8, so as work proceeds away from adjacent buildings, the resulting vibration levels would be less. Vibration levels due to demolition and construction activities associated with the project may be perceptible to occupants but would not be anticipated to cause cosmetic or structural damage to the nearest buildings and would not be considered excessive. This is a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 2: None required.
Impact 3: Excessive Aircraft Noise. The project site is located approximately 4 miles from the nearest airport, and the proposed project would not expose people working at the site to excessive aircraft noise. This is a less-than-significant impact.
Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport is a public-use airport located approximately 3 miles southwest of the project site. The City of San Jose’s Airport Master plan provides the 2037 Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport noise contour map included in this report as
23 Figure 4 1 Figure 4 shows that the project site lies well outside the 2037 60 dBA CNEL noise contour of the airport.. This means future exterior noise levels due to aircraft would not exceed 60 dBA CNEL/Ldn. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people working at the site to excessive aircraft noise. This is a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 3: None required.
1 David J. Powers & Associates, Inc., Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report, Amendment to Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport Master Plan, April 2020.
24 FIGURE 4 2037 CNEL Noise Contours for SJC Relative to Project Site 60 CNEL
60 CNEL
Project
Site
Memorandum
Date: October 1, 2021
To: City of Milpitas
From: Brett Walinski, TE
Eric Tse, PE, PTOE
Subject: Transportation Analysis for the Penitencia Creek Bridge Project Introduction
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed this transportation analysis for the proposed extension of Milpitas Boulevard over Penitencia Creek. The project would construct a new 2-lane vehicular bridge, with sidewalks and bike space over Penitencia Creek at the end of Milpitas Boulevard, west of Capitol Avenue. The bridge would be part of the Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP) to provide vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian connectivity between various developments and the Milpitas Transit Center. The proposed bridge would terminate at a proposed roadway connecting Tarob Court and Sango Court, also part of the project. The project location and study intersections are shown on Figure 1, and the proposed bridge cross-section is shown on Figure 2.
This study includes analysis required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including vehicle-miles traveled, and impacts to bikes, pedestrians, and transit as well as off-site intersection analysis and circulation analysis, which was requested by City staff to document potential project benefits.
Existing Transportation Setting
The project vicinity is bounded by the major roadways of Montague Expressway, Capitol Avenue, and Trade Zone Boulevard. Within the project area, primary public streets include Sango Court, Tarob Court, Milpitas Boulevard, and Lundy Place. These roadways are described below.
Montague Expressway is an east-west roadway that starts at the intersection of Scott Boulevard and San Tomas Expressway in the west and ends at the intersection of S. Park Victoria Drive/Morrill Avenue and Landess Avenue in the east. This facility is primarily a six to eight lane expressway and connects the following freeways: U.S. Highway 101 (US 101), Interstate 880 (I-880), and Interstate 680 (I-680). During the AM peak period from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., one westbound through lane is restricted for high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) use. During the PM peak period from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., one eastbound lane is restricted for HOV use. The HOV lanes are discontinued at the US 101 and I-880 interchanges and terminate just west of Great Mall Parkway-Capitol Avenue intersection.
Penitencia Creek Bridge Project - Transportation Analysis P a g e | 2
Capitol Avenue is a north-south, six-lane divided arterial roadway in the project vicinity extending from Montague Expressway in the north, where it becomes Great Mall Parkway, to San Jose in the south. It provides direct access to the project area and the Milpitas Transit Center via its intersection with Milpitas Boulevard. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) light-rail transit (LRT) service is provided along the median of Great Mall Parkway along an elevated platform.
Trade Zone Boulevard is an east-west, four-lane roadway, extending from Montague Expressway in the west to Capitol Avenue in the east. It provides access to the project vicinity via Lundy Place and several local residential streets within the TASP.
Milpitas Boulevard is a two-lane, north-south roadway south of Capitol Avenue, and a four lane east-west, roadway serving the Milpitas BART station north of Capitol Avenue. South of Capitol Avenue, it currently terminates at Penitencia Creek. The proposed bridge project would extend this roadway over Penitencia Creek eventually linking to planned extensions to Sango Court and Tarob Court.
Tarob Court is a two-lane roadway extending west from Lundy Place. It provides access to the office/industrial buildings located to the west of Lundy Place and terminates in a cul-desac approximately 800 feet west of Lundy Place. Tarob Court provides direct access to the project site via a single driveway.
Lundy Place is a north-south, two-lane roadway extending from the Union Pacific Railroad tracks in the north to Trade Zone Boulevard in the south, where it becomes Lundy Avenue.
Lundy Place terminates in a cul-de-sac approximately 650 feet north of Tarob Court.
Sango Court is a two-lane roadway extending east from Montague Expressway. It provides access to existing office/industrial buildings and terminates in a cul-de-sac approximately 500 feet east of Montague Expressway.
Existing bicycle access to the project vicinity is provided primarily via a network of nearby Class II bike lanes and Class III bike routes which are shared with vehicular traffic. Buffered Class II bike lanes are provided along Trade Zone Boulevard. Conventional Class II bike lanes are present on Lundy Avenue south of Trade Zone Boulevard, McCandless Drive, and Capitol Avenue. Existing Class III bike routes are present on Montague Expressway. A full description of existing bike lanes in the project area is provided in the City of Milpitas Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan.
The signalized intersections serving the project vicinity generally provide crosswalks and the majority of streets in the project vicinity generally provide sidewalks, except at the following locations:
Trade Zone Boulevard has intermittetend sidewalks
West side of Lundy Avenue, just north of Trade Zone Bouelvard Both sides of Sango Court
West side of Tarob Court
Montague Expy
S Main St
Trade Zone Blvd
McCandless Dr
Trimble Rd
Lakewood Dr
Autumnvale Dr
Great Mall Pkwy
Great Mall Dr
S Abel St
Lundy Pl
Sango Ct
Lundy Ave
San
Jose
Milpitas
4 1
5 3
2 Tarob Ct
Northwood Dr Northwood Dr
Journey St
Expedition Dr Expedition Dr
Ringwood Ave Ringwood Ave
Centre Pointe Dr Centre Pointe Dr
Lee Way
Canal St
Falcon Dr
Piper Dr
S Milpitas Blvd
E Capitol Ave
Tarob Ct
Northwood Dr
Journey St
Expedition Dr
Ringwood Ave
Centre Pointe Dr
Lee Way
Canal St
Falcon Dr
Piper Dr
S Milpitas Blvd
E Capitol Ave
X = Study Intersection
= Planned Future Street Network
= Proposed Project
LEGEND
Penitencia Creek
Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Figure 1
Site Location and Study Intersections
Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Figure 2
Proposed Bridge Cross-Section
Source: Cornerstone Structural Engineering Group, Inc., April 1, 2020.
Penitencia Creek Bridge Project - Transportation Analysis P a g e | 5
Existing transit service in the project area includes VTA buses, Light Rail (LRT), and BART.
These are primarily located at the Milpitas Transit center, which includes the Milpitas BART station, a park-and-ride lot, the Montague LRT station, and several bus routes at a bus transfer facility. This is located approximately 600 feet north of the proposed bridge. VTA light-rail runs in the median of Great Mall Parkway/Capitol Avenue, and BART provides regional access to San Jose, Fremont, Oakland, and San Francisco, with future service planned to Downtown San Jose and Santa Clara. Service schedules for transit service have been evolving due to the effects of COVID, but current route maps and service frequencies can be found at VTA.org and BART.gov.
VMT Analysis
Senate Bill (SB) 743 has changed the primary metric for identifying transportation impacts under CEQA from vehicle level of service (LOS) to daily vehicle-miles travelled (VMT). The City of Milpitas, as the lead agency for this CEQA document, has adopted guidelines to identify VMT impacts. These guidelines were largely based on the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidelines published in its Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. The City and OPR guidelines allow for screening of projects that would not generate substantial VMT demand. City guidelines state that several types of roadway projects are exempt from quantitative VMT analysis, including projects that result in the:
Addition of roadway capacity on local or collector streets provided the project also substantially improves conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and, if applicable, transit.
The proposed project would primarily link land uses within the TASP area to the surrounding roadway network, resulting in the overall shortening of trips through the area. The bridge would be a two-lane facility with one lane in each direction and would serve as the extension Milpitas Boulevard. According to the TASP, the bridge segment, and the link between Tarob Court and Sango Court, would be considered local streets.
The proposed bridge would include 11-foot travel lanes, 6-foot shoulder areas for bikes, and 6- foot sidewalks for pedestrians on both sides of the street, improving access between the surrounding land uses and the Milpitas BART station (located less than 1,000 feet to the north).
The connecting roadway (Tarob Court to Sango Court) would be constructed within a 52-foot right of way that includes 11-foot-wide travel lanes for both vehicles and bicycles in each direction, an 8-foot wide vehicle parking aisle on one side of the street, 7-foot-wide planting strip and 5-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of the street. Given the nature of the surrounding area and proximity to BART, as well as the project’s bike/pedestrian friendly design, it meets the City’s criteria to support the finding that the project’s impacts would be less than significant.
To determine quantitatively whether the project would shorten vehicular trips, the Milpitas Travel Demand Forecast (TDF) Model was utilized to determine roadway VMT with and without the project, under existing plus approved and year 2040 conditions. The Milpitas TDF model is a refinement of the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) countywide TDF model, which was developed during the City’s General Plan update. It is an approved tool for estimating VMT within the City of Milpitas. Existing plus approved conditions represent existing traffic and land uses, plus approved development in the project vicinity. It is hereafter referred to as near-term conditions. The results are presented in Table 1, which show the change in daily VMT and VHT (vehicle-hours-traveled) within the Milpitas TASP area.
Penitencia Creek Bridge Project - Transportation Analysis P a g e | 6
Table 1
VMT within the Project Vicinity
The near-term and year 2040 forecasts support the premise that the bridge would serve primarily local traffic and reduce VMT. The data show that the proposed bridge would reduce the daily VMT in the area by 285 in the near term and by 345 by year 2040. Similarly, daily vehicle-hours of travel would also decrease, by 9.8 hours and 11.0 hours in the near-term and year 2040, respectively. Note that the 2040 VMT is slightly less in year 2040 compared to the near-term, even though there is more development assumed in the TSAP area in year 2040. The reduction in VMT is caused by: (1) higher development densities in the TSAP area which increases nonmotorized travel and transit use; (2) increased congestion of the roadway system making transit more attractive; and (3) Phase II BART extension to San Jose and Santa Clara, which includes four new BART stations and BART trains running on more frequent headways.
Impacts to Bikes, Pedestrians and Transit
Nearly all of the streets within the study area include sidewalks, curb ramps, and crosswalks at major intersections. In addition, there are existing bike lanes in the area on Capitol Avenue, Lundy Avenue, Trade Zone Boulevard, and Milpitas Boulevard. According to the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Technical Guidelines, a project would create an impact on pedestrian and bike circulation if: (1) it would reduce, sever or eliminate existing or planned bike/pedestrian access and circulation in the area; (2) it would preclude, modify, or otherwise affect proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects and/or policies identified in an adopted plan; or (3) it would cause a change to existing bike paths such as alignment, width of the trail ROW, or length of the trail.
The City of Milpitas Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan was reviewed to insure project conformance. The plan does not show any planned improvements within the TASP area bounded by Capitol Avenue, Trade Zone Boulevard, and Montague Expressway. This is likely because bike and pedestrian improvements are already specified in the TASP, which includes various policies:
Policy 3.15: Review individual development applications to ensure that adequate street right-of-way, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities and landscaping are provided and are consistent with the Transit Area Plan circulation policies and street design standards. Policy 3.27: Every resident of the Transit Area shall be able to safely walk and bike to the BART and VTA light rail stations. As projects are constructed, make sure that all the routes described below are continuous and designed to be attractive and safe for pedestrians.
Policy 3.28: Provide continuous bicycle circulation through the project site and to adjacent areas by closing existing gaps in bicycle lanes and bicycle routes.
No Bridge w/ Bridge Difference No Bridge w/ Bridge Difference Near- Term 83,658 83,373 -285 2,087 2,078
2040 83,042 82,697 -345 2,272 2,261
Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Daily Vehicle Hours Traveled Scenario
-9.8
-11.0
Penitencia Creek Bridge Project - Transportation Analysis P a g e | 7
Policy 3.29: A Class III bicycle route shall be created on the internal roadways (from the Milpitas Boulevard Extension/Capitol Avenue intersection to Tarob Court) to provide a continuous bicycle connection between Milpitas Boulevard and the existing bicycle lanes on Lundy Street.
Policy 3.30: Maintain pedestrian and biking facilities.
Figure 3-5 in the TASP shows a proposed bike/pedestrian trail running along Penitencia Creek and Milpitas Boulevard (south of Capitol Avenue). The proposed Penitencia Creek bridge is shown in the TASP as a Class III Bike route and is classified on Figure 5-1 as “Typical Residential Street.” While the TASP does not provide specific details for bridge design, Figure 5- 9 in the TASP shows recommended design guidelines for “New Local Streets,” which includes 11-foot travel lanes and 5-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of the street.
The proposed bridge would include 6-foot shoulder areas for bikes and 6-foot sidewalks for pedestrians on both sides of the street, which exceeds the standards outlined in the TASP. The connecting segment between Tarob Court and Sango Court would meet the TASP guidelines.
Overall, the proposed project would improve access for bikes and pedestrians between the surrounding land uses and the Milpitas BART station, Montague Light Rail station, and BART bus transfer facility. Without the proposed bridge, walking distances for land uses south of Penitencia Creek to the Milpitas Transit Center area would be increased considerably. The project design would not modify any existing pedestrian or bikeway facilities, nor would it preclude other planned improvements in the area. It is also consistent with the design guidelines identified in the TASP. Thus, the project would result in a less than significant impact to bikes and pedestrians.
There are several transit services available in the project vicinity. These are primarily located at the Milpitas Transit center, which includes the Milpitas BART station, a park-and-ride lot, the Montague Light Rail station, and several bus routes at a bus transfer facility. According to the VTA TIA Technical Guidelines, a project would create an impact on transit if: (1) it would cause a permanent or temporary reduction of transit availability or interference with existing transit users (relocation/closure of a transit stop or vacation of a roadway utilized by transit) or (2) result in significant delays in transit service.
The project, by itself, would not preclude, modify or otherwise affect existing or proposed transit projects or policies identified by the VTA. As a roadway improvement linking various surrounding uses, the bridge project would not increase transit delay, but could reduce bus delays on surrounding streets by shortening the length of roadway trips in the project vicinity (see VMT discussion). Overall, the bridge project would increase transit accessibility by providing a more convenient bike and pedestrian link to the surrounding transit uses. Thus, the proposed bridge project would result in a less than significant impact to transit service.
Level of Service Analysis
A level of service analysis was conducted in the project vicinity to determine the effects of the proposed project on intersection delays. This analysis was requested by City staff and is provided for informational purposes, as in accordance with state guidelines, the metric used determine environmental impacts is VMT. The analysis evaluated level of service at the following major intersections nearby, with and without the proposed vehicular bridge over Penitencia Creek:
1. East Capitol Avenue and Milpitas Boulevard
2. Trade Zone Boulevard and Lundy Avenue
3. Montague Expressway and Trade Zone Boulevard
4. Montague Expressway and Great Mall Parkway
Penitencia Creek Bridge Project - Transportation Analysis P a g e | 8
5. Montague Expressway and Sango Court
These locations were evaluated under near-term (existing plus approved) and year 2040 conditions during the AM (7-9) and PM (4-6) peak periods. The baseline roadway network in the project area also reflects a future two lane roadway connection between Sango Court and Expedition Lane (see Figure 3). Traffic volumes were estimated from the aforementioned Milpitas TDF model, which reflects traffic generation volumes pre-Covid (see Figures 4 through 8). The land uses within the model within the project vicinity were updated based on current development plans supplied by City of Milpitas staff. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 2.
The results show that, generally, the project would increase the amount of traffic and delays at the intersection of Capitol Avenue and Milpitas Boulevard, as residents west of the proposed bridge access Capitol Avenue. In addition, the proposed bridge would generally decrease or maintain the delays along Montague Expressway, with the largest delay decreases occurring at the intersection of Montague Expressway and Trade Zone Boulevard.
TASP Site Circulation
At the request of City staff, a site circulation analysis was conducted to evaluate the connectivity within the TASP in the vicinity of the proposed bridge. As previously described, the baseline roadway network reflects a future two lane roadway connection between Sango Court and Expedition Lane (see also Figure 1). Another planned connection would link Tarob Court to Journey Street via the extension of Expedition Lane. This link could provide vehicular connectivity, or could be designated as bike and pedestrian only, depending on the design and layout of future project-specific development plans. A vehicular link would be ideal, as it would provide many residences west of Journey Street with convenient access to the existing traffic signal at Lundy Avenue/Trade Zone Boulevard. The alternative would be to make left turns from Momentum Drive and Journey Street to Trade Zone Boulevard, which can be difficult during peak hours due to roadway congestion on Trade Zone Boulevard. Both of these roadway links would be undertaken as the surrounding properties are redeveloped and would include pedestrian and bike elements consistent with TASP design guidelines.
The proposed vehicular bridge link would have several potential benefits. First, it would provide access for the properties south of Penitencia Creek to Milpitas Boulevard, Capitol Avenue, and the Milpitas Transit Center, via the signalized intersection at Capitol Avenue/Milpitas Boulevard.
Second, it would allow properties north of Penitencia Creek direct access to the signalized intersection at Lundy Avenue and Trade Zone Avenue as a means to reach the industrial areas south of Trade Zone Boulevard. Without the proposed project, more traffic would be routed through the intersections of Montague Expressway/Capitol Avenue and Trade Zone Boulevard/Montague Expressway, which are congested facilities during peak commute periods (see also Level of Service Analysis section above). There would be considerable vehicular demand for the proposed bridge. Traffic volumes on the bridge were forecasted to be 700 daily trips (52 AM peak hour trips and 79 PM peak hour trips) under near term conditions and 800 daily vehicle trips (98 AM peak hour trips and 121 PM peak hour trips) by year 2040. The bridge would also reduce the daily vehicle-hours of travel within the neighborhood by 11 hours by year 2040.
Montague Expy
S Main St
Trade Zone Blvd
McCandless Dr
Trimble Rd
Lakewood Dr
Autumnvale Dr
Great Mall Pkwy
Great Mall Dr
S Abel St
Lundy Pl
Sango Ct
Lundy Ave
San
Jose
Milpitas
4 1
5 3
2 Tarob Ct
Northwood Dr Northwood Dr
Journey St
Expedition Dr
Ringwood Ave Ringwood Ave
Centre Pointe Dr Centre Pointe Dr
Lee Way
Canal St
Falcon Dr
Piper Dr
S Milpitas Blvd
E Capitol Ave
Tarob Ct
Northwood Dr
Journey St
Expedition Dr
Ringwood Ave
Centre Pointe Dr
Lee Way
Canal St
Falcon Dr
Piper Dr
S Milpitas Blvd
E Capitol Ave
X = Study Intersection
= Future Streets for Vehicle Travel
= Potential Future Street for Vehicle Travel
LEGEND
Penitencia Creek
= Proposed Project
Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Figure 3
Existing and Planned Roadway Network
Montague Expy
S Main St
Trade Zone Blvd
McCandless Dr
Trimble Rd
Lakewood Dr
Autumnvale Dr
Great Mall Pkwy
Great Mall Dr
S Abel St
Lundy Pl
Sango Ct
San
Jose
Milpitas
4 1
5 3
2 Tarob Ct
Lundy Ave
Northwood Dr Northwood Dr
Journey St
Ringwood Ave Ringwood Ave
Centre Pointe Dr Centre Pointe Dr
Lee Way
Canal St
Falcon Dr
Piper Dr
S Milpitas Blvd
E Capitol Ave
Expedition Dr
Tarob Ct
Lundy Ave
Northwood Dr
Journey St
Ringwood Ave
Centre Pointe Dr
Lee Way
Canal St
Falcon Dr
Piper Dr
S Milpitas Blvd
E Capitol Ave
Expedition Dr
Penitencia Creek
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
X = Study Intersection
= Planned Future Street Network
= Proposed Project
LEGEND
Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Figure 4
Existing Traffic Volumes
1 E. Capitol
Ave
2 LundyAve
3 Zone
Blvd
Trade
Montague
Expwy
ZoneBlvd
4 Montague
Expwy
5 MontagueExpwy
7(22)
325(335)
50(57)
39(39)
193(888)
14(38)
24(54)
3(6)
18(32)
30(19)
9(16)
6(15) 104(288)
5(7)
133(427)
15(25)14(12)14(31)
692(339)
910(208)
46(8)
11(5)
185(898)
204(433)
832(544)
26(73)
79(170)
337(80)68(128)31(32)
69(208)
1756(853)
26(73)
27(84)
615(1767)
488(1253)
167(77)
614(251)
125(171)
349(624)
135(1320)
60(67)
50(321)
2015(961)
846(396)
159(182)
593(1520)
75(320)
15(25)
761(1974)
15(19)
Trade
S.
Milpitas
Blvd
McCandless
Dr
Great
Mall
Pkwy
E. Capitol
Ave
Sango
Ct
Montague Expy
S Main St
Trade Zone Blvd
McCandless Dr
Trimble Rd
Lakewood Dr
Autumnvale Dr
Great Mall Pkwy
Great Mall Dr
S Abel St
Lundy Pl
Sango Ct
San
Jose
Milpitas
4 1
5 3
2 Tarob Ct
Lundy Ave
Northwood Dr Northwood Dr
Journey St
Ringwood Ave Ringwood Ave
Centre Pointe Dr Centre Pointe Dr
Lee Way
Canal St
Falcon Dr
Piper Dr
S Milpitas Blvd
E Capitol Ave
Expedition Dr
Tarob Ct
Lundy Ave
Northwood Dr
Journey St
Ringwood Ave
Centre Pointe Dr
Lee Way
Canal St
Falcon Dr
Piper Dr
S Milpitas Blvd
E Capitol Ave
Expedition Dr
Penitencia Creek
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
X = Study Intersection
= Planned Future Street Network
= Proposed Project
LEGEND
Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Figure 5
Near Term No Project Traffic Volumes
1 E. Capitol
Ave
2 LundyAve
3 Zone
Blvd
Trade
Montague
Expwy
ZoneBlvd
4 Montague
Expwy
5 MontagueExpwy
25(67)
327(345)
54(65)
55(73)
211(913)
40(122)
27(57)
11(28)
54(52)
112(61)
28(28)
33(37) 113(306)
12(18)
142(436)
26(31)30(24)19(49)
706(354)
931(273)
62(16)
15(17)
232(932)
220(446)
909(626)
43(85)
96(202)
435(83)78(159)34(42)
90(221)
1892(909)
27(75)
38(184)
657(1898)
549(1327)
263(113)
634(271)
125(171)
415(653)
158(1382)
66(72)
57(340)
2034(1018)
880(396)
190(219)
635(1544)
91(378)
76(71) 803(2100) 48(81)
Trade
S.
Milpitas
Blvd
McCandless
Dr
Great
Mall
Pkwy
E. Capitol
Ave
Sango
Ct
Montague Expy
S Main St
Trade Zone Blvd
McCandless Dr
Trimble Rd
Lakewood Dr
Autumnvale Dr
Great Mall Pkwy
Great Mall Dr
S Abel St
Lundy Pl
Sango Ct
San
Jose
Milpitas
4 1
5 3
2 Tarob Ct
Lundy Ave
Northwood Dr Northwood Dr
Journey St
Ringwood Ave Ringwood Ave
Centre Pointe Dr Centre Pointe Dr
Lee Way
Canal St
Falcon Dr
Piper Dr
S Milpitas Blvd
E Capitol Ave
Expedition Dr
Tarob Ct
Lundy Ave
Northwood Dr
Journey St
Ringwood Ave
Centre Pointe Dr
Lee Way
Canal St
Falcon Dr
Piper Dr
S Milpitas Blvd
E Capitol Ave
Expedition Dr
Penitencia Creek
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
X = Study Intersection
= Planned Future Street Network
= Proposed Project
LEGEND
Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Figure 6
Near Term Plus Project Traffic Volumes
1 E. Capitol
Ave
2 LundyAve
3 Zone
Blvd
Trade
Montague
Expwy
ZoneBlvd
4 Montague
Expwy
5 MontagueExpwy
45(76)
325(343)
53(65)
55(73)
211(911)
45(130)
27(57)
21(44)
54(52)
114(75)
34(37)
32(56) 113(306)
10(16)
142(436)
23(29)35(23)16(32)
703(354)
930(266)
46(11)
14(13)
232(932)
220(446)
904(617)
41(83)
93(194)
435(83)76(152)33(41)
86(217)
1894(915)
27(75)
38(184)
665(1907)
539(1317)
258(119)
638(277)
125(171)
415(653)
164(1391)
65(71)
57(341)
2025(1010)
880(396)
189(219)
631(1538)
90(376)
78(66) 799(2095) 47(81)
Trade
S.
Milpitas
Blvd
McCandless
Dr
Great
Mall
Pkwy
E. Capitol
Ave
Sango
Ct
Montague Expy
S Main St
Trade Zone Blvd
McCandless Dr
Trimble Rd
Lakewood Dr
Autumnvale Dr
Great Mall Pkwy
Great Mall Dr
S Abel St
Lundy Pl
Sango Ct
San
Jose
Milpitas
4 1
5 3
2 Tarob Ct
Lundy Ave
Northwood Dr Northwood Dr
Journey St
Ringwood Ave Ringwood Ave
Centre Pointe Dr Centre Pointe Dr
Lee Way
Canal St
Falcon Dr
Piper Dr
S Milpitas Blvd
E Capitol Ave
Expedition Dr
Tarob Ct
Lundy Ave
Northwood Dr
Journey St
Ringwood Ave
Centre Pointe Dr
Lee Way
Canal St
Falcon Dr
Piper Dr
S Milpitas Blvd
E Capitol Ave
Expedition Dr
Penitencia Creek
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
X = Study Intersection
= Planned Future Street Network
= Proposed Project
LEGEND
Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Figure 7
Year 2040 No Project Traffic Volumes
1 E. Capitol
Ave
2 LundyAve
3 Zone
Blvd
Trade
Montague
Expwy
ZoneBlvd
4 Montague
Expwy
5 MontagueExpwy
21(56)
325(731)
420(375)
834(930)
519(1071)
34(59)
118(461)
16(42)
678(1038)
87(53)
33(49)
28(46) 267(562)
8(22)
164(694)
15(30)28(20)19(40)
759(353)
1015(266)
51(15)
14(5)
237(930)
809(556)
881(588)425(463)157(392)
354(80)146(268)41(54)
568(411)
2379(2091)
38(77)
27(129)
1429(2898)
526(1299)
428(702)
907(1041)
125(171)
395(624)
822(2033)
60(67)
58(346)
2985(1845)
846(396)
190(213)
1084(2459)
513(680)
99(83) 1653(3295) 47(101)
Trade
S.
Milpitas
Blvd
McCandless
Dr
Great
Mall
Pkwy
E. Capitol
Ave
Sango
Ct
Montague Expy
S Main St
Trade Zone Blvd
McCandless Dr
Trimble Rd
Lakewood Dr
Autumnvale Dr
Great Mall Pkwy
Great Mall Dr
S Abel St
Lundy Pl
Sango Ct
San
Jose
Milpitas
4 1
5 3
2 Tarob Ct
Lundy Ave
Northwood Dr Northwood Dr
Journey St
Expedition Dr
Ringwood Ave Ringwood Ave
Centre Pointe Dr Centre Pointe Dr
Lee Way
Canal St
Falcon Dr
Piper Dr
S Milpitas Blvd
E Capitol Ave
Tarob Ct
Lundy Ave
Northwood Dr
Journey St
Expedition Dr
Ringwood Ave
Centre Pointe Dr
Lee Way
Canal St
Falcon Dr
Piper Dr
S Milpitas Blvd
E Capitol Ave
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
X = Study Intersection
= Planned Future Street Network
= Proposed Project
LEGEND
Penitencia Creek
Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Figure 8
Year 2040 Plus Project Traffic Volumes
1 E. Capitol
Ave
2 LundyAve
3 Zone
Blvd
Trade
Montague
Expwy
ZoneBlvd
4 Montague
Expwy
5 MontagueExpwy
29(58)
325(731)
418(375)
830(925)
518(1066)
38(62)
117(456)
33(72)
674(1034)
84(53)
52(65)
29(54) 266(563)
10(17)
163(694)
15(26)25(21)15(32)
758(350)
1010(261)
46(10)
12(5)
234(930)
814(558)
875(585)417(459)146(380)
354(80)143(260)40(60)
557(399)
2385(2093)
39(77)
27(129)
1431(2911)
524(1290)
421(696)
907(1041)
125(171)
395(624)
826(2036)
60(67)
57(347)
2975(1830)
846(396)
193(216)
1077(2450)
508(669)
108(77) 1643(3279) 38(110)
Trade
S.
Milpitas
Blvd
McCandless
Dr
Great
Mall
Pkwy
E. Capitol
Ave
Sango
Ct
Penitencia Creek Bridge Project - Transportation Analysis P a g e | 1 5
Table 2
Intersection Level of Service Summary
Existing No Project
Signalized Traffic Count Avg. Avg. Avg. Change in Avg. Avg. Change in No. Intersection Control Date Delay1
LOS Delay1LOS Delay1LOS Avg. Delay Delay1LOS Delay1LOS Avg. Delay 1 Capitol Avenue and
Milpitas Boulevard Signal 06/23/21 AM D 19.7 B 26.5 C 26.8 C 0.3 114.3 F 114.3 F 0.0 06/23/21 PM 15.5 B 18.7 B 20.6 C 1.9 135.7 F 139.1 F 3.4 2 Lundy Avenue and
Trade Zone Boulevard Signal 05/02/19 AM D 30.3 C 31.9 C 31.9 C 0.0 87.1 F 87.9 F 0.8 05/02/19 PM 41.8 D 49.7 D 49.8 D 0.1 77.8 E 77.7 E -0.1 3 Montague Expressway and
Trade Zone Boulevard Signal 09/17/19 AM E 97.5 F 135.3 F 134.3 F -1.0 230.9 F 225.9 F -5.0 11/08/18 PM 65.9 E 83.4 F 79.9 E -3.5 90.5 F 89.4 F -1.1 4 Montague Expressway and
Capitol Avenue Signal 05/23/21 AM E 42.4 D 45.1 D 45.1 D 0.0 56.8 E 56.7 E -0.1 11/08/18 PM 69.6 E 72.7 E 73.8 E 1.1 187.3 F 187.3 F 0.0 5 Montague Expressway and
Sango Court SSSC2
06/29/21 AM N/A 0.2/9.9 A/A 0.9/10.7 A/B 0.9/10.7 A/B 0.0/0.0 0.8/14.8 A/B 0.9/14.9 A/B 0.1/0.1 06/29/21 PM 0.2/14.5 A/B 0.5/17.3 A/C 0.5/17.1 A/B 0.0/-0.2 0.9/36.5 A/E 0.8/34.9 A/D -0.1/1.6 1 Signalized intersection level of service is based on the Highw ay Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology, using average control delay for the entire intersection. For unsignalized intersection at Montague/Sango, average intersection delay/approach w ith highest delay based on HCM methodology are show n. 2 SSSC = Side street stop control
Peak
Hour
LOS
Std.
With Project With Project
Near Term Year 2040
No Project
Penitencia Creek Bridge Project - Transportation Analysis P a g e | 1 6
Similarly, the proposed bridge project would have a beneficial impact on pedestrian and bike circulation. In addition to providing connectivity for inter-neighborhood trips and recreation, walking distances for land uses south of Penitencia Creek to the Milpitas BART station area, without the proposed bridge, would be increased by as much as 2,000 feet, which at typical walking speeds, equates to over 8 minutes of additional travel time. Reducing pedestrian and bike travel times increases the convenience of transit trips, encouraging transit ridership, and reducing the possibility that residents would drive to the BART park-and-ride.
Project Alternative
An alternative to the proposed project is to construct the bridge portion for bikes and pedestrians only (i.e. no vehicular traffic). This configuration would retain all of the bike and pedestrian benefits, including improving access to the Milpitas BART station area and providing connectivity for inter-neighborhood trips and recreation. There would be no change in VMT or LOS from existing or baseline conditions, and the project would still qualify for a CEQA exclusion as it would “substantially improve conditions” for pedestrians and cyclists. Thus, this configuration would also result in a less than significant impact.
Conclusions
The impacts of the proposed project were evaluated in accordance with City of Milpitas and State of California OPR CEQA guidelines. The project’s site circulation and level of service effects were also evaluated. This report reached the following conclusions:
The proposed vehicular bridge project would result in a less than significant impact to VMT and would reduce both VMT and VHT in the project vicinity. The proposed bridge would result in less than significant impacts to bikes, pedestrians, and transit, and would be generally benefit bike and pedestrian circulation. The proposed vehicular bridge would generally reduce vehicular delays on Montague Expressway, and increase delays at the intersection of Capitol Avenue and Milpitas Boulevard.
The proposed vehicular bridge would provide improved transportation connectivity between all the uses in the area and would comply with the design guidelines specified in the City’s TASP.
A project alternative, which includes constructing the bridge portion for bike and pedestrian use only, would also result in a less than significant CEQA impact.
Appendix
S MILPITAS BLVD S MILPITAS BLVD N CAPITOL AVE N CAPITOL AVE (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 N CAPITOL AVE & S MILPITAS BLVD AM
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2021
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour: 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:45 AM - 09:00 AM
246 386
45 83
230 382
45 19
0.88 N
S
W E
0.79 0.87
0.87 0.73
(385) (677)
(87)
(140)
(43)
(80)
(356) (664) 142613
18 3
23 9
6 30
1 0 193
52325 50
S MILPITAS BLVD
S MILPITAS BLVD
N CAPITOL AVE
N CAPITOL AVE
4 9
0 7 N
S
W E 5 4
0 0
0 4 1 6
2 0
10 6
0 0
1 1
61 0
0 1
0 1 N
S
W E
1 1
0 0 0 6
1 0
0 0 0
0 Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 5 35 1 3 29 0 7 0 0 3 0 111 1 1 0 0 1 9 13 5 498 7:15 AM 1 0 57 1 5 26 0 4 0 0 3 1 114 0 5 1 1 1 5 6 4 542 7:30 AM 3 0 52 0 5 26 0 9 3 0 1 0 125 1 1 0 0 4 8 10 4 585 7:45 AM 1 3 86 5 1 22 0 4 1 0 4 0 148 1 3 0 0 1 8 10 2 661 8:00 AM 2 0 66 3 4 40 0 5 1 0 5 1 155 3 5 0 1 4 6 13 5 718 8:15 AM 2 1 72 5 9 29 0 11 3 1 3 0 157 4 2 0 2 1 4 14 2 8:30 AM 0 0 96 2 4 63 0 5 2 0 8 1 201 0 1 0 1 0 4 14 2
8:45 AM 1 1 91 3 9 61 0 9 0 0 7 1 205 0 1 0 0 4 4 9 5
Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
Lights 2 319 48 24 189 12 0 1 5 13 28 6 9 22 3 15 696
Mediums 0 4 2 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 18
Total 0 1 5 13 30 6 9 23 3 18 2 325 50 26 193 14 718
S MILPITAS BLVD S MILPITAS BLVD N CAPITOL AVE N CAPITOL AVE (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 N CAPITOL AVE & S MILPITAS BLVD PM
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2021
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour: 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:30 PM - 05:45 PM
965 399
92 99
974 414
50 49
0.95 N
S
W E
0.97 0.81
0.91 0.78
(1,887) (808)
(194)
(169)
(81)
(77)
(1,890) (790) 382613
32 6
54 15
16 19
0 0 888 17
5335 57
S MILPITAS BLVD
S MILPITAS BLVD
N CAPITOL AVE
N CAPITOL AVE
5 13
0 4 N
S
W E 4 9
0 0
2 3 1 3
0 0
60 2
0 1
4 0
10 0
0 0
0 6 N
S
W E
0 0
0 0 2 0
6 0
0 0 0
0 Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 6 0 92 7 10 238 0 2 0 0 8 0 391 1 1 0 1 4 12 9 3 1,427 4:15 PM 4 1 80 14 7 196 0 4 2 0 14 0 354 0 3 0 0 2 8 13 9 1,422 4:30 PM 2 1 71 4 5 189 0 2 3 0 16 0 324 2 2 0 2 2 16 9 4 1,428 4:45 PM 1 3 77 4 4 218 0 3 1 0 14 1 358 1 1 0 2 2 13 7 10 1,503 5:00 PM 4 3 80 5 7 228 0 5 3 0 12 0 386 0 3 0 0 4 7 19 9 1,521 5:15 PM 1 1 83 2 8 213 0 3 3 0 16 2 360 0 2 0 2 2 7 11 8 5:30 PM 6 1 92 3 8 227 0 6 5 0 15 0 399 1 4 0 3 5 8 15 8 5:45 PM 6 0 80 3 3 220 0 5 5 0 11 4 376 3 4 0 0 4 10 12 13 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Lights 5 332 57 26 882 38 0 0 17 13 19 16 15 54 6 32 1,512 Mediums 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Total 0 0 17 13 19 16 15 54 6 32 5 335 57 26 888 38 1,521
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.
Total
0 3
2 0
0 1
2 0
8 3
Date: 05-02-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 34.9% 0.63
TOTAL 2.9% 0.91
TH RT
WB 1.5% 0.95
NB 5.0% 0.81
Peak Hour: 8:00 AM 9:00 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 4.0% 0.85
UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Trade Zone Blvd Trade Zone Blvd Lundy Ave Lundy Ave
15-min
Total
UT LT TH RT
0 76 216 13 0 15
1 1 3 399 0
7:15 AM 0 7 36 40
7:00 AM 1 2 43 27 0 46 207 9 0 27 3 29 0
0 0 3 479 0
7:45 AM 0 1 43 54
7 0 36 0 34 0
432 0
7:30 AM 0 5 46 39 0 102 207
1 25 0 0 0 3
524 1,834
8:00 AM 0 3 40 44 0 140 225
0 135 214 14 0 22 2 33 0 4 0 2
1 176 249 9 1 21
2 2 3 543 1,978
8:15 AM 0 2 41 45
13 0 27 2 42 0
3 2 5 573 2,219
8:45 AM 1 3 56 58
6 0 21 2 26 0
579 2,125
8:30 AM 0 2 48 57 0 184 217
0 25 0 3 3 3
0 191 219 18 0 34 1 40 0 6 7 4 638 2,333
Count Total 2 25 353 364 1 1,050 1,754 19 15 26 4,167 0 Peak
Hour
All 1 10 185
89 1 203 11 254 0
10 11 0 8 1 3 0 7 1 7 68 0
15 2,333 0
HV 0 2 2 12 0 4
204 1 691 910 46 1 103 5 133 0 14 14
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% 0% 20% 1% 6% 0% 1% 1% 24% 0% 8% 20% 2% - 50% 7% 47% 3% 0 0
7:15 AM 3 2 3 1 9 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 4 2 3 1 10 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 4 8 3 2 17
0 1 0 1 1 0
2 7:30 AM 4 5 5 1 15 1 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0
8:15 AM 3 4 3 3 13 0 2
1 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0
8:00 AM 4 7 1 2 14 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 4 8 5 5 22
0 0 0 0 0 2
1 8:30 AM 5 6 3 5 19 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0
2 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 0
1 5
Peak Hour 16 25 12 15 68 2 4
Count Total 31 42 26 20 119 3 4 1 0 8 1 1
1 0 7 0 0 0 3
2 0
0 0
00 00
1 0
3 1
0 3
0 0
N
Lundy Ave
Trade Zone Blvd
Trade Zone Blvd
Lundy Ave
Trade Zone Blvd
Lundy Ave
TEV: 2,333
PHF: 0.91
15 14
14 43
61 0
46 910
691
1,648
333
1 133
5 103
910
242
1 204
185
10 400
1,029
1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound
UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Trade Zone Blvd Trade Zone Blvd Lundy Ave Lundy Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 1 10 0
7:15 AM 0 2 0 1
0 0 1 0 2 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 1 2 1 0 0 2
UT LT TH RT UT LT
9 0
7:30 AM 0 0 1 3 0 1 3
0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1
0 1 3 4 0 1
0 0 1 15 0
7:45 AM 0 0 3 1
1 0 5 0 0 0
2 0 0 14 55
8:15 AM 0 1 1 1
4 0 1 0 0 0
17 51
8:00 AM 0 0 1 3 0 2 1
0 2 0 2 0 0
13 59
8:30 AM 0 1 0 4 0 1 3
0 0 3 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 1
0 1 3 4 0 4
2 0 3 19 63
8:45 AM 0 0 0 4
2 0 1 1 1 0
0 1 0 2 0 3 22 68
9 1 10 119 0
Peak Hour 0 2 2 12
Count Total 0 5 8 18 0 6 19 17 0 16 1 9 0
7:00 AM 0 0
RT
68 0
Interval
Start
Trade Zone Blvd Trade Zone Blvd Lundy Ave Lundy Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 4 10 11 0 8 1 3 0 7 1 7
LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
1 8:00 AM
0 0 0 0
1 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 3
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
4 8:30 AM
0 0 0 0 0 0 2
1 2
8:15 AM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 0 2 0 0 1 0 4 7
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 1 0 0 0 7
0 0 1 0 8 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
1 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 2 1 3 0
0 0 3 1 3 0
0 0 0
1 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.
Total
0 0
0 0
0 2
2 1
5 5
Date: 05-02-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 2.9% 0.74
TOTAL 1.2% 0.96
TH RT
WB 0.9% 0.88
NB 1.2% 0.84
Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.2% 0.93
UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Trade Zone Blvd Trade Zone Blvd Lundy Ave Lundy Ave
15-min
Total
UT LT TH RT
0 49 42 2 0 63
6 5 8 519 0
4:15 PM 0 4 214 100
4:00 PM 0 4 176 93 0 47 36 3 0 51 1 89 0
7 1 2 639 0
4:45 PM 1 4 230 106
2 0 65 0 102 0
584 0
4:30 PM 1 2 248 102 0 60 47
3 91 0 4 4 8
619 2,361
5:00 PM 0 1 186 105 0 54 47
0 41 58 1 1 64 0 102 0 6 1 4
1 45 46 1 0 51
15 3 4 634 2,476
5:15 PM 0 2 241 116
3 0 97 2 117 0
4 2 7 669 2,543
5:45 PM 0 2 245 94
1 0 80 2 104 0
621 2,513
5:30 PM 0 0 226 118 0 63 62
0 95 0 10 5 8
1 65 53 3 0 60 3 111 0 2 2 6 647 2,571
Count Total 2 19 1,766 834 2 424 391 54 23 47 4,932 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 5 898
16 1 531 11 811 0
2 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 2 31 0
25 2,571 0
HV 0 1 4 11 0 2
433 2 227 208 8 0 288 7 427 0 31 12
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 20% 0% 3% 0% 1% 1% 0% - 3% 0% 0% - 0% 0% 8% 1%
0 0
4:15 PM 5 2 3 2 12 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
4:00 PM 4 1 7 1 13 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 2 3 4 1 10
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM 7 4 2 0 13 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
5:15 PM 5 2 3 0 10 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
5:00 PM 6 2 2 0 10 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 5 0 3 1 9
0 1 0 1 0 1
0 5:30 PM 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1
0 0 1 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
1 1
Peak Hour 16 4 9 2 31 1 0
Count Total 34 14 25 6 79 1 0 1 0 2 1 2
1 0 2 1 2 1 1
1 0
0 0
00 10
0 0
0 0
1 1
2 1
N
Lundy Ave
Trade Zone Blvd
Trade Zone Blvd
Lundy Ave
Trade Zone Blvd
Lundy Ave
TEV: 2,571
PHF: 0.96
25 12
31 68
20 0
8 208
227
445
1,358
2 427
7 288
672
722
0 433
898
5 1,336
521
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound
UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Trade Zone Blvd Trade Zone Blvd Lundy Ave Lundy Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 1 13 0
4:15 PM 0 0 2 3
1 0 6 0 1 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
UT LT TH RT UT LT
12 0
4:30 PM 0 1 2 4 0 3 0
0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 2
0 0 3 0 0 4
0 0 0 13 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 2
1 0 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 10 45
5:15 PM 0 0 1 4
0 0 2 0 0 0
10 48
5:00 PM 0 0 2 4 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 1
10 43
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 3
0 0 1 2 32
5:45 PM 0 1 1 3
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 9 31
0 0 6 79 0
Peak Hour 0 1 4 11
Count Total 0 2 8 24 0 5 7 2 0 21 0 4 0
4:00 PM 0 0
RT
31 0
Interval
Start
Trade Zone Blvd Trade Zone Blvd Lundy Ave Lundy Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 2 2 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 2
LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
0 5:00 PM
0 0 0 0
0 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
1 2
5:45 PM
1 0 0 0
1 5:30 PM
0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0
5:15 PM
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 LT TH
1 0 0 0 0 0 2
1 0 0 0 2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]
MONTAGUE EXPY MONTAGUE EXPY TRADE ZONE BLVD TRADE ZONE BLVD (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 TRADE ZONE BLVD & MONTAGUE EXPY AM
Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour: 07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:15 AM - 08:30 AM
427 74
1,814
726
597 918
1,107
2,869
0.97 N
S
W E
0.88 0.87
0.85 0.96
(806) (145)
(3,497)
(1,311)
(5,523)
(2,079)
(1,132) (1,729) 330030
25 1,721
52 478
603
24 16
2 67
0816 2577 MONTAGUE EXPY MONTAGUE EXPY
TRADE ZONE BLVD
TRADE ZONE BLVD
2 6
0 0 N
S
W E
2 4
0 0
2 0
0 0
0 300
3 1
0 0
200
0 0
1 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0
0 0
0 30 0
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 163 4 0 4 7 0 5 94 7 18 548 985 0 1 0 2 87 8 9 31 4,077 7:15 AM 0 219 6 0 2 5 1 4 149 1 9 465 1,014 0 0 0 0 90 7 14 42 4,179 7:30 AM 0 182 4 0 7 14 0 3 150 4 12 501 1,041 0 0 0 2 89 9 12 54 4,266 7:45 AM 0 229 7 0 8 23 0 8 152 2 7 406 1,037 0 0 0 0 105 10 25 55 4,198 8:00 AM 0 159 8 0 6 20 1 5 158 6 14 468 1,087 0 5 0 0 141 0 19 82 4,034 8:15 AM 0 246 6 0 9 10 1 8 143 4 19 346 1,101 0 1 0 0 143 6 21 139 8:30 AM 0 183 16 0 4 21 0 11 145 2 5 309 973 0 11 0 0 146 1 11 119 8:45 AM 0 161 7 0 1 19 0 2 120 4 10 289 873 0 7 0 0 118 0 18 124 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 2 16 0 41 Lights 789 23 73 29 64 327 2 16 0 0 24 559 460 50 1,677 25 4,118 Mediums 17 2 4 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 32 17 0 28 0 107
Total 2 16 0 0 24 603 478 52 1,721 25 816 25 77 30 67 330 4,266
MONTAGUE EXPY MONTAGUE EXPY CAPITOL AVE GREAT MALL PKWY (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 17 CAPITOL AVE & MONTAGUE EXPY AM
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:15 AM - 08:30 AM
533 1,558
2,853
1,054
253 889
811
2,221
0.94 N
S
W E
0.94 0.98
0.81 0.97
(826) (2,634)
(5,261)
(1,788)
(4,170)
(1,437)
(450) (1,518) 590 342
829
1,975
41 74
581
127
8 29 132
6158 602 123 MONTAGUE EXPY MONTAGUE EXPY CAPITOL AVE
GREAT MALL PKWY
0 8
7 0 N
S
W E
3 5
2 5
0 0
0 0
1 010
3 0
0 0
080
3 0
2 0
0 N
S
W E
1 0
0 3
0 30 0
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 22 59 0 23 11 12 12 95 0 10 379 772 0 0 1 1 13 115 14 7 4,041 7:15 AM 1 43 90 0 25 16 5 8 130 0 8 471 977 1 2 0 1 11 146 15 8 4,488 7:30 AM 1 40 129 0 46 26 16 15 112 2 13 433 1,041 1 1 0 1 6 164 28 10 4,860 7:45 AM 0 37 143 0 70 28 4 37 151 2 8 520 1,251 0 3 3 0 15 193 27 16 5,086 8:00 AM 1 41 131 0 96 34 10 28 137 0 15 456 1,219 0 2 2 0 18 200 39 13 5,001 8:15 AM 4 41 201 0 89 40 6 35 148 5 9 505 1,349 0 2 2 0 14 210 28 14 8:30 AM 1 39 127 0 87 30 9 27 145 1 9 494 1,267 0 1 0 0 27 226 29 16 8:45 AM 1 27 124 0 67 41 10 24 142 0 24 453 1,166 1 4 2 0 15 190 35 13 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 1 0 22 5 42
Lights 157 596 122 326 129 57 28 8 6 0 122 547 70 39 1,912 802 4,921 Mediums 1 6 1 12 3 2 1 0 0 0 4 25 3 2 41 22 123
Total 29 8 6 0 127 581 74 41 1,975 829 158 602 123 342 132 59 5,086
SANGO CT SANGO CT MONTAGUE EXPY MONTAGUE EXPY
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 MONTAGUE EXPY & SANGO CT AM
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2021
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour: 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:45 AM - 09:00 AM
1,286 626
12 12
1,286 626
0 0
0.87 N
S
W E
0.86 0.64
0.90 0.00
(2,465) (1,094)
(40)
(30)
()
()
(2,465) (1,084)
000
12 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 1,286
00614 12
SANGO CT SANGO CT MONTAGUE EXPY
MONTAGUE EXPY
0 6
0 0 N
S
W E 3 3
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
30 0
0 0
0 0
10 0
0 0
0 0 N
S
W E
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 0 94 0 0 246 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 0 1,665 7:15 AM 0 0 100 0 0 251 0 0 0 0 0 0 366 0 0 0 0 0 11 4 0 1,784 7:30 AM 0 0 121 0 0 319 0 0 0 0 0 0 449 0 1 0 0 0 6 3 0 1,866 7:45 AM 0 0 125 0 0 363 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 1 0 0 0 4 8 0 1,873 8:00 AM 0 0 142 0 0 317 0 0 0 0 0 0 469 0 1 0 0 0 4 6 0 1,924 8:15 AM 0 0 159 0 0 287 0 0 0 0 0 0 448 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 8:30 AM 0 0 142 0 0 307 0 0 0 0 0 0 456 0 3 0 0 0 6 1 0 8:45 AM 0 0 171 0 0 375 0 0 0 0 0 0 551 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 13 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 Lights 0 562 11 0 1,231 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1,814
Mediums 0 39 1 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 73
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 614 12 0 1,286 0 1,924
SANGO CT SANGO CT MONTAGUE EXPY MONTAGUE EXPY
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 MONTAGUE EXPY & SANGO CT PM
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2021
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour: 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:45 PM - 06:00 PM
1,033 1,547
19 15
1,033 1,543
0 0
0.94 N
S
W E
0.87 0.79
0.91 0.00
(1,990) (3,070)
(60)
(41)
()
()
(1,990) (3,051)
000
19 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 1,033
001,528 15
SANGO CT SANGO CT MONTAGUE EXPY
MONTAGUE EXPY
0 2
0 0 N
S
W E 2 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
00 0
0 0
0 0
20 0
0 0
0 0 N
S
W E
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 0 345 0 0 237 0 0 0 0 0 0 597 0 0 0 0 0 9 6 0 2,506 4:15 PM 0 0 382 0 0 228 0 0 0 0 0 0 629 0 0 0 0 0 13 6 0 2,517 4:30 PM 0 0 348 0 0 259 0 0 0 0 0 0 625 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 2,506 4:45 PM 0 0 407 0 0 233 0 0 0 0 0 0 655 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 0 2,563 5:00 PM 0 0 355 0 0 249 0 0 0 0 0 0 608 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2,595 5:15 PM 0 0 381 0 0 230 0 0 0 0 0 0 618 0 1 0 0 0 5 2 0 5:30 PM 0 0 376 0 0 296 0 0 0 0 0 0 682 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 5:45 PM 0 0 416 0 0 258 0 0 0 0 0 0 687 0 1 0 0 0 7 6 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 8 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
Lights 0 1,492 14 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 2,524
Mediums 0 28 1 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 51
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 1,528 15 0 1,033 0 2,595
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:49:49 2021 Page 2-1
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing AM
Intersection #1: CAPITOL AVE/MILPITAS BLVD
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 14 193 39***
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Split Signal=Split
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
30*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 90
1 18
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 6 0 Critical V/C: 0.123 0 3
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 19.2 0
9 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 19.7 2 24***
LOS: B
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Initial Vol: 7 325*** 50
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 7 325 50 39 193 14 30 6 9 24 3 18
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 7 325 50 39 193 14 30 6 9 24 3 18
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 7 325 50 39 193 14 30 6 9 24 3 18
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 7 325 50 39 193 14 30 6 9 24 3 18
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 7 325 50 39 193 14 30 6 9 24 3 18
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 7 325 50 39 193 14 30 6 9 24 3 18
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.87 1.00 0.74 0.87 0.99 0.91 0.87 0.91 0.84 0.79 0.87 0.79 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.78 0.22 1.00 0.38 0.62 2.00 0.26 1.74 Final Sat.: 1663 5700 1412 1663 5230 379 1663 658 987 2993 435 2607 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.25 0.44 0.44 0.18 0.36 0.36 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.11 Volume/Cap: 0.02 0.13 0.08 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 Delay/Veh: 25.2 15.1 14.8 31.2 19.0 19.0 34.3 33.8 33.8 35.9 35.9 35.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 25.2 15.1 14.8 31.2 19.0 19.0 34.3 33.8 33.8 35.9 35.9 35.9 LOS by Move: C B B C B B C C C D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:49:49 2021 Page 2-2
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background AM
Intersection #1: CAPITOL AVE/MILPITAS BLVD
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 40 211 55***
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Split Signal=Split
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
112*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 90
1 54
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 28 0 Critical V/C: 0.206 0 11***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 26.7 0
33 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 26.5 2 27
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Initial Vol: 25 327*** 54
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 25 327 54 55 211 40 112 28 33 27 11 54
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 25 327 54 55 211 40 112 28 33 27 11 54
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 25 327 54 55 211 40 112 28 33 27 11 54
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 25 327 54 55 211 40 112 28 33 27 11 54
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 25 327 54 55 211 40 112 28 33 27 11 54
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 25 327 54 55 211 40 112 28 33 27 11 54
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.87 1.00 0.78 0.87 0.98 0.90 0.87 0.92 0.85 0.79 0.88 0.81 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.49 0.51 1.00 0.44 0.56 2.00 0.32 1.68 Final Sat.: 1663 5700 1488 1663 4614 875 1663 766 903 2993 525 2579 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.27 0.27 0.16 0.25 0.25 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.11 0.11 0.11 Volume/Cap: 0.08 0.21 0.13 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.19 0.19 Delay/Veh: 31.0 25.2 24.7 33.4 26.3 26.3 22.3 21.5 21.5 36.0 36.6 36.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 31.0 25.2 24.7 33.4 26.3 26.3 22.3 21.5 21.5 36.0 36.6 36.6 LOS by Move: C C C C C C C C C D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:49:49 2021 Page 2-3
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background + Project AM
Intersection #1: CAPITOL AVE/MILPITAS BLVD
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 45 211 55***
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Split Signal=Split
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
114*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 90
1 54
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 34 0 Critical V/C: 0.210 0 21***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 27.0 0
32 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 26.8 2 27
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Initial Vol: 45 325*** 53
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 45 325 53 55 211 45 114 34 32 27 21 54
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 45 325 53 55 211 45 114 34 32 27 21 54
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 45 325 53 55 211 45 114 34 32 27 21 54
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 45 325 53 55 211 45 114 34 32 27 21 54
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 45 325 53 55 211 45 114 34 32 27 21 54
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 45 325 53 55 211 45 114 34 32 27 21 54
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.87 1.00 0.78 0.87 0.97 0.90 0.87 0.93 0.85 0.79 0.89 0.82 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.44 0.56 1.00 0.49 0.51 2.00 0.53 1.47 Final Sat.: 1663 5700 1488 1663 4508 961 1663 871 820 2993 894 2299 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.27 0.27 0.16 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.11 Volume/Cap: 0.15 0.21 0.13 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.21 0.21 Delay/Veh: 31.6 25.4 24.9 33.4 26.5 26.5 22.1 21.4 21.4 35.9 36.7 36.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 31.6 25.4 24.9 33.4 26.5 26.5 22.1 21.4 21.4 35.9 36.7 36.7 LOS by Move: C C C C C C C C C D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 0 1 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:49:49 2021 Page 2-4
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing AM
Intersection #2: LUNDY/TRADE ZONE
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 15 14*** 14
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 5/2/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
11 1
Cycle Time (sec): 116
1 46
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 185 2 Critical V/C: 0.614 2 910
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 36.7 0
204*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 30.3 1 692***
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 104*** 5 133
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 May 2019 << 7:50-8:50
Base Vol: 104 5 133 14 14 15 11 185 204 692 910 46
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 104 5 133 14 14 15 11 185 204 692 910 46
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 104 5 133 14 14 15 11 185 204 692 910 46
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 104 5 133 14 14 15 11 185 204 692 910 46
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 104 5 133 14 14 15 11 185 204 692 910 46
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 104 5 133 14 14 15 11 185 204 692 910 46
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.92 0.08 1.00 1.04 0.96 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3352 161 1750 1822 1822 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.12 0.40 0.24 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.53 0.55 0.55 Volume/Cap: 0.25 0.25 0.61 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.31 0.75 0.75 0.44 0.05 Delay/Veh: 47.3 47.3 60.6 49.4 49.4 50.2 43.7 44.8 63.6 26.6 16.2 12.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 47.3 47.3 60.6 49.4 49.4 50.2 43.7 44.8 63.6 26.6 16.2 12.2 LOS by Move: D D E D D D D D E C B B
HCM2kAvgQ: 2 2 6 1 1 1 0 3 9 22 9 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:49:49 2021 Page 2-5
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background AM
Intersection #2: LUNDY/TRADE ZONE
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 26 30*** 19
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 10/2/2014 Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
15 1
Cycle Time (sec): 116
1 62
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 232 2 Critical V/C: 0.647 2 931
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 38.9 0
220*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 31.9 1 706***
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 113 12*** 142
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2014 << 7:50-8:50
Base Vol: 113 12 142 19 30 26 15 232 220 706 931 62
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 113 12 142 19 30 26 15 232 220 706 931 62
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 113 12 142 19 30 26 15 232 220 706 931 62
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 113 12 142 19 30 26 15 232 220 706 931 62
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 113 12 142 19 30 26 15 232 220 706 931 62
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 113 12 142 19 30 26 15 232 220 706 931 62
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.82 0.18 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3188 339 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.13 0.40 0.25 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.52 0.55 0.55 Volume/Cap: 0.28 0.28 0.65 0.13 0.18 0.17 0.06 0.38 0.77 0.77 0.45 0.06 Delay/Veh: 47.6 47.6 62.1 49.6 50.7 51.6 44.2 45.0 64.7 28.5 16.3 12.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 47.6 47.6 62.1 49.6 50.7 51.6 44.2 45.0 64.7 28.5 16.3 12.3 LOS by Move: D D E D D D D D E C B B
HCM2kAvgQ: 2 2 6 1 1 1 1 4 10 23 10 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:49:49 2021 Page 2-6
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background + Project AM
Intersection #2: LUNDY/TRADE ZONE
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 23 35*** 16
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
14 1
Cycle Time (sec): 116
1 46
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 232 2 Critical V/C: 0.648 2 930
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 38.8 0
220*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 31.9 1 703***
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 113 10*** 142
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 113 10 142 16 35 23 14 232 220 703 930 46
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 113 10 142 16 35 23 14 232 220 703 930 46
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 113 10 142 16 35 23 14 232 220 703 930 46
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 113 10 142 16 35 23 14 232 220 703 930 46
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 113 10 142 16 35 23 14 232 220 703 930 46
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 113 10 142 16 35 23 14 232 220 703 930 46
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.85 0.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3236 286 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.13 0.40 0.24 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.52 0.55 0.55 Volume/Cap: 0.28 0.28 0.65 0.11 0.21 0.15 0.06 0.37 0.77 0.77 0.45 0.05 Delay/Veh: 47.6 47.6 62.2 49.3 51.4 51.2 44.2 45.0 64.4 28.4 16.3 12.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 47.6 47.6 62.2 49.3 51.4 51.2 44.2 45.0 64.4 28.4 16.3 12.2 LOS by Move: D D E D D D D D E C B B
HCM2kAvgQ: 2 2 6 1 1 1 0 4 10 23 10 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:49:49 2021 Page 2-7
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing AM
Intersection #3: MONTAGUE EXPWY/TRADE ZONE BLVD
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 337*** 68 31
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 9/17/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
27*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 180
1 26
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 615 3 Critical V/C: 0.869 2 1756***
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 132.9 0
488 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 97.5 1 69
LOS: F
Lanes: 2 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 832 26*** 79
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Trade Zone Blvd Montague Expressway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 100 10 7 107 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 17 Sep 2019 << 7:00-9:00
Base Vol: 832 26 79 31 68 337 27 615 488 69 1756 26
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 832 26 79 31 68 337 27 615 488 69 1756 26
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 832 26 79 31 68 337 27 615 488 69 1756 26
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 832 26 79 31 68 337 27 615 488 69 1440 26
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 832 26 79 31 68 337 27 615 488 69 1440 26
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 832 26 79 31 68 337 27 615 488 69 1440 26
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.79 0.95 0.75 0.91 0.99 0.78 0.87 1.00 0.78 0.87 1.00 0.77 Lanes: 2.92 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 4394 137 1433 1724 1872 1488 1663 5700 1488 1663 3800 1470 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.19 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.23 0.02 0.11 0.33 0.04 0.38 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.59 0.73 0.04 0.59 0.59 Volume/Cap: 1.39 1.39 0.40 0.11 0.22 1.39 0.42 0.18 0.45 0.94 0.64 0.03 Delay/Veh: 261.4 261 72.4 64.2 65.6 272.6 88.8 17.0 10.4 171.1 24.4 15.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 261.4 261 72.4 64.2 65.6 272.6 88.8 17.0 10.4 171.1 24.4 15.1 LOS by Move: F F E E E F F B B F C B
HCM2kAvgQ: 32 32 5 2 3 34 2 5 12 7 25 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:49:49 2021 Page 2-8
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background AM
Intersection #3: MONTAGUE EXPWY/TRADE ZONE BLVD
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 435*** 78 34
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
38*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 180
1 27
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 657 3 Critical V/C: 1.096 2 1892***
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 183.0 0
549 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 135.3 1 90
LOS: F
Lanes: 2 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 909*** 43 96
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Trade Zone Blvd Montague Expressway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 100 10 7 107 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 909 43 96 34 78 435 38 657 549 90 1892 27
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 909 43 96 34 78 435 38 657 549 90 1892 27
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 909 43 96 34 78 435 38 657 549 90 1892 27
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 909 43 96 34 78 435 38 657 549 90 1892 27
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 909 43 96 34 78 435 38 657 549 90 1892 27
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 909 43 96 34 78 435 38 657 549 90 1892 27
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.79 0.95 0.78 0.91 0.99 0.78 0.87 1.00 0.78 0.87 1.00 0.78 Lanes: 2.89 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 4338 205 1488 1724 1872 1488 1663 5700 1488 1663 3800 1488 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.29 0.02 0.12 0.37 0.05 0.50 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.04 0.58 0.70 0.06 0.59 0.59 Volume/Cap: 1.67 1.67 0.52 0.11 0.24 1.67 0.59 0.20 0.53 0.96 0.84 0.03 Delay/Veh: 389.4 389 76.1 62.6 64.2 393.6 98.4 18.2 13.1 165.3 32.4 15.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 389.4 389 76.1 62.6 64.2 393.6 98.4 18.2 13.1 165.3 32.4 15.1 LOS by Move: F F E E E F F B B F C B
HCM2kAvgQ: 40 40 6 2 4 50 3 5 15 8 43 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:49:49 2021 Page 2-9
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background + Project AM
Intersection #3: MONTAGUE EXPWY/TRADE ZONE BLVD
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 435*** 76 33
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
38*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 180
1 27
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 665 3 Critical V/C: 1.095 2 1894***
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 181.6 0
539 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 134.3 1 86
LOS: F
Lanes: 2 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 904 41*** 93
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Trade Zone Blvd Montague Expressway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 100 10 7 107 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 904 41 93 33 76 435 38 665 539 86 1894 27
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 904 41 93 33 76 435 38 665 539 86 1894 27
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 904 41 93 33 76 435 38 665 539 86 1894 27
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 904 41 93 33 76 435 38 665 539 86 1894 27
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 904 41 93 33 76 435 38 665 539 86 1894 27
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 904 41 93 33 76 435 38 665 539 86 1894 27
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.79 0.95 0.78 0.91 0.99 0.78 0.87 1.00 0.78 0.87 1.00 0.78 Lanes: 2.89 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 4344 197 1488 1724 1872 1488 1663 5700 1488 1663 3800 1488 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.29 0.02 0.12 0.36 0.05 0.50 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.04 0.58 0.70 0.05 0.59 0.59 Volume/Cap: 1.67 1.67 0.50 0.11 0.23 1.67 0.59 0.20 0.51 0.96 0.84 0.03 Delay/Veh: 387.3 387 75.7 62.5 64.1 391.4 98.4 18.1 12.8 166.1 32.5 15.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 387.3 387 75.7 62.5 64.1 391.4 98.4 18.1 12.8 166.1 32.5 15.1 LOS by Move: F F E E E F F B B F C B
HCM2kAvgQ: 40 40 6 2 4 50 3 6 15 8 43 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:49:49 2021 Page 2-10
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing AM
Intersection #4: MONTAGUE EXPWY/CAPITOL AVE
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 60 135 349***
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 2
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 5/23/2019 Rights=Overlap Lanes: Initial Vol:
159 2
Cycle Time (sec): 180
1 846
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 593*** 4 Critical V/C: 0.342 3 2015
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 53.3 0
75 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 42.4 2 50***
LOS: D
Lanes: 2 0 3 0 1
Initial Vol: 167 614*** 125
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 100 10 7 90 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 23 May 2019 << 7:00-9:00
Base Vol: 167 614 125 349 135 60 159 593 75 50 2015 846 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 167 614 125 349 135 60 159 593 75 50 2015 846 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 167 614 125 349 135 60 159 593 75 50 2015 846 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 167 614 125 349 135 60 159 593 75 50 1652 846 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 167 614 125 349 135 60 159 593 75 50 1652 846 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 167 614 125 349 135 60 159 593 75 50 1652 846 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.79 1.00 0.76 0.79 1.00 0.78 0.79 1.00 0.76 0.79 1.00 0.77 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 2993 5700 1445 2993 5700 1488 2993 7600 1446 2993 5700 1468 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.29 0.58 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.06 0.56 0.56 0.04 0.54 0.71 Volume/Cap: 0.33 0.66 0.53 0.66 0.14 0.24 0.93 0.14 0.09 0.43 0.54 0.81 Delay/Veh: 66.1 72.5 71.4 72.3 63.7 65.2 133.4 19.3 18.8 87.1 27.3 22.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 66.1 72.5 71.4 72.3 63.7 65.2 133.4 19.3 18.8 87.1 27.3 22.2 LOS by Move: E E E E E E F B B F C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 5 11 7 12 2 3 8 4 2 2 19 35
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:49:49 2021 Page 2-11
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background AM
Intersection #4: MONTAGUE EXPWY/CAPITOL AVE
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 66 158 415***
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 2
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes: Initial Vol:
190 2
Cycle Time (sec): 180
1 880
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 635*** 4 Critical V/C: 0.378 3 2034
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 55.4 0
91 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 45.1 2 57***
LOS: D
Lanes: 2 0 3 0 1
Initial Vol: 263 634*** 125
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 100 10 7 90 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 263 634 125 415 158 66 190 635 91 57 2034 880 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 263 634 125 415 158 66 190 635 91 57 2034 880 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 263 634 125 415 158 66 190 635 91 57 2034 880 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 263 634 125 415 158 66 190 635 91 57 2034 880 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 263 634 125 415 158 66 190 635 91 57 2034 880 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 263 634 125 415 158 66 190 635 91 57 2034 880 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.79 1.00 0.78 0.79 1.00 0.78 0.79 1.00 0.78 0.79 1.00 0.78 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 2993 5700 1488 2993 5700 1488 2993 7600 1488 2993 5700 1488 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.36 0.59 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.21 0.15 0.15 0.19 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.56 0.56 0.04 0.53 0.72 Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.74 0.56 0.74 0.21 0.34 0.95 0.15 0.11 0.49 0.68 0.83 Delay/Veh: 62.4 76.4 73.9 74.0 70.0 72.1 132.3 19.4 19.0 88.0 31.9 23.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 62.4 76.4 73.9 74.0 70.0 72.1 132.3 19.4 19.0 88.0 31.9 23.3 LOS by Move: E E E E E E F B B F C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 8 12 7 14 3 4 9 4 2 2 27 37
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:49:49 2021 Page 2-12
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background + Project AM
Intersection #4: MONTAGUE EXPWY/CAPITOL AVE
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 65 164 415***
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 2
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes: Initial Vol:
189 2
Cycle Time (sec): 180
1 880
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 631*** 4 Critical V/C: 0.378 3 2025
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 55.6 0
90 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 45.1 2 57***
LOS: D
Lanes: 2 0 3 0 1
Initial Vol: 258 638*** 125
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 100 10 7 90 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 258 638 125 415 164 65 189 631 90 57 2025 880 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 258 638 125 415 164 65 189 631 90 57 2025 880 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 258 638 125 415 164 65 189 631 90 57 2025 880 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 258 638 125 415 164 65 189 631 90 57 2025 880 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 258 638 125 415 164 65 189 631 90 57 2025 880 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 258 638 125 415 164 65 189 631 90 57 2025 880 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.79 1.00 0.78 0.79 1.00 0.78 0.79 1.00 0.78 0.79 1.00 0.78 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 2993 5700 1488 2993 5700 1488 2993 7600 1488 2993 5700 1488 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.36 0.59 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.21 0.15 0.15 0.19 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.56 0.56 0.04 0.53 0.72 Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.74 0.56 0.74 0.22 0.33 0.95 0.15 0.11 0.49 0.67 0.83 Delay/Veh: 62.5 76.4 73.8 74.2 69.8 71.8 132.4 19.4 19.0 88.0 31.7 23.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 62.5 76.4 73.8 74.2 69.8 71.8 132.4 19.4 19.0 88.0 31.7 23.3 LOS by Move: E E E E E E F B B F C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 7 12 7 14 3 4 9 4 2 2 27 37
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:49:49 2021 Page 2-13
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing AM
Intersection #5: Montague Expressway/Sango Ct
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 6/29/2021 Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0
0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 761 2 Critical V/C: 0.020 3 0
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.2 0
15 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 0 0
LOS: A
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 0 0 15
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Street Name: Sango Ct Montague Expressway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 29 Jun 2021 <<
Base Vol: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 761 15 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 761 15 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 761 15 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 761 15 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 761 15 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx 261 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx 744 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx 744 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx 9.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * A * * * * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: 9.9 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: A * * *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Montague Expressway/Sango Ct
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:49:49 2021 Page 2-14
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 761 15 0 0 0
ApproachDel: 9.9 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=15]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=2][total volume=791] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Montague Expressway/Sango Ct
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 761 15 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 776
Minor Approach Volume: 15
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 372
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:49:49 2021 Page 2-15
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Background AM
Intersection #5: Montague Expressway/Sango Ct
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0
0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 803 2 Critical V/C: 0.107 3 0
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.9 0
48 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.9 0 0
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 0 0 76
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Street Name: Sango Ct Montague Expressway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 803 48 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 803 48 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 803 48 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 803 48 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 803 48 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx 292 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx 711 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx 711 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx 0.11 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx 0.4 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx 10.7 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * B * * * * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: 10.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: B * * *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Montague Expressway/Sango Ct
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:49:49 2021 Page 2-16
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 803 48 0 0 0
ApproachDel: 10.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.2]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=76]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=2][total volume=927] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Montague Expressway/Sango Ct
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 803 48 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 851
Minor Approach Volume: 76
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 340
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:49:49 2021 Page 2-17
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Background + Project AM
Intersection #5: Montague Expressway/Sango Ct
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0
0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 799 2 Critical V/C: 0.109 3 0
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.9 0
47 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.9 0 0
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 0 0 78
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Street Name: Sango Ct Montague Expressway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 799 47 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 799 47 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 799 47 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 799 47 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 799 47 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx 290 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx 713 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx 713 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx 0.11 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx 0.4 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx 10.7 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * B * * * * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: 10.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: B * * *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Montague Expressway/Sango Ct
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:49:49 2021 Page 2-18
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 799 47 0 0 0
ApproachDel: 10.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.2]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=78]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=2][total volume=924] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Montague Expressway/Sango Ct
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 799 47 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 846
Minor Approach Volume: 78
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 342
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:25:33 2021 Page 2-1
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative AM
Intersection #1: CAPITOL AVE/MILPITAS BLVD
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 34 519 834***
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Split Signal=Split
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
87*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 180
1 678***
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 33 0 Critical V/C: 1.145 0 16
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 151.8 0
28 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 114.3 2 118
LOS: F
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Initial Vol: 21 325 420***
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 21 325 420 834 519 34 87 33 28 118 16 678
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 21 325 420 834 519 34 87 33 28 118 16 678
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 21 325 420 834 519 34 87 33 28 118 16 678
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 21 325 420 834 519 34 87 33 28 118 16 678
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 21 325 420 834 519 34 87 33 28 118 16 678
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 21 325 420 834 519 34 87 33 28 118 16 678
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.87 1.00 0.78 0.87 0.99 0.91 0.87 0.93 0.86 0.79 0.85 0.79 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.80 0.20 1.00 0.52 0.48 2.00 0.04 1.96 Final Sat.: 1663 5700 1488 1663 5274 345 1663 921 781 2993 69 2922 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.06 0.28 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.19 0.24 0.24 0.43 0.49 0.49 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.20 0.20 0.20 Volume/Cap: 0.07 0.23 1.16 1.16 0.20 0.20 0.94 0.65 0.65 0.20 1.16 1.16 Delay/Veh: 59.6 54.6 165.5 137.0 26.5 26.5 159.2 97.6 97.6 60.1 161 160.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 59.6 54.6 165.5 137.0 26.5 26.5 159.2 97.6 97.6 60.1 161 160.5 LOS by Move: E D F F C C F F F E F F
HCM2kAvgQ: 1 5 35 66 6 6 8 4 4 3 30 30
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:25:33 2021 Page 2-2
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Project AM
Intersection #1: CAPITOL AVE/MILPITAS BLVD
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 38 518 830***
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Split Signal=Split
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
84*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 180
1 674
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 52 0 Critical V/C: 1.142 0 33***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 151.0 0
29 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 114.3 2 117
LOS: F
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Initial Vol: 29 325 418***
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 29 325 418 830 518 38 84 52 29 117 33 674
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 29 325 418 830 518 38 84 52 29 117 33 674
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 29 325 418 830 518 38 84 52 29 117 33 674
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 29 325 418 830 518 38 84 52 29 117 33 674
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 29 325 418 830 518 38 84 52 29 117 33 674
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 29 325 418 830 518 38 84 52 29 117 33 674
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.87 1.00 0.78 0.87 0.99 0.91 0.87 0.95 0.87 0.79 0.86 0.79 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.78 0.22 1.00 0.62 0.38 2.00 0.09 1.91 Final Sat.: 1663 5700 1488 1663 5227 383 1663 1120 624 2993 141 2870 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.06 0.28 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.19 0.24 0.24 0.43 0.48 0.48 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.20 0.20 0.20 Volume/Cap: 0.09 0.23 1.16 1.16 0.20 0.20 0.91 0.84 0.84 0.19 1.16 1.16 Delay/Veh: 60.2 54.8 165.2 136.8 26.6 26.6 149.2 128 128.0 59.6 160 159.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 60.2 54.8 165.2 136.8 26.6 26.6 149.2 128 128.0 59.6 160 159.6 LOS by Move: E D F F C C F F F E F F
HCM2kAvgQ: 1 5 35 66 6 6 7 6 6 3 30 30
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:25:33 2021 Page 2-3
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative AM
Intersection #2: LUNDY/TRADE ZONE
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 15 28*** 19
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
14 1
Cycle Time (sec): 180
1 51
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 237 2 Critical V/C: 1.076 2 1015
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 134.1 0
809*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 87.1 1 759***
LOS: F
Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 267 8 164***
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 267 8 164 19 28 15 14 237 809 759 1015 51
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 267 8 164 19 28 15 14 237 809 759 1015 51
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 267 8 164 19 28 15 14 237 809 759 1015 51
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 267 8 164 19 28 15 14 237 809 759 1015 51
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 267 8 164 19 28 15 14 237 809 759 1015 51
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 267 8 164 19 28 15 14 237 809 759 1015 51
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3406 102 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.46 0.43 0.27 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.41 0.41 0.38 0.69 0.69 Volume/Cap: 0.94 0.94 1.13 0.20 0.27 0.15 0.08 0.15 1.13 1.13 0.39 0.04 Delay/Veh: 122.1 122 195.5 83.0 85.1 84.3 74.2 33.6 127.6 130.8 12.0 8.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 122.1 122 195.5 83.0 85.1 84.3 74.2 33.6 127.6 130.8 12.0 8.8 LOS by Move: F F F F F F E C F F B A
HCM2kAvgQ: 11 11 15 1 2 1 1 4 62 59 11 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:25:33 2021 Page 2-4
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Project AM
Intersection #2: LUNDY/TRADE ZONE
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 15 25*** 15
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
12 1
Cycle Time (sec): 180
1 46
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 234 2 Critical V/C: 1.076 2 1010
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 134.9 0
814*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 87.9 1 758***
LOS: F
Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 266 10 163***
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 266 10 163 15 25 15 12 234 814 758 1010 46
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 266 10 163 15 25 15 12 234 814 758 1010 46 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 266 10 163 15 25 15 12 234 814 758 1010 46 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 266 10 163 15 25 15 12 234 814 758 1010 46
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 266 10 163 15 25 15 12 234 814 758 1010 46 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 266 10 163 15 25 15 12 234 814 758 1010 46 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.93 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3383 127 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.47 0.43 0.27 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.41 0.41 0.38 0.69 0.69 Volume/Cap: 0.95 0.95 1.13 0.15 0.24 0.15 0.07 0.15 1.13 1.13 0.38 0.04 Delay/Veh: 124.5 124 196.5 82.2 84.6 84.3 73.9 33.4 128.1 131.6 11.9 8.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 124.5 124 196.5 82.2 84.6 84.3 73.9 33.4 128.1 131.6 11.9 8.7 LOS by Move: F F F F F F E C F F B A
HCM2kAvgQ: 11 11 15 1 1 1 1 4 63 59 11 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:25:33 2021 Page 2-5
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative AM
Intersection #3: MONTAGUE EXPWY/TRADE ZONE BLVD
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 354*** 146 41
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
27 1
Cycle Time (sec): 180
1 38
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 1429*** 3 Critical V/C: 1.179 2 2379
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 405.5 0
526 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 230.9 1 568***
LOS: F
Lanes: 2 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 881 425*** 157
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Trade Zone Blvd Montague Expressway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 100 10 7 107 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 881 425 157 41 146 354 27 1429 526 568 2379 38 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 881 425 157 41 146 354 27 1429 526 568 2379 38 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 881 425 157 41 146 354 27 1429 526 568 2379 38 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 881 425 157 41 146 354 27 1429 526 568 2379 38 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 881 425 157 41 146 354 27 1429 526 568 2379 38 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 881 425 157 41 146 354 27 1429 526 568 2379 38 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.80 0.97 0.78 0.91 0.99 0.78 0.87 1.00 0.78 0.87 1.00 0.78 Lanes: 2.14 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3264 1575 1488 1731 1879 1488 1663 5700 1488 1663 3800 1488 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.02 0.08 0.24 0.02 0.25 0.35 0.34 0.63 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.56 0.68 0.15 0.67 0.67 Volume/Cap: 2.25 2.25 0.88 0.22 0.73 2.25 0.39 0.45 0.52 2.25 0.94 0.04 Delay/Veh: 646.7 647 113.7 73.8 88.6 662.3 87.7 23.8 15.2 650.9 34.6 10.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 646.7 647 113.7 73.8 88.6 662.3 87.7 23.8 15.2 650.9 34.6 10.3 LOS by Move: F F F E F F F C B F C B
HCM2kAvgQ: 61 61 12 2 9 48 2 15 15 75 61 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:25:33 2021 Page 2-6
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Project AM
Intersection #3: MONTAGUE EXPWY/TRADE ZONE BLVD
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 354*** 143 40
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
27 1
Cycle Time (sec): 180
1 39
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 1431*** 3 Critical V/C: 1.169 2 2385
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 396.9 0
524 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 225.9 1 557***
LOS: F
Lanes: 2 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 875 417*** 146
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Trade Zone Blvd Montague Expressway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 100 10 7 107 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 875 417 146 40 143 354 27 1431 524 557 2385 39 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 875 417 146 40 143 354 27 1431 524 557 2385 39 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 875 417 146 40 143 354 27 1431 524 557 2385 39 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 875 417 146 40 143 354 27 1431 524 557 2385 39 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 875 417 146 40 143 354 27 1431 524 557 2385 39 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 875 417 146 40 143 354 27 1431 524 557 2385 39 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.80 0.97 0.78 0.91 0.99 0.78 0.87 1.00 0.78 0.87 1.00 0.78 Lanes: 2.15 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3275 1561 1488 1731 1879 1488 1663 5700 1488 1663 3800 1488 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.24 0.02 0.25 0.35 0.34 0.63 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.56 0.68 0.15 0.66 0.66 Volume/Cap: 2.22 2.22 0.82 0.22 0.71 2.22 0.39 0.45 0.52 2.22 0.94 0.04 Delay/Veh: 635.6 636 101.8 73.6 86.6 651.0 87.8 23.8 15.1 640.0 35.3 10.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 635.6 636 101.8 73.6 86.6 651.0 87.8 23.8 15.1 640.0 35.3 10.4 LOS by Move: F F F E F F F C B F D B
HCM2kAvgQ: 60 60 10 2 9 47 2 15 15 74 62 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:25:33 2021 Page 2-7
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative AM
Intersection #4: MONTAGUE EXPWY/CAPITOL AVE
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 60 822 395***
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 2
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes: Initial Vol:
190 2
Cycle Time (sec): 180
1 846
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 1084*** 4 Critical V/C: 0.485 3 2985
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 54.8 0
513 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 56.8 2 58***
LOS: E
Lanes: 2 0 3 0 1
Initial Vol: 428 907*** 125
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 100 10 7 90 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 428 907 125 395 822 60 190 1084 513 58 2985 846 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 428 907 125 395 822 60 190 1084 513 58 2985 846 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 428 907 125 395 822 60 190 1084 513 58 2985 846 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 428 907 125 395 822 60 190 1084 513 58 2985 846 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 428 907 125 395 822 60 190 1084 513 58 2985 846 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 428 907 125 395 822 60 190 1084 513 58 2985 846 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.79 1.00 0.78 0.79 1.00 0.78 0.79 1.00 0.78 0.79 1.00 0.78 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 2993 5700 1488 2993 5700 1488 2993 7600 1488 2993 5700 1488 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.16 0.08 0.13 0.14 0.04 0.06 0.14 0.34 0.02 0.52 0.57 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.06 0.56 0.56 0.04 0.53 0.68 Volume/Cap: 0.85 0.86 0.45 0.86 0.85 0.24 0.99 0.26 0.62 0.50 0.99 0.83 Delay/Veh: 85.2 78.3 66.4 89.2 79.5 65.1 145.3 20.8 28.6 88.1 55.3 26.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 85.2 78.3 66.4 89.2 79.5 65.1 145.3 20.8 28.6 88.1 55.3 26.8 LOS by Move: F E E F E E F C C F E C
HCM2kAvgQ: 16 18 7 15 17 3 9 7 20 3 59 38
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:25:33 2021 Page 2-8
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Project AM
Intersection #4: MONTAGUE EXPWY/CAPITOL AVE
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 60 826 395***
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 2
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes: Initial Vol:
193 2
Cycle Time (sec): 180
1 846
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 1077*** 4 Critical V/C: 0.484 3 2975
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 54.8 0
508 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 56.7 2 57***
LOS: E
Lanes: 2 0 3 0 1
Initial Vol: 421 907*** 125
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 100 10 7 90 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 421 907 125 395 826 60 193 1077 508 57 2975 846 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 421 907 125 395 826 60 193 1077 508 57 2975 846 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 421 907 125 395 826 60 193 1077 508 57 2975 846 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 421 907 125 395 826 60 193 1077 508 57 2975 846 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 421 907 125 395 826 60 193 1077 508 57 2975 846 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 421 907 125 395 826 60 193 1077 508 57 2975 846 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.79 1.00 0.78 0.79 1.00 0.78 0.79 1.00 0.78 0.79 1.00 0.78 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 2993 5700 1488 2993 5700 1488 2993 7600 1488 2993 5700 1488 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.16 0.08 0.13 0.14 0.04 0.06 0.14 0.34 0.02 0.52 0.57 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.07 0.56 0.56 0.04 0.53 0.68 Volume/Cap: 0.84 0.86 0.45 0.86 0.84 0.23 0.99 0.26 0.61 0.49 0.99 0.83 Delay/Veh: 85.0 78.3 66.4 89.2 78.9 64.8 144.3 20.7 28.4 88.0 55.1 27.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 85.0 78.3 66.4 89.2 78.9 64.8 144.3 20.7 28.4 88.0 55.1 27.0 LOS by Move: F E E F E E F C C F E C
HCM2kAvgQ: 16 18 7 15 17 3 10 7 20 2 59 38
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:25:33 2021 Page 2-9
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative AM
Intersection #5: Montague Expressway/Sango Ct
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0
0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 1653 2 Critical V/C: 0.212 3 0
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.8 0
47 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.8 0 0
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 0 0 99
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Street Name: Sango Ct Montague Expressway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 1653 47 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 1653 47 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 1653 47 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 1653 47 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 1653 47 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx 575 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx 467 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx 467 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx 0.21 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx 0.8 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx 14.8 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * B * * * * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: 14.8 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: B * * *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Montague Expressway/Sango Ct
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:25:33 2021 Page 2-10
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 1653 47 0 0 0
ApproachDel: 14.8 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.4]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=99]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=2][total volume=1799] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Montague Expressway/Sango Ct
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 1653 47 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 1700
Minor Approach Volume: 99
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 102
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:25:33 2021 Page 2-11
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Project AM
Intersection #5: Montague Expressway/Sango Ct
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0
0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 1643 2 Critical V/C: 0.229 3 0
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.9 0
38 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.9 0 0
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 0 0 108
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Street Name: Sango Ct Montague Expressway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 108 0 0 0 0 1643 38 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 108 0 0 0 0 1643 38 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 108 0 0 0 0 1643 38 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 108 0 0 0 0 1643 38 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 108 0 0 0 0 1643 38 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx 567 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx 472 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx 472 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx 0.23 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx 0.9 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx 14.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * B * * * * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: 14.9 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: B * * *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Montague Expressway/Sango Ct
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:25:33 2021 Page 2-12
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 108 0 0 0 0 1643 38 0 0 0
ApproachDel: 14.9 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.4]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=108]
SUCCEED - Approach volume greater than or equal to 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=2][total volume=1789] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Montague Expressway/Sango Ct
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 108 0 0 0 0 1643 38 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 1681
Minor Approach Volume: 108
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 106
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:55:05 2021 Page 3-1
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #1: CAPITOL AVE/MILPITAS BLVD
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 38 888*** 39
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Split Signal=Split
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
19 1
Cycle Time (sec): 90
1 32
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 16*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.247 0 6
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 12.9 0
15 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 15.5 2 54***
LOS: B
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Initial Vol: 22*** 335 57
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 22 335 57 39 888 38 19 16 15 54 6 32
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 22 335 57 39 888 38 19 16 15 54 6 32
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 22 335 57 39 888 38 19 16 15 54 6 32
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 22 335 57 39 888 38 19 16 15 54 6 32
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 22 335 57 39 888 38 19 16 15 54 6 32
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 22 335 57 39 888 38 19 16 15 54 6 32
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.87 1.00 0.74 0.87 0.99 0.91 0.87 0.93 0.85 0.79 0.87 0.80 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.87 0.13 1.00 0.50 0.50 2.00 0.29 1.71 Final Sat.: 1663 5700 1406 1663 5414 232 1663 873 818 2993 487 2598 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.38 0.38 0.27 0.57 0.57 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Volume/Cap: 0.17 0.16 0.11 0.09 0.29 0.29 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.11 Delay/Veh: 39.4 18.5 18.2 25.0 10.2 10.2 36.2 36.6 36.6 36.4 36.1 36.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 39.4 18.5 18.2 25.0 10.2 10.2 36.2 36.6 36.6 36.4 36.1 36.1 LOS by Move: D B B C B B D D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 1 2 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:55:05 2021 Page 3-2
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background PM
Intersection #1: CAPITOL AVE/MILPITAS BLVD
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 122 913*** 73
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Split Signal=Split
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
61 1
Cycle Time (sec): 90
1 52
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 28*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.336 0 28***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 16.6 0
37 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 18.7 2 57
LOS: B
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Initial Vol: 67*** 345 65
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 67 345 65 73 913 122 61 28 37 57 28 52
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 67 345 65 73 913 122 61 28 37 57 28 52
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 67 345 65 73 913 122 61 28 37 57 28 52
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 67 345 65 73 913 122 61 28 37 57 28 52
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 67 345 65 73 913 122 61 28 37 57 28 52
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 67 345 65 73 913 122 61 28 37 57 28 52
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.87 1.00 0.78 0.87 0.98 0.90 0.87 0.92 0.84 0.79 0.90 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.62 0.38 1.00 0.41 0.59 2.00 0.66 1.34 Final Sat.: 1663 5700 1488 1663 4888 653 1663 714 944 2993 1138 2113 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.11 0.38 0.38 0.27 0.53 0.53 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Volume/Cap: 0.35 0.16 0.12 0.17 0.35 0.35 0.33 0.35 0.35 0.17 0.22 0.22 Delay/Veh: 37.9 18.5 18.2 25.6 12.3 12.3 37.9 38.2 38.2 36.5 36.8 36.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 37.9 18.5 18.2 25.6 12.3 12.3 37.9 38.2 38.2 36.5 36.8 36.8 LOS by Move: D B B C B B D D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 2 2 1 2 6 6 2 2 2 1 1 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:55:05 2021 Page 3-3
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background + Project PM
Intersection #1: CAPITOL AVE/MILPITAS BLVD
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 130 911*** 73
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Split Signal=Split
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
75 1
Cycle Time (sec): 90
1 52
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 37*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.368 0 44***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 19.1 0
56 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 20.6 2 57
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Initial Vol: 76*** 343 65
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 76 343 65 73 911 130 75 37 56 57 44 52
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 76 343 65 73 911 130 75 37 56 57 44 52
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 76 343 65 73 911 130 75 37 56 57 44 52
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 76 343 65 73 911 130 75 37 56 57 44 52
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 76 343 65 73 911 130 75 37 56 57 44 52
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 76 343 65 73 911 130 75 37 56 57 44 52
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.87 1.00 0.78 0.87 0.98 0.90 0.87 0.91 0.84 0.79 0.92 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.60 0.40 1.00 0.38 0.62 2.00 0.88 1.12 Final Sat.: 1663 5700 1488 1663 4842 691 1663 654 990 2993 1530 1808 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.36 0.36 0.25 0.49 0.49 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.11 Volume/Cap: 0.38 0.17 0.12 0.18 0.38 0.38 0.31 0.38 0.38 0.17 0.26 0.26 Delay/Veh: 37.9 19.8 19.5 26.6 14.5 14.5 35.0 35.7 35.7 36.5 37.0 37.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 37.9 19.8 19.5 26.6 14.5 14.5 35.0 35.7 35.7 36.5 37.0 37.0 LOS by Move: D B B C B B C D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 3 2 1 2 6 6 2 3 3 1 1 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:55:05 2021 Page 3-4
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #2: LUNDY/TRADE ZONE
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 25 12 31***
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 5/2/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
5 1
Cycle Time (sec): 116
1 8
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 898 2 Critical V/C: 0.707 2 208
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 49.1 0
433*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 41.8 1 229***
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 288 7 427***
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 May 2019 << 4:50-5:50
Base Vol: 288 7 427 31 12 25 5 898 433 229 208 8
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 288 7 427 31 12 25 5 898 433 229 208 8
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 288 7 427 31 12 25 5 898 433 229 208 8
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 288 7 427 31 12 25 5 898 433 229 208 8
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 288 7 427 31 12 25 5 898 433 229 208 8
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 288 7 427 31 12 25 5 898 433 229 208 8
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.96 0.04 1.00 1.47 0.53 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3423 83 1750 2580 999 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.08 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.24 0.25 0.13 0.05 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.20 0.32 0.32 0.17 0.29 0.29 Volume/Cap: 0.26 0.26 0.77 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.01 0.73 0.77 0.77 0.19 0.02 Delay/Veh: 30.1 30.1 45.5 50.0 50.0 51.5 37.0 38.8 45.1 63.1 31.3 29.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 30.1 30.1 45.5 50.0 50.0 51.5 37.0 38.8 45.1 63.1 31.3 29.4 LOS by Move: C C D D D D D D D E C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 4 4 16 1 1 1 0 15 16 10 3 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:55:05 2021 Page 3-5
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background PM
Intersection #2: LUNDY/TRADE ZONE
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 31 24*** 49
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 10/2/2014 Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
17 1
Cycle Time (sec): 116
1 16
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 932*** 2 Critical V/C: 0.800 2 273
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 53.1 0
446 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 49.7 1 354***
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 306 18 436***
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2014 << 4:50-5:50
Base Vol: 306 18 436 49 24 31 17 932 446 354 273 16
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 306 18 436 49 24 31 17 932 446 354 273 16
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 306 18 436 49 24 31 17 932 446 354 273 16
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 306 18 436 49 24 31 17 932 446 354 273 16
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 306 18 436 49 24 31 17 932 446 354 273 16
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 306 18 436 49 24 31 17 932 446 354 273 16
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.90 0.10 1.00 1.38 0.62 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3320 195 1750 2412 1181 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.09 0.25 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.07 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.21 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.31 0.31 Volume/Cap: 0.32 0.32 0.86 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.05 0.86 0.89 0.86 0.23 0.03 Delay/Veh: 33.0 33.0 56.1 51.2 51.2 52.4 36.4 48.2 60.8 62.8 30.6 28.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 33.0 33.0 56.1 51.2 51.2 52.4 36.4 48.2 60.8 62.8 30.6 28.3 LOS by Move: C C E D D D D D E E C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 5 5 19 1 1 1 1 18 20 16 4 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:55:05 2021 Page 3-6
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background + Project PM
Intersection #2: LUNDY/TRADE ZONE
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 29 23 32***
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
13 1
Cycle Time (sec): 116
1 11
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 932*** 2 Critical V/C: 0.794 2 266
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 53.1 0
446 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 49.8 1 354***
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 306 16 436***
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 306 16 436 32 23 29 13 932 446 354 266 11
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 306 16 436 32 23 29 13 932 446 354 266 11
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 306 16 436 32 23 29 13 932 446 354 266 11
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 306 16 436 32 23 29 13 932 446 354 266 11
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 306 16 436 32 23 29 13 932 446 354 266 11
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 306 16 436 32 23 29 13 932 446 354 266 11
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.91 0.09 1.00 1.20 0.80 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3339 175 1750 2106 1514 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.09 0.25 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.07 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.21 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.31 0.31 Volume/Cap: 0.32 0.32 0.86 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.03 0.86 0.89 0.86 0.23 0.02 Delay/Veh: 33.0 33.0 56.1 50.4 50.4 52.1 36.2 48.2 60.8 62.8 30.5 28.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 33.0 33.0 56.1 50.4 50.4 52.1 36.2 48.2 60.8 62.8 30.5 28.2 LOS by Move: C C E D D D D D E E C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 5 5 19 1 1 1 0 18 20 16 3 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Mon Aug 16 14:55:05 2021 Page 3-7
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #3: MONTAGUE EXPWY/TRADE ZONE BLVD
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 80 128*** 32
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 11/8/2018 Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
84 1
Cycle Time (sec): 180
1 73
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 1767 3 Critical V/C: 1.109 2 853
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 118.8 0
1253*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 65.9 1 208***
LOS: E
Lanes: 2 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 544 73*** 170
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Trade Zone Blvd Montague Expressway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 100 10 7 107 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 8 Nov 2018 << 5:00 - 6:00 PM Base Vol: 544 73 170 32 128 80 84 1767 1253 208 853 73
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 544 73 170 32 128 80 84 1767 1253 208 853 73 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 544 73 170 32 128 80 84 1767 1253 208 853 73 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 544 73 170 32 128 80 84 1767 1253 208 853 73 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 544 73 170 32 128 80 84 1767 1253 208 853 73 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 544 73 170 32 128 80 84 1767 1253 208 853 73 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.79 0.96 0.78 0.91 0.99 0.78 0.87 1.00 0.78 0.87 1.00 0.78 Lanes: 2.70 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 4073 547 1488 1733 1881 1488 1663 5700 1488 1663 3800 1488 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.31 0.84 0.13 0.22 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.64 0.76 0.11 0.69 0.69 Volume/Cap: 1.11 1.11 0.95 0.30 1.11 0.88 0.86 0.49 1.11 1.11 0.32 0.07 Delay/Veh: 150.9 151 131.1 81.1 192 139.9 132.7 17.1 83.8 178.0 11.0 9.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 150.9 151 131.1 81.1 192 139.9 132.7 17.1 83.8 178.0 11.0 9.0 LOS by Move: F F F F F F F B F F B A
HCM2kAvgQ: 19 19 13 2 11 7 7 16 92 18 9 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.