Newark City Council
September 14, 2023

Noise – The following noise reduction measures will be implemented to minimize the impact of construction noise onto offsite receivers:
● Construction activity will generally be limited to the hours of 7 AM to 7 PM Monday through Friday.

Noise from construction activity occurring outside these hours will be limited to the levels outlined in Municipal Code section 17.24.100-3.
● The contractor shall require properly maintained mufflers on construction vehicles. ● To the extent feasible, stationary construction equipment and staging areas shall be located as far as possible from adjacent residences and the motel.
● The contractor shall consider temporary noise barriers between noisy activities and adjacent residences and the motel.
● To the extent feasible, construction should proceed from Cedar Boulevard towards Intestate 880, and from south to north, so that constructed buildings will help shield residences from equipment and construction activities.
● The contractor will designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. ● Signs will be posted at the construction site to notify the neighborhood of permitted days and hours of activities, and to provide a day-time telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator.

Vibration – The City has requested that the project review the potential for construction vibration from vibration-intensive activities such as jackhammers and vibratory rollers near sensitive receptors and compare levels with FTA vibration annoyance criteria included in Action EH7.E of the Newark General Plan Tune Up EIR. The document identifies the following groundborne vibration levels for construction equipment:

Construction Equipment Approximate Velocity at
25 Feet (VdB) Approximate PPV at
25 Feet (inch/sec)
Large Bulldozer 87 0.089
Jackhammer 79 0.035
Small Bulldozer 58 0.003
Loaded Trucks 86 0.076
Vibratory Roller 94 0.210
Human Annoyance (Daytime) 78 to 90* -
Structural Damage - 0.2 to 0.5**
* Depending on affected land use. For residential 78 VdB, for offices 84 VdB, workshops 90 VdB. ** Depending on affected building structure, for timber and masonry buildings 0.2 in/sec, for reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber 0.5 in/sec.

Packet Page 2468
38600 Cedar Boulevard
2 May 2023
Environmental Review of Construction Noise and Vibration

The site appears to be over 100 feet from the nearest residences across Cedar Boulevard and planned internal roadway/parking areas appear to be approximately 10 feet from the nearest portion of the adjacent motel building to the southeast. Offsetting the vibration levels identified in the tables above for distance, and comparing both residences and the motel building with the 78 VdB annoyance criteria and

0.2 PPV threshold for possible damage, results in the following:
● Limit large bulldozers and loaded trucks to 50 feet and farther from the motel building(s) ● Limit jackhammering to 30 feet and farther from the motel building(s) ● Limit the use of vibratory rollers to 85 feet and farther from the motel building(s) Please call with any questions.
* * *
Packet Page 2469
11 November 2022
Caden Proctor
Waymark Development
2801 West Coast Hwy, Suite 270
Newport Beach, CA 92663
[email protected]
Subject: 38600 Cedar Boulevard – Newark, CA
Environmental Noise Assessment
Salter Project 22-0336
Dear Caden:

This report summarizes our environmental noise assessment for the 38600 Cedar Boulevard project in Newark, California. The project consists of approximately 72 to 74 three-story residential units in sixteen buildings with common outdoor use space. The site is relatively flat and located adjacent to Interstate 880 (I-880). The site is currently being used as a construction machinery lot with auto shops located to the northwest. The purpose of this study is to address compliance with the City of Newark requirements.

Following is a summary of our findings:

1. Sound rated windows and doors will be needed to reduce environmental noise in residences to the Code requirement of DNL1 45 dB2 or lower indoors, due to exterior sources. a. Estimates indicate that sound insulation ratings up to STC3 42, with upgraded exterior walls, will be needed at the façade of homes nearest to and fronting I-880. b. With the inclusion of an 18-foot tall noise barrier along I-880, initial estimates suggest that windows and exterior doors will need to be STC 30 to 38 at the lower floors of the homes façade fronting I-880.
1 DNL (Day-Night Average Sound Level) – A descriptor for a 24-hour A-weighted average noise level. DNL accounts for the increased acoustical sensitivity of people to noise during the nighttime hours. DNL penalizes sound levels by 10 dB during the hours from 10 PM to 7 AM. For practical purposes, the DNL and CNEL are usually interchangeable. DNL is sometimes written as Ldn.
2 A-Weighted Sound Level – The A-weighted sound pressure level, expressed in decibels (dB). Sometimes the unit of sound level is written as dB(A). A weighting is a standard weighting that accounts for the sensitivity of human hearing to the range of audible frequencies. People perceive a 10 dB increase in sound level to be twice as loud. 3 STC (Sound Transmission Class) – A single-number rating defined in ASTM E90 that quantifies the airborne sound insulating performance of a partition under laboratory conditions. Increasing STC ratings correspond to improved airborne sound insulation.

APPENDIX E-2
Packet Page 2470
38600 Cedar Boulevard – Newark, CA
11 November 2022
Environmental Noise Assessment

2. Estimates indicate that an 18-foot tall noise barrier along I-880 will need to be constructed to reduce traffic noise in outdoor use spaces close to I-880 to approximately DNL 65 dB.

3. Since windows will need to be closed to meet the interior noise criterion, the mechanical design should meet ventilation requirements with windows in the closed position.

ACOUSTICAL CRITERIA
City of Newark General Plan
The Noise Element of the City of Newark General Plan adopted 12 December 2013 contains land use compatibility guidelines for environmental noise in the community. Table 1 summarizes these guidelines for multi-family residential land use.

Table 1: Summary of Table EH-2 – Noise Compatibility Guidelines for Newark DNL Value in Decibels
Multi-Family Residential
Compatibility for Community Noise environments
65 dB or less
Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
60 to 70 dB
Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or
development should be undertaken only after a detailed
analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and the needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will
normally suffice.
70 to 75 dB
Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development
should generally be discouraged. If new construction does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction
requirements must be made and needed noise insulation
features included in the design.

Greater than 75 dB Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development generally should not be undertaken.

Additionally, the Noise Element includes the following policies and acoustic goals:

Packet Page 2471
38600 Cedar Boulevard – Newark, CA
11 November 2022
Environmental Noise Assessment

Policy EH-7.4
Plan for and implement strategies to maintain exterior noise levels that are consistent with the noise compatibility guidelines in Table EH-2. For residential areas, this limit is DNL 60 dB for outdoor living areas. Where this level is exceeded due to freeways, arterials, and/or railroads, the construction of berms, walls, buffer zones, and other noise-reduction measures to reduce noise to the greatest extent feasible will be required.

Policy EH-7.5
Use site planning and architectural design to protect occupants of new buildings from excessive noise, per California State Noise Insulation Standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 24) and Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). For example, site planning should place bedrooms and other noisesensitive rooms away from exterior noise sources and architectural design should use double-paned windows and other insulating measures to reduce interior noise.

California Building Code
Consistent with the City’s General Plan Policy EH-7.5, the California Building Code (CBC), part of the California Code or Regulations, includes acoustical requirements for interior sound levels in habitable rooms of multi-family housing. In summary, the CBC limits interior noise levels to DNL 45 dB or lower due to exterior noise sources.

NOISE ENVIRONMENT
To quantify the existing noise environment, two multi-day monitors continuously logged sound levels at the site between 11 and 13 July 2022. Table 2 and Figure 1, attached, summarize measured existing noise levels and approximate locations measured at the site.

Table 2: Existing Noise Environment
Site Location DNL
LT-1
Interstate 880 Monitor
Approximately 100’ south of I-880 centerline, 10’ above grade 80 dB LT-2
Cedar Boulevard Monitor
Approximately 30’ north of Cedar Boulevard centerline, 10’ above grade 74 dB Packet Page 2472
38600 Cedar Boulevard – Newark, CA
11 November 2022
Environmental Noise Assessment

The analysis and recommendations section below estimates the noise levels at the various building facades using our measured data and data measured recently at other sites using CadnaA computer modeling software. We understand a traffic study has not been prepared for the project. Estimates include a 1 decibel increase in noise levels across the site to account for future traffic increases.4

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Interior Noise
Exterior building assemblies will need to be sound-rated to reduce environmental noise to the DNL 45 dB criterion indoors. Preliminary estimates suggest that window and exterior door sound insulation ratings up to STC 42, with upgraded exterior walls, will be needed at the façade of homes nearest to and facing I-880. Figures 2 to 4 show the preliminary STC ratings needed to meet the acoustic criteria, which include shielding from an 18-foot tall noise barrier adjacent to I-880. As shown, preliminary sound insulation ratings at the first and second floors of homes near I-880 are in the range of STC 32 to 38 and STC ratings will decrease at homes farther from I-880. These preliminary recommendations will need to be updated as the design continues and floor plans and elevations are finalized. The preliminary estimates are based on the following:
● Approximate room and window/door sizes shown in PPR Submittal drawings dated 20 June 2022 ● An assumption that bedrooms will be carpeted and other rooms will either be carpeted or have hardsurfaced flooring ● Ventilation and exhaust systems will not compromise sound insulation of the exterior wall assemblies (this will need to be coordinated with the mechanical engineer as the design continues) ● Exterior walls are assumed to be single-stud assemblies with batt insulation in stud cavities, plywood sheathing, and stucco or lap siding on the exterior with a layer of gypsum board on the interior. At the façade facing I-880, upgraded walls should include a second layer of gypsum board on the unit interior and framing should be staggered stud or the interior gypsum board should be mounted on sound isolation clips (e.g., Pliteq GenieClip, Kinetics Isomax, or Pac International RSIC) ● Additional details will need to be developed to address other possible paths for noise transfer, such as attic vents
Sound insulation ratings should be for the complete assembly, including glass and frame, and should be based on laboratory test reports of similar sized samples from an NVLAP accredited lab. Since windows will need to be closed to meet the interior noise criteria, the mechanical design should meet ventilation requirements with windows in the closed position.
4 The California Department of Transportation assumes a traffic volume increase of three percent per year, which corresponds to a 1 dB increase in DNL over a ten-year period.

Packet Page 2473
38600 Cedar Boulevard – Newark, CA
11 November 2022
Environmental Noise Assessment

Exterior Noise – Outdoor Use Spaces
Outdoor use space is expected to include a promenade and park along I-880, and various landscaped areas around the buildings. Without noise reduction measures, estimated future outdoor sound levels at these spaces would be up to approximately DNL 80 dB, and will depend on distance to and shielded from I-880. It will not be feasible to reduce traffic noise to the City’s exterior noise goal of DNL 60 dB at this site. Estimates suggest that incorporating an approximately 18-foot tall noise barrier along I-880 will reduce traffic noise to DNL 65 dB and below at outdoor use spaces across the site. The height should be with respect to the freeway elevation, or yard elevation, whichever is higher. The barrier should extend the length of the site and wrap the ends, returning towards Cedar Boulevard. Details will need to be developed as the design continues.

Effective noise barriers may be comprised of various materials including CMU, plaster, wood (enhanced fencing), glass or plastic. They should be solid from bottom to top with no cracks or gaps and should have a minimum surface density of approximately three pounds per square foot.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Best,
CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC.

Matthew Hsiung
Consultant
Josh Roper, PE, LEED® AP
Vice President
Packet Page 2474
Packet Page 2475
= 18' Noise Barrier = 16' Noise Barrier = 14' Noise Barrier = 12' Noise Barrier = 10' Noise Barrier = 08' Noise Barrier 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 3228 28 32 3228282828 32 NOTE: STC RATINGS ARE FOR THE COMPLETE ASSEMBLY (E.G., GLASS, FRAME, AND OPERABLE SECTIONS) BASED ON TEST REPORTS FROM AN NVLAP-ACCREDITED LAB WITH UPGRADED EXTERIOR WALL * www.salter-inc.com San Francisco San Jose Honolulu Seattle Los Angeles Packet Page 2476
= 18' Noise Barrier = 16' Noise Barrier = 14' Noise Barrier = 12' Noise Barrier = 10' Noise Barrier = 08' Noise Barrier 32 32 32 32 38 38 38 38 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 34 34 34 34 34 38 34 323234 38 32 323030 30 32 NOTE: STC RATINGS ARE FOR THE COMPLETE ASSEMBLY (E.G., GLASS, FRAME, AND OPERABLE SECTIONS) BASED ON TEST REPORTS FROM AN NVLAP-ACCREDITED LAB WITH UPGRADED EXTERIOR WALL * www.salter-inc.com San Francisco San Jose Honolulu Seattle Los Angeles Packet Page 2477
= 18' Noise Barrier = 16' Noise Barrier = 14' Noise Barrier = 12' Noise Barrier = 10' Noise Barrier = 08' Noise Barrier 42* 42* 42* 36 36 36 36 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 42* 42* 36 36 32 32 3438 42* 32 36 323232 32 NOTE: STC RATINGS ARE FOR THE COMPLETE ASSEMBLY (E.G., GLASS, FRAME, AND OPERABLE SECTIONS) BASED ON TEST REPORTS FROM AN NVLAP-ACCREDITED LAB WITH UPGRADED EXTERIOR WALL * www.salter-inc.com San Francisco San Jose Honolulu Seattle Los Angeles Packet Page 2478
Traffic Impact Study Report
Cedar Boulevard Townhomes
November 11, 2022
Revised March 21, 2023
Revised April 21, 2023
City of Newark, California
APPENDIX F-1
Packet Page 2479
This traffic impact analysis/study has been prepared under the direction of a professional engineer licensed to practice as a traffic engineer. The licensed professional engineer attests to the technical information contained therein, and has judged the qualifications of any technical specialists providing engineering data, which recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are based.

Prepared by:

Chris D. Kinzel, P.E., T.E.

Vice President, TJKM
4305 Hacienda Drive, Suite 550
Pleasanton, CA 94588-2798
Tel: 925.463.0611
Fax: 925.463.369
Packet Page 2480
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | i

CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 5

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 8

1.1 Study Intersections and Scenarios .................................................................................................................................... 8

2.0 Study Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 11

2.1 Vehicles Miles Traveled........................................................................................................................................................11

2.1.1 VMT Screening Criteria ...............................................................................................................................................11

2.1.2 VMT Significance Standards .....................................................................................................................................11

2.2 Level of Service Analysis Methodology.........................................................................................................................11

2.2.1 Signalized Intersections Methodology.................................................................................................................12

2.2.2 Stop-Controlled Intersections Methodology.....................................................................................................12

2.2.3 Impact Criteria/Level of Service Standards .........................................................................................................14

3.0 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 15

3.1 Existing Setting and Roadway System...........................................................................................................................15

3.2 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ..............................................................................................................................................15

3.3 Existing Bicycle Facilities......................................................................................................................................................16

3.4 Existing Transit Facilities......................................................................................................................................................16

3.5 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations.............................................................................21

3.6 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions.................................................................................21

4.0 Existing plus Project Conditions ........................................................................................................... 24

4.1 Project Description................................................................................................................................................................24

4.2 Project Trip Generation........................................................................................................................................................24

4.3 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment....................................................................................................................25

4.4 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing plus Project Conditions........................................................27

5.0 Background Conditions Analysis .......................................................................................................... 29

5.1 Background Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations....................................................................29

5.2 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Background Conditions........................................................................29

6.0 Background plus Project Conditions ................................................................................................... 32

6.1 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Background plus Project Conditions...............................................32

7.0 Cumulative Conditions Analysis ........................................................................................................... 35

7.1 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative Conditions .........................................................................35 Packet Page 2481
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | ii

8.0 Cumulative plus Project Conditions ..................................................................................................... 38

8.1 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative plus Project Conditions ................................................38

9.0 Vehicle Miles Traveled........................................................................................................................... 41

9.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Methodology...........................................................................................................41

9.2 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Screening ..................................................................................................................41

9.3 VMT Forecasting and Analysis Results ..........................................................................................................................41

10.0 Additional Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 43

10.1 Site Access and On-Site Circulation.............................................................................................................................43

10.2 Parking Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................43

10.3 Queuing and Driveway Analysis ....................................................................................................................................44

10.5 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Impacts.....................................................................................................................46

10.5.1 Pedestrian Impacts.....................................................................................................................................................46

10.5.2 Bicycle Impacts.............................................................................................................................................................46

10.5.3 Transit Impacts.............................................................................................................................................................46

10.6 Signal Warrant Assessment for the Intersection of Cedar Boulevard and Smith Avenue......................46 Tables
Table 1: Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections ...................................................................................... 13 Table 2: Level of Service Definitions for Stop-Controlled Intersections .......................................................................... 13 Table 3: Existing Transit Services..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 4: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions............................................................................... 21 Table 5: Project Trip Generation...................................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 6: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing plus Project Conditions...................................................... 27 Table 7: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Background Conditions ...................................................................... 30 Table 8: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Background plus Project Conditions............................................. 33 Table 9: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative Conditions........................................................................ 36 Table 10: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative plus Project Conditions ............................................ 39 Table 11: Land Use Changes for Base Year................................................................................................................................. 42 Table 12: Home Based VMT Per Capita Comparison (South Alameda County Average)......................................... 42 Table 13: 95th Percentile Queues at Turn Pockets Affected by Project Traffic .............................................................. 45 Table 14: 95th Percentile Queues at Project Driveways .......................................................................................................... 45 Packet Page 2482
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | iii
Figures
Figure 1: Vicinity Map............................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 2: Site Plan.................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 3: Existing Pedestrian Facilities........................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 4: Existing Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 5: Existing Transit Facilities .................................................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 6: Existing Conditions Lane Geometry and Traffic Controls ................................................................................... 22 Figure 7: Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................... 23 Figure 8: Project Trip Distribution and Assignment................................................................................................................. 26 Figure 9: Existing plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................................ 28 Figure 10: Background Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.......................................................................................... 31 Figure 11: Background plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................................................................. 34 Figure 12: Cumulative Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................... 37 Figure 13: Cumulative plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................................. 40 Figure 14: CA-MUTCD Warrant 3 Assessment for Intersection 4....................................................................................... 47 Appendices
Appendix A – Level of Service Methodology
Appendix B – Vehicle, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Turning Movement Counts Appendix C – Existing Conditions Intersections Level of Service Worksheets Appendix D – Existing plus Project Conditions Intersections Level of Service Worksheets Appendix E – Background Conditions Intersections Level of Service Worksheets Appendix F – Background plus Project Conditions Intersections Level of Service Worksheets Appendix G – Cumulative Conditions Intersections Level of Service Worksheets Appendix H – Cumulative plus Project Conditions Intersections Level of Service Worksheets Appendix I – ACTC Model Outputs
Packet Page 2483
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes the results of the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) conducted for the proposed development to be located at 38600 Cedar Boulevard in the City of Newark, California. The project proposes to replace the existing commercial use with an approximately 3.45-acre residential development consisting of 76 townhomes (note for the purposes of this study, 80 units were analyzed as part of the capacity, queuing, and vehicle-miles traveled assessments to be conservative). The purpose of this report is to provide summaries of traffic impacts to the surrounding transportation system.

The purpose of this TIS is to evaluate the impacts on the transportation infrastructure due to the addition of the traffic from the proposed project. The report includes evaluations and recommendations concerning project site access and on-site circulation, vehicle-miles travelled (VMT) impacts, and capacity and queuing impacts at nearby intersections.

TJKM evaluated the impacts on the transportation infrastructure due to the addition of traffic from the proposed project at five study intersections during the weekday morning (a.m.) and weekday afternoon (p.m.) peak hours under six study scenarios. The study intersections were evaluated under No Project and Plus Project scenarios for Existing, Background, and Cumulative Conditions.

Project Trip Generation
TJKM expects the project will generate 562 additional daily trips than the existing development, of which 31 (six inbound, 25 outbound) trips generated during the a.m. peak hour and 33 (24 inbound, nine outbound) trips generated during the p.m. peak hour.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
Project VMT contributions were assessed and are expected to have a less than significant impact.

Existing Conditions Capacity Analysis
Under this scenario, all intersections operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) D or better during both peak hours.

Existing plus Project Conditions Capacity Analysis
Under this scenario, all intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable level of LOS D or better during both peak. Based on the City of Newark thresholds impact criteria, the project is expected to have a less than adverse impact at the study intersections under this scenario.

Background Conditions Capacity Analysis
Under this scenario, the intersection at Mowry Avenue and Alpenrose Court (Intersection 3) operates at unacceptable LOS F during the p.m. peak hour, and the intersection at Cedar Boulevard and Smith Avenue (Intersection 4) operates at unacceptable LOS E during the a.m. peak hour. The remaining intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better during both peak hours.

Packet Page 2484
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 6
Background plus Project Conditions Capacity Analysis
Under this scenario, the intersection at Mowry Avenue and Alpenrose Court (Intersection 3) continues to operate at unacceptable LOS F during the p.m. peak hour, and the intersection of Cedar Boulevard and Smith Avenue (Intersection 4) continues to operate at unacceptable LOS E during the a.m. peak hour. These two intersections experience an increase in overall vehicular delay by 0.3 seconds or less with project traffic.

The remaining intersections continue operate at acceptable LOS D or better during both peak hours. Based on the City of Newark thresholds impact criteria, the project is expected to have less than adverse impact at the study intersections under this scenario.

Cumulative Conditions Capacity Analysis
Under this scenario, the intersection at Cedar Boulevard and Mowry Avenue (Intersection 2) operates at unacceptable LOS E during both peak hours. The intersection at Mowry Avenue and Alpenrose Court (Intersection 3) continues to operate at unacceptable LOS F during the p.m. peak hour, and the intersection at Cedar Boulevard and Smith Avenue (Intersection 4) continues to operate at unacceptable LOS F during the a.m. peak hour. The remaining intersections continue operate at acceptable LOS D or better during both peak hours.

Cumulative plus Project Conditions Capacity Analysis
Under this scenario, the intersection at Cedar Boulevard and Mowry Avenue (Intersection 2) continues to operate at unacceptable LOS E during both peak hours. The intersection at Mowry Avenue and Alpenrose Court (Intersection 3) continues to operate at unacceptable LOS F during the p.m. peak hour, and the intersection at Cedar Boulevard and Smith Avenue (Intersection 4) continues to operate at unacceptable LOS F during the a.m. peak hour. These three intersections experience an increase in overall vehicular delay by 3.8 seconds or less with project traffic. The remaining intersections continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better during both peak hours. Based on the City of Newark thresholds impact criteria, the project is expected to have less than adverse impact at all the study intersections under this scenario.

Site Access and On-Site Circulation
Access to the proposed project would be via full access driveway at the north leg of the Cedar Boulevard and Moores Avenue (Intersection 1) intersection. Bicycle and pedestrian access are acceptable, including sidewalks, signalized pedestrian crossings, and bicycle lanes, leading to the project site. Site access and circulation are expected to be adequate.

Parking
The project site plan (dated April 21, 2023) shows a supply of 190 parking spaces for the 76 townhomes.

The proposed parking supply of 152 garage, 26 head-in, eight head-in compact, and four parallel spaces is expected to be sufficient.

Queuing and Driveway Analysis
Traffic associated with the project increases the 95th percentile queues for all left or right turn pockets at the study intersections by 21 feet for less during the peak hours. The 95th percentile queues at the project’s driveway are expected to extended less than one car length during all “plus Project” scenarios. Thus, the project is expected to have less than adverse impact at all the study intersections.

Packet Page 2485
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 7
Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Impacts
The proposed project does not conflict with existing and planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities and will add very few trips to existing transit facilities. Existing transit capacity is expected to be able to accommodate additional demand generated by the development. Therefore, the impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities are less than significant.

Signal Warrant Assessment for the Intersection of Cedar Boulevard and Smith Avenue Under Background and Cumulative conditions, the intersection of Cedar Boulevard and Smith Avenue (Intersection 4), which is the only unsignalized study intersection, will begin to operate at unacceptable levels of service during the a.m. peak hour. These conditions occur regardless of the proposed development. In order to preliminarily assess if a traffic signal would be warranted at this location, Warrant 3 (referred to as the “Peak Hour” warrant) from the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD) was utilized. Based on the results, a signal is not warranted at Intersection 4.

Recommendations
The following items are recommended with respect to the intersection of Cedar Boulevard / Moores Avenue (Intersection 1) as part of the project:
• Crosswalks (including pedestrian signal heads and push buttons) be installed along the newly proposed north leg (the site entrance) and along the west leg of the intersection. • A tactile surface for the existing curb ramp be provided at the northeast corner of the intersection.

As illustrated on current plans (dated April 2023), these recommendations are being pursued as part of the application.

Packet Page 2486
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 8

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) conducted for the proposed residential development at 38600 Cedar Boulevard in the City of Newark, California. The applicant proposes to replace an existing construction equipment store of approximately 33,000 square feet with 76 townhomes (note for the purposes of this study, 80 units were analyzed to be conservative).

1.1 STUDY INTERSECTIONS AND SCENARIOS
TJKM evaluated traffic conditions at five study intersections during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for a typical weekday. The study intersections were approved by the City of Newark staff. The peak periods observed were between 7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m. The study intersections and associated traffic controls are as follows:

1. Cedar Boulevard/Moores Avenue (Signal)

2. Cedar Boulevard/Mowry Avenue (Signal)

3. Mowry Avenue/Alpenrose Court (Signal)

4. Cedar Boulevard/Smith Avenue (One-Way Stop)

5. Cedar Boulevard/Central Avenue (Signal)
Figure 1 illustrates the study intersections and the vicinity map of the proposed project. Figure 2 shows the proposed site plan.

This study addresses the following two traffic scenarios:
• Existing Conditions – This scenario evaluates the study intersections based on existing traffic volumes, lane geometry and traffic controls.
• Existing plus Project Conditions – This scenario is identical to Existing Conditions, but with the addition of traffic from the proposed project.
• Background Conditions – This scenario evaluates the study intersections based on background traffic volumes, lane geometry, and traffic controls.
• Background plus Project Conditions – This scenario is identical to Background Conditions, but with the addition of traffic from the proposed project.
• Cumulative Conditions – This scenario evaluates the study intersections based on cumulative (year 2040) traffic volumes, lane geometry, and traffic controls. • Cumulative plus Project Conditions – This scenario is identical to Cumulative Conditions, but with the addition of traffic from the proposed project.

Packet Page 2487
Project Site
X
Project Driveway
Study Intersection
LEGEND
006-113 | 10/2022
N
TJKM
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Stevenson Blvd
Moores Ave
Smith Ave
Smith Ave
Robertson Ave
Mowry Ave
Eggers Dr
Central Ave
Newpark Mall Rd
Blacow Rd
Birch St
Amaryllis Pl
Cedar Blvd
Cherry St
Cedar Blvd
Birch
Grove Park
Newark Memorial
High School
John F. Kennedy
High School
Holy Spirit
Cemetery
Shirley Sisk
Grove
Azevada Park
1 2
3 4
5 880
Packet Page 2488
EV
C
C
C
C
CC

EVCS EV EV
C
EVCS
C
EV
TJKM
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Figure 2: Site Plan
006-113| 11/2022
N
Packet Page 2489
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 11

2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY
Traffic impacts related to the proposed project were evaluated for both compliance with applicable regulatory documents and environmental significance as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with the Technical Advisory published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), a qualitative Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis forms the basis of the CEQA analysis for the proposed project. Effective as of July 1, 2020, intersection level of service (LOS) can no longer be used to determine significant impacts for CEQA purposes.

2.1 VEHICLES MILES TRAVELED
This study includes a quantitative analysis of VMT generated by the proposed project. California Senate Bill (SB) No. 743 is intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and particulates, encourage infill development and a diversity of uses instead of sprawl, and promote multi-modal transportation networks.

As of October 2022, the City of Newark has not adopted VMT procedures standards, so OPR guidelines were used.

2.1.1 VMT Screening Criteria
The adopted guidelines include the following screening criteria for identifying projects that can be presumed to have a less than significant impact:
• projects exempt from CEQA analysis,
• small projects,
• local serving projects,
• projects in transit priority areas, and
• projects in low VMT areas.

2.1.2 VMT Significance Standards
Under OPR guidelines, a residential project would have a significant impact on VMT if it would generate residential VMT per capita higher than 85 percent of the City of Newark’s average.

2.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
LOS standards are no longer used for identifying impacts under CEQA, however level of service analysis is still used for determining consistency with adopted agency plans and standards. Where standards refer to significant environmental impacts, this analysis instead identifies these as significant inconsistencies with adopted plans.

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

Packet Page 2490
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 12
Each of the study intersections was analyzed using Synchro, Version 11, software using the methodology presented in the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition. The LOS assessment under all scenarios is based on current traffic controls and lane geometries unless otherwise specified. Of note, as requested by the City, the peak hour factors utilized for all other scenarios in this report were assumed as 1.0.

2.2.1 Signalized Intersections Methodology
The study intersections under traffic signal control were analyzed using the HCM 6th Edition methodology for signalized intersections described in Chapter 19. This methodology determines LOS based on average control delay per vehicle for the overall intersection during peak hour intersection operating conditions.

Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Table 1 summarizes the relationship between the control delay and LOS for signalized intersections.

The LOS methodology is described for Signalized intersections in detail in Appendix A.

2.2.2 Stop-Controlled Intersections Methodology
The study intersections under one/two-way stop control and all-way stop control were analyzed using the HCM 6th Edition methodology described in Chapter 20 and 21, respectively. LOS ratings for stop-sign controlled intersections are based on the average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.

At one- or two-way stop controlled intersections, the control delay is calculated for each movement, not for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. The weighted average delay for the entire intersections is presented for all-way stop controlled intersections.

Table 2 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. The delay ranges for unsignalized intersections are lower than for signalized intersections as drivers expect less delay at unsignalized intersections.

The LOS methodology is described for unsignalized intersections in detail in Appendix A.

Packet Page 2491
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 13
Table 1: Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Description
A
Very low control delay, up to 10 seconds per vehicle. Progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may tend to contribute to low delay values.

B
Control delay greater than 10 and up to 20 seconds per vehicle. There is good progression or short cycle lengths or both. More vehicles stop causing higher levels of delay.

C
Control delay greater than 20 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle. Higher delays are caused by fair progression or longer cycle lengths or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase does not serve queued vehicles, and overflow occurs. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.

D
Control delay greater than 35 and up to 55 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestions becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volumes. Many vehicles stop, the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.

E
Control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 seconds per vehicle. The limit of acceptable delay.

High delays usually indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volumes. Individual cycle failures are frequent.

F
Control delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. Unacceptable to most drivers.

Oversaturation, arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to higher delay.

Source: Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 6th Edition Table 2: Level of Service Definitions for Stop-Controlled Intersections Level of
Service Description
A Very low control delay less than 10 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay.

B
Low control delay greater than 10 and up to 15 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay.

C Acceptable control delay greater than 15 and up to 25 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay.

D
Tolerable control delay greater than 25 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay.

E
Limit of tolerable control delay greater than 35 and up to 50 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay.

F
Unacceptable control delay in excess of 50 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay.

Source: TRB’s HCM, 6th Edition
Packet Page 2492
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 14

2.2.3 Impact Criteria/Level of Service Standards
Based on City of Newark Guideline thresholds, a project would result in an adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection if for either peak hour:
a) The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better under noproject conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under project conditions; b) The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS under no-project conditions and the addition of project trips causes the average delay at the intersection to increase by four (4) or more seconds
An adverse impact by the City of Newark standards is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore intersection level of service to no project conditions or better.

Packet Page 2493
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 15

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes existing conditions in the immediate project site vicinity, including roadway facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and available transit service. In addition, existing traffic volumes and operations are presented for the study intersections, including the results of LOS calculations.

3.1 EXISTING SETTING AND ROADWAY SYSTEM
Important roadways in the immediate vicinity of the project site are discussed below:

Interstate 880 (I-880) is a north-south freeway that extends from Oakland to San Jose through Santa Clara County and Alameda County. Within the vicinity of the project site, I-880 is an eight-lane freeway with three general-purpose lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction Mowry Avenue is an east-west, six-lane divided arterial with a raised median. It extends from Mission Boulevard in the east to its termination in the City of Newark to the west. Mowry Avenue connects the cities of Newark and Fremont and facilitates traffic to and from Interstate 880 and Mission Boulevard (State Route 238). The posted speed limit on Mowry Avenue is 35 mph within the project vicinity. . Access to the project site from I-880 is provided via ramps at Mowry Avenue.

Cedar Boulevard is a north-south, four-lane arterial road with a raised median along some portions. It extends from the intersection with Stevenson Boulevard in the north to its termination at Haley Street within the City of Newark. The posted speed limit on Cedar Boulevard is 35 mph within the project vicinity.

Alpenrose Court is a two- to four-lane local roadway with a raised median south of Mowry Avenue. It extends from Newpark Mall Road in the south to its termination point, approximately 215 feet north of Mowry Avenue. Alpenrose Court provides access to Newpark Mall and other retail and restaurant and uses.

Alpenrose Court does not have a posted speed limit.

Moores Avenue is an east-west, two-lane undivided collector road. It extends from Cedar Boulevard in the east to Cherry Street within the City of Newark. It primarily provides access to single-family homes. Moores Avenue features unsignalized intersections, except at Cedar Boulevard. There is no posted speed limit on Moores Avenue for the entire length of the roadway.

Smith Avenue is an east-west, two-lane undivided collector road. It extends from Cedar Boulevard in the east, to its termination in the west, within the City of Newark. It provides access to single-family homes, an elementary school, a church, and park, between Cedar Boulevard and Cherry Street, and industrial land uses west of Cherry Street. Smith Avenue features unsignalized intersections, except at Cherry Street. The posted speed limit on Smith Avenue is 25 mph.

3.2 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Walkability is the ability to travel easily and safely between various origins and destinations without having to rely on automobiles or other motorized travel. The ideal “walkable” community includes wide sidewalks, a mix of land uses such as residential, employment, and shopping opportunities, a limited number of conflict points with vehicle traffic, and easy access to transit facilities, and services.

Packet Page 2494
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 16
Pedestrian facilities are comprised of crosswalks, sidewalks, pedestrian signals, and off-street paths, which provide safe and convenient routes for pedestrians to access destinations such as institutions, businesses, public transportation, and recreation facilities.

In the immediate project vicinity, sidewalks exist on both sides of surrounding roadways. Cedar Boulevard provides continuous sidewalks on both sides between Stevenson Boulevard and Haley Street, with a gap on the east side for 350 feet north of Smith Avenue and for a quarter of a mile north of Central Avenue.

Continuous sidewalks exist on both sides of Moores Avenue and Smith Avenue between Cherry Street and Cedar Boulevard, and on both sides of Mowry Avenue in the project study area. A continuous sidewalk exists on the west side of Alpenrose Court. ADA-compliant curb ramps connect sidewalks at all study intersections with the exception of some approach legs, which have curb ramps but do not provide textured warning surfaces for visually impaired pedestrians. Crosswalks are present at the study intersections, with pedestrian signals at all signalized intersections. There are adequate pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity. Figure 3 illustrates the existing pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity.

3.3 EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES
Bicycle facilities include the following:
• Bike Paths (Class I) – Paved trails that are separated from roadways. • Bike Lanes (Class II) – Lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles through striping, pavement legends, and signs.
• Bike Routes (Class III) – Designated roadways for bicycle use by signs or other markings may or may not include additional pavement width for cyclists.

The following facilities were identified:

Class II Bike Lanes
• Cedar Boulevard between Balentine Drive and Central Avenue Class III Bike Routes
• Cedar Boulevard between Stevenson Boulevard and Balentine Drive Figure 4 illustrates the existing bicycle facilities in the project vicinity.

3.4 EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES
AC Transit, which operates local and express buses throughout Alameda County and Contra Costa County, provides bus service in the project vicinity. The nearest Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station is the Fremont BART station, which is 3.5 miles (walking distance) from the project site and can be accessible by AC transit bus service within the project study area. The nearest bus stop is located at the intersection of Cedar Boulevard and Moores Avenue, which provides access to the project site.

Routes 200, 232, 620, 626 and 628 are accessible at the bus stops located at the project site. These routes also connect to Union City and Fremont BART stations through various residential neighborhoods in north Newark.

Packet Page 2495
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 17
BART provides commuter heavy-rail service to the San Francisco Peninsula with communities in the East Bay and South Bay. The project is located at about 3.5 miles (walking distance) west of the Fremont BART station. The Fremont BART station serves two regional train routes, connecting Richmond in the north, San Francisco/Daly City in the northwest, and San Jose in the south. Weekday peak commute headways are between 20 and 30 minutes. Currently, access to the Fremont BART station is from the west side of the train tracks, via the Walnut Avenue and Mowry Avenue underpass.

Table 3 describes the services and frequency of all AC Transit routes operating in the project vicinity. Figure 5 illustrates the existing transit service system map in the City of Newark.

Table 3: Existing Transit Services
Route From To
Weekdays Weekends
via Operating
Hours
Headway
(minutes)
Operating
Hours
Headway
(minutes)
200 Fremont
BART
Union City
BART
Mowry Ave., NewPark
Mall, Central Ave., Newark
Blvd., and Decoto Rd.
7:00 a.m. –
11:00 p.m.
20-30
7:00 a.m. –
11:00 p.m.
20-30
232 NewPark
Mall
Fremont
BART
Cedar Blvd., Paseo Padre
Pkwy., Union City BART,
and Mission Blvd.
7:00 a.m. –
7:00 p.m.
30+
7:00 a.m. –
7:00 p.m.
30+
620
Cedar
Blvd/Steven
son Blvd
Newark Jr.

High
School
Cedar Blvd., Central Ave.,
Sycamore St., Thornton
Ave., Newark Ave., and
Lafayette Ave.
7:41 a.m. –
3:31 p.m.
60+ - -
626/
628
Lido Faire
Shopping
Center
Newark
Memorial
High
School
Balentine Dr., Cedar Blvd.,
Newark Blvd., and Central
Ave.
7:48 a.m. –
3:57 p.m. - - -
Source: http://www.actransit.org/
Packet Page 2496
Project Site
X
Project Driveway
Study Intersection
LEGEND
006-113 | 11/2022
N
TJKM
Figure 3: Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalk
Marked Crosswalk
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Stevenson Blvd
Moores Ave
Smith Ave
Smith Ave
Robertson Ave
Mowry Ave
Eggers Dr
Central Ave
Newpark Mall Rd
Blacow Rd
Birch St
Amaryllis Pl
Cedar Blvd
Cherry St
Cedar Blvd
Birch
Grove Park
Newark Memorial
High School
John F. Kennedy
High School
Holy Spirit
Cemetery
Shirley Sisk
Grove
Azevada Park
1 2
3 4
5 880
Packet Page 2497
Project Site
X
Project Driveway
Study Intersection
LEGEND
006-113 | 11/2022
N
TJKM
Figure 4: Existing Bicycle Facilities
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Stevenson Blvd
Moores Ave
Smith Ave
Smith Ave
Robertson Ave
Mowry Ave
Eggers Dr
Central Ave
Newpark Mall Rd
Blacow Rd
Birch St
Amaryllis Pl
Cedar Blvd
Cherry St
Cedar Blvd
Birch
Grove Park
Newark Memorial
High School
John F. Kennedy
High School
Holy Spirit
Cemetery
Shirley Sisk
Grove
Azevada Park
1 2
3 4
5 880
Packet Page 2498
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Figure 5: Existing Transit Facilities
N
TJKM
006-113| 11/2022
Packet Page 2499
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 21

3.5 EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS TJKM evaluated the existing operations of the study intersections for the highest one-hour volumes during weekday morning and evening peak periods. TJKM collected new turning movement counts for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians during the weekday a.m. peak period (7:00-9:00 a.m.) and p.m. peak period (4:00- 6:00 p.m.) at the study intersections, on Tuesday, September 20, 2022.

Appendix B includes all data sheets for the collected vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian counts at the study intersections.

The City of Newark provided current signal timing sheets for the study intersections. Figure 6 illustrates the existing lane geometry, and traffic controls at the study intersections. Figure 7 illustrates the existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour vehicle turning movement volumes at the study intersections.

Peak hour factors of 1.00 were applied at all study intersections under Existing Conditions.

3.6 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – EXISTING CONDITIONS Table 4 summarizes the results of the LOS analysis using the Synchro, version 11, software program under Existing Conditions. Intersections that operated at LOS E or F are shown in red.

Under this scenario, all of the study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

Appendix C contains detailed level of service calculation sheets for Existing Conditions.

Table 4: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions # Study Intersections Control Method Peak Hour¹
Existing Conditions
Average
Delay2 LOS3
1 Cedar Boulevard/Moores
Avenue Signal HCM 2000 AM 3.5 A
PM 4.6 A
2 Cedar Boulevard/Mowry
Avenue Signal HCM 6th AM 24.6 C
PM 25.5 C
3 Mowry Avenue/Alpenrose
Court Signal HCM 2000 AM 15.3 B
PM 19.9 B
4 Cedar Boulevard/Smith Avenue One-Way
Stop HCM 6th
AM 20.4 C
PM 13.0 B
5 Cedar Boulevard/Central
Avenue Signal HCM 6th AM 23.3 C
PM 24.8 C
Notes:
1 AM – morning peak hour, PM – evening peak hour
2 Delay – Measured in seconds per vehicle. For signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections, the delay represents the average control delay for all turning movements. For one- and two-way stop controlled intersections, the delay represents the worse average control delay for a given approach.
3 LOS – Level of Service
Packet Page 2500




 

 

























Stop Sign
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Figure 6: Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Controls
006-113| 11/2022
N
TJKM
Project Site
X Study Intersection
LEGEND
Traffic Signal
1 


2 3
5 


 1 



4 



1 





Packet Page 2501




 

 

























38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Figure 7: Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 006-113| 11/2022
N
TJKM
Project Site
X Study Intersection
LEGEND
XX AM Peak Hour Volumes
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes
1 


2 3
5 


 1 



4 



1 





1 (0)
388 (508)
0 (1)
5 (1)
884 (432)
37 (25)
38 (35)
0 (0)
12 (2)
1 (8)
0 (0)
0 (2)
129 (149)
311 (327)
162 (146)
322 (258)
659 (247)
130 (49)
42 (113)
409 (662)
230 (123)
117 (239)
621 (407)
118 (213)
79 (196)
5 (19)
31 (48)
25 (48)
8 (7)
13 (29)
39 (62)
764 (932)
47 (89)
18 (17)
844 (795)
318 (318)
86 (138)
343 (344)
90 (57)
226 (248)
523 (329)
74 (50)
51 (84)
371 (615)
209 (97)
117 (185)
230 (282)
144 (104)
427 (530)
13 (18) 61 (36) 34 (17)
0 (1)
901 (446)
88 (53)
Packet Page 2502
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 24

4.0 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
This analysis scenario presents the impacts of the proposed residential development at the study intersections and surrounding roadway system. This scenario is similar to Existing Conditions but with the addition of traffic from the proposed project.

4.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project site is at the north quadrant of the Cedar Boulevard and Moores Avenue intersection in the City of Newark. The project proposes to replace an existing construction and landscaping retail use with 78 attached townhomes. A driveway at the north leg of the Cedar Boulevard and Moores Avenue intersection facilitates full project access.

4.2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
TJKM developed estimated project trip generation for the proposed project based on published trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021). The proposed trip generation includes the reduction of trips based on the existing land uses at the project site. The number of trips generated by the existing construction machinery rental and retail uses were determined based on existing conditions driveway counts conducted on Tuesday, September 20, 2022.

TJKM used published trip rates for ITE Land Use Code 215 (Single-Family Attached Housing).

Table 5 shows the trip generation calculation for the proposed project. The proposed project is expected to generate 562 net new daily trips, including 31 (six inbound, 25 outbound) net new a.m. peak hour trips and 33 (24 inbound, nine outbound) net new p.m. peak hour trips.

Table 5: Project Trip Generation
Land Use Size1
Daily AM Peak PM Peak
Rate Trips Rate In:

Out In Out Total Rate In: Out In Out Total
Proposed Facility
Single-Family
Attached Housing
(215)
2 78 DU 7.20 562 0.48 31:69 12 26 38 0.57 57:43 25 19 44 Existing Facility
Construction
Equipment Rental
Store3
- - - - - -6 -1 -7 - - -1 -10 -11
Total Trips 562 6 25 31 24 9 33
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021
Notes:
1 DU – Dwelling Unit 2
Single-Family Attached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 215) based on number of dwelling units. 3 Existing land use trips based on observed driveway counts collected on Tuesday, September 20, 2022.

Packet Page 2503
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 25

4.3 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Trip distribution is a process that determines in what proportion vehicles would be expected to travel between the project site and various destinations outside the project study area. Assignment determines the various routes that vehicles would take from the project site to each destination using the estimated trip distribution.

Trip distribution assumptions for the proposed project were developed based on the existing travel patterns and TJKM’s knowledge of the study area.

The distribution assumptions are as follows:
• 30 percent to/from I-880 south of Newark
• 30 percent to/from I-880 north of Newark
• 15 percent to/from Mowry Avenue east of Cedar Boulevard • 10 percent to/from Cedar Boulevard south of Mowry Avenue • 10 percent to/from Central Avenue west of Cedar Boulevard • 5 percent to/from Mowry Avenue west of Cedar Boulevard Figure 8 illustrates the trip distribution percentages and trip assignment project volumes developed for the proposed project. The assigned project trips were added to traffic volumes under “No Project” scenarios to generate “Plus Project” traffic volumes.

Packet Page 2504




 

 

























38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Figure 8: Trip Distribution & Assignment
006-113| 11/2022
N
TJKM
Project Site
X Study Intersection
LEGEND
XX(XX) Peak Hour Trips
Trip Distribution
1 


2 3
5 


 1 



4 










1 Stevenson Blvd
Moores Ave
Smith Ave
Smith Ave
Robertson Ave
Mowry Ave
Eggers Dr
Central Ave
Newpark Mall Rd
Blacow Rd
Birch St
Amaryllis Pl
Cedar Blvd
Cherry St
Cedar Blvd Birch
Grove Park
Newark Memorial
High School
John F. Kennedy
High School
Holy Spirit
Cemetery
Shirley Sisk
Grove
Azevada Park
6 (22)
0 (2)
2 (1)
0 (0)
23 (8)
1 (3)
20 (7)
2 (1)
1 (0)
0 (1)
5 (18)
20 (7)
5 (18)
2 (1)
0 (2)
2 (1)
0 (2)
1 2
3 4
5 880
30%
30%
5%
10%
15%
10%
XX%
Packet Page 2505
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 27

4.4 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Under Existing plus Project Conditions, lane geometries and traffic flow are the same as Existing Conditions, with the addition of project trips. Figure 9 shows projected turning movement volumes at the study intersections for Existing plus Project Conditions.

Table 6 summarizes the intersection LOS analysis results for Existing plus Project Conditions. The results for Existing Conditions are included for comparison purposes, along with the projected increases in control delay. Intersections that operated at LOS E or F are shown in red.

Under this scenario, all of the study intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

Based on the City of Newark criteria, the project expects to have a less than adverse impact at the study intersections under Existing plus Project Conditions.

Appendix D contains detailed level of service calculation sheets for Existing plus Project Conditions.

Table 6: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing plus Project Conditions # Study Intersections Control Method Peak
Hour¹
Existing
Conditions
Existing plus
Project
Conditions Change
in Delay4
Average
Delay2 LOS3 Average Delay2 LOS3
1 Cedar
Boulevard/Moores
Avenue
Signal HCM
2000
AM 3.5 A 4 A 0.5
PM 4.6 A 4.9 A 0.3
2 Cedar
Boulevard/Mowry
Avenue
Signal HCM 6th
AM 24.6 C 24.7 C 0.1
PM 25.5 C 25.8 C 0.3
3 Mowry
Avenue/Alpenrose
Court
Signal HCM
2000
AM 15.3 B 15.4 B 0.1
PM 19.9 B 20.0 B 0.1
4 Cedar
Boulevard/Smith
Avenue
One-Way
Stop HCM 6th
AM 20.4 C 20.4 C 0.0
PM 13.0 B 13 B 0.0
5 Cedar
Boulevard/Central
Avenue
Signal HCM 6th
AM 23.3 C 23.3 C 0.0
PM 24.8 C 24.8 C 0.0
Notes:
1 AM – morning peak hour, PM – evening peak hour
2 Delay – Measured in seconds per vehicle. For signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections, the delay represents the average control delay for all turning movements. For one- and two-way stop controlled intersections, the delay represents the worse average control delay for a given approach.
3 LOS – Level of Service
4 Change in Delay between Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions Packet Page 2506




 

 

























38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Figure 9: Existing plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 006-113| 11/2022
N
TJKM
Project Site
X Study Intersection
LEGEND
XX AM Peak Hour Volumes
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes
1 


2 3
5 


 1 



4 



1 





7 (22)
388 (508)
0 (1)
5 (3)
884 (432)
37 (25)
38 (35)
0 (0)
12 (2)
3 (9)
0 (0)
23 (10)
129 (149)
312 (330)
162 (146)
342 (265)
661 (248)
131 (49)
42 (114)
409 (662)
230 (123)
122 (257)
621 (407)
118 (213)
79 (196)
5 (19)
31 (48)
25 (48)
8 (7)
13 (29)
39 (62)
784 (939)
47 (89)
18 (17)
849 (813)
318 (318)
86 (138)
343 (344)
92 (57)
226 (248)
523 (329)
74 (50)
51 (84)
371 (615)
209 (99)
117 (185)
230 (282)
144 (104)
429 (531)
13 (18) 61 (36) 34 (17)
0 (1)
901 (448)
88 (53)
Packet Page 2507
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 29

5.0 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ANALYSIS
This section details expected traffic conditions at the study intersections under Cumulative Conditions.

5.1 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS TJKM evaluated the Background operations of the study intersections for the highest one-hour volumes during weekday morning and evening peak periods. Background traffic conditions are the same as Existing Conditions with the addition of project-generated trips from three approved projects within the City of Newark and their associated roadway improvements. Figure 10 illustrates the Background Conditions traffic volumes at the study intersections.

The approved projects and their land uses are below:
• Phase 1 Newpark Mall Place Costco (Retail),
• Phase 1 Newpark Mall Place (Residential), and
• 37660 Timber Street (Senior Housing).

The following roadway improvements were considered in association with the abovementioned projects:
• The addition of a second westbound right turn lane and allowing the movement to operate under overlap phase at the intersection of Mowry Avenue and Alpenrose Court (Intersection 3).

Peak hour factors of 1.00 were applied at all study intersections under Background Conditions.

5.2 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Table 7 summarizes the results of the LOS analysis at the study intersections for the Background Conditions scenario. Existing Conditions. Intersections that operated at LOS E or F are shown in red.

Under this scenario, three of the study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The intersection at Mowry Avenue and Alpenrose Court (Intersection 3) operates at unacceptable LOS F during the p.m. peak hour, and the intersection at Cedar Boulevard and Smith Avenue (Intersection 4) operates at unacceptable LOS E during the a.m. peak hour.

Appendix E contains the detailed level of service analysis worksheets for Background Conditions.

Packet Page 2508
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 30
Table 7: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Background Conditions # Study Intersections Control Method Peak Hour1
Background
Conditions
Average
Delay2 LOS3
1 Cedar Boulevard/Moores Avenue Signal HCM 2000 AM 3.7 A PM 5.2 A
2 Cedar Boulevard/Mowry Avenue Signal HCM 6th AM 31.0 C PM 48.7 D
3 Mowry Avenue/Alpenrose Court Signal HCM 2000 AM 26.5 C PM 100.8 F
4 Cedar Boulevard/Smith Avenue One-Way
Stop HCM 6th AM 35.8 E
PM 23.8 C
5 Cedar Boulevard/Central Avenue Signal HCM 6th AM 23.5 C PM 25.0 C
Notes:
1 AM – morning peak hour, PM – evening peak hour
2 Delay – Measured in seconds per vehicle. For signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections, the delay represents the average control delay for all turning movements. For one- and two-way stop controlled intersections, the delay represents the worse average control delay for a given approach.
3 LOS – Level of Service
Packet Page 2509




 

 

























38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Figure 10: Background Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 006-113| 11/2022
N
TJKM
Project Site
X Study Intersection
LEGEND
XX AM Peak Hour Volumes
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes
1 


2 3
5 


 1 



4 



1 





1 (0)
674 (1,123)
0 (1)
5 (1)
1,306 (1,021)
37 (25)
38 (35)
0 (0)
12 (2)
1 (8)
0 (0)
0 (2)
129 (149)
545 (810)
162 (146)
418 (366)
981 (727)
133 (50)
42 (116)
451 (726)
230 (123)
169 (367)
652 (471)
118 (213)
763 (1,595)
6 (20)
62 (112)
25 (48)
9 (8)
13 (29)
39 (62)
797 (945)
89 (153)
18 (17)
849 (828)
1,245 (1,716)
86 (138)
357 (350)
96 (60)
226 (248)
525 (343)
74 (50)
51 (84)
371 (615)
210 (103)
117 (185)
230 (282)
144 (104)
727 (1,110)
16 (18) 61 (36) 34 (17)
0 (1)
1,283 (1,038)
88 (53)
Packet Page 2510
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 32

6.0 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
This analysis scenario presents the impacts of the proposed residential development at the study intersections and surrounding roadway system. This scenario is similar to Background Conditions but with the addition of traffic from the proposed project.

6.1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Figure 11 shows projected turning movement volumes at the study intersections for Background plus Project Conditions.

Table 8 summarizes the intersection LOS analysis results for Background plus Project Conditions. The results for Background Conditions are included for comparison purposes, along with the projected increases in control delay. Intersections that operated at LOS E or F are shown in red.

Under this scenario, three of the study intersections will operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The intersection at Mowry Avenue and Alpenrose Court (Intersection 3) continues to operate at unacceptable LOS F during the p.m. peak hour, and the intersection of Cedar Boulevard and Smith Avenue (Intersection 4) continue to operate at unacceptable LOS E during the a.m. peak hour. These two intersections experience an increase in overall vehicular delay by 0.3 seconds or less with project traffic. The remaining intersections continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better.

Based on the City of Newark criteria, the project expects to have a less than adverse impact at the study intersections, under Background plus Project Conditions.

Appendix F contains detailed level of service calculation sheets for Background plus Project Conditions.

Packet Page 2511
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 33
Table 8: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Background plus Project Conditions # Study Intersections Control Method Peak
Hour¹
Background
Conditions
Background plus
Project Conditions
Change
in
Delay Average 4
Delay2 LOS3 Average Delay2 LOS3
1 Cedar
Boulevard/Moores
Avenue
Signal HCM
2000
AM 3.7 A 4.1 A 0.4
PM 5.2 A 5.3 A 0.1
2 Cedar
Boulevard/Mowry
Avenue
Signal HCM 6th
AM 31.0 C 31.7 C 0.7
PM 48.7 D 51.8 D 3.1
3 Mowry
Avenue/Alpenrose
Court
Signal HCM
2000
AM 26.5 C 26.8 C 0.3
PM 100.8 F 101.0 F 0.2
4 Cedar
Boulevard/Smith
Avenue
OneWay
Stop
HCM 6th
AM 35.8 E 35.8 E 0.0
PM 23.8 C 23.8 C 0.0
5 Cedar
Boulevard/Central
Avenue
Signal HCM 6th
AM 23.5 C 23.5 C 0.0
PM 25.0 C 25.0 C 0.0
Notes:
1 AM – morning peak hour, PM – evening peak hour
2 Delay – Measured in seconds per vehicle. For signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections, the delay represents the average control delay for all turning movements. For one- and two-way stop controlled intersections, the delay represents the worse average control delay for a given approach.
3 LOS – Level of Service
4 Change in Delay between Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions Packet Page 2512




 

 

























38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Figure 11: Background plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 006-113| 11/2022
N
TJKM
Project Site
X Study Intersection
LEGEND
XX AM Peak Hour Volumes
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes
1 


2 3
5 


 1 



4 



1 





7 (22)
674 (1,123)
0 (1)
5 (3)
1,306 (1,021)
37 (25)
38 (35)
0 (0)
12 (2)
3 (9)
0 (0)
23 (10)
129 (149)
546 (813)
162 (146)
438 (373)
983 (728)
134 (50)
42 (117)
451 (726)
230 (123)
174 (385)
652 (471)
118 (213)
763 (1,595)
6 (20)
62 (112)
25 (48)
9 (8)
13 (29)
39 (62)
817 (952)
89 (153)
18 (17)
854 (846)
1,245 (1,716)
86 (138)
357 (350)
98 (61)
226 (248)
525 (343)
74 (50)
51 (84)
371 (615)
210 (105)
117 (185)
230 (282)
144 (104)
729 (1,111)
16 (18) 61 (36) 34 (17)
0 (1)
1,283 (1,040)
88 (53)
Packet Page 2513
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 35

7.0 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS
This section details expected traffic conditions at the study intersections under Cumulative Conditions. The Cumulative conditions reflect conditions in the year 2040.

7.1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS TJKM developed the cumulative baseline traffic volumes based on growth rates from the Alameda County Transportation Commission’s (ACTC) Countywide Travel Demand Model and the addition of projectgenerated trips from three approved projects within the City of Newark. Figure 12 illustrates the Cumulative Conditions traffic volumes at the study intersections.

The approved projects and their land uses are below:
• Phase 1 Newpark Mall Place Costco (Retail),
• Phase 1 Newpark Mall Place (Residential), and
• 37660 Timber Street (Senior Housing).

The following roadway improvements were considered in association with the abovementioned projects:
• The addition of a second westbound right turn lane and allowing the movement to operate under overlap phase at the intersection of Mowry Avenue and Alpenrose Court (Intersection 3).

Peak hour factors of 1.00 were applied at all study intersections under Cumulative Conditions.

Table 9 summarizes the results of the LOS analysis at the study intersections for the Cumulative Conditions scenario. Intersections that operated at LOS E or F are shown in red.

Under this scenario, two of the study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The intersection at Cedar Boulevard and Mowry Avenue (Intersection 2) operates at unacceptable LOS E during both peak hours. The intersection at Mowry Avenue and Alpenrose Court (Intersection 3) operates at unacceptable LOS F during the p.m. peak hour, and the intersection at Cedar Boulevard and Smith Avenue (Intersection 4) operates at unacceptable LOS F during the a.m. peak hour.

Appendix G contains the detailed level of service analysis worksheets for Cumulative Conditions.

Packet Page 2514
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 36
Table 9: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative Conditions # Study Intersections Control Method Peak Hour¹
Cumulative
Conditions
Average
Delay2 LOS3
1 Cedar Boulevard/Moores Avenue Signal HCM 2000 AM 5.0 A PM 4.2 A
2 Cedar Boulevard/Mowry Avenue Signal HCM 6th AM 76.3 E PM 68.4 E
3 Mowry Avenue/Alpenrose Court Signal HCM 2000 AM 28.6 C PM 131.7 F
4 Cedar Boulevard/Smith Avenue One-Way
Stop HCM 6th AM 176.5 F
PM 26.6 D
5 Cedar Boulevard/Central Avenue Signal HCM 6th
AM 34.5 C
PM 31.0 C
Notes:
1 AM – morning peak hour, PM – evening peak hour
2 Delay – Measured in seconds per vehicle. For signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections, the delay represents the average control delay for all turning movements. For one- and two-way stop controlled intersections, the delay represents the worse average control delay for a given approach.
3 LOS – Level of Service
Packet Page 2515




 

 

























38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Figure 12: Cumulative Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 006-113| 11/2022
N
TJKM
Project Site
X Study Intersection
LEGEND
XX AM Peak Hour Volumes
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes
1 


2 3
5 


 1 



4 



1 





1 (1)
678 (1,170)
0 (0)
9 (1)
1,929 (1,063)
63 (27)
40 (38)
0 (0)
13 (2)
1 (8)
0 (0)
0 (2)
133 (160)
555 (834)
167 (157)
621 (389)
1,397 (749)
215 (54)
43 (154)
464 (930)
237 (158)
234 (419)
998 (560)
180 (259)
803 (1,777)
9 (38)
78 (157)
25 (48)
9 (8)
13 (29)
42 (79)
858 (1,196)
93 (177)
289 (20)
1,115 (987)
1,345 (1,779)
89 (154)
369 (389)
99 (66)
372 (282)
862 (389)
122 (57)
63 (99)
461 (724)
261 (120)
131 (201)
257 (306)
161 (113)
741 (1,163)
16 (20) 71 (40) 40 (19)
0 (1)
1,878 (1,101)
146 (60)
Packet Page 2516
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 38

8.0 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
This analysis scenario presents the impacts of the proposed residential development at the study intersections and surrounding roadway system. This scenario is similar to Cumulative Conditions but with the addition of traffic from the proposed project.

8.1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Figure 13 shows projected turning movement volumes at the study intersections for Cumulative plus Project Conditions.

Table 10 summarizes the intersection LOS analysis results for Cumulative plus Project Conditions. The results for Cumulative Conditions are included for comparison purposes, along with the projected increases in control delay. Intersections that operated at LOS E or F are shown in red.

Under this scenario, two of the study intersections will operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during both peak hours. The intersection at Cedar Boulevard and Mowry Avenue (Intersection 2) continues to operate at unacceptable LOS E during both peak hours. The intersection at Mowry Avenue and Alpenrose Court (Intersection 3) continues to operate at unacceptable LOS F during the p.m. peak hour, and the intersection at Cedar Boulevard and Smith Avenue (Intersection 4) continues to operate at unacceptable LOS F during the a.m. peak hour. These three intersections experience an increase in overall vehicular delay by 3.8 seconds or less with project traffic.

Based on the City of Newark criteria, the project expects to have a less than adverse impact at the study intersections, under Cumulative plus Project Conditions.

Appendix H contains detailed level of service calculation sheets for Cumulative plus Project Conditions.

Packet Page 2517
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 39
Table 10: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative plus Project Conditions # Study Intersections Control Method Peak
Hour¹
Cumulative
Conditions
Cumulative plus
Project Conditions Change
in
Delay Average 4
Delay2 LOS3 Average Delay2 LOS3
1 Cedar
Boulevard/Moores
Avenue
Signal HCM
2000
AM 5.0 A 5.3 A 0.3
PM 4.2 A 4.4 A 0.2
2 Cedar
Boulevard/Mowry
Avenue
Signal HCM 6th
AM 76.3 E 78.3 E 2.0
PM 68.4 E 72.2 E 3.8
3 Mowry
Avenue/Alpenrose
Court
Signal HCM
2000
AM 28.6 C 29 C 0.4
PM 131.7 F 131.5 F -0.2
4 Cedar
Boulevard/Smith
Avenue
OneWay
Stop
HCM 6th
AM 176.5 F 176.5 F 0.0
PM 26.6 D 26.7 D 0.1
5 Cedar
Boulevard/Central
Avenue
Signal HCM 6th
AM 34.5 C 34.5 C 0.0
PM 31.0 C 31.1 C 0.1
Notes:
1 AM – morning peak hour, PM – evening peak hour
2 Delay – Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections. 3 LOS – Level of Service
4 Change in Delay between Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions Packet Page 2518




 

 

























38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Figure 13: Cumulative plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 006-113| 11/2022
N
TJKM
Project Site
X Study Intersection
LEGEND
XX AM Peak Hour Volumes
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes
1 


2 3
5 


 1 



4 



1 





7 (23)
678 (1,170)
0 (0)
9 (3)
1,929 (1,063)
63 (27)
40 (38)
0 (0)
13 (2)
3 (9)
0 (0)
23 (10)
133 (160)
556 (837)
167 (157)
641 (396)
1,399 (750)
216 (54)
43 (155)
464 (930)
237 (158)
239 (437)
998 (560)
180 (259)
803 (1,777)
9 (38)
78 (157)
25 (48)
9 (8)
13 (29)
42 (79)
878 (1,203)
93 (177)
289 (20)
1,120 (1,005)
1,345 (1,779)
89 (154)
369 (389)
101 (67)
372 (282)
862 (389)
122 (57)
63 (99)
461 (724)
261 (122)
131 (201)
257 (306)
161 (113)
743 (1,164)
16 (20) 71 (40) 40 (19)
0 (1)
1,878 (1,103)
146 (60)
Packet Page 2519
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 41

9.0 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
This section provides an analysis of potential project impacts due to Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) attributable to the project.

Compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 743, enacted statewide on July 1, 2020, includes replacement of level of service (LOS) with VMT for purposes of assessing traffic impacts for a proposed development. The guidance related to the change in methodology is discussed in Section 15064.3 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. Lead agencies have discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s VMT, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household, or any other measure.

9.1 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Traffic impacts related to a proposed project are to be evaluated for both compliance with applicable regulatory documents and environmental significance as defined in the CEQA guidelines. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) Technical Advisory (December 2018) provides guidance to analysts and local jurisdictions for implementing VMT as a metric for determining the transportation impact for land use projects. The OPR guidelines state that for analysis purposes, “VMT” refers to automobile VMT, specifically passenger vehicles and light trucks. Heavy truck traffic is typically excluded.

As of October 2022, the City of Newark has not adopted VMT procedures standards, so the OPR Guidelines were used. Under OPR guidelines, a residential project would have a significant impact on VMT if it would generate residential VMT per capita higher than 85 percent of the City of Newark’s average.

9.2 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS SCREENING
The OPR guidelines include a screening process that describes five criteria in which a project would be exempted from the VMT analysis requirement:
• projects exempt from CEQA analysis,
• small projects,
• local serving projects,
• projects in transit priority areas, and
• projects in low VMT areas.

It should be noted that even if a project satisfies one or more of the screening criteria, lead agencies may still require a VMT analysis if there is evidence that the project has characteristics that might lead to a significant amount of VMT.

The project does not satisfy the requirements for screening criteria 1-5.

9.3 VMT FORECASTING AND ANALYSIS RESULTS
TJKM conducted VMT analysis for the proposed residential development at 38600 Cedar Boulevard. The project site is located south of Interstate 880 and north of Cedar Boulevard. The project consists of 80 townhomes on a site previously occupied by commercial uses.

Packet Page 2520
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 42
OPR guidance on VMT analysis for residential projects require a base year condition model run along with baseline plus project model run to extract VMT data for the Travel Analysis Zone (TAZ) that the project is located in. The project is located in TAZ #934 in the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) model; land uses stemming from this project was added to the land use input file and the ACTC model was ran to generate VMT metrics for this project.

Currently, TAZ #934 contains 279 households and 843 population. The 2020 Census average ratio of population to household for the City of Newark was used to calculate the total population for the project (3.34 people per household). Using this ratio, 80 housing units from this project will add 267 persons to the TAZ. Table 11 shows the land use changes for the base year plus project run.

Table 11: Land Use Changes for Base Year
TAZ Households Population Single Family
Dwelling Units
Multi Family
Dwelling Units
#934 +80 +270 +0 +80
The land uses stemming from this project was added to the land use input file and the ACTC model was run to generate VMT metrics for this project. Table 12 summarizes the ACTC model results.

Table 12: Home Based VMT Per Capita Comparison (South Alameda County Average) TAZ
Base Year Average
Daily VMT per
Resident
(per ACTC Model)
City of Newark
Average
(per ACTC
Model)
15% Below
Regional Average
(per ACTC Model)
Base Year Plus Project
Average Daily VMT per
Resident
(per ACTC Model run)
#934 23.24 22.60* 19.21 18.43
The existing base year per capita VMT for TAZ #934 is 23.24. Coding the project into the TAZ results in a VMT per capita of 18.43, a decrease of 4.81. For residential projects, OPR guidance establishes a significance threshold of 15 percent below the City of Newark’s average VMT per capita. The City of Newark has an average VMT per capita of 22.60, so its significance threshold is 19.21. Since 18.43 is lower than the 85% threshold of 19.21 for the City of Newark, the project would produce an insignificant impact on VMT.

Appendix I contains the ACTC Model outputs.

Packet Page 2521
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 43

10.0 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS
The following sections provide additional analyses of other transportation issues associated with the project site, including:
• Site access and on-site circulation;
• Parking analysis;
• Queueing and Driveway analysis;
• Pedestrian, bicycle and transit access and impacts;
• Signal Warrant Assessment for the Intersection of Cedar Boulevard and Smith Avenue.

The majority of the analyses in these sections are based on professional judgment in accordance with the standards and methods employed by traffic engineers. Although operational issues are not considered CEQA impacts, they do describe traffic conditions that are relevant to describing the project environment.

10.1 SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION
This section analyzes site access and internal circulation for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles, based on the site plan presented on Figure 2 (dated April 2023). TJKM reviewed internal and external access for the project site for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles and on-site vehicle circulation.

Site access is provided via an existing, full access driveway on Cedar Boulevard, at the north leg of the Cedar Boulevard and Moores Avenue intersection. Pedestrian access to the project site is provided via existing sidewalks on both sides of Cedar Boulevard and Moores Avenue. Bicycle access is facilitated via existing Class II bike lanes along Cedar Boulevard. Two bus stops exist at the intersection of Cedar Boulevard and Moores Avenue, providing direct transit access to the project site.

The project proposes to provide pedestrian pathways at the northern and southern project frontages, along with internal sidewalks, which connect the residences to the pathways and to sidewalks on Cedar Boulevard.

The project proposes internal roadways ranging between 24 and 26 feet wide, which will facilitate two-way internal traffic. Emergency vehicle access is provided via an emergency access driveway on Cedar Boulevard, at the southeast quadrant of the project site. Garbage trucks will access the residences via the driveway at Cedar Boulevard and Moores Avenue and the proposed internal roadways.

Overall, the vehicle, pedestrian, and emergency access, as well as on-site circulation is adequate.

10.2 PARKING ANALYSIS
This section discusses vehicle parking for the proposed project and includes an assessment of whether the proposed parking supply is adequate based on the proposed project size.

Based on the project site plan dated April 2023 (Figure 2), 152 garage, 26 head-in, eight head-in compact, and four parallel parking spaces are provided for the residential development. The garage parking spaces are accessible via driveways at each residence, and the remaining parking spaces are along the internal roadways.

Per the City Municipal Code, Section 17.23.040 (“Required Parking Spaces”), the required number of on-site parking stalls is:

Packet Page 2522
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 44
Unit Type Spaces per Unit
Studio 1.5
One Bedroom 1.5
Two-or-More Bedrooms 2.0
Guest Parking 0.5
Based on Table 17.23.040 for “Multi-Unit Building”
The City Municipal Code also states the following:
• Projects located outside a radius of 100 feet of RS and RL districts, or separated by an arterial street from single-family homes, or with driveway aprons, or located within a Specific Plan shall require

1.25 spaces per unit.
• Old Town Specific Plan Area: Minimum of 1.25 per unit; maximum of two per unit. No additional guest parking required.
• For projects with ten or fewer dwelling units, one space per unit must be within a garage. • For projects with more than ten dwelling units, one space per unit must be covered. • Guest parking shall be clearly marked as reserved for guests and available with unrestricted access.

Based on a conservative interpretation of the Code, each residential unit would require 2.0 spaces for residents and 0.5 spaces for guests. As such, 152 residential parking spaces and 38 guest parking spaces are required (totaling 190 total spaces on site).

The proposed parking supply of 152 garage, 26 head-in, eight head-in compact, and four parallel spaces is expected to be sufficient.

10.3 QUEUING AND DRIVEWAY ANALYSIS
Queuing Analysis at Study Intersections
TJKM conducted a vehicle queuing analysis for all exclusive left turn or right-turn pockets at the study intersections where project traffic is added under Existing plus Project Conditions.

The 95th percentile queues were analyzed using Synchro, version 11, software. Detailed calculations are included in the LOS appendices corresponding to each analysis scenario.

Table 13 summarizes the 95th percentile queue lengths at the study intersections under Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions scenarios. As illustrated, the proposed project increases the queue length by a maximum of 21 feet, which is approximately 0.84 car-lengths.

Packet Page 2523
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 45
Table 13: 95th Percentile Queues at Turn Pockets Affected by Project Traffic # Intersection Lane
Group
Storage
Length
per Lane
Existing Conditions
Existing plus
Project
Conditions
Change

AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Cedar
Boulevard/Moores
Avenue
EBL 100 10 4 10 7 0 3
WBL 150 0 4 0 4 0 0
2 Cedar Boulevard/Mowry
Avenue
EBL 200 320 298 341 305 21 7
WBL 235 190 189 194 191 4 2
NBL 125 70 156 71 159 1 3
NBR 130 115 55 117 55 2 0
SBL 195 77 131 79 133 2 2
3 Mowry
Avenue/Alpenrose
Court
NBL 170 44 71 44 71 0 0
SBL 260 101 121 101 122 0 1
5 Cedar Boulevard/Central
Avenue
EBL 125 244 266 244 266 0 0
WBL 120 120 87 122 88 2 1
NBL 180 80 116 80 116 0 0
SBL 130 172 136 172 136 0 0
Notes: Storage length and 95th percentile queue is expressed in feet per lane, Bold indicates overflow Queuing Analysis at Project Driveway
TJKM conducted a vehicle queuing analysis at the project driveway at the intersection of Cedar Boulevard and Moores Avenue. The 95th percentile queues were analyzed using Synchro version 11 software for the project driveway.

Table 14 summarizes the 95th percentile queue lengths at the project driveway under the plus Project scenarios. Under all “plus Project” scenarios, the 95th percentile queues at the outbound approach of project driveways are expected to be minimal (less than one car length or 25 feet).

Table 14: 95th Percentile Queues at Project Driveways
Intersection Control
Existing plus Project
Conditions
Background plus
Project Conditions
Cumulative plus Project
Conditions

AM PM AM PM AM PM
Cedar Boulevard
/Moores Avenue Signalized <25’ <25’ <25’ <25’ <25’ <25’ Notes:
1 Reported values of 95th percentile queues are for the outbound movements at the project driveways Packet Page 2524
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 46

10.5 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT IMPACTS

10.5.1 Pedestrian Impacts
An impact to pedestrians occurs if the proposed project disrupts existing pedestrian’s facilities; or creates inconsistencies with planned pedestrian facilities or adopted pedestrian system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. The project may produce a moderate amount of pedestrian trips, which would be accommodated by existing adequate pedestrian facilities. The project is not expected provide any disruptions or inconsistencies with pedestrian facilities or plans. Therefore, the impact to pedestrian facilities is less than significant.

Of note, with the construction of the site entrance, the Moores Avenue / Cedar Boulevard intersection (Intersection 1) will be converted from three-legged to four-legged. With this modification, it is recommended that a crosswalk (including pedestrian signal heads and push buttons) be installed across the new site entrance (north leg) and across the west leg of the intersection. Furthermore, it is recommended that a tactile surface for the existing curb ramp be provided at the northeast corner of the intersection. As illustrated in Figure 2, these recommendations are being plans as part of the development.

10.5.2 Bicycle Impacts
An impact to bicyclists occurs if the proposed project disrupts existing bicycle facilities; or creates inconsistencies with planned bicycle facilities or adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. The proposed project will have adequate bicycle access to the project site from the existing bike facilities and does not propose any roadway changes along the project frontage. Therefore, the impact to bicycle facilities is less than significant.

10.5.3 Transit Impacts
A proposed project is considered to have a significant impact on transit if it conflicts with existing or planned transit facilities, or is expected to generate additional transit trips and does not provide adequate facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists to access transit routes and stops.

Pedestrians and bicyclists can access the closest transit stops, shown in Figure 3, via a continuous path of sidewalks and adequate bicycle facilities. Additional trips generated by the proposed project could be accommodated by the existing bus stops along Cedar Boulevard along the project frontage.

The project does not propose changes to transit facilities in the project study area. Therefore, impacts to transit service are expected to be less than significant.

10.6 SIGNAL WARRANT ASSESSMENT FOR THE INTERSECTION OF CEDAR BOULEVARD AND SMITH AVENUE.

Under Background and Cumulative conditions, the intersection of Cedar Boulevard and Smith Avenue (Intersection 4), which is the only unsignalized study intersection, will begin to operate at unacceptable levels of service during the a.m. peak hour. These conditions occur regardless of the proposed development. In order to preliminarily assess if a traffic signal would be warranted at this location, Warrant 3 (referred to as the “Peak Hour” warrant) from the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD) was utilized to assess all “Plus Project” scenarios.

Packet Page 2525
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Page | 47
With respect to Warrant 3, the need for a traffic control signal shall be considered when the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major-street (both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only) for one hour of an average day falls above the applicable figure shown in the CA-MUTCD (either Figure 4C-3 or 4C-4) for the combination of approach lanes.

For the purpose of assessment, the geometry was assumed to be categorized as “Two or More Lanes on the Major Street and One Lane on the Minor Street;” Figure 4C-3 was used given that the speed limit of Cedar Boulevard is 35 mph in the project vicinity. Additionally, it should be noted that the CA-MUTCD does allow for a reduction in side-street right turn volume depending on configuration and engineering judgment. A conservative 50 percent right turn reduction was assumed for the purposes of this analysis. The reduction was based off the Right Turn on Red estimation from Synchro, which indicated that approximately 22 out of 40 (55 percent) and 15 out of 19 (79 percent) right turns were able to find gaps in mainline traffic along Cedar Boulevard and make a right turn during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively, under the Cumulative Plus Project scenario. The results for the “plus Project” scenarios are illustrated in Figure 14.

Based on the results, a signal is not warranted at Intersection 4.

Figure 14: CA-MUTCD Warrant 3 Assessment for Intersection 4 Packet Page 2526
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Appendix | A
Appendix A – Level of Service Methodology
Packet Page 2527

APPENDIX A

LEVEL OF SERVICE
The description and procedures for calculating capacity and level of service are found in Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 6. Highway Capacity Manual 6 represents the latest research on capacity and quality of service for transportation facilities.

Quality of service requires quantitative measures to characterize operational conditions within a traffic stream. Level of service is a quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience.

Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility that has analysis procedures available. Letters designate each level, from A to F, with level-of-service A representing the best operating conditions and level-of-service F the worst. Each level of service represents a range of operating conditions and the driver’s perception of these conditions. Safety is not included in the measures that establish service levels.

A general description of service levels for various types of facilities is shown in Table A-I.

Table A-I
Level of Service Description
Uninterrupted Flow Interrupted Flow
Facility Type Freeways
Multi-lane Highways
Two-lane Highways
Urban Streets
Signalized Intersections
Unsignalized Intersections
Two-way Stop Control
All-way Stop Control
LOS
A Free-flow Very low delay.

B Stable flow. Presence of other
users noticeable.

Low delay.

C Stable flow. Comfort and
convenience starts to decline.

Acceptable delay.

D High density stable flow. Tolerable delay.

E Unstable flow. Limit of acceptable delay.

F Forced or breakdown flow. Unacceptable delay
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6
Level of Service Page A-1
TJKM Transportation Consultants Appendix A
Packet Page 2528
Urban Streets
The term “urban streets” refers to urban arterials and collectors, including those in downtown areas.

Arterial streets are roads that primarily serve longer through trips. However, providing access to abutting commercial and residential land uses is also an important function of arterials.

Collector streets provide both land access and traffic circulation within residential, commercial and industrial areas. Their access function is more important than that of arterials, and unlike arterials their operation is not always dominated by traffic signals.

Downtown streets are signalized facilities that often resemble arterials. They not only move through traffic but also provide access to local businesses for passenger cars, transit buses, and trucks. Pedestrian conflicts and lane obstructions created by stopping or standing buses, trucks and parking vehicles that cause turbulence in the traffic flow are typical of downtown streets.

The speed of vehicles on urban streets is influenced by three main factors, street environment, interaction among vehicles and traffic control. As a result, these factors also affect quality of service.

The street environment includes the geometric characteristics of the facility, the character of roadside activity and adjacent land uses. Thus, the environment reflects the number and width of lanes, type of median, driveway density, spacing between signalized intersections, existence of parking, level of pedestrian activity and speed limit.

The interaction among vehicles is determined by traffic density, the proportion of trucks and buses, and turning movements. This interaction affects the operation of vehicles at intersections and, to a lesser extent, between signals.

Traffic control (including signals and signs) forces a portion of all vehicles to slow or stop. The delays and speed changes caused by traffic control devices reduce vehicle speeds, however, such controls are needed to establish right-of-way.

The average travel speed for through vehicles along an urban street is the determinant of the operating level of service. The travel speed along a segment, section or entire length of an urban street is dependent on the running speed between signalized intersections and the amount of control delay incurred at signalized intersections.

Level-of-service A describes primarily free-flow operations. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Control delay at signalized intersections is minimal.

Level-of-service B describes reasonably unimpeded operations. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and control delays at signalized intersections are not significant.

Level-of-service C describes stable operations, however, ability to maneuver and change lanes in midblock location may be more restricted than at level-of-service B. Longer queues, adverse signal coordination, or both may contribute to lower travel speeds.

Level-of-service D borders on a range in which in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in delay and decreases in travel speed. Level-of-service D may be due to adverse signal progression, inappropriate signal timing, high volumes, or a combination of these factors.

Page A-2 Level of Service
Appendix A TJKM Transportation Consultants
Packet Page 2529
Level-of-service E is characterized by significant delays and lower travel speeds. Such operations are caused by a combination of adverse progression, high signal density, high volumes, extensive delays at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing.

Level-of-service F is characterized by urban street flow at extremely low speeds. Intersection congestion is likely at critical signalized locations, with high delays, high volumes, and extensive queuing.

The methodology to determine level of service stratifies urban streets into four classifications. The classifications are complex, and are related to functional and design categories. Table A-II describes the functional and design categories, while Table A-III relates these to the urban street classification.

Once classified, the urban street is divided into segments for analysis. An urban street segment is a oneway section of street encompassing a series of blocks or links terminating at a signalized intersection.

Adjacent segments of urban streets may be combined to form larger street sections, provided that the segments have similar demand flows and characteristics.

Levels of service are related to the average travel speed of vehicles along the urban street segment or section.

Travel times for existing conditions are obtained by field measurements. The maximum-car technique is used. The vehicle is driven at the posted speed limit unless impeded by actual traffic conditions. In the maximum-car technique, a safe level of vehicular operation is maintained by observing proper following distances and by changing speeds at reasonable rates of acceleration and deceleration. The maximum-car technique provides the best base for measuring traffic performance.

An observer records the travel time and locations and duration of delay. The beginning and ending points are the centers of intersections. Delays include times waiting in queues at signalized intersections. The travel speed is determined by dividing the length of the segment by the travel time. Once the travel speed on the arterial is determined, the level of service is found by comparing the speed to the criteria in Table A-IV. Level-of-service criteria vary for the different classifications of urban street, reflecting differences in driver expectations.

Level of Service Page A-3
TJKM Transportation Consultants Appendix A
Packet Page 2530
description of levels of service for signalized intersections can be found in Table A-V.

Table A-V
Description of Level of Service for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Description
A Very low control delay, up to 10 seconds per vehicle. Progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase.

Many vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may tend to contribute to low delay values.

B Control delay greater than 10 and up to 20 seconds per vehicle. There is good progression or short cycle lengths or both. More vehicles stop causing higher levels of delay.

C Control delay greater than 20 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle. Higher delays are caused by fair progression or longer cycle lengths or both.

Individual cycle failures may begin to appear. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase doe not serve queued vehicles, and overflow occurs. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.

D Control delay greater than 35 and up to 55 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestions becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volumes. Many vehicles stop, the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.

E Control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 seconds per vehicle. The limit of acceptable delay. High delays usually indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volumes. Individual cycle failures are frequent.

F Control delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. Unacceptable to most drivers. Oversaturation, arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to higher delay.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6
The use of control delay, which may also be referred to as signal delay, was introduced in the 1997 update to the Highway Capacity Manual, and represents a departure from previous updates. In the third edition, published in 1985 and the 1994 update to the third edition, delay only included stopped delay. Thus, the level of service criteria listed in Table A-V differs from earlier criteria.

Unsignalized Intersections
The current procedures on unsignalized intersections were first introduced in the 1997 update to the Highway Capacity Manual and represent a revision of the methodology published in the 1994 update to the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. The revised procedures use control delay as a measure of effectiveness to determine level of service. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and increased travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, traffic and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during base conditions, i. e., in the absence of traffic control, geometric delay, any incidents, and any other vehicles. Control delay is the increased time of travel for a vehicle approaching and passing through an unsignalized intersection, compared with a free-flow vehicle if it were not required to slow or stop at the intersection.

Page A-6 Level of Service
Appendix A TJKM Transportation Consultants
Packet Page 2531
Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersections
Two-way stop controlled intersections in which stop signs are used to assign the right-of-way, are the most prevalent type of intersection in the United States. At two-way stop-controlled intersections the stop-controlled approaches are referred as the minor street approaches and can be either public streets or private driveways. The approaches that are not controlled by stop signs are referred to as the major street approaches.

The capacity of movements subject to delay are determined using the "critical gap" method of capacity analysis. Expected average control delay based on movement volume and movement capacity is calculated. A level of service designation is given to the expected control delay for each minor movement. Level of service is not defined for the intersection as a whole. Control delay is the increased time of travel for a vehicle approaching and passing through a stop-controlled intersection, compared with a free-flow vehicle if it were not required to slow or stop at the intersection. A description of levels of service for two-way stop-controlled intersections is found in Table A-VI.

Table A-VI
Description of Level of Service for Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersections Level of Service Description
A Very low control delay less than 10 seconds per
vehicle for each movement subject to delay.

B Low control delay greater than 10 and up to 15
seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to
delay.

C Acceptable control delay greater than 15 and up to 25 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to
delay.

D Tolerable control delay greater than 25 and up to 35
seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to
delay.

E Limit of tolerable control delay greater than 35 and
up to 50 seconds per vehicle for each movement
subject to delay.

F Unacceptable control delay in excess of 50 seconds
per vehicle for each movement subject to delay.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6
Level of Service Page A-7
TJKM Transportation Consultants Appendix A
Packet Page 2532
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Appendix | B
Appendix B – Vehicle, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Turning Movement Counts
Packet Page 2533
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 16
2 2
4 3
3 1
31 12
Date: 09/20/2022
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 100.0% 0.25
TOTAL 1.5% 0.80
TH RT
WB 2.1% 0.75
NB 2.0% 0.74
Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.2% 0.71

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Moores Ave Driveway
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 0 35 0 0 3
1 1 0 90 0
7:15 AM 1 1 102 1
7:00 AM 0 1 58 3 0 0 21 1 0 4 0 0 0
0 0 0 201 0
7:45 AM 0 2 161 7
2 0 9 0 0 0
144 0
7:30 AM 0 0 110 1 0 0 79
0 0 0 0 0 1
253 688
8:00 AM 0 1 312 11 0 0 87
0 0 67 1 0 14 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 129 0 0 4
0 0 1 429 1,027
8:15 AM 0 0 258 12
0 0 14 0 3 0
0 0 0 275 1,366
8:45 AM 0 2 141 4
0 0 6 0 2 0
409 1,292
8:30 AM 0 2 153 7 0 0 105
0 6 0 0 0 0
0 0 62 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 216 1,329
Count Total 1 9 1,295 46 0 0 585 1 1 3 2,017 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 5 884
5 0 58 0 13 0
8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 21 0
1 1,366 0
HV 0 0 11 0 0 0
37 0 0 388 1 0 38 0 12 0 0 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 0% 1% 0% - - 2% 0% - 0% - 8% - - - 100% 2%
0 0
7:15 AM 5 1 0 0 6 1 2
1 0 0 1 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 2 3 0 2 7 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 1 2 0 0 3
0 0 0 0 0 2
7 7:30 AM 2 3 0 0 5 0 0 0
0 0 3 3 0 6
1 3
8:15 AM 1 1 1 0 3 0 1
1 0 0 2 0 0
0 1 1
8:00 AM 6 3 0 1 10 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 3 3 0 0 6
0 1 0 0 1 2
2 8:30 AM 3 2 0 0 5 1 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
10 18
Peak Hour 11 8 1 1 21 2 2
Count Total 23 18 1 3 45 3 5 0 0 8 3 0
0 0 4 0 0 4 8
0 2
0 0
00 00
0 0
2 0
4 8
0 0
N
Moores Ave
Cedar Blvd
Cedar Blvd
Moores Ave
Cedar Blvd
Driveway
TEV: 1,366
PHF: 0.8
1 0
0 1
6 0
1 388
0 389
896
0 12
0 38
37 50
0 37
884
5 926
427
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
Packet Page 2534
[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
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Moores Ave Driveway
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
1 1 0 7 0
7:15 AM 0 0 5 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

UT LT TH RT UT LT
6 0
7:30 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 3
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 5 0
7:45 AM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 10 24
8:15 AM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 21
8:00 AM 0 0 6 0 0 0 3
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 21
8:30 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 2
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 3 0 0 0
0 0 0 5 21
8:45 AM 0 0 3 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 6 24
1 1 1 45 0
Peak Hour 0 0 11 0
Count Total 0 0 23 0 0 0 17 1 0 0 0 1 0
7:00 AM 1 0
RT
21 0
Interval
Start
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Moores Ave Driveway
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
4 8:00 AM
0 0 0 0
0 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
0 0
0 0 0
1 4
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
3 8:30 AM
0 0 0 0 0 0 1
2 5
8:15 AM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 4
0 0 0 0 8 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 1 0
0 LT TH
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1
0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 0 2 0 0 2 0
0 3 0 0 5 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
Packet Page 2535
[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
1 1
3 0
2 1
3 2
13 6
Date: 09/20/2022
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 10.0% 0.36
TOTAL 1.4% 0.98
TH RT
WB 1.2% 0.88
NB 0.0% 0.71
Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.5% 0.89

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Moores Ave Driveway
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 0 107 0 0 4
1 0 2 212 0
4:15 PM 0 0 103 12
4:00 PM 0 0 88 3 1 0 111 0 0 4 1 1 0
3 0 1 233 0
4:45 PM 0 0 105 9
0 0 8 0 2 0
227 0
4:30 PM 0 0 99 6 0 2 112
0 0 0 0 0 1
247 919
5:00 PM 0 0 119 10 0 1 119
0 0 124 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 0 1
0 0 121 0 0 13
1 0 6 260 967
5:15 PM 0 1 116 2
0 0 4 0 0 0
0 0 0 252 1,014
5:45 PM 0 0 97 13
0 0 12 0 0 0
255 995
5:30 PM 0 0 92 4 0 0 144
0 0 0 1 0 1
0 0 117 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 233 1,000
Count Total 0 1 819 59 1 3 955 6 0 12 1,919 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 1 432
0 0 55 1 7 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 0
8 1,014 0
HV 0 0 6 1 0 0
25 0 1 508 0 0 35 0 2 0 2 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 0% 1% 4% - 0% 1% - - 0% - 0% - 0% - 13% 1%
0 1
4:15 PM 2 2 0 1 5 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
West North South
4:00 PM 3 2 1 0 6 1
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 2 1 0 1 4
0 0 2 0 0 1
1 4:30 PM 3 2 0 0 5 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2
5:15 PM 0 2 0 0 2 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
5:00 PM 3 3 0 0 6 0
1 0 0 0 1 0
5:45 PM 3 2 0 0 5
0 1 1 0 1 1
0 5:30 PM 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0
0 0 1 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
4 6
Peak Hour 7 6 0 1 14 2 1
Count Total 18 14 1 2 35 3 1 0 0 4 3 0
0 0 3 1 0 2 3
0 2
0 0
00 00
0 0
1 0
2 3
0 1
N
Moores Ave
Cedar Blvd
Cedar Blvd
Moores Ave
Cedar Blvd
Driveway
TEV: 1,014
PHF: 0.98
8 0
2 10
1 0
0 508
1 509
436
0 02
35 26
37 0
25 432
1 458
551
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
Packet Page 2536
[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
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Moores Ave Driveway
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 6 0
4:15 PM 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 2

UT LT TH RT UT LT
5 0
4:30 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 2
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 5 0
4:45 PM 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 6 20
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
4 20
5:00 PM 0 0 2 1 0 0 3
0 0 0 0 0 1
2 17
5:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 14
5:45 PM 0 0 3 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 5 15
0 0 2 35 0
Peak Hour 0 0 6 1
Count Total 0 0 17 1 0 0 14 0 0 0 1 0 0
4:00 PM 1 0
RT
14 0
Interval
Start
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Moores Ave Driveway
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
2 5:00 PM
0 0 0 1
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 3
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
2 5:30 PM
0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 1
5:15 PM
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 3
0 0 0 0 4 0
0 0
0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 1 0
0 3 0 0 1 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
Packet Page 2537
[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
4 5
10 9
13 10
7 27
85 39
Date: 09/20/2022
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 4.9% 0.90
TOTAL 3.2% 0.78
TH RT
WB 0.8% 0.71
NB 6.2% 0.81
Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.4% 0.69

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Mowry Ave Mowry Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 33 27 25 0 2
22 104 15 374 0
7:15 AM 0 39 78 17
7:00 AM 0 48 34 6 0 6 12 15 0 1 89 18 4
21 126 23 583 0
7:45 AM 0 66 112 31
41 2 5 100 31 1
519 0
7:30 AM 0 61 76 14 0 34 48
75 55 2 20 125 21
621 2,097
8:00 AM 0 86 190 35 0 41 64
0 25 47 21 0 15 82 50 2 19 132 19
0 56 111 44 1 5
27 167 41 887 2,610
8:15 AM 0 104 265 31
22 1 13 131 66 3
29 157 36 697 3,250
8:45 AM 0 75 71 40
42 0 7 82 24 0
1,045 3,136
8:30 AM 0 66 92 33 1 39 89
114 90 1 37 165 21
0 19 34 22 0 1 77 21 1 34 153 39 587 3,216
Count Total 0 545 918 207 1 253 432 209 1,129 215 5,313 0 Peak
Hour
All 0 322 659
232 4 49 750 355 14
3 0 0 2 39 1 0 1 37 4 104 0
117 3,250 0
HV 0 8 6 1 0 2
130 1 161 311 129 2 40 409 230 6 112 621
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 2% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 5% 10% 0% 0% 1% 6% 3% 3%
1 1
7:15 AM 5 1 12 11 29 1 2
0 0 0 0 0 2
West North South
7:00 AM 1 1 26 7 35 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 3 2 13 7 25
0 0 1 2 3 4
1 7:30 AM 1 1 11 17 30 0 0 0
0 0 3 1 2 1
1 7
8:15 AM 4 1 9 10 24 0 0
0 1 0 1 2 3
3 2 4
8:00 AM 4 1 12 9 26 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 3 1 6 23 33
0 1 1 4 0 2
9 8:30 AM 4 1 8 16 29 1 0 0
0 1 1 1 0 0
0 0 1 0 1 12 1 11 3
19 31
Peak Hour 15 5 42 42 104 1 0
Count Total 25 9 97 100 231 2 2 2 1 7 18 17
1 1 3 4 10 3 22
0 1
0 0
10 10
0 0
0 0
3 22
10 4
N
Mowry Ave
Cedar Blvd
Cedar Blvd
Mowry Ave
Cedar Blvd
Mowry Ave
TEV: 3,250
PHF: 0.78
117
621
112
856
866
6 129
311
161
602
1,002
1 409230
40 914
681
2 130
659
322
1,111
468
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
Packet Page 2538
[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
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Mowry Ave Mowry Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
2 4 1 35 0
7:15 AM 0 1 3 1
0 0 0 26 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

UT LT TH RT UT LT
29 0
7:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 12 0 1 0 8 2
0 1 1 0 0 1
1 12 4 30 0
7:45 AM 0 3 0 0
1 0 0 11 0 0
1 6 2 26 110
8:15 AM 0 2 2 0
0 0 1 11 0 0
25 119
8:00 AM 0 3 1 0 0 0 1
12 0 0 0 7 0
24 105
8:30 AM 0 0 3 1 0 1 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 10 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 14 2 29 104
8:45 AM 0 2 1 0
0 0 0 8 0 0
6 0 0 1 19 3 33 112
5 80 14 231 0
Peak Hour 0 8 6 1
Count Total 0 13 10 2 0 3 4 2 0 2 94 1 1
7:00 AM 0 0
RT
104 0
Interval
Start
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Mowry Ave Mowry Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 2 3 0 0 2 39 1 0 1 37 4

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
3 8:00 AM
0 0 0 0
0 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
0 0
0 0 0
1 3
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
2 8:30 AM
0 0 0 0 1 0 1
1 4
8:15 AM
1 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 1
0 LT TH
1 0 0 0 1 0 3
1 1 0 0 7 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 1 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 2 0 0 2 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
Packet Page 2539
[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
11 9
4 10
9 10
7 7
67 33
Date: 09/20/2022
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 3.7% 0.92
TOTAL 2.6% 0.97
TH RT
WB 1.4% 0.90
NB 2.7% 0.90
Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.8% 0.90

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Mowry Ave Mowry Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
1 19 58 27 1 13
41 79 58 650 0
4:15 PM 1 48 61 21
4:00 PM 0 50 61 11 2 36 87 27 2 17 148 25 6
32 95 66 671 0
4:45 PM 0 56 68 18
28 1 19 174 22 4
636 0
4:30 PM 0 56 53 15 3 30 73
162 16 8 51 103 46
696 2,653
5:00 PM 2 72 66 14 1 30 72
3 25 80 20 1 26 142 22 4 59 113 59
1 31 91 32 1 29
37 105 64 756 2,759
5:15 PM 3 71 58 12
36 0 24 191 34 8
49 96 57 664 2,874
5:45 PM 1 66 74 13
42 3 28 149 23 2
758 2,881
5:30 PM 0 43 49 10 3 29 81
169 26 8 55 105 66
3 48 83 39 0 28 153 40 5 49 101 52 755 2,933
Count Total 7 462 490 114 17 248 625 373 797 468 5,586 0 Peak
Hour
All 6 252 247
251 9 184 1,288 208 45
2 5 0 0 21 3 0 0 26 6 75 0
239 2,933 0
HV 0 8 2 0 0 2
49 8 138 327 149 4 109 662 123 23 190 407
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% 0% 3% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 3% 0% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 6% 3% 3%
2 4
4:15 PM 2 1 7 15 25 0 0
0 0 0 0 4 1
West North South
4:00 PM 3 1 11 14 29 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 2 1 9 6 18
0 1 1 1 1 1
4 4:30 PM 3 2 8 11 24 0 1 0
0 0 0 3 1 1
2 2
5:15 PM 1 3 3 5 12 0 0
0 0 0 0 4 1
4 3 3
5:00 PM 2 1 8 10 21 0
1 0 0 0 1 0
5:45 PM 5 2 3 8 18
0 1 0 1 3 3
3 5:30 PM 2 3 10 9 24 0 1 0
0 0 0 2 2 3
0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 2
16 22
Peak Hour 10 9 24 32 75 0 1
Count Total 20 14 59 78 171 1 2 0 0 3 17 12
0 0 1 9 5 9 10
0 0
0 0
00 00
0 0
1 0
9 10
5 9
N
Mowry Ave
Cedar Blvd
Cedar Blvd
Mowry Ave
Cedar Blvd
Mowry Ave
TEV: 2,933
PHF: 0.97
239
407
190
859
1,086
23 149
327
138
622
568
8 109
662123
598
898
4 49
247
252
554
681
6 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
Packet Page 2540
[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
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Mowry Ave Mowry Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
2 9 3 29 0
4:15 PM 0 1 1 0
1 0 0 11 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 1 2 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
25 0
4:30 PM 0 1 2 0 0 1 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 11 3
0 1 0 0 0 1
0 9 2 24 0
4:45 PM 0 2 0 0
1 0 1 7 0 0
0 7 3 21 88
5:15 PM 0 1 0 0
1 0 0 6 2 0
18 96
5:00 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
7 1 0 0 6 0
12 75
5:30 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 1
0 1 1 0 0 0
0 8 1 24 75
5:45 PM 0 3 2 0
3 0 0 9 1 0
3 0 0 0 7 1 18 75
3 61 14 171 0
Peak Hour 0 8 2 0
Count Total 0 13 7 0 0 4 3 7 0 2 53 4 0
4:00 PM 0 0
RT
75 0
Interval
Start
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Mowry Ave Mowry Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 2 2 5 0 0 21 3 0 0 26 6

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
2 5:00 PM
0 0 0 1
1 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0
0 0 0
1 2
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
2 5:30 PM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2
5:15 PM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 3 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
1 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 1 0 0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
Packet Page 2541
[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
1 2
2 2
2 0
8 6
23 16
Date: 09/20/2022
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 4.7% 0.93
TOTAL 5.2% 0.88
TH RT
WB 10.4% 0.80
NB 5.1% 0.83
Peak Hour: 8:00 AM 9:00 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 6.5% 0.82

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Alpenrose Ct Alpenrose Ct Mowry Ave Mowry Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 11 1 19 0 4
31 135 2 350 0
7:15 AM 0 2 1 4
7:00 AM 0 6 0 1 0 12 0 15 1 3 139 4 1
39 161 1 433 0
7:45 AM 0 4 0 3
18 1 3 181 13 6
351 0
7:30 AM 0 1 1 2 0 6 0
126 5 8 25 145 0
440 1,574
8:00 AM 0 7 1 2 0 7 1
0 7 1 18 2 3 160 7 15 42 176 2
0 4 2 30 1 9
44 207 4 546 1,770
8:15 AM 0 7 4 2
19 1 15 200 7 31
56 193 2 509 2,116
8:45 AM 0 4 2 3
16 2 6 180 6 23
621 2,040
8:30 AM 0 7 1 6 0 11 0
229 16 32 54 224 7
0 9 2 14 2 3 155 18 13 65 220 5 515 2,191
Count Total 0 38 10 23 0 67 7 356 1,461 23 3,765 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 25 8
149 10 46 1,370 76 129
0 4 0 1 35 7 0 6 49 0 113 0
18 2,191 0
HV 0 3 0 0 0 8
13 0 31 5 79 6 33 764 47 99 219 844
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 12% 0% 0% - 26% 0% 5% 0% 3% 5% 15% 0% 3% 6% 0% 5% 0 0
7:15 AM 0 4 13 10 27 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
West North South
7:00 AM 1 6 28 7 42 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 1 2 15 8 26
0 0 1 1 0 0
0 7:30 AM 0 3 14 13 30 0 0 0
0 1 1 0 2 0
0 0
8:15 AM 2 1 11 12 26 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 0
0 0 1
8:00 AM 1 5 12 9 27 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
8:45 AM 0 4 11 21 36
0 0 1 4 1 2
0 8:30 AM 0 2 9 13 24 0 0 0
0 2 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3
2 6
Peak Hour 3 12 43 55 113 0 0
Count Total 5 27 113 93 238 0 0 0 3 3 6 9
0 2 2 4 5 2 5
0 0
0 0
11 00
0 0
0 0
2 5
5 4
N
Mowry Ave
Alpenrose Ct
Alpenrose Ct
Mowry Ave
Alpenrose Ct
Mowry Ave
TEV: 2,191
PHF: 0.88
18 844
219
1,180
967
99 79
5 31
115
274
0 47
764
33 894
850
6 13
8 25
46 56
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
Packet Page 2542
[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
Alpenrose Ct Alpenrose Ct Mowry Ave Mowry Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
2 4 1 42 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 27 1 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 3 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
27 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
0 2 0 2 0 0 12 1 0 1 9 0
0 0 0 2 0 0
1 12 0 30 0
7:45 AM 0 1 0 0
1 0 0 11 3 0
3 6 0 27 110
8:15 AM 0 2 0 0
2 0 1 9 2 0
26 125
8:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 3 0
14 1 0 0 8 0
26 109
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 10 1 0 2 10 0
0 3 0 1 0 0
0 13 0 24 103
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 9 0 0
7 4 0 1 20 0 36 113
10 82 1 238 0
Peak Hour 0 3 0 0
Count Total 0 5 0 0 0 15 0 12 0 1 99 13 0
7:00 AM 0 0
RT
113 0
Interval
Start
Alpenrose Ct Alpenrose Ct Mowry Ave Mowry Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 8 0 4 0 1 35 7 0 6 49 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
1 8:00 AM
0 0 0 0
0 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0 0
0 0 0
0 2
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
2 8:30 AM
0 0 0 1 1 0 2
0 1
8:15 AM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Peak Hour
Count Total 1 2
0 LT TH
0 0 0 1 1 0 2
0 0 0 0 3 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 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
Packet Page 2543
[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 2
0 2
0 5
3 1
13 9
Date: 09/20/2022
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 2.8% 0.87
TOTAL 3.0% 0.96
TH RT
WB 4.6% 0.89
NB 2.9% 0.91
Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 3.6% 0.78

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Alpenrose Ct Alpenrose Ct Mowry Ave Mowry Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 16 2 38 3 9
66 187 2 539 0
4:15 PM 0 8 4 3
4:00 PM 0 4 1 6 0 10 1 36 1 7 198 16 4
71 198 1 620 0
4:45 PM 0 12 1 5
50 0 8 235 12 3
573 0
4:30 PM 0 17 2 9 0 11 3
198 20 7 78 187 0
591 2,323
5:00 PM 0 17 1 9 0 11 7
0 14 0 33 0 9 197 21 6 85 206 2
0 16 4 35 3 20
64 194 4 663 2,447
5:15 PM 0 12 2 7
56 2 13 257 27 1
79 176 4 592 2,515
5:45 PM 0 7 3 2
48 2 9 213 22 3
669 2,543
5:30 PM 0 12 1 11 0 9 3
230 17 3 101 212 7
0 12 5 57 2 11 232 23 1 66 213 2 636 2,560
Count Total 0 89 15 52 0 99 25 610 1,573 22 4,883 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 48 7
353 13 86 1,760 158 28
0 5 1 0 25 5 0 6 26 0 78 0
17 2,560 0
HV 0 2 0 1 0 7
29 0 48 19 196 9 53 932 89 8 310 795
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 4% 0% 3% - 15% 0% 3% 11% 0% 3% 6% 0% 2% 3% 0% 3%
0 0
4:15 PM 0 1 8 13 22 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
4:00 PM 0 4 13 13 30 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 1 4 10 7 22
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 4:30 PM 1 1 9 12 23 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
5:15 PM 0 2 4 5 11 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0
5:00 PM 2 5 9 8 24 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
5:45 PM 0 4 7 8 19
0 0 3 0 0 0
0 5:30 PM 1 1 11 11 24 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 1 2
0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
2 2
Peak Hour 3 12 31 32 78 0 0
Count Total 5 22 71 77 175 0 0 1 0 1 7 2
1 0 1 6 1 2 0
0 0
0 0
00 01
0 0
0 0
2 0
1 6
N
Mowry Ave
Alpenrose Ct
Alpenrose Ct
Mowry Ave
Alpenrose Ct
Mowry Ave
TEV: 2,560
PHF: 0.96
17 795
310
1,130
1,184
8 196
19 48
263
406
0 89
932
53 881
1,083
9 29
7 48
84 89
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
Packet Page 2544
[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
Alpenrose Ct Alpenrose Ct Mowry Ave Mowry Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
1 12 0 30 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 9 3 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
22 0
4:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 7 1 0 2 11 0
0 1 0 3 0 0
2 10 0 23 0
4:45 PM 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 8 1 0
1 7 0 24 91
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 9 0 0
22 97
5:00 PM 0 1 0 1 0 4 0
7 3 0 2 5 0
11 80
5:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 2 3 0
0 2 0 2 1 0
2 9 0 24 81
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 9 2 0
4 2 0 1 7 0 19 78
13 64 0 175 0
Peak Hour 0 2 0 1
Count Total 0 4 0 1 0 12 0 10 1 1 56 13 0
4:00 PM 0 0
RT
78 0
Interval
Start
Alpenrose Ct Alpenrose Ct Mowry Ave Mowry Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 7 0 5 1 0 25 5 0 6 26 0

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
0 0
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 5:30 PM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
5:15 PM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 LT TH
0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0 1 0 0 1 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 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
Packet Page 2545
[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
5 2
4 0
3 1
15 0 0 3 0 1 3 5 9
3 7
Peak Hr 10 9 0 0 19 1 2
Count Total 21 18 1 0 40 2 5 0 0 7 2 3
8:45 AM 3 3 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 1 2
0 8:30 AM 3 2 0 0 5 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
2 2
8:15 AM 1 1 0 0 2 0 1
1 0 0 2 0 0
1 0 1
8:00 AM 6 4 0 0 10 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 1
0 7:30 AM 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0
0 0 3 0 0 0
0 5 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 0 2 0 0 2
0 0 2
HV% - - 1% 0% - - 0% -
0 0
7:15 AM 5 1 0 0 6 1 2
1 0 0 1 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 2 3 0
0 88 0 13 427 0 0 61 0 34 0 0 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
0% 2% - 0% - - - - 1%
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 901
0 0 91 0 42 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0
0 1,524 0
HV 0 0 10 0 0
Count Total 1 0 1,323 109 0 14 626 0 0 0 2,206 0
0 1 66 0 0 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 227 1,448
0 0 0 295 1,524
8:45 AM 0 0 148 2
0 0 16 0 6 0
451 1,433
8:30 AM 0 0 155 6 0 2 110
0 7 131 0 0 16 0 19 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 475 1,139
8:15 AM 0 0 253 25
0 0 8 0 7 0
303 758
8:00 AM 0 0 320 41 0 2 97
0 2 89 0 0 21 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 204 0
7:45 AM 0 0 173 16
0 0 9 0 2 0
157 0
7:30 AM 1 0 109 11 0 0 72
0 0 38 0 0 7 0 3 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 94 0
7:15 AM 0 0 105 4
0 0 6 0 1 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 60 4 0 0 23

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Smith Ave N/A
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
SB - -
TOTAL 1.2% 0.80
WB 2.0% 0.80
NB 0.0% 0.68
Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.0% 0.68
Date: 09/20/2022
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
0 1
0 0
2 0
3 5
1 0
N
Smith Ave
Cedar Blvd
Cedar Blvd
Smith Ave
Cedar Blvd
TEV: 1,524
PHF: 0.8
427
13 440
935
0 61
34 101
95 0
88 901 989
488
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
Packet Page 2546
[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.

Peak Hour 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
Count Total 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 3
0 3
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 3
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 5
4 8:00 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 3 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 2
1 0 0 0 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
19 0
Interval
Start
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Smith Ave N/A
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 40 0
Peak Hour 0 0 10 0
Count Total 0 0 20 1 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 24
0 0 0 5 19
8:45 AM 0 0 3 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 17
8:30 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 2
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 10 21
8:15 AM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 16
8:00 AM 0 0 6 0 0 0 4
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 3 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0
7:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 5 0
7:15 AM 0 0 4 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 3

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Smith Ave N/A
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
Packet Page 2547
[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
3 1
0 0
2 1
1 4
12 2 0 4 0 0 2 2 4
3 9
Peak Hr 8 8 0 0 16 2 0
Count Total 21 18 0 0 39 5 1 2 0 8 0 0
5:45 PM 5 3 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 5:30 PM 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 1
0 2
5:15 PM 0 2 0 0 2 1 0
0 2 0 2 0 0
0 0 0
5:00 PM 3 3 0 0 6 0
1 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0
1 4:30 PM 3 3 0 0 6 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5 1
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 3 3 0 0 6
0 2 0
HV% 0% - 2% 2% - - 0% -
1 2
4:15 PM 2 2 0 0 4 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
West North South
4:00 PM 3 2 0
0 53 0 18 530 0 0 36 0 17 0 0 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
0% 2% - 0% - - - - 1%
Peak
Hour
All 1 0 446
0 0 75 0 27 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0
0 1,101 0
HV 0 0 7 1 0
Count Total 1 0 857 96 0 30 997 0 0 0 2,083 0
0 3 129 0 0 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 263 1,092
0 0 0 274 1,101
5:45 PM 0 0 107 14
0 0 6 0 2 0
266 1,085
5:30 PM 0 0 95 18 0 2 151
0 3 126 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 289 1,055
5:15 PM 0 0 116 9
0 0 9 0 7 0
272 991
5:00 PM 1 0 121 16 0 9 126
0 4 127 0 0 15 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 258 0
4:45 PM 0 0 114 10
0 0 12 0 2 0
236 0
4:30 PM 0 0 103 11 0 3 127
0 0 102 0 0 8 0 3 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 225 0
4:15 PM 0 0 117 6
0 0 11 0 3 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 84 12 0 6 109

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Smith Ave N/A
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
SB - -
TOTAL 1.5% 0.95
WB 1.5% 0.90
NB 0.0% 0.78
Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.6% 0.91
Date: 09/20/2022
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
0 2
2 0
0 0
2 2
0 0
N
Smith Ave
Cedar Blvd
Cedar Blvd
Smith Ave
Cedar Blvd
TEV: 1,101
PHF: 0.95
530
18 548
463
0 36
17 71
53 0
53 446 500
567
1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
Packet Page 2548
[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.

Peak Hour 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
Count Total 0 3 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 4
0 4
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 6
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 5
4 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
2 0
4:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 1 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
16 0
Interval
Start
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Smith Ave N/A
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 39 0
Peak Hour 0 0 7 1
Count Total 0 0 19 2 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 18
0 0 0 2 16
5:45 PM 0 0 4 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 20
5:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 6 22
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 21
5:00 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 3
0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 6 0
4:45 PM 0 0 2 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0
4:30 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 3
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 5 0
4:15 PM 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 2

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Smith Ave N/A
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
Packet Page 2549
[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 4
3 2
2 4
3 3
21 11
Date: 09/20/2022
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 0.6% 0.85
TOTAL 1.8% 0.84
TH RT
WB 1.7% 0.84
NB 2.7% 0.78
Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.8% 0.66

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Central Ave Central Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 9 34 11 0 8
13 34 15 212 0
7:15 AM 0 20 67 14
7:00 AM 0 20 34 5 0 5 26 4 0 8 35 13 0
17 40 24 391 0
7:45 AM 0 69 111 29
15 1 8 76 43 0
305 0
7:30 AM 0 31 45 14 0 18 59
47 18 0 17 45 15
574 1,482
8:00 AM 0 62 223 25 0 21 79
0 24 63 18 0 12 91 39 0 38 46 34
0 25 101 28 0 13
35 45 21 731 2,001
8:15 AM 0 56 111 8
17 0 15 91 97 0
37 63 27 523 2,464
8:45 AM 0 48 92 12
23 0 11 93 20 0
636 2,332
8:30 AM 0 39 78 12 0 20 100
96 53 0 34 76 35
0 5 57 22 0 21 79 10 0 54 48 30 478 2,368
Count Total 0 345 761 119 0 127 519 245 397 201 3,850 0 Peak
Hour
All 0 226 523
138 1 96 608 293 0
4 0 0 5 5 7 0 1 1 1 44 0
117 2,464 0
HV 0 4 7 4 0 5
74 0 90 343 86 0 51 371 209 0 144 230
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 2% 1% 5% - 6% 1% 0% - 10% 1% 3% - 1% 0% 1% 2%
0 0
7:15 AM 2 2 4 6 14 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 2 3 4 3 12 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 4 3 4 0 11
0 1 0 0 0 3
2 7:30 AM 3 2 4 3 12 0 0 1
1 5 8 2 0 0
1 1
8:15 AM 4 0 3 2 9 0 1
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 1
8:00 AM 5 4 6 0 15 1
1 0 1 0 2 1
8:45 AM 7 3 4 1 15
1 1 1 0 2 0
0 8:30 AM 2 2 4 1 9 0 0 0
1 1 3 1 1 2
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
6 7
Peak Hour 15 9 17 3 44 2 1
Count Total 29 19 33 16 97 4 1 4 7 16 6 2
2 2 7 3 1 5 2
0 2
0 0
11 02
0 0
1 0
5 2
1 3
N
Central Ave
Cedar Blvd
Cedar Blvd
Central Ave
Cedar Blvd
Central Ave
TEV: 2,464
PHF: 0.84
117
230
144
491
683
0 86
343
90 519
876
0 371209
51 394
631
0 74
523
226
823
511
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
Packet Page 2550
[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
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Central Ave Central Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 3 0 12 0
7:15 AM 0 1 1 0
1 0 0 3 1 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 1 1

UT LT TH RT UT LT
14 0
7:30 AM 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
0 1 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 2 2 2
0 3 0 0 0 2
0 0 3 12 0
7:45 AM 0 1 1 2
0 0 3 0 1 0
0 0 0 15 52
8:15 AM 0 3 1 0
0 0 1 2 3 0
11 49
8:00 AM 0 0 3 2 0 1 3
1 1 0 0 0 0
9 47
8:30 AM 0 0 2 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1
0 1 2 0 0 2
1 0 0 9 44
8:45 AM 0 2 2 3
0 0 1 1 2 0
1 1 0 0 1 0 15 48
3 7 6 97 0
Peak Hour 0 4 7 4
Count Total 0 9 12 8 0 9 8 2 0 13 10 10 0
7:00 AM 0 0
RT
44 0
Interval
Start
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Central Ave Central Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 5 4 0 0 5 5 7 0 1 1 1

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
11 8:00 AM
0 1 0 2
1 0
7:45 AM
0 1 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 8
0 0
0 0 0
1 7
8:45 AM
0 0 0 1
7 8:30 AM
0 1 0 0 1 0 3
1 12
8:15 AM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Peak Hour
Count Total 1 6
0 LT TH
0 2 0 1 1 0 7
0 4 0 0 16 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 2 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 1 0
0 4 0 0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
Packet Page 2551
[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
7 2
2 2
7 9
3 4
36 21
Date: 09/20/2022
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 1.2% 0.90
TOTAL 1.4% 0.96
TH RT
WB 1.3% 0.96
NB 1.8% 0.93
Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.3% 0.90

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Central Ave Central Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 11 71 33 0 14
19 43 39 514 0
4:15 PM 0 70 75 13
4:00 PM 0 47 67 11 0 15 71 26 0 25 135 15 1
24 72 43 577 0
4:45 PM 0 52 78 12
29 0 35 143 18 0
521 0
4:30 PM 0 46 65 7 1 14 80
88 15 0 27 58 46
604 2,216
5:00 PM 0 61 85 10 0 10 88
1 16 92 28 0 21 152 17 0 29 56 50
0 11 76 38 1 20
28 57 48 640 2,342
5:15 PM 0 65 73 16
39 0 27 163 24 0
27 78 40 661 2,533
5:45 PM 0 72 83 12
33 0 15 163 23 0
628 2,449
5:30 PM 0 70 93 12 0 19 88
137 33 1 19 91 47
0 15 92 27 0 14 120 16 0 29 59 39 578 2,507
Count Total 0 483 619 93 2 111 658 202 514 352 4,723 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 248 329
253 1 171 1,101 161 2
3 0 0 3 7 4 0 0 5 2 36 0
185 2,533 0
HV 0 3 5 0 0 4
50 1 56 344 138 1 83 615 97 1 103 282
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 1% 2% 0% 0% 7% 1% 0% 0% 4% 1% 4% 0% 0% 2% 1% 1%
0 5
4:15 PM 1 1 2 2 6 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 1
West North South
4:00 PM 0 2 3 2 7 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 3 1 1 4 9
1 1 1 1 0 0
1 4:30 PM 1 4 3 4 12 0 0 0
1 0 1 1 0 0
0 5
5:15 PM 0 2 6 0 8 1 0
0 1 0 1 1 1
0 0 0
5:00 PM 4 4 4 2 14 0
0 0 0 2 2 2
5:45 PM 3 4 1 1 9
1 1 0 0 2 1
3 5:30 PM 1 0 3 1 5 0 0 0
1 0 2 0 2 4
0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 3
6 18
Peak Hour 8 7 14 7 36 1 0
Count Total 13 18 23 16 70 1 0 3 6 10 7 5
2 3 6 3 3 6 9
0 1
0 1
20 02
0 0
0 0
6 9
3 3
N
Central Ave
Cedar Blvd
Cedar Blvd
Central Ave
Cedar Blvd
Central Ave
TEV: 2,533
PHF: 0.96
185
282
103
571
1,002
1 138
344
56 539
530
1 97
615
83 389
796
1 50
329
248
627
612
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
Packet Page 2552
[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
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Central Ave Central Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
1 1 0 7 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 2 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

UT LT TH RT UT LT
6 0
4:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 2 1
0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 4 0 12 0
4:45 PM 0 2 1 0
1 0 1 1 1 0
0 2 0 14 41
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 3 0 0
9 34
5:00 PM 0 1 3 0 0 2 2
0 1 0 0 2 2
8 43
5:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0
0 2 2 0 0 0
0 1 0 5 36
5:45 PM 0 0 3 0
0 0 0 1 2 0
1 0 0 0 0 1 9 36
2 11 3 70 0
Peak Hour 0 3 5 0
Count Total 0 3 9 1 0 9 7 2 0 5 11 7 0
4:00 PM 0 0
RT
36 0
Interval
Start
Cedar Blvd Cedar Blvd Central Ave Central Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 4 3 0 0 3 7 4 0 0 5 2

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
4 5:00 PM
0 0 0 2
1 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0 0
0 0 0
1 6
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
6 5:30 PM
0 1 0 0 0 0 2
1 5
5:15 PM
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 6
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 4
0 LT TH
0 2 0 0 2 1 6
0 3 0 2 10 0
1 0
0 1
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 1 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
1 0
0 1 1
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
Packet Page 2553
[email protected]
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Appendix | C
Appendix C – Existing Conditions Intersections Level of Service Worksheets
Packet Page 2554
Queues
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report

EX AM Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 921 389 50 1
v/c Ratio 0.03 0.31 0.14 0.17 0.00
Control Delay 24.2 2.1 3.1 1.3 0.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 24.2 2.1 3.1 1.3 0.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 38 13 0 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 56 48 0 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1105 809 608 371
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100
Base Capacity (vph) 325 2984 3003 760 926
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.31 0.13 0.07 0.00
Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2555
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report

EX AM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 884 37 0 388 1 38 0 12 0 0 1
Future Volume (vph) 5 884 37 0 388 1 38 0 12 0 0 1
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.86
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3513 3538 1736 1611
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3513 3538 1802 1611
Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 884 37 0 388 1 38 0 12 0 0 1
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 1 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 920 0 0 389 0020000
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 4
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 48.3 42.3 2.6 2.6
Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 48.3 42.3 2.6 2.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.79 0.69 0.04 0.04
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 29 2786 2457 76 68
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.26 0.11 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm c0.00
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.33 0.16 0.03 0.00
Uniform Delay, d1 29.5 1.8 3.2 27.9 27.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0
Delay (s) 30.6 2.1 3.3 28.0 27.9
Level of Service C A A C C
Approach Delay (s) 2.2 3.3 28.0 27.9
Approach LOS A A C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 3.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.9 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2556
Queues
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report

EX AM Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 322 789 162 440 42 409 230 118 621 117 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.63 0.63 0.47 0.35 0.56 0.51 0.42 0.70 0.25 Control Delay 45.6 31.0 53.0 33.6 56.8 38.8 15.5 51.6 39.9 7.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.6 31.0 53.0 33.6 56.8 38.8 15.5 51.6 39.9 7.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 188 217 98 116 26 121 34 37 191 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 320 363 190 214 70 194 115 77 294 47 Internal Link Dist (ft) 863 1273 857 699
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 235 125 130 195
Base Capacity (vph) 723 1252 814 1429 452 1446 733 1579 2206 1002 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.45 0.63 0.20 0.31 0.09 0.28 0.31 0.07 0.28 0.12 Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2557
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report

EX AM Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 322 659 130 162 311 129 42 409 230 118 621 117 Future Volume (veh/h) 322 659 130 162 311 129 42 409 230 118 621 117 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 322 659 130 162 311 129 42 409 230 118 621 117 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 369 908 179 203 577 234 52 815 362 198 982 428 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.03 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2940 579 1781 2463 1000 1781 3554 1577 3456 3554 1548 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 322 398 391 162 222 218 42 409 230 118 621 117 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1742 1781 1777 1686 1781 1777 1577 1728 1777 1548 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.2 13.9 13.9 6.2 7.6 7.9 1.6 7.0 9.2 2.3 10.7 4.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.2 13.9 13.9 6.2 7.6 7.9 1.6 7.0 9.2 2.3 10.7 4.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.59 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 369 549 538 203 417 395 52 815 362 198 982 428 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.73 0.73 0.80 0.53 0.55 0.81 0.50 0.64 0.59 0.63 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1024 894 877 1152 894 848 640 2043 907 2235 2043 890 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.7 21.4 21.4 30.0 23.3 23.4 33.6 23.3 24.2 32.0 22.1 19.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.7 0.7 2.7 0.4 0.4 10.4 0.2 0.7 1.1 0.3 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.1 5.4 5.3 2.7 3.0 3.0 0.8 2.7 3.2 1.0 4.1 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.3 22.1 22.1 32.8 23.7 23.8 44.0 23.5 24.9 33.1 22.3 19.8 LnGrp LOS CCCCCCDCCCCB
Approach Vol, veh/h 1111 602 681 856
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.2 26.2 25.2 23.5
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.8 21.3 12.7 26.8 5.5 24.5 17.9 21.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.8 * 5.3 4.8 * 5.3 3.5 5.3 3.5 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 * 40 45.0 * 35 25.0 40.0 40.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 11.2 8.2 15.9 3.6 12.7 14.2 9.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.5 0.1 2.3 0.0 2.2 0.3 1.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.6
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Packet Page 2558
Queues
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct/Newpark Mall Rd Timing Plan: AM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report

EX AM Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 25 21 36 79 39 811 318 862
v/c Ratio 0.13 0.11 0.17 0.28 0.20 0.52 0.43 0.30
Control Delay 29.7 20.6 29.2 5.8 30.1 18.6 23.3 11.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 29.7 20.6 29.2 5.8 30.1 18.6 23.3 11.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 8 3 12 0 13 90 52 82
Queue Length 95th (ft) 33 23 41 21 44 147 101 131
Internal Link Dist (ft) 422 383 699 992
Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 260
Base Capacity (vph) 912 866 921 859 730 4111 2962 5066
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.20 0.11 0.17 Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2559
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct/Newpark Mall Rd Timing Plan: AM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report

EX AM Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 25 8 13 31 5 79 39 764 47 318 844 18 Future Volume (vph) 25 8 13 31 5 79 39 764 47 318 844 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1674 1786 1563 1770 5037 3433 5067 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1674 1786 1563 1770 5037 3433 5067 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 25 8 13 31 5 79 39 764 47 318 844 18
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0 0 0 73 040010
Lane Group Flow (vph) 25 9 0 0 36 6 39 807 0 318 861 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5245
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 3
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.1 3.1 4.7 4.7 3.3 19.9 11.6 28.2 Effective Green, g (s) 3.1 3.1 4.7 4.7 3.3 19.9 11.6 28.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.33 0.19 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 92 87 140 123 98 1681 668 2397
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.01 c0.02 0.02 c0.16 c0.09 0.17
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.27 0.10 0.26 0.05 0.40 0.48 0.48 0.36
Uniform Delay, d1 27.2 26.9 25.8 25.4 27.2 15.7 21.3 10.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.0
Delay (s) 27.7 27.1 26.2 25.4 28.2 15.8 21.5 10.0
Level of Service C C C C C B C A
Approach Delay (s) 27.5 25.7 16.4 13.1
Approach LOS C C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 59.6 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2560
HCM 6th TWSC
4: Smith Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report

EX AM Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 901 88 13 427 61 34
Future Vol, veh/h 901 88 13 427 61 34
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 055010
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 1 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 901 88 13 427 61 34
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 994 0 1191 500
Stage 1 - - - - 950 -
Stage 2 - - - - 241 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 692 - 180 516
Stage 1 - - - - 336 -
Stage 2 - - - - 776 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 689 - 174 514
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 273 -
Stage 1 - - - - 334 -
Stage 2 - - - - 756 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 20.4

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 328 - - 689 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.29 - - 0.019 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 20.4 - - 10.3 0.1
HCM Lane LOS C - - B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.2 - - 0.1 -
Packet Page 2561
Queues
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report

EX AM Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 226 597 90 429 51 580 144 347
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.55 0.46 0.65 0.34 0.72 0.56 0.31
Control Delay 44.7 30.0 50.0 38.8 50.6 34.8 48.1 22.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 44.7 30.0 50.0 38.8 50.6 34.8 48.1 22.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 113 144 47 108 27 135 74 65
Queue Length 95th (ft) 244 264 120 211 80 256 172 132
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1060 2431 769 1211
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 120 180 130
Base Capacity (vph) 826 2037 529 1444 635 1432 529 1288 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.27 0.29 0.17 0.30 0.08 0.41 0.27 0.27 Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2562
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report

EX AM Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 226 523 74 90 343 86 51 371 209 144 230 117 Future Volume (veh/h) 226 523 74 90 343 86 51 371 209 144 230 117 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 226 523 74 90 343 86 51 371 209 144 230 117 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 278 868 122 117 527 130 64 510 282 185 692 339 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3120 440 1781 2811 694 1781 2190 1213 1781 2300 1126 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 226 297 300 90 215 214 51 300 280 144 176 171 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1783 1781 1777 1728 1781 1777 1626 1781 1777 1649 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.7 9.1 9.2 3.1 7.0 7.2 1.8 9.8 10.0 4.9 4.8 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.7 9.1 9.2 3.1 7.0 7.2 1.8 9.8 10.0 4.9 4.8 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.68
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 278 494 496 117 333 324 64 414 379 185 535 496 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.60 0.61 0.77 0.64 0.66 0.80 0.72 0.74 0.78 0.33 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1109 993 996 711 993 965 853 851 779 711 851 790 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.5 19.6 19.6 28.8 23.5 23.6 30.0 22.2 22.3 27.4 17.0 17.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.4 0.4 4.0 0.8 0.9 8.1 0.9 1.1 2.6 0.1 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 3.4 3.5 1.4 2.7 2.7 0.9 3.8 3.6 2.1 1.8 1.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.7 20.0 20.1 32.7 24.3 24.5 38.1 23.1 23.3 30.0 17.1 17.2 LnGrp LOS CCCCCCDCCCBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 823 519 631 491
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.2 25.8 24.4 20.9
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.1 22.4 11.5 19.6 14.8 16.7 7.3 23.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 35.0 25.0 30.0 39.0 35.0 30.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.1 11.2 6.9 12.0 9.7 9.2 3.8 7.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.3 0.2 2.2 0.3 1.5 0.0 1.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Packet Page 2563
Queues
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report

EX PM Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 457 1 508 37 10
v/c Ratio 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.18 0.13 0.04
Control Delay 24.0 3.0 24.0 3.1 0.9 0.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 24.0 3.0 24.0 3.1 0.9 0.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 15 0 18 0 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 54 4 61 0 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1105 809 608 371
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 150
Base Capacity (vph) 326 2851 651 3008 777 662
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.17 0.05 0.02
Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2564
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report

EX PM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 432 25 1 508 0 35 02208
Future Volume (vph) 1 432 25 1 508 0 35 02208
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.89
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3505 1770 3539 1764 1645
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.92
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3505 1770 3539 1847 1534
Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 432 25 1 508 0 35 02208
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 10 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 455 0 1 508 0020000
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 2 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.9 42.2 0.9 42.2 2.6 2.6
Effective Green, g (s) 0.9 42.2 0.9 42.2 2.6 2.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.70 0.01 0.70 0.04 0.04
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 26 2436 26 2460 79 65
v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.13 0.00 c0.14
v/s Ratio Perm c0.00 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.19 0.04 0.21 0.02 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 29.5 3.2 29.5 3.3 27.8 27.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
Delay (s) 29.7 3.4 29.7 3.5 27.9 27.8
Level of Service C A C A C C
Approach Delay (s) 3.5 3.5 27.9 27.8
Approach LOS A A C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 4.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.19
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.7 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2565
Queues
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report

EX PM Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 258 296 146 476 113 662 123 213 407 239 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.33 0.57 0.68 0.54 0.70 0.25 0.52 0.41 0.40 Control Delay 48.2 31.3 52.9 41.3 55.5 38.3 9.3 49.4 32.4 6.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 48.2 31.3 52.9 41.3 55.5 38.3 9.3 49.4 32.4 6.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 148 74 86 133 67 193 5 64 107 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 298 145 189 246 156 334 55 131 200 63 Internal Link Dist (ft) 863 1273 857 699
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 235 125 130 195
Base Capacity (vph) 758 1307 853 1491 474 1517 725 1656 2314 1097 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.34 0.23 0.17 0.32 0.24 0.44 0.17 0.13 0.18 0.22 Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2566
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report

EX PM Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 258 247 49 146 327 149 113 662 123 213 407 239 Future Volume (veh/h) 258 247 49 146 327 149 113 662 123 213 407 239 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 258 247 49 146 327 149 113 662 123 213 407 239 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 304 751 146 185 486 216 145 956 422 311 1051 466 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2959 577 1781 2370 1055 1781 3554 1569 3456 3554 1577 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 258 147 149 146 243 233 113 662 123 213 407 239 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1758 1781 1777 1647 1781 1777 1569 1728 1777 1577 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 4.8 4.9 5.7 9.0 9.3 4.4 11.9 4.4 4.3 6.5 9.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 4.8 4.9 5.7 9.0 9.3 4.4 11.9 4.4 4.3 6.5 9.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 304 451 446 185 365 338 145 956 422 311 1051 466 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.33 0.33 0.79 0.67 0.69 0.78 0.69 0.29 0.69 0.39 0.51 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1000 873 864 1125 873 809 625 1995 881 2183 1995 885 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.7 21.6 21.7 31.2 26.1 26.2 32.1 23.4 20.6 31.4 19.9 20.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.2 0.2 2.9 0.8 0.9 3.4 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.2 1.9 1.9 2.5 3.6 3.5 2.0 4.7 1.5 1.7 2.5 3.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.2 21.8 21.8 34.0 26.9 27.1 35.4 23.7 20.8 32.4 20.0 21.1 LnGrp LOS CCCCCCDCCCCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 554 622 898 859
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.2 28.7 24.8 23.4
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.2 24.5 12.2 23.4 9.3 26.4 15.6 19.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.8 * 5.3 4.8 * 5.3 3.5 5.3 3.5 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 * 40 45.0 * 35 25.0 40.0 40.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.3 13.9 7.7 6.9 6.4 11.0 12.0 11.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 2.4 0.1 0.8 0.1 1.5 0.2 1.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Packet Page 2567
Queues
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct/Newpark Mall Rd Timing Plan: PM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report

EX PM Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 36 67 196 62 1021 318 812
v/c Ratio 0.26 0.18 0.32 0.55 0.33 0.65 0.50 0.37
Control Delay 36.1 18.3 35.9 12.3 37.1 22.8 29.8 15.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 36.1 18.3 35.9 12.3 37.1 22.8 29.8 15.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 19 3 26 0 24 131 61 87
Queue Length 95th (ft) 58 31 74 60 71 215 121 145
Internal Link Dist (ft) 422 383 699 992
Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 260
Base Capacity (vph) 427 417 723 744 569 3510 2594 4900
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.26 0.11 0.29 0.12 0.17 Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2568
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct/Newpark Mall Rd Timing Plan: PM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report

EX PM Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 48 7 29 48 19 196 62 932 89 318 795 17 Future Volume (vph) 48 7 29 48 19 196 62 932 89 318 795 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1638 1798 1562 1770 5011 3433 5067 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1638 1798 1562 1770 5011 3433 5067 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 7 29 48 19 196 62 932 89 318 795 17
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 27 0 0 0 174 070020
Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 9 0 0 67 22 62 1014 0 318 810 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 6 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 3
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.5 5.5 7.8 7.8 5.7 22.5 12.4 29.2 Effective Green, g (s) 5.5 5.5 7.8 7.8 5.7 22.5 12.4 29.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.33 0.18 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 142 131 204 177 147 1645 621 2159
v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.01 c0.04 0.04 c0.20 c0.09 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.07 0.33 0.13 0.42 0.62 0.51 0.38
Uniform Delay, d1 29.8 29.1 27.9 27.3 29.8 19.4 25.3 13.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.0
Delay (s) 30.3 29.2 28.3 27.4 30.5 19.9 25.6 13.5
Level of Service C C C C C B C B
Approach Delay (s) 29.8 27.6 20.5 16.9
Approach LOS C C C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.5 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2569
HCM 6th TWSC
4: Smith Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report

EX PM Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 446 53 18 530 36 17
Future Vol, veh/h 1 446 53 18 530 36 17
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 022000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 1 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 1 446 53 18 530 36 17
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 530 0 0 501 0 778 252
Stage 1 - - - - - 477 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 301 -
Critical Hdwy 6.44 - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ---- 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ---- 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.52 - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 663 - - 1059 - 333 748
Stage 1 - - - - - 590 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 725 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 663 - - 1057 - 324 747
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - 438 -
Stage 1 - - - - - 588 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 708 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 13

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 505 - - 1057 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.105 - - 0.017 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 13 0 - 8.5 0.1
HCM Lane LOS B A - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0.1 -
Packet Page 2570
Queues
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report

EX PM Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 248 379 57 482 84 712 104 467
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.32 0.38 0.70 0.47 0.76 0.52 0.43
Control Delay 48.5 25.2 54.2 40.5 54.1 39.0 53.7 25.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 48.5 25.2 54.2 40.5 54.1 39.0 53.7 25.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 141 90 33 134 49 198 60 95
Queue Length 95th (ft) 266 150 87 228 116 #358 136 190
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1060 2431 769 1211
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 120 180 130
Base Capacity (vph) 758 1866 486 1316 583 1336 486 1165 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.20 0.12 0.37 0.14 0.53 0.21 0.40 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2571
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report

EX PM Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 248 329 50 57 344 138 84 615 97 104 282 185 Future Volume (veh/h) 248 329 50 57 344 138 84 615 97 104 282 185 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 248 329 50 57 344 138 84 615 97 104 282 185 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 298 1027 154 73 512 202 109 796 125 135 567 360 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3088 464 1781 2483 978 1781 3068 483 1781 2070 1314 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 248 188 191 57 244 238 84 356 356 104 241 226 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1775 1781 1777 1684 1781 1777 1774 1781 1777 1607 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.3 5.4 5.5 2.2 8.7 9.0 3.2 12.7 12.8 3.9 7.8 8.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.3 5.4 5.5 2.2 8.7 9.0 3.2 12.7 12.8 3.9 7.8 8.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.82
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 298 591 591 73 366 347 109 461 460 135 487 440 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.32 0.32 0.78 0.67 0.68 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.49 0.51 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1011 905 904 648 905 858 778 776 775 648 776 702 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.7 17.1 17.1 32.6 25.1 25.2 31.8 23.6 23.6 31.1 20.9 21.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.1 0.1 6.7 0.8 0.9 4.2 1.0 1.1 3.4 0.3 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.9 2.1 2.1 1.0 3.6 3.5 1.5 5.1 5.1 1.8 3.1 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.0 17.2 17.3 39.4 25.9 26.1 35.9 24.6 24.6 34.6 21.2 21.4 LnGrp LOS C B B DCCDCCCCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 627 539 796 571
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.3 27.4 25.8 23.7
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.8 27.9 10.2 22.8 16.5 19.2 9.2 23.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 35.0 25.0 30.0 39.0 35.0 30.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 7.5 5.9 14.8 11.3 11.0 5.2 10.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.5 0.1 2.7 0.3 1.9 0.1 1.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.8
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Packet Page 2572
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Appendix | D
Appendix D – Existing plus Project Conditions Intersections Level of Service Worksheets
Packet Page 2573
Queues
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
EX + Proj AM Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 921 395 50 26
v/c Ratio 0.03 0.31 0.14 0.17 0.09
Control Delay 23.2 2.2 3.1 1.3 0.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 23.2 2.2 3.1 1.3 0.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 38 13 0 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 56 48 0 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1105 809 608 371
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100
Base Capacity (vph) 333 2962 2995 774 785
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.31 0.13 0.06 0.03
Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2574
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
EX + Proj AM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 884 37 0 388 7 38 0 12 23 0 3
Future Volume (vph) 5 884 37 0 388 7 38 0 12 23 0 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3513 3528 1736 1756
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3513 3528 1802 1834
Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 884 37 0 388 7 38 0 12 23 0 3
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 48 0 0 25 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 920 0 0 394 0020010
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 4
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 46.9 40.9 2.6 2.6
Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 46.9 40.9 2.6 2.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.79 0.69 0.04 0.04
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 29 2769 2425 78 80
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.26 0.11
v/s Ratio Perm c0.00 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.33 0.16 0.03 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 28.8 1.8 3.3 27.2 27.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0
Delay (s) 29.9 2.1 3.4 27.3 27.2
Level of Service C A A C C
Approach Delay (s) 2.3 3.4 27.3 27.2
Approach LOS A A C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 4.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 59.5 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2575
Queues
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
EX + Proj AM Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 342 792 162 441 42 409 230 118 621 122 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.63 0.63 0.51 0.35 0.55 0.51 0.43 0.70 0.26 Control Delay 42.7 31.0 53.7 36.0 57.7 39.2 15.7 52.4 40.3 8.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 42.7 31.0 53.7 36.0 57.7 39.2 15.7 52.4 40.3 8.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 195 220 98 122 26 121 34 37 192 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 341 363 194 219 71 199 117 79 302 48 Internal Link Dist (ft) 863 1273 857 699
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 235 125 130 195
Base Capacity (vph) 717 1259 807 1418 448 1435 728 1566 2189 997 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.63 0.20 0.31 0.09 0.29 0.32 0.08 0.28 0.12 Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2576
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
EX + Proj AM Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 342 661 131 162 312 129 42 409 230 118 621 122 Future Volume (veh/h) 342 661 131 162 312 129 42 409 230 118 621 122 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 342 661 131 162 312 129 42 409 230 118 621 122 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 389 909 180 203 552 223 52 815 361 198 981 427 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2937 581 1781 2465 998 1781 3554 1577 3456 3554 1548 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 342 399 393 162 223 218 42 409 230 118 621 122 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1742 1781 1777 1686 1781 1777 1577 1728 1777 1548 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.9 14.0 14.0 6.2 7.8 8.0 1.6 7.0 9.2 2.3 10.7 4.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.9 14.0 14.0 6.2 7.8 8.0 1.6 7.0 9.2 2.3 10.7 4.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.59 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 389 550 539 203 398 377 52 815 361 198 981 427 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.73 0.73 0.80 0.56 0.58 0.81 0.50 0.64 0.59 0.63 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1023 893 875 1150 893 847 639 2040 905 2232 2040 889 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.4 21.4 21.4 30.1 24.0 24.1 33.6 23.4 24.2 32.0 22.1 19.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.7 0.7 2.7 0.5 0.5 10.4 0.2 0.7 1.1 0.3 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.4 5.4 5.3 2.7 3.1 3.0 0.8 2.8 3.2 1.0 4.1 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.9 22.1 22.2 32.8 24.5 24.6 44.0 23.6 24.9 33.1 22.4 20.0 LnGrp LOS CCCCCCDCCCCB
Approach Vol, veh/h 1134 603 681 861
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.2 26.8 25.3 23.5
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.8 21.3 12.7 26.9 5.5 24.5 18.7 20.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.8 * 5.3 4.8 * 5.3 3.5 5.3 3.5 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 * 40 45.0 * 35 25.0 40.0 40.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 11.2 8.2 16.0 3.6 12.7 14.9 10.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.5 0.1 2.3 0.0 2.2 0.3 1.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.7
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Packet Page 2577
Queues
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct/Newpark Mall Rd Timing Plan: AM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
EX + Proj AM Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 25 21 36 79 39 831 318 867
v/c Ratio 0.13 0.11 0.17 0.28 0.20 0.52 0.43 0.31
Control Delay 29.9 20.8 29.5 5.9 30.3 18.7 23.5 11.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 29.9 20.8 29.5 5.9 30.3 18.7 23.5 11.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 8 3 12 0 13 93 52 83
Queue Length 95th (ft) 33 23 41 21 44 152 101 132
Internal Link Dist (ft) 422 383 699 992
Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 260
Base Capacity (vph) 905 859 913 853 724 4098 2949 5066
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.20 0.11 0.17 Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2578
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct/Newpark Mall Rd Timing Plan: AM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
EX + Proj AM Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 25 8 13 31 5 79 39 784 47 318 849 18 Future Volume (vph) 25 8 13 31 5 79 39 784 47 318 849 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1674 1786 1563 1770 5038 3433 5067 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1674 1786 1563 1770 5038 3433 5067 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 25 8 13 31 5 79 39 784 47 318 849 18
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0 0 0 73 030010
Lane Group Flow (vph) 25 9 0 0 36 6 39 828 0 318 866 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5245
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 3
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.1 3.1 4.8 4.8 3.3 20.1 11.7 28.5 Effective Green, g (s) 3.1 3.1 4.8 4.8 3.3 20.1 11.7 28.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.34 0.19 0.48 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 91 86 142 125 97 1687 669 2406
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.01 c0.02 0.02 c0.16 c0.09 0.17
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.27 0.10 0.25 0.05 0.40 0.49 0.48 0.36
Uniform Delay, d1 27.4 27.1 25.9 25.5 27.4 15.9 21.4 10.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.0
Delay (s) 28.0 27.3 26.3 25.6 28.4 16.0 21.6 10.0
Level of Service C C C C C B C B
Approach Delay (s) 27.7 25.8 16.5 13.1
Approach LOS C C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2579
HCM 6th TWSC
4: Smith Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
EX + Proj AM Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 901 88 13 429 61 34
Future Vol, veh/h 901 88 13 429 61 34
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 055010
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 1 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 901 88 13 429 61 34
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 994 0 1192 500
Stage 1 - - - - 950 -
Stage 2 - - - - 242 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 692 - 180 516
Stage 1 - - - - 336 -
Stage 2 - - - - 776 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 689 - 174 514
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 273 -
Stage 1 - - - - 334 -
Stage 2 - - - - 756 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 20.4

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 328 - - 689 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.29 - - 0.019 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 20.4 - - 10.3 0.1
HCM Lane LOS C - - B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.2 - - 0.1 -
Packet Page 2580
Queues
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
EX + Proj AM Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 226 597 92 429 51 580 144 347
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.55 0.46 0.65 0.34 0.72 0.56 0.31
Control Delay 44.7 30.1 50.0 38.8 50.6 34.8 48.1 22.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 44.7 30.1 50.0 38.8 50.6 34.8 48.1 22.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 113 145 48 108 27 135 74 65
Queue Length 95th (ft) 244 265 122 211 80 256 172 132
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1060 2431 769 1211
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 120 180 130
Base Capacity (vph) 826 2037 529 1444 635 1432 529 1288 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.27 0.29 0.17 0.30 0.08 0.41 0.27 0.27 Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2581
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
EX + Proj AM Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 226 523 74 92 343 86 51 371 209 144 230 117 Future Volume (veh/h) 226 523 74 92 343 86 51 371 209 144 230 117 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 226 523 74 92 343 86 51 371 209 144 230 117 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 278 863 122 120 527 130 64 510 282 185 692 339 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3120 440 1781 2811 694 1781 2190 1213 1781 2300 1126 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 226 297 300 92 215 214 51 300 280 144 176 171 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1783 1781 1777 1728 1781 1777 1626 1781 1777 1649 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.7 9.1 9.2 3.2 7.0 7.2 1.8 9.8 10.0 4.9 4.8 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.7 9.1 9.2 3.2 7.0 7.2 1.8 9.8 10.0 4.9 4.8 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.68
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 278 491 493 120 333 324 64 414 379 185 535 496 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.60 0.61 0.77 0.64 0.66 0.80 0.72 0.74 0.78 0.33 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1109 993 996 711 993 965 853 851 779 711 851 790 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.5 19.7 19.7 28.7 23.5 23.6 30.0 22.2 22.3 27.4 17.0 17.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.4 0.5 3.9 0.8 0.9 8.1 0.9 1.1 2.6 0.1 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 3.4 3.5 1.4 2.7 2.7 0.9 3.8 3.6 2.1 1.8 1.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.7 20.1 20.2 32.6 24.3 24.5 38.1 23.1 23.3 30.0 17.1 17.2 LnGrp LOS CCCCCCDCCCBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 823 521 631 491
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.2 25.8 24.4 20.9
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.2 22.3 11.5 19.6 14.8 16.7 7.3 23.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 35.0 25.0 30.0 39.0 35.0 30.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 11.2 6.9 12.0 9.7 9.2 3.8 7.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.3 0.2 2.2 0.3 1.5 0.0 1.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Packet Page 2582
Queues
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
EX + Proj PM Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 457 1 530 37 19
v/c Ratio 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.19 0.13 0.07
Control Delay 23.7 3.0 24.0 3.1 0.9 0.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 23.7 3.0 24.0 3.1 0.9 0.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 1 15 0 19 0 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 54 4 64 0 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1105 809 608 371
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 150
Base Capacity (vph) 327 2847 655 2979 781 742
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.18 0.05 0.03
Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2583
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
EX + Proj PM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 3 432 25 1 508 22 35 0 2 10 0 9
Future Volume (vph) 3 432 25 1 508 22 35 0 2 10 0 9
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.94
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3505 1770 3514 1764 1699
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3505 1770 3514 1847 1744
Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 3 432 25 1 508 22 35 0 2 10 0 9
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 35 0 0 18 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 455 0 1 528 0020010
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 2 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 42.0 0.9 41.9 2.6 2.6
Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 42.0 0.9 41.9 2.6 2.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.69 0.01 0.69 0.04 0.04
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 29 2433 26 2433 79 74
v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.13 0.00 c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm c0.00 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.10 0.19 0.04 0.22 0.02 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 29.3 3.3 29.4 3.4 27.7 27.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
Delay (s) 29.9 3.4 29.6 3.6 27.8 27.7
Level of Service C A C A C C
Approach Delay (s) 3.6 3.6 27.8 27.7
Approach LOS A A C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 4.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.20
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.5 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2584
Queues
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
EX + Proj PM Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 265 297 146 479 114 662 123 213 407 257 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.32 0.58 0.69 0.54 0.70 0.25 0.53 0.42 0.42 Control Delay 48.5 31.2 53.7 41.8 56.1 38.8 9.3 50.1 32.9 6.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 48.5 31.2 53.7 41.8 56.1 38.8 9.3 50.1 32.9 6.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 154 75 87 136 68 196 5 65 109 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 305 145 191 251 159 337 55 133 202 66 Internal Link Dist (ft) 863 1273 857 699
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 235 125 130 195
Base Capacity (vph) 750 1297 844 1474 468 1500 718 1637 2287 1094 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.23 0.17 0.32 0.24 0.44 0.17 0.13 0.18 0.23 Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2585
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
EX + Proj PM Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 265 248 49 146 330 149 114 662 123 213 407 257 Future Volume (veh/h) 265 248 49 146 330 149 114 662 123 213 407 257 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 265 248 49 146 330 149 114 662 123 213 407 257 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 310 764 148 184 488 215 146 954 421 310 1044 463 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2961 575 1781 2377 1049 1781 3554 1569 3456 3554 1577 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 265 147 150 146 245 234 114 662 123 213 407 257 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1759 1781 1777 1649 1781 1777 1569 1728 1777 1577 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.4 4.8 5.0 5.8 9.1 9.5 4.5 12.1 4.5 4.3 6.6 9.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.4 4.8 5.0 5.8 9.1 9.5 4.5 12.1 4.5 4.3 6.6 9.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 310 458 454 184 365 339 146 954 421 310 1044 463 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.32 0.33 0.79 0.67 0.69 0.78 0.69 0.29 0.69 0.39 0.55 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 989 863 855 1113 863 801 618 1974 871 2159 1974 876 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.9 21.6 21.7 31.5 26.4 26.5 32.4 23.7 20.9 31.8 20.3 21.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.1 0.2 2.9 0.8 0.9 3.3 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.4 1.9 1.9 2.5 3.7 3.6 2.0 4.7 1.6 1.8 2.5 3.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.5 21.8 21.8 34.4 27.2 27.5 35.8 24.0 21.1 32.8 20.4 21.8 LnGrp LOS CCCCCCDCCCCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 562 625 899 877
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.4 29.0 25.1 23.8
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.3 24.6 12.3 23.9 9.4 26.5 16.0 20.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.8 * 5.3 4.8 * 5.3 3.5 5.3 3.5 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 * 40 45.0 * 35 25.0 40.0 40.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.3 14.1 7.8 7.0 6.5 11.9 12.4 11.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 2.4 0.1 0.8 0.1 1.6 0.2 1.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.8
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Packet Page 2586
Queues
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct/Newpark Mall Rd Timing Plan: PM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
EX + Proj PM Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 36 67 196 62 1028 318 830
v/c Ratio 0.26 0.18 0.32 0.55 0.33 0.65 0.50 0.37
Control Delay 36.2 18.4 35.9 12.3 37.2 22.8 29.9 15.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 36.2 18.4 35.9 12.3 37.2 22.8 29.9 15.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 19 3 26 0 24 132 61 89
Queue Length 95th (ft) 59 31 74 60 71 218 122 149
Internal Link Dist (ft) 422 383 699 992
Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 260
Base Capacity (vph) 426 416 721 743 568 3505 2590 4894
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.26 0.11 0.29 0.12 0.17 Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2587
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct/Newpark Mall Rd Timing Plan: PM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
EX + Proj PM Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 48 7 29 48 19 196 62 939 89 318 813 17 Future Volume (vph) 48 7 29 48 19 196 62 939 89 318 813 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1638 1798 1562 1770 5012 3433 5067 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1638 1798 1562 1770 5012 3433 5067 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 7 29 48 19 196 62 939 89 318 813 17
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 27 0 0 0 173 070020
Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 9 0 0 67 23 62 1021 0 318 828 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 6 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 3
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.5 5.5 7.9 7.9 5.7 22.7 12.4 29.4 Effective Green, g (s) 5.5 5.5 7.9 7.9 5.7 22.7 12.4 29.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.33 0.18 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 141 130 206 179 146 1653 618 2165
v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.01 c0.04 0.04 c0.20 c0.09 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.07 0.33 0.13 0.42 0.62 0.51 0.38
Uniform Delay, d1 29.9 29.3 28.0 27.3 30.0 19.4 25.5 13.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.0
Delay (s) 30.5 29.4 28.3 27.5 30.7 19.9 25.8 13.5
Level of Service C C C C C B C B
Approach Delay (s) 30.0 27.7 20.5 16.9
Approach LOS C C C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.8 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2588
HCM 6th TWSC
4: Smith Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
EX + Proj PM Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 448 53 18 531 36 17
Future Vol, veh/h 1 448 53 18 531 36 17
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 022000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 1 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 1 448 53 18 531 36 17
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 531 0 0 503 0 781 253
Stage 1 - - - - - 479 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 302 -
Critical Hdwy 6.44 - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ---- 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ---- 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.52 - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 662 - - 1058 - 332 746
Stage 1 - - - - - 589 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 724 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 662 - - 1056 - 323 745
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - 437 -
Stage 1 - - - - - 587 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 707 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 13

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 504 - - 1056 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.105 - - 0.017 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 13 0 - 8.5 0.1
HCM Lane LOS B A - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0.1 -
Packet Page 2589
Queues
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
EX + Proj PM Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 248 379 58 482 84 714 104 467
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.32 0.39 0.70 0.47 0.76 0.52 0.42
Control Delay 48.6 25.3 54.3 40.5 54.2 39.0 53.7 25.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 48.6 25.3 54.3 40.5 54.2 39.0 53.7 25.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 142 91 34 134 49 199 61 95
Queue Length 95th (ft) 266 150 88 228 116 #362 136 190
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1060 2431 769 1211
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 120 180 130
Base Capacity (vph) 756 1862 485 1314 582 1333 485 1164 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.20 0.12 0.37 0.14 0.54 0.21 0.40 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2590
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
EX + Proj PM Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 248 329 50 58 344 138 84 615 99 104 282 185 Future Volume (veh/h) 248 329 50 58 344 138 84 615 99 104 282 185 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 248 329 50 58 344 138 84 615 99 104 282 185 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 298 1024 154 74 512 201 109 795 128 135 568 361 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3088 464 1781 2483 978 1781 3058 491 1781 2070 1314 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 248 188 191 58 244 238 84 357 357 104 241 226 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1775 1781 1777 1684 1781 1777 1772 1781 1777 1607 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.3 5.4 5.6 2.2 8.7 9.0 3.2 12.8 12.9 3.9 7.8 8.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.3 5.4 5.6 2.2 8.7 9.0 3.2 12.8 12.9 3.9 7.8 8.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.82
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 298 589 589 74 366 347 109 462 461 135 488 441 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.32 0.32 0.78 0.67 0.68 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.77 0.49 0.51 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1010 904 903 647 904 857 777 775 773 647 775 701 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.7 17.2 17.2 32.7 25.1 25.2 31.8 23.6 23.6 31.2 20.9 21.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.1 0.1 6.6 0.8 0.9 4.2 1.0 1.1 3.4 0.3 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.9 2.1 2.1 1.1 3.6 3.5 1.5 5.2 5.2 1.8 3.1 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.0 17.3 17.3 39.2 25.9 26.1 36.0 24.6 24.7 34.6 21.2 21.4 LnGrp LOS C B B DCCDCCCCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 627 540 798 571
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.3 27.5 25.8 23.7
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.9 27.8 10.2 22.9 16.5 19.2 9.2 23.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 35.0 25.0 30.0 39.0 35.0 30.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 7.6 5.9 14.9 11.3 11.0 5.2 10.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.5 0.1 2.7 0.3 1.9 0.1 1.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.8
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Packet Page 2591
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Appendix | E
Appendix E – Background Conditions Intersections Level of Service Worksheets
Packet Page 2592
Queues
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG AM Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 1343 675 50 1
v/c Ratio 0.03 0.45 0.23 0.17 0.00
Control Delay 24.2 2.7 3.3 1.3 0.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 24.2 2.7 3.3 1.3 0.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 67 25 0 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 96 84 0 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1105 809 608 371
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100
Base Capacity (vph) 325 2991 3003 760 825
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.45 0.22 0.07 0.00
Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2593
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG AM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 1306 37 0 674 1 38 0 12 0 0 1
Future Volume (vph) 5 1306 37 0 674 1 38 0 12 0 0 1
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.86
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3521 3538 1736 1611
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3521 3538 1802 1611
Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 1306 37 0 674 1 38 0 12 0 0 1
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 1 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 1342 0 0 675 0020000
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 4
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 48.3 42.3 2.6 2.6
Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 48.3 42.3 2.6 2.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.79 0.69 0.04 0.04
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 29 2792 2457 76 68
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.38 0.19 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm c0.00
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.48 0.27 0.03 0.00
Uniform Delay, d1 29.5 2.1 3.5 27.9 27.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0
Delay (s) 30.6 2.7 3.8 28.0 27.9
Level of Service C A A C C
Approach Delay (s) 2.8 3.8 28.0 27.9
Approach LOS A A C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 3.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.9 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2594
Queues
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG AM Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 418 1114 162 674 42 451 230 118 652 169 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.74 0.70 0.81 0.41 0.63 0.53 0.49 0.77 0.35 Control Delay 46.1 34.5 69.1 52.4 71.1 48.7 20.6 64.4 51.1 9.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 46.1 34.5 69.1 52.4 71.1 48.7 20.6 64.4 51.1 9.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 294 384 125 261 33 173 54 47 260 7 Queue Length 95th (ft) #522 587 216 371 78 243 140 87 353 66 Internal Link Dist (ft) 863 1273 857 699
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 235 125 130 195
Base Capacity (vph) 589 1500 662 1178 368 1178 618 1286 1797 859 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.71 0.74 0.24 0.57 0.11 0.38 0.37 0.09 0.36 0.20 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2595
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG AM Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 418 981 133 162 545 129 42 451 230 118 652 169 Future Volume (veh/h) 418 981 133 162 545 129 42 451 230 118 652 169 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 418 981 133 162 545 129 42 451 230 118 652 169 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 457 1144 155 199 674 159 53 785 348 191 933 406 Arrive On Green 0.26 0.37 0.37 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.03 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3131 424 1781 2851 672 1781 3554 1576 3456 3554 1547 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 418 556 558 162 339 335 42 451 230 118 652 169 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1778 1781 1777 1746 1781 1777 1576 1728 1777 1547 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.7 23.7 23.8 7.3 14.7 14.9 1.9 9.3 10.9 2.7 13.6 7.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.7 23.7 23.8 7.3 14.7 14.9 1.9 9.3 10.9 2.7 13.6 7.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 457 649 650 199 420 413 53 785 348 191 933 406 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.86 0.86 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.57 0.66 0.62 0.70 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 869 759 759 978 759 746 543 1734 769 1897 1734 755 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.6 24.0 24.0 35.6 29.5 29.6 39.5 28.5 29.1 37.9 27.3 25.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.1 7.6 7.6 3.0 1.4 1.5 9.7 0.2 0.8 1.2 0.4 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.9 10.6 10.6 3.2 6.1 6.1 1.0 3.8 4.0 1.2 5.5 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.7 31.6 31.7 38.6 30.9 31.0 49.2 28.7 29.9 39.1 27.7 25.3 LnGrp LOS CCCDCCDCCDCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 1532 836 723 939
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.9 32.4 30.3 28.7
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.3 23.4 14.0 35.2 5.9 26.8 24.5 24.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.8 * 5.3 4.8 * 5.3 3.5 5.3 3.5 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 * 40 45.0 * 35 25.0 40.0 40.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 12.9 9.3 25.8 3.9 15.6 20.7 16.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.7 0.1 2.7 0.0 2.4 0.3 1.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Packet Page 2596
Queues
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG AM Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 25 22 68 763 39 886 1245 867
v/c Ratio 0.26 0.21 0.38 0.42 0.38 0.78 0.80 0.27
Control Delay 61.1 38.3 55.9 2.9 64.5 45.8 33.4 10.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 61.1 38.3 55.9 2.9 64.5 45.8 33.4 10.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 6 47 23 28 219 400 100
Queue Length 95th (ft) 50 36 100 55 70 293 #656 158
Internal Link Dist (ft) 422 383 699 992
Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 260
Base Capacity (vph) 401 391 404 2006 321 2050 1559 3452 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.06 0.17 0.38 0.12 0.43 0.80 0.25 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2597
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG AM Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 25 9 13 62 6 763 39 797 89 1245 849 18 Future Volume (vph) 25 9 13 62 6 763 39 797 89 1245 849 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1681 1782 2780 1770 5000 3433 5066 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1681 1782 2780 1770 5000 3433 5066 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 25 9 13 62 6 763 39 797 89 1245 849 18
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0 0 0 263 080010
Lane Group Flow (vph) 25 10 0 0 68 500 39 878 0 1245 866 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5245
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 33152 16
Permitted Phases 3
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.1 5.1 11.2 62.0 5.6 26.6 50.8 71.8 Effective Green, g (s) 5.1 5.1 11.2 62.0 5.6 26.6 50.8 71.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.54 0.05 0.23 0.45 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 79 75 175 1511 86 1166 1529 3190
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.01 c0.04 0.15 0.02 c0.18 c0.36 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.13 0.39 0.33 0.45 0.75 0.81 0.27
Uniform Delay, d1 52.8 52.3 48.2 14.5 52.7 40.6 27.5 9.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.0 1.4 2.5 3.3 0.0
Delay (s) 53.6 52.6 48.7 14.5 54.1 43.1 30.8 9.4
Level of Service D D D B D D C A
Approach Delay (s) 53.1 17.3 43.6 22.0
Approach LOS D B D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 114.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2598
HCM 6th TWSC
4: Smith Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG AM Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1283 88 16 727 61 34
Future Vol, veh/h 1283 88 16 727 61 34
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 055010
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 1 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 1283 88 16 727 61 34
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1376 0 1729 691
Stage 1 ---- 1332 -
Stage 2 - - - - 397 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 494 - 79 387
Stage 1 - - - - 211 -
Stage 2 - - - - 648 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 492 - 74 385
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 167 -
Stage 1 - - - - 210 -
Stage 2 - - - - 612 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 35.8

HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 209 - - 492 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.455 - - 0.033 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 35.8 - - 12.6 0.3
HCM Lane LOS E - - B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.2 - - 0.1 -
Packet Page 2599
Queues
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG AM Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 226 599 96 443 51 581 144 347
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.62 0.47 0.66 0.34 0.72 0.56 0.32
Control Delay 45.2 32.2 50.3 39.1 51.1 35.2 48.5 22.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.2 32.2 50.3 39.1 51.1 35.2 48.5 22.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 115 147 50 113 27 137 74 66
Queue Length 95th (ft) 245 267 127 219 80 259 173 133
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1060 2431 769 1211
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 120 180 130
Base Capacity (vph) 819 2019 525 1432 630 1419 525 1278 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.30 0.18 0.31 0.08 0.41 0.27 0.27 Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2600
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG AM Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 226 525 74 96 357 86 51 371 210 144 230 117 Future Volume (veh/h) 226 525 74 96 357 86 51 371 210 144 230 117 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 226 525 74 96 357 86 51 371 210 144 230 117 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 278 865 121 125 542 129 64 509 283 185 691 338 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3122 438 1781 2835 674 1781 2186 1216 1781 2300 1126 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 226 298 301 96 222 221 51 300 281 144 176 171 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1783 1781 1777 1732 1781 1777 1626 1781 1777 1649 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.8 9.2 9.3 3.3 7.3 7.5 1.8 9.9 10.1 5.0 4.9 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.8 9.2 9.3 3.3 7.3 7.5 1.8 9.9 10.1 5.0 4.9 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.68
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 278 492 494 125 340 331 64 413 378 185 534 496 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.61 0.61 0.77 0.65 0.67 0.80 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.33 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1099 983 987 704 983 959 845 843 771 704 843 782 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.8 19.9 19.9 28.9 23.6 23.7 30.2 22.4 22.5 27.6 17.2 17.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.4 0.5 3.7 0.8 0.9 8.1 0.9 1.1 2.7 0.1 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 3.5 3.5 1.4 2.8 2.8 0.9 3.9 3.6 2.1 1.8 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.0 20.3 20.3 32.6 24.4 24.6 38.3 23.3 23.6 30.3 17.3 17.4 LnGrp LOS CCCCCCDCCCBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 825 539 632 491
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.4 26.0 24.7 21.1
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.4 22.5 11.6 19.7 14.9 17.1 7.3 24.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 35.0 25.0 30.0 39.0 35.0 30.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.3 11.3 7.0 12.1 9.8 9.5 3.8 7.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.3 0.2 2.2 0.3 1.5 0.0 1.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Packet Page 2601
Queues
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG PM Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 1046 1 1123 37 10
v/c Ratio 0.01 0.37 0.01 0.39 0.13 0.04
Control Delay 24.0 3.8 24.0 4.0 0.9 0.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 24.0 3.8 24.0 4.0 0.9 0.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 46 0 51 0 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 142 4 156 0 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1105 809 608 371
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 150
Base Capacity (vph) 326 2865 651 3008 777 662
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.05 0.02
Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2602
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG PM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 1021 25 1 1123 0 35 02208
Future Volume (vph) 1 1021 25 1 1123 0 35 02208
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.89
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3524 1770 3539 1764 1645
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.92
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3524 1770 3539 1847 1534
Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 1021 25 1 1123 0 35 02208
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 10 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 1045 0 1 1123 0020000
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 2 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.9 42.2 0.9 42.2 2.6 2.6
Effective Green, g (s) 0.9 42.2 0.9 42.2 2.6 2.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.70 0.01 0.70 0.04 0.04
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 26 2449 26 2460 79 65
v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.30 0.00 c0.32
v/s Ratio Perm c0.00 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.43 0.04 0.46 0.02 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 29.5 4.0 29.5 4.1 27.8 27.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0
Delay (s) 29.7 4.6 29.7 4.7 27.9 27.8
Level of Service C A C A C C
Approach Delay (s) 4.6 4.8 27.9 27.8
Approach LOS A A C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 5.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.7 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2603
Queues
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG PM Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 366 777 146 959 116 726 123 213 471 367 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.56 0.73 1.07 0.69 0.81 0.26 0.67 0.52 0.55 Control Delay 61.9 35.5 80.8 99.5 82.2 56.9 10.5 72.2 46.7 7.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 61.9 35.5 80.8 99.5 82.2 56.9 10.5 72.2 46.7 7.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 310 285 131 ~521 104 327 8 98 193 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 461 407 213 #730 178 426 60 148 267 85 Internal Link Dist (ft) 863 1273 857 699
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 235 125 130 195
Base Capacity (vph) 520 1388 585 1045 325 1040 532 1135 1586 898 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.70 0.56 0.25 0.92 0.36 0.70 0.23 0.19 0.30 0.41 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2604
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG PM Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 366 727 50 146 810 149 116 726 123 213 471 367 Future Volume (veh/h) 366 727 50 146 810 149 116 726 123 213 471 367 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 366 727 50 146 810 149 116 726 123 213 471 367 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 393 1349 93 174 859 158 142 902 398 274 939 416 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3372 232 1781 2985 549 1781 3554 1568 3456 3554 1576 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 366 383 394 146 482 477 116 726 123 213 471 367 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1827 1781 1777 1757 1781 1777 1568 1728 1777 1576 Q Serve(g_s), s 24.0 19.6 19.7 9.6 31.6 31.6 7.6 22.8 7.6 7.2 13.4 26.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.0 19.6 19.7 9.6 31.6 31.6 7.6 22.8 7.6 7.2 13.4 26.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 393 711 731 174 511 506 142 902 398 274 939 416 V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.54 0.54 0.84 0.94 0.94 0.82 0.81 0.31 0.78 0.50 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 598 711 731 673 522 516 374 1193 526 1305 1193 529 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.5 27.3 27.4 52.9 41.5 41.5 54.0 41.7 36.0 53.8 37.2 42.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.6 0.4 0.4 4.1 25.3 25.5 4.3 2.3 0.2 1.8 0.2 11.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.8 8.3 8.5 4.5 17.1 17.0 3.6 10.1 2.9 3.2 5.8 11.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.1 27.8 27.8 57.0 66.8 66.9 58.3 44.0 36.2 55.6 37.3 53.6 LnGrp LOS E C C EEEEDDEDD
Approach Vol, veh/h 1143 1105 965 1051
Approach Delay, s/veh 37.5 65.5 44.7 46.7
Approach LOS D E D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.2 35.5 16.4 53.0 13.0 36.8 29.8 39.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.8 * 5.3 4.8 * 5.3 3.5 5.3 3.5 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 * 40 45.0 * 35 25.0 40.0 40.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.2 24.8 11.6 21.7 9.6 28.6 26.0 33.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 2.4 0.1 2.0 0.1 1.7 0.3 0.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.7
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Packet Page 2605
Queues
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG PM Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 37 132 1595 62 1098 1716 845
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.30 0.40 0.97 0.55 0.84 1.37 0.29
Control Delay 79.5 33.5 57.0 38.8 83.5 54.0 206.5 16.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 79.5 33.5 57.0 38.8 83.5 54.0 206.5 16.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 43 7 109 492 56 343 ~1082 145
Queue Length 95th (ft) 92 46 192 #1085 112 413 #1360 197 Internal Link Dist (ft) 422 383 699 992
Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 260
Base Capacity (vph) 193 205 326 1640 258 1644 1253 2937 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.25 0.18 0.40 0.97 0.24 0.67 1.37 0.29 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2606
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG PM Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 48 8 29 112 20 1595 62 945 153 1716 828 17 Future Volume (vph) 48 8 29 112 20 1595 62 945 153 1716 828 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1644 1787 2773 1770 4964 3433 5068 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1644 1787 2773 1770 4964 3433 5068 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 8 29 112 20 1595 62 945 153 1716 828 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 0 124 0 15 0010
Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 9 0 0 132 1471 62 1083 0 1716 844 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 6 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 33152 16
Permitted Phases 3
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.1 7.1 25.2 75.6 7.7 37.3 50.4 80.0 Effective Green, g (s) 7.1 7.1 25.2 75.6 7.7 37.3 50.4 80.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.05 0.18 0.54 0.05 0.27 0.36 0.57 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 89 83 320 1494 97 1319 1233 2889
v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.01 0.07 c0.35 0.04 c0.22 c0.50 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.11 0.41 0.98 0.64 0.82 1.39 0.29
Uniform Delay, d1 65.0 63.6 51.0 31.8 64.9 48.4 45.0 15.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 0.2 0.3 19.5 9.7 4.0 181.3 0.0 Delay (s) 68.1 63.8 51.3 51.3 74.7 52.4 226.3 15.6
Level of Service E E D D E D F B
Approach Delay (s) 66.3 51.3 53.6 156.7
Approach LOS E D D F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 100.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.3 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2607
HCM 6th TWSC
4: Smith Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG PM Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1038 53 18 1110 36 17
Future Vol, veh/h 1 1038 53 18 1110 36 17
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 022000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 1 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 1 1038 53 18 1110 36 17
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 1110 0 0 1093 0 1660 548
Stage 1 - ---- 1069 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 591 -
Critical Hdwy 6.44 - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ---- 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ---- 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.52 - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 282 - - 634 - 88 480
Stage 1 - - - - - 291 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 516 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 282 - - 633 - 81 479
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - 198 -
Stage 1 - - - - - 288 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 478 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.6 23.8

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 244 - - 633 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.217 - - 0.028 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 23.8 0.1 - 10.9 0.4
HCM Lane LOS C A - B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - - 0.1 -
Packet Page 2608
Queues
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG PM Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 248 393 60 488 84 718 104 467
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.33 0.40 0.71 0.47 0.76 0.52 0.42
Control Delay 49.0 25.6 54.7 40.9 54.5 39.3 53.9 25.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 49.0 25.6 54.7 40.9 54.5 39.3 53.9 25.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 143 95 36 138 50 201 61 95
Queue Length 95th (ft) 267 156 91 232 116 #378 137 190
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1060 2431 769 1211
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 120 180 130
Base Capacity (vph) 751 1851 481 1306 577 1321 481 1157 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.21 0.12 0.37 0.15 0.54 0.22 0.40 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2609
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG PM Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 248 343 50 60 350 138 84 615 103 104 282 185 Future Volume (veh/h) 248 343 50 60 350 138 84 615 103 104 282 185 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 248 343 50 60 350 138 84 615 103 104 282 185 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 298 1029 149 77 517 200 109 793 132 135 570 362 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3107 448 1781 2496 967 1781 3038 508 1781 2070 1314 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 248 195 198 60 247 241 84 359 359 104 241 226 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1778 1781 1777 1686 1781 1777 1769 1781 1777 1607 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.3 5.7 5.8 2.3 8.9 9.1 3.2 13.0 13.0 4.0 7.9 8.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.3 5.7 5.8 2.3 8.9 9.1 3.2 13.0 13.0 4.0 7.9 8.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.57 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.82
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 298 589 589 77 368 350 109 464 461 135 489 443 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.33 0.34 0.78 0.67 0.69 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.77 0.49 0.51 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1003 898 898 643 898 852 771 769 766 643 769 696 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.9 17.4 17.4 32.8 25.3 25.4 32.0 23.7 23.7 31.4 21.0 21.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.1 0.1 6.3 0.8 0.9 4.2 1.1 1.1 3.4 0.3 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.0 2.2 2.3 1.1 3.6 3.6 1.5 5.2 5.3 1.8 3.1 3.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.3 17.5 17.6 39.1 26.1 26.3 36.2 24.8 24.8 34.9 21.3 21.5 LnGrp LOS C B B DCCDCCCCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 641 548 802 571
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.5 27.6 26.0 23.9
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.0 28.0 10.3 23.1 16.6 19.4 9.3 24.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 35.0 25.0 30.0 39.0 35.0 30.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 7.8 6.0 15.0 11.3 11.1 5.2 10.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.5 0.1 2.7 0.3 2.0 0.1 1.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Packet Page 2610
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Appendix | F
Appendix F – Background plus Project Conditions Intersections Level of Service Worksheets
Packet Page 2611
Queues
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG + Proj AM Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 1343 681 50 26
v/c Ratio 0.03 0.45 0.24 0.17 0.09
Control Delay 23.2 2.8 3.4 1.3 0.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 23.2 2.8 3.4 1.3 0.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 67 26 0 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 96 85 0 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1105 809 608 371
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100
Base Capacity (vph) 333 2970 2998 774 785
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.45 0.23 0.06 0.03
Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2612
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG + Proj AM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 1306 37 0 674 7 38 0 12 23 0 3
Future Volume (vph) 5 1306 37 0 674 7 38 0 12 23 0 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3521 3533 1736 1756
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3521 3533 1802 1834
Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 1306 37 0 674 7 38 0 12 23 0 3
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 48 0 0 25 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 1342 0 0 680 0020010
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 4
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 46.9 40.9 2.6 2.6
Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 46.9 40.9 2.6 2.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.79 0.69 0.04 0.04
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 29 2775 2428 78 80
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.38 0.19
v/s Ratio Perm c0.00 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.48 0.28 0.03 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 28.8 2.2 3.6 27.2 27.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0
Delay (s) 29.9 2.8 3.9 27.3 27.2
Level of Service C A A C C
Approach Delay (s) 2.9 3.9 27.3 27.2
Approach LOS A A C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 4.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 59.5 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2613
Queues
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG + Proj AM Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 438 1117 162 675 42 451 230 118 652 174 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.74 0.70 0.82 0.41 0.63 0.53 0.49 0.77 0.35 Control Delay 47.7 34.6 69.1 52.4 71.1 48.7 20.6 64.4 51.1 9.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 47.7 34.6 69.1 52.4 71.1 48.7 20.6 64.4 51.1 9.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 313 385 125 261 33 173 54 47 260 7 Queue Length 95th (ft) #564 589 216 372 78 243 140 87 353 67 Internal Link Dist (ft) 863 1273 857 699
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 235 125 130 195
Base Capacity (vph) 589 1500 662 1178 368 1178 618 1286 1797 861 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.74 0.74 0.24 0.57 0.11 0.38 0.37 0.09 0.36 0.20 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2614
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG + Proj AM Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 438 983 134 162 546 129 42 451 230 118 652 174 Future Volume (veh/h) 438 983 134 162 546 129 42 451 230 118 652 174 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 438 983 134 162 546 129 42 451 230 118 652 174 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 476 1172 160 199 669 157 53 779 346 190 924 402 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.37 0.37 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.03 0.22 0.22 0.05 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3129 426 1781 2852 671 1781 3554 1576 3456 3554 1547 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 438 558 559 162 339 336 42 451 230 118 652 174 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1778 1781 1777 1746 1781 1777 1576 1728 1777 1547 Q Serve(g_s), s 20.2 24.1 24.2 7.5 15.2 15.4 2.0 9.6 11.2 2.8 14.0 7.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.2 24.1 24.2 7.5 15.2 15.4 2.0 9.6 11.2 2.8 14.0 7.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 476 666 666 199 417 410 53 779 346 190 924 402 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.84 0.84 0.82 0.81 0.82 0.79 0.58 0.67 0.62 0.71 0.43 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 845 738 738 951 738 725 528 1686 748 1844 1686 734 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.0 24.0 24.0 36.6 30.5 30.6 40.7 29.4 30.1 39.0 28.3 26.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.5 7.0 7.1 3.1 1.5 1.6 9.5 0.3 0.8 1.2 0.4 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.8 10.7 10.7 3.3 6.4 6.3 1.0 3.9 4.2 1.2 5.7 2.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.5 31.1 31.1 39.7 32.0 32.1 50.2 29.7 30.9 40.2 28.7 26.3 LnGrp LOS CCCDCCDCCDCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 1555 837 723 944
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.1 33.5 31.3 29.7
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.4 23.8 14.2 36.9 6.0 27.2 26.0 25.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.8 * 5.3 4.8 * 5.3 3.5 5.3 3.5 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 * 40 45.0 * 35 25.0 40.0 40.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 13.2 9.5 26.2 4.0 16.0 22.2 17.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.7 0.1 2.7 0.0 2.4 0.4 1.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.7
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Packet Page 2615
Queues
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG + Proj AM Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 25 22 68 763 39 906 1245 872
v/c Ratio 0.26 0.21 0.38 0.43 0.38 0.78 0.80 0.27
Control Delay 61.8 38.3 56.4 3.0 65.3 45.7 34.1 10.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 61.8 38.3 56.4 3.0 65.3 45.7 34.1 10.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 6 48 24 28 226 403 101
Queue Length 95th (ft) 51 36 101 57 71 301 #675 161
Internal Link Dist (ft) 422 383 699 992
Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 260
Base Capacity (vph) 399 388 401 1996 319 2037 1548 3431 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.06 0.17 0.38 0.12 0.44 0.80 0.25 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2616
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG + Proj AM Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 25 9 13 62 6 763 39 817 89 1245 854 18 Future Volume (vph) 25 9 13 62 6 763 39 817 89 1245 854 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1680 1782 2780 1770 5002 3433 5066 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1680 1782 2780 1770 5002 3433 5066 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 25 9 13 62 6 763 39 817 89 1245 854 18
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0 0 0 264 080010
Lane Group Flow (vph) 25 10 0 0 68 499 39 898 0 1245 871 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5245
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 33152 16
Permitted Phases 3
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.1 5.1 11.3 62.1 5.6 27.3 50.8 72.5 Effective Green, g (s) 5.1 5.1 11.3 62.1 5.6 27.3 50.8 72.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.54 0.05 0.24 0.44 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 78 74 175 1503 86 1189 1519 3199
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.01 c0.04 0.15 0.02 c0.18 c0.36 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.13 0.39 0.33 0.45 0.75 0.82 0.27
Uniform Delay, d1 53.2 52.7 48.5 14.7 53.1 40.6 28.0 9.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.0 1.4 2.5 3.4 0.0
Delay (s) 54.0 53.0 49.0 14.8 54.5 43.1 31.4 9.4
Level of Service D D D B D D C A
Approach Delay (s) 53.6 17.6 43.6 22.3
Approach LOS D B D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 114.8 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2617
HCM 6th TWSC
4: Smith Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG + Proj AM Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1283 88 16 729 61 34
Future Vol, veh/h 1283 88 16 729 61 34
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 055010
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 1 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 1283 88 16 729 61 34
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1376 0 1730 691
Stage 1 ---- 1332 -
Stage 2 - - - - 398 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 494 - 79 387
Stage 1 - - - - 211 -
Stage 2 - - - - 647 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 492 - 74 385
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 167 -
Stage 1 - - - - 210 -
Stage 2 - - - - 611 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 35.8

HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 209 - - 492 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.455 - - 0.033 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 35.8 - - 12.6 0.3
HCM Lane LOS E - - B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.2 - - 0.1 -
Packet Page 2618
Queues
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG + Proj AM Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 226 599 98 443 51 581 144 347
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.63 0.48 0.66 0.34 0.72 0.56 0.32
Control Delay 45.2 32.4 50.3 39.1 51.1 35.2 48.5 22.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.2 32.4 50.3 39.1 51.1 35.2 48.5 22.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 115 147 51 113 27 137 74 66
Queue Length 95th (ft) 245 268 128 219 80 259 173 133
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1060 2431 769 1211
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 120 180 130
Base Capacity (vph) 819 2019 525 1432 630 1419 525 1278 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.30 0.19 0.31 0.08 0.41 0.27 0.27 Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2619
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG + Proj AM Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 226 525 74 98 357 86 51 371 210 144 230 117 Future Volume (veh/h) 226 525 74 98 357 86 51 371 210 144 230 117 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 226 525 74 98 357 86 51 371 210 144 230 117 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 278 860 121 128 542 129 64 509 283 185 691 338 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3122 438 1781 2835 674 1781 2186 1216 1781 2300 1126 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 226 298 301 98 222 221 51 300 281 144 176 171 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1783 1781 1777 1732 1781 1777 1626 1781 1777 1649 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.8 9.2 9.3 3.4 7.3 7.5 1.8 9.9 10.1 5.0 4.9 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.8 9.2 9.3 3.4 7.3 7.5 1.8 9.9 10.1 5.0 4.9 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.68
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 278 490 491 128 340 331 64 413 378 185 534 496 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.61 0.61 0.77 0.65 0.67 0.80 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.33 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1099 983 987 704 983 959 845 843 771 704 843 782 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.8 19.9 20.0 28.8 23.6 23.7 30.2 22.4 22.5 27.6 17.2 17.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.5 0.5 3.6 0.8 0.9 8.1 0.9 1.1 2.7 0.1 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 3.5 3.6 1.5 2.8 2.8 0.9 3.9 3.6 2.1 1.8 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.0 20.4 20.4 32.5 24.4 24.6 38.3 23.3 23.6 30.3 17.3 17.4 LnGrp LOS CCCCCCDCCCBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 825 541 632 491
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.5 26.0 24.7 21.1
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.5 22.4 11.6 19.7 14.9 17.1 7.3 24.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 35.0 25.0 30.0 39.0 35.0 30.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 11.3 7.0 12.1 9.8 9.5 3.8 7.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.3 0.2 2.2 0.3 1.5 0.0 1.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Packet Page 2620
Queues
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG + Proj PM Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 1046 1 1145 37 19
v/c Ratio 0.02 0.37 0.01 0.40 0.13 0.07
Control Delay 23.7 3.8 24.0 4.1 0.9 0.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 23.7 3.8 24.0 4.1 0.9 0.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 1 46 0 52 0 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 142 4 163 0 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1105 809 608 371
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 150
Base Capacity (vph) 327 2861 655 2990 781 742
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.37 0.00 0.38 0.05 0.03
Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2621
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG + Proj PM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 3 1021 25 1 1123 22 35 0 2 10 0 9
Future Volume (vph) 3 1021 25 1 1123 22 35 0 2 10 0 9
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.94
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3524 1770 3527 1764 1699
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3524 1770 3527 1847 1744
Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 3 1021 25 1 1123 22 35 0 2 10 0 9
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 35 0 0 18 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 1045 0 1 1144 0020010
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 2 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 42.0 0.9 41.9 2.6 2.6
Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 42.0 0.9 41.9 2.6 2.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.69 0.01 0.69 0.04 0.04
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 29 2446 26 2442 79 74
v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.30 0.00 c0.32
v/s Ratio Perm c0.00 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.10 0.43 0.04 0.47 0.02 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 29.3 4.0 29.4 4.2 27.7 27.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0
Delay (s) 29.9 4.6 29.6 4.9 27.8 27.7
Level of Service C A C A C C
Approach Delay (s) 4.6 4.9 27.8 27.7
Approach LOS A A C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 5.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.5 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2622
Queues
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG + Proj PM Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 373 778 146 962 117 726 123 213 471 385 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.55 0.73 1.09 0.69 0.82 0.26 0.67 0.52 0.56 Control Delay 61.1 35.3 81.7 105.4 83.2 57.8 10.5 72.9 47.3 7.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 61.1 35.3 81.7 105.4 83.2 57.8 10.5 72.9 47.3 7.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 317 286 133 ~534 106 333 8 100 196 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #477 408 213 #734 179 426 60 148 267 88 Internal Link Dist (ft) 863 1273 857 699
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 235 125 130 195
Base Capacity (vph) 514 1405 578 1032 321 1028 527 1121 1567 902 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.73 0.55 0.25 0.93 0.36 0.71 0.23 0.19 0.30 0.43 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2623
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG + Proj PM Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 373 728 50 146 813 149 117 726 123 213 471 385 Future Volume (veh/h) 373 728 50 146 813 149 117 726 123 213 471 385 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 373 728 50 146 813 149 117 726 123 213 471 385 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 399 1348 93 173 846 155 142 928 410 272 960 426 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3372 231 1781 2987 547 1781 3554 1569 3456 3554 1576 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 373 383 395 146 484 478 117 726 123 213 471 385 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1827 1781 1777 1757 1781 1777 1569 1728 1777 1576 Q Serve(g_s), s 25.4 20.4 20.4 10.0 33.1 33.1 8.0 23.4 7.8 7.5 13.8 29.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.4 20.4 20.4 10.0 33.1 33.1 8.0 23.4 7.8 7.5 13.8 29.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 399 710 730 173 503 498 142 928 410 272 960 426 V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.54 0.54 0.84 0.96 0.96 0.82 0.78 0.30 0.78 0.49 0.90 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 577 710 730 649 503 498 360 1151 508 1259 1151 510 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.0 28.4 28.4 54.9 43.6 43.6 56.0 42.4 36.6 55.9 37.9 43.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.0 0.5 0.4 4.3 30.1 30.3 4.4 2.2 0.2 1.9 0.1 15.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 12.8 8.6 8.9 4.6 18.5 18.3 3.7 10.4 3.0 3.3 6.0 13.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.0 28.8 28.8 59.1 73.7 73.9 60.4 44.6 36.7 57.8 38.1 59.4 LnGrp LOS E C C EEEEDDEDE
Approach Vol, veh/h 1151 1108 966 1069
Approach Delay, s/veh 39.6 71.8 45.5 49.7
Approach LOS D E D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.5 37.6 16.8 54.7 13.4 38.7 31.2 40.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.8 * 5.3 4.8 * 5.3 3.5 5.3 3.5 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 * 40 45.0 * 35 25.0 40.0 40.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.5 25.4 12.0 22.4 10.0 31.1 27.4 35.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 2.4 0.1 2.0 0.1 1.5 0.3 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 51.8
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Packet Page 2624
Queues
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG + Proj PM Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 37 132 1595 62 1105 1716 863
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.30 0.41 0.97 0.55 0.84 1.37 0.29
Control Delay 79.6 33.4 57.1 39.0 83.5 54.1 207.1 16.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 79.6 33.4 57.1 39.0 83.5 54.1 207.1 16.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 43 7 109 494 56 346 ~1085 149
Queue Length 95th (ft) 92 46 192 #1085 112 416 #1360 202 Internal Link Dist (ft) 422 383 699 992
Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 260
Base Capacity (vph) 193 205 325 1638 258 1642 1252 2940 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.25 0.18 0.41 0.97 0.24 0.67 1.37 0.29 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2625
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG + Proj PM Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 48 8 29 112 20 1595 62 952 153 1716 846 17 Future Volume (vph) 48 8 29 112 20 1595 62 952 153 1716 846 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1644 1787 2773 1770 4965 3433 5068 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1644 1787 2773 1770 4965 3433 5068 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 8 29 112 20 1595 62 952 153 1716 846 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 0 124 0 15 0010
Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 9 0 0 132 1471 62 1090 0 1716 862 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 6 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 33152 16
Permitted Phases 3
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.1 7.1 25.2 75.6 7.7 37.5 50.4 80.2 Effective Green, g (s) 7.1 7.1 25.2 75.6 7.7 37.5 50.4 80.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.05 0.18 0.54 0.05 0.27 0.36 0.57 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 89 83 320 1492 97 1325 1231 2892
v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.01 0.07 c0.35 0.04 c0.22 c0.50 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.11 0.41 0.99 0.64 0.82 1.39 0.30
Uniform Delay, d1 65.1 63.7 51.1 31.9 65.0 48.4 45.0 15.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 0.2 0.3 19.8 9.7 4.1 182.3 0.0 Delay (s) 68.2 63.9 51.4 51.7 74.8 52.4 227.4 15.6
Level of Service E E D D E D F B
Approach Delay (s) 66.4 51.7 53.6 156.5
Approach LOS E D D F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 101.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.5 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2626
HCM 6th TWSC
4: Smith Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG + Proj PM Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1040 53 18 1111 36 17
Future Vol, veh/h 1 1040 53 18 1111 36 17
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 022000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 1 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 1 1040 53 18 1111 36 17
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 1111 0 0 1095 0 1663 549
Stage 1 - ---- 1071 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 592 -
Critical Hdwy 6.44 - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ---- 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ---- 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.52 - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 282 - - 633 - 88 480
Stage 1 - - - - - 290 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 516 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 282 - - 632 - 81 479
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - 198 -
Stage 1 - - - - - 287 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 478 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.6 23.8

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 244 - - 632 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.217 - - 0.028 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 23.8 0.1 - 10.9 0.4
HCM Lane LOS C A - B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - - 0.1 -
Packet Page 2627
Queues
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG + Proj PM Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 248 393 61 488 84 720 104 467
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.33 0.40 0.71 0.47 0.76 0.52 0.42
Control Delay 49.0 25.7 54.8 40.9 54.6 39.2 53.9 25.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 49.0 25.7 54.8 40.9 54.6 39.2 53.9 25.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 143 96 36 138 50 202 61 95
Queue Length 95th (ft) 267 156 91 232 116 #379 137 190
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1060 2431 769 1211
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 120 180 130
Base Capacity (vph) 750 1849 481 1305 577 1321 481 1156 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.21 0.13 0.37 0.15 0.55 0.22 0.40 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2628
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
BG + Proj PM Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 248 343 50 61 350 138 84 615 105 104 282 185 Future Volume (veh/h) 248 343 50 61 350 138 84 615 105 104 282 185 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 248 343 50 61 350 138 84 615 105 104 282 185 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 298 1027 148 78 517 200 109 792 135 135 571 363 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3107 448 1781 2496 967 1781 3028 516 1781 2070 1314 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 248 195 198 61 247 241 84 360 360 104 241 226 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1778 1781 1777 1686 1781 1777 1767 1781 1777 1607 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.3 5.7 5.8 2.4 8.9 9.2 3.2 13.0 13.1 4.0 7.9 8.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.3 5.7 5.8 2.4 8.9 9.2 3.2 13.0 13.1 4.0 7.9 8.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.57 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.82
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 298 587 588 78 368 349 109 465 462 135 490 444 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.33 0.34 0.78 0.67 0.69 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.49 0.51 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1001 896 897 642 896 851 770 768 764 642 768 695 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.0 17.5 17.5 32.8 25.3 25.4 32.1 23.7 23.8 31.5 21.0 21.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.1 0.1 6.1 0.8 0.9 4.2 1.1 1.1 3.4 0.3 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.0 2.2 2.3 1.1 3.6 3.6 1.5 5.3 5.3 1.8 3.1 3.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.3 17.6 17.6 39.0 26.1 26.3 36.3 24.8 24.8 34.9 21.3 21.5 LnGrp LOS C B B DCCDCCCCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 641 549 804 571
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.5 27.7 26.0 23.9
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.0 27.9 10.3 23.1 16.6 19.4 9.3 24.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 35.0 25.0 30.0 39.0 35.0 30.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 7.8 6.0 15.1 11.3 11.2 5.2 10.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.5 0.1 2.7 0.3 2.0 0.1 1.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Packet Page 2629
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Appendix | G
Appendix G – Cumulative Conditions Intersections Level of Service Worksheets
Packet Page 2630
Queues
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum AM Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 9 1992 679 53 1
v/c Ratio 0.06 0.67 0.24 0.18 0.00
Control Delay 24.4 4.6 3.3 1.4 0.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 24.4 4.6 3.3 1.4 0.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 3 143 26 0 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 213 86 0 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1105 809 608 371
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100
Base Capacity (vph) 325 2987 2999 759 824
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.67 0.23 0.07 0.00
Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2631
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum AM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 9 1929 63 0 678 1 40 0 13 0 0 1
Future Volume (vph) 9 1929 63 0 678 1 40 0 13 0 0 1
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.86
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3519 3538 1736 1611
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3519 3538 1801 1611
Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 9 1929 63 0 678 1 40 0 13 0 0 1
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 1 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 9 1991 0 0 679 0020000
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 4
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.1 48.3 42.2 2.6 2.6
Effective Green, g (s) 1.1 48.3 42.2 2.6 2.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.79 0.69 0.04 0.04
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 31 2790 2451 76 68
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.57 0.19 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm c0.00
v/c Ratio 0.29 0.71 0.28 0.03 0.00
Uniform Delay, d1 29.5 3.0 3.6 27.9 27.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 1.6 0.3 0.1 0.0
Delay (s) 31.4 4.6 3.8 28.0 27.9
Level of Service C A A C C
Approach Delay (s) 4.7 3.8 28.0 27.9
Approach LOS A A C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 5.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.9 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2632
Queues
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum AM Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 621 1612 167 688 43 464 237 180 998 234 v/c Ratio 1.15 1.16 0.75 0.86 0.45 0.55 0.49 0.63 0.97 0.43 Control Delay 128.9 117.1 78.0 60.5 78.2 47.2 20.2 70.2 68.6 18.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 128.9 117.1 78.0 60.5 78.2 47.2 20.2 70.2 68.6 18.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~666 ~903 146 303 38 186 61 80 460 61 Queue Length 95th (ft) #958 #1153 227 390 80 257 152 124 #647 147 Internal Link Dist (ft) 863 1273 857 699
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 235 125 130 195
Base Capacity (vph) 540 1389 608 1083 338 1081 579 1180 1649 793 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.15 1.16 0.27 0.64 0.13 0.43 0.41 0.15 0.61 0.30 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2633
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum AM Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 621 1397 215 167 555 133 43 464 237 180 998 234 Future Volume (veh/h) 621 1397 215 167 555 133 43 464 237 180 998 234 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 621 1397 215 167 555 133 43 464 237 180 998 234 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 556 1273 193 193 626 149 55 897 398 236 1065 464 Arrive On Green 0.31 0.41 0.41 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3079 468 1781 2843 679 1781 3554 1578 3456 3554 1549 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 621 798 814 167 346 342 43 464 237 180 998 234 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1770 1781 1777 1745 1781 1777 1578 1728 1777 1549 Q Serve(g_s), s 40.0 53.0 53.0 11.8 24.2 24.4 3.1 14.4 17.0 6.6 35.1 16.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 40.0 53.0 53.0 11.8 24.2 24.4 3.1 14.4 17.0 6.6 35.1 16.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 556 734 732 193 391 384 55 897 398 236 1065 464 V/C Ratio(X) 1.12 1.09 1.11 0.86 0.88 0.89 0.78 0.52 0.60 0.76 0.94 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 556 734 732 625 485 476 347 1108 492 1212 1108 483 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.1 37.6 37.6 56.2 48.4 48.5 61.7 41.2 42.2 58.7 43.7 37.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 74.8 59.2 68.5 4.4 13.3 14.2 8.3 0.2 0.5 1.9 13.9 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 28.8 34.4 36.1 5.5 12.1 12.0 1.5 6.3 6.6 2.9 17.2 6.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 119.0 96.8 106.1 60.6 61.7 62.7 70.0 41.4 42.7 60.7 57.6 37.4 LnGrp LOS F F F EEEEDDEED
Approach Vol, veh/h 2233 855 744 1412
Approach Delay, s/veh 106.4 61.9 43.5 54.6
Approach LOS F E D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.6 37.7 18.7 58.3 7.5 43.7 43.5 33.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.8 * 5.3 4.8 * 5.3 3.5 5.3 3.5 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 * 40 45.0 * 35 25.0 40.0 40.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 19.0 13.8 55.0 5.1 37.1 42.0 26.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 76.3
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Packet Page 2634
Queues
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum AM Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 25 22 87 803 42 951 1345 1404
v/c Ratio 0.26 0.21 0.44 0.45 0.40 0.79 0.89 0.45
Control Delay 64.1 39.8 58.0 3.6 67.8 46.7 41.2 12.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 64.1 39.8 58.0 3.6 67.8 46.7 41.2 12.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 19 7 63 32 31 247 491 195
Queue Length 95th (ft) 52 37 125 71 76 325 #809 294
Internal Link Dist (ft) 422 383 699 992
Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 260
Base Capacity (vph) 388 378 391 1959 310 1981 1506 3252 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.06 0.22 0.41 0.14 0.48 0.89 0.43 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2635
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum AM Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 25 9 13 78 9 803 42 858 93 1345 1115 289 Future Volume (vph) 25 9 13 78 9 803 42 858 93 1345 1115 289 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1680 1783 2779 1770 5002 3433 4897 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1680 1783 2779 1770 5002 3433 4897 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 25 9 13 78 9 803 42 858 93 1345 1115 289 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0 0 0 263 0 8 0 0 19 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 25 10 0 0 87 540 42 943 0 1345 1385 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5245
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 33152 16
Permitted Phases 3
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.2 5.2 12.8 63.7 5.9 29.0 50.9 74.0 Effective Green, g (s) 5.2 5.2 12.8 63.7 5.9 29.0 50.9 74.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.54 0.05 0.25 0.43 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 77 73 193 1497 88 1227 1478 3065
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.01 c0.05 0.16 0.02 c0.19 c0.39 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.13 0.45 0.36 0.48 0.77 0.91 0.45
Uniform Delay, d1 54.8 54.3 49.4 15.6 54.6 41.5 31.5 11.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.1 1.5 2.7 8.5 0.0
Delay (s) 55.7 54.6 50.0 15.6 56.1 44.1 40.0 11.6
Level of Service E D D B E D D B
Approach Delay (s) 55.2 19.0 44.6 25.5
Approach LOS E B D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 118.2 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2636
HCM 6th TWSC
4: Smith Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum AM Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1878 146 16 741 71 40
Future Vol, veh/h 1878 146 16 741 71 40
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 055010
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 1 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 1878 146 16 741 71 40
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 2029 0 2360 1017
Stage 1 ---- 1956 -
Stage 2 - - - - 404 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 276 - ~ 30 235
Stage 1 - - - - 96 -
Stage 2 - - - - 643 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 275 - ~ 27 234
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 81 -
Stage 1 - - - - 96 -
Stage 2 - - - - 579 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.3 176.5

HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 106 - - 275 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.047 - - 0.058 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 176.5 - - 18.9 0.9
HCM Lane LOS F - - C A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 6.8 - - 0.2 -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Packet Page 2637
Queues
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum AM Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 372 984 99 458 63 722 161 388
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.82 0.57 0.71 0.46 0.85 0.67 0.35
Control Delay 56.1 41.6 65.9 50.7 66.6 50.1 63.8 29.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 56.1 41.6 65.9 50.7 66.6 50.1 63.8 29.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 261 352 72 166 46 243 116 101
Queue Length 95th (ft) 437 507 147 258 104 #443 214 178 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1060 2431 769 1211
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 120 180 130
Base Capacity (vph) 629 1559 403 1105 484 1106 403 1113 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 0.63 0.25 0.41 0.13 0.65 0.40 0.35 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2638
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum AM Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 372 862 122 99 369 89 63 461 261 161 257 131 Future Volume (veh/h) 372 862 122 99 369 89 63 461 261 161 257 131 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 372 862 122 99 369 89 63 461 261 161 257 131 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 412 1056 150 127 507 121 82 552 310 197 730 360 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.34 0.34 0.07 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3118 441 1781 2834 675 1781 2178 1224 1781 2295 1131 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 372 491 493 99 230 228 63 376 346 161 197 191 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1783 1781 1777 1732 1781 1777 1625 1781 1777 1648 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.0 22.4 22.4 4.8 10.8 11.1 3.1 17.7 17.9 7.8 7.5 7.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.0 22.4 22.4 4.8 10.8 11.1 3.1 17.7 17.9 7.8 7.5 7.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.69
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 412 602 604 127 318 310 82 450 412 197 565 525 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.82 0.82 0.78 0.72 0.74 0.77 0.83 0.84 0.82 0.35 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 784 701 704 502 701 684 603 601 550 502 601 558 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.1 26.8 26.8 40.5 34.3 34.4 41.8 31.3 31.4 38.5 23.2 23.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.1 5.6 5.6 3.8 1.2 1.3 5.6 5.8 6.8 3.1 0.1 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.8 9.9 9.9 2.2 4.6 4.6 1.5 8.0 7.5 3.5 3.1 3.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.2 32.4 32.3 44.3 35.5 35.7 47.4 37.1 38.2 41.7 23.3 23.5 LnGrp LOS DCCDDDDDDDCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 1356 557 785 549
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.4 37.1 38.4 28.7
Approach LOS CDDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.3 35.0 14.8 27.5 25.5 20.9 9.1 33.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 35.0 25.0 30.0 39.0 35.0 30.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.8 24.4 9.8 19.9 20.0 13.1 5.1 9.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.2 0.2 2.2 0.5 1.6 0.1 1.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Packet Page 2639
Queues
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum PM Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 1090 1171 40 10
v/c Ratio 0.01 0.36 0.41 0.14 0.04
Control Delay 24.0 2.3 4.1 0.9 0.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 24.0 2.3 4.1 0.9 0.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 48 54 0 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 70 166 0 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1105 809 608 371
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100
Base Capacity (vph) 326 2991 3008 777 662
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.00 0.36 0.39 0.05 0.02
Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2640
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum PM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 1063 27 0 1170 1 38 02208
Future Volume (vph) 1 1063 27 0 1170 1 38 02208
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.89
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3524 3539 1765 1645
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3524 3539 1848 1534
Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 1063 27 0 1170 1 38 02208
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 10 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 1089 0 0 1171 0020000
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 2 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.9 48.1 42.2 2.6 2.6
Effective Green, g (s) 0.9 48.1 42.2 2.6 2.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.79 0.70 0.04 0.04
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 26 2792 2460 79 65
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.31 c0.33
v/s Ratio Perm c0.00 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.39 0.48 0.02 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 29.5 1.9 4.2 27.8 27.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.0
Delay (s) 29.7 2.3 4.9 27.9 27.8
Level of Service C A A C C
Approach Delay (s) 2.3 4.9 27.9 27.8
Approach LOS A A C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 4.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.7 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2641
Queues
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum PM Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 389 803 157 994 154 930 158 259 560 419 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.60 0.77 1.22 0.78 0.98 0.32 0.74 0.60 0.58 Control Delay 66.3 40.2 88.1 154.9 89.3 78.0 16.2 78.1 51.5 7.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 66.3 40.2 88.1 154.9 89.3 78.0 16.2 78.1 51.5 7.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 356 324 150 ~616 148 473 34 127 251 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #540 446 228 #791 225 #649 100 176 335 95 Internal Link Dist (ft) 863 1273 857 699
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 235 125 130 195
Base Capacity (vph) 475 1340 535 956 297 951 497 1038 1450 883 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.82 0.60 0.29 1.04 0.52 0.98 0.32 0.25 0.39 0.47 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2642
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum PM Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 389 749 54 157 834 160 154 930 158 259 560 419 Future Volume (veh/h) 389 749 54 157 834 160 154 930 158 259 560 419 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 389 749 54 157 834 160 154 930 158 259 560 419 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 412 1268 91 182 763 146 179 999 441 313 999 443 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.38 0.38 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3359 242 1781 2961 568 1781 3554 1570 3456 3554 1577 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 389 396 407 157 500 494 154 930 158 259 560 419 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1824 1781 1777 1752 1781 1777 1570 1728 1777 1577 Q Serve(g_s), s 29.2 24.3 24.3 11.8 35.0 35.0 11.6 34.6 10.9 10.0 18.3 35.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 29.2 24.3 24.3 11.8 35.0 35.0 11.6 34.6 10.9 10.0 18.3 35.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 412 671 689 182 458 451 179 999 441 313 999 443 V/C Ratio(X) 0.94 0.59 0.59 0.86 1.09 1.09 0.86 0.93 0.36 0.83 0.56 0.95 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 525 671 689 590 458 451 328 1046 462 1145 1046 464 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.3 33.9 33.9 60.0 50.4 50.4 60.2 47.5 39.0 60.7 41.7 47.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 21.0 1.0 0.9 4.6 69.7 69.9 4.7 13.5 0.2 2.1 0.3 27.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 15.3 10.6 10.8 5.5 24.2 23.9 5.4 17.0 4.2 4.5 8.0 17.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.3 34.8 34.8 64.7 120.1 120.4 64.9 61.0 39.2 62.9 42.0 75.1 LnGrp LOS E C C E F F E E D E D E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1192 1151 1242 1238
Approach Delay, s/veh 47.1 112.6 58.7 57.6
Approach LOS D F E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.1 43.5 18.7 56.6 17.1 43.5 34.9 40.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.8 * 5.3 4.8 * 5.3 3.5 5.3 3.5 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 * 40 45.0 * 35 25.0 40.0 40.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.0 36.6 13.8 26.3 13.6 37.3 31.2 37.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 1.4 0.1 1.8 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 68.4
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Packet Page 2643
Queues
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum PM Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 37 195 1777 79 1373 1779 1007
v/c Ratio 0.48 0.31 0.63 1.14 0.63 0.92 1.50 0.35
Control Delay 83.1 34.2 67.5 95.9 87.8 59.3 263.1 17.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 83.1 34.2 67.5 95.9 87.8 59.3 263.1 17.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 46 8 179 ~1106 76 464 ~1245 185
Queue Length 95th (ft) 92 46 275 #1305 133 #571 #1426 248 Internal Link Dist (ft) 422 383 699 992
Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 260
Base Capacity (vph) 183 196 309 1562 245 1560 1187 2904 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.19 0.63 1.14 0.32 0.88 1.50 0.35 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2644
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum PM Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 48 8 29 157 38 1777 79 1196 177 1779 987 20 Future Volume (vph) 48 8 29 157 38 1777 79 1196 177 1779 987 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1644 1791 2773 1770 4973 3433 5068 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1644 1791 2773 1770 4973 3433 5068 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 8 29 157 38 1777 79 1196 177 1779 987 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 0 125 0 13 0010
Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 9 0 0 195 1652 79 1360 0 1779 1006 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 6 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 33152 16
Permitted Phases 3
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.3 7.3 25.1 75.3 10.4 43.4 50.2 83.2 Effective Green, g (s) 7.3 7.3 25.1 75.3 10.4 43.4 50.2 83.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.05 0.17 0.51 0.07 0.30 0.34 0.57 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 88 82 307 1427 125 1475 1177 2882
v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.01 0.11 c0.40 0.04 c0.27 c0.52 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20
v/c Ratio 0.55 0.12 0.64 1.16 0.63 0.92 1.51 0.35
Uniform Delay, d1 67.9 66.4 56.3 35.5 66.1 49.8 48.1 17.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.7 0.2 3.1 79.3 7.4 9.7 234.6 0.0 Delay (s) 71.5 66.6 59.5 114.8 73.5 59.5 282.6 17.0
Level of Service E E E F E E F B
Approach Delay (s) 69.4 109.4 60.3 186.6
Approach LOS E F E F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 131.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.18
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 146.3 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2645
HCM 6th TWSC
4: Smith Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum PM Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1
Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1101 60 20 1163 40 19
Future Vol, veh/h 1 1101 60 20 1163 40 19
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 022000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 1 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 1 1101 60 20 1163 40 19
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 1163 0 0 1163 0 1757 583
Stage 1 - ---- 1135 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 622 -
Critical Hdwy 6.44 - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ---- 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ---- 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.52 - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 261 - - 596 - 76 456
Stage 1 - - - - - 269 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 498 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 261 - - 595 - 68 455
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - 181 -
Stage 1 - - - - - 266 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 451 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.7 26.6

HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 225 - - 595 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.262 - - 0.034 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 26.6 0.1 - 11.3 0.5
HCM Lane LOS D A - B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 - - 0.1 -
Packet Page 2646
Queues
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum PM Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 282 446 66 543 99 844 113 507
v/c Ratio 0.77 0.36 0.46 0.76 0.55 0.84 0.58 0.49
Control Delay 55.6 26.9 61.3 46.2 60.7 46.7 60.5 30.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 55.6 26.9 61.3 46.2 60.7 46.7 60.5 30.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 179 116 43 171 64 275 73 120
Queue Length 95th (ft) 321 183 105 277 142 #564 156 234 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1060 2431 769 1211
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 120 180 130
Base Capacity (vph) 661 1648 423 1152 508 1166 423 1038 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 0.27 0.16 0.47 0.19 0.72 0.27 0.49 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2647
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum PM Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 282 389 57 66 389 154 99 724 120 113 306 201 Future Volume (veh/h) 282 389 57 66 389 154 99 724 120 113 306 201 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 282 389 57 66 389 154 99 724 120 113 306 201 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 325 1079 157 86 531 207 128 860 142 145 603 385 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3104 451 1781 2490 972 1781 3042 504 1781 2065 1319 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 282 221 225 66 276 267 99 423 421 113 262 245 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1778 1781 1777 1686 1781 1777 1770 1781 1777 1607 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.8 7.7 7.9 3.0 12.0 12.3 4.5 18.6 18.7 5.2 10.2 10.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.8 7.7 7.9 3.0 12.0 12.3 4.5 18.6 18.7 5.2 10.2 10.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.82
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 325 618 618 86 379 360 128 502 500 145 519 469 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.36 0.36 0.77 0.73 0.74 0.77 0.84 0.84 0.78 0.51 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 835 748 748 535 748 709 642 641 638 535 641 579 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.0 20.2 20.3 39.1 30.5 30.6 37.9 28.1 28.1 37.5 24.5 24.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.8 0.1 0.1 5.4 1.0 1.1 3.7 6.5 6.6 3.4 0.3 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.6 3.1 3.2 1.4 5.1 5.0 2.1 8.5 8.5 2.4 4.2 3.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.8 20.4 20.4 44.5 31.5 31.7 41.6 34.6 34.7 40.9 24.7 24.9 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCDCCDCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 728 609 943 620
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.4 33.0 35.4 27.8
Approach LOS CCDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 33.9 11.8 28.5 20.2 22.7 11.0 29.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 35.0 25.0 30.0 39.0 35.0 30.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 9.9 7.2 20.7 14.8 14.3 6.5 12.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.7 0.1 2.6 0.4 2.2 0.1 2.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Packet Page 2648
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Appendix | H
Appendix H – Cumulative plus Project Conditions Intersections Level of Service Worksheets
Packet Page 2649
Queues
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum + Proj AM Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 9 1992 685 53 26
v/c Ratio 0.06 0.67 0.24 0.18 0.09
Control Delay 23.3 4.8 3.4 1.3 0.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 23.3 4.8 3.4 1.3 0.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 3 143 26 0 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 213 87 0 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1105 809 608 371
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100
Base Capacity (vph) 334 2963 3006 775 787
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.67 0.23 0.07 0.03
Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2650
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum + Proj AM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 9 1929 63 0 678 7 40 0 13 23 0 3
Future Volume (vph) 9 1929 63 0 678 7 40 0 13 23 0 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3519 3533 1736 1756
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3519 3533 1801 1834
Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 9 1929 63 0 678 7 40 0 13 23 0 3
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 51 0 0 25 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 9 1991 0 0 684 0020010
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 4
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.1 46.8 40.7 2.6 2.6
Effective Green, g (s) 1.1 46.8 40.7 2.6 2.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.79 0.69 0.04 0.04
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 32 2772 2420 78 80
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.57 0.19
v/s Ratio Perm c0.00 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.28 0.72 0.28 0.03 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 28.8 3.1 3.7 27.2 27.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 1.6 0.3 0.1 0.0
Delay (s) 30.5 4.7 3.9 27.2 27.2
Level of Service C A A C C
Approach Delay (s) 4.8 3.9 27.2 27.2
Approach LOS A A C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 5.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 59.4 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2651
Queues
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum + Proj AM Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 641 1615 167 689 43 464 237 180 998 239 v/c Ratio 1.19 1.16 0.76 0.86 0.45 0.55 0.49 0.63 0.97 0.43 Control Delay 142.5 117.6 78.2 60.7 78.2 47.2 20.2 70.3 68.7 18.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 142.5 117.6 78.2 60.7 78.2 47.2 20.2 70.3 68.7 18.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~704 ~906 146 305 38 186 61 81 460 62 Queue Length 95th (ft) #998 #1155 227 391 80 257 152 124 #647 150 Internal Link Dist (ft) 863 1273 857 699
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 235 125 130 195
Base Capacity (vph) 540 1390 608 1081 337 1080 579 1179 1647 794 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.19 1.16 0.27 0.64 0.13 0.43 0.41 0.15 0.61 0.30 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2652
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum + Proj AM Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 641 1399 216 167 556 133 43 464 237 180 998 239 Future Volume (veh/h) 641 1399 216 167 556 133 43 464 237 180 998 239 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 641 1399 216 167 556 133 43 464 237 180 998 239 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 555 1273 194 193 627 149 55 897 398 236 1065 464 Arrive On Green 0.31 0.41 0.41 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3078 469 1781 2844 678 1781 3554 1578 3456 3554 1549 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 641 800 815 167 347 342 43 464 237 180 998 239 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1770 1781 1777 1745 1781 1777 1578 1728 1777 1549 Q Serve(g_s), s 40.0 53.1 53.1 11.8 24.2 24.4 3.1 14.4 17.0 6.6 35.1 16.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 40.0 53.1 53.1 11.8 24.2 24.4 3.1 14.4 17.0 6.6 35.1 16.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 555 735 732 193 392 385 55 897 398 236 1065 464 V/C Ratio(X) 1.15 1.09 1.11 0.86 0.89 0.89 0.78 0.52 0.60 0.76 0.94 0.51 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 555 735 732 625 485 476 347 1108 492 1212 1108 483 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.2 37.6 37.6 56.3 48.4 48.5 61.7 41.3 42.2 58.8 43.8 37.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 88.5 59.8 69.3 4.4 13.4 14.2 8.3 0.2 0.5 1.9 13.9 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 30.9 34.5 36.3 5.5 12.1 12.0 1.5 6.3 6.6 2.9 17.2 6.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 132.7 97.4 106.9 60.7 61.8 62.7 70.0 41.4 42.7 60.7 57.7 37.5 LnGrp LOS F F F EEEEDDEED
Approach Vol, veh/h 2256 856 744 1417
Approach Delay, s/veh 110.9 62.0 43.5 54.6
Approach LOS F E D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.6 37.7 18.7 58.4 7.5 43.7 43.5 33.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.8 * 5.3 4.8 * 5.3 3.5 5.3 3.5 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 * 40 45.0 * 35 25.0 40.0 40.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 19.0 13.8 55.1 5.1 37.1 42.0 26.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 78.3
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Packet Page 2653
Queues
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum + Proj AM Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 25 22 87 803 42 971 1345 1409
v/c Ratio 0.26 0.21 0.45 0.45 0.40 0.79 0.90 0.45
Control Delay 64.5 40.0 58.4 3.7 68.4 46.6 42.2 12.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 64.5 40.0 58.4 3.7 68.4 46.6 42.2 12.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 19 7 63 32 32 253 495 196
Queue Length 95th (ft) 53 37 126 72 77 333 #820 297
Internal Link Dist (ft) 422 383 699 992
Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 260
Base Capacity (vph) 385 375 388 1948 308 1969 1495 3234 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.06 0.22 0.41 0.14 0.49 0.90 0.44 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2654
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum + Proj AM Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 25 9 13 78 9 803 42 878 93 1345 1120 289 Future Volume (vph) 25 9 13 78 9 803 42 878 93 1345 1120 289 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1680 1783 2779 1770 5004 3433 4898 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1680 1783 2779 1770 5004 3433 4898 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 25 9 13 78 9 803 42 878 93 1345 1120 289 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0 0 0 265 0 8 0 0 19 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 25 10 0 0 87 538 42 963 0 1345 1390 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5245
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 33152 16
Permitted Phases 3
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.2 5.2 12.8 63.7 5.9 29.8 50.9 74.8 Effective Green, g (s) 5.2 5.2 12.8 63.7 5.9 29.8 50.9 74.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.54 0.05 0.25 0.43 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 77 73 191 1487 87 1253 1468 3078
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.01 c0.05 0.15 0.02 c0.19 c0.39 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.13 0.46 0.36 0.48 0.77 0.92 0.45
Uniform Delay, d1 55.2 54.7 49.8 15.9 55.1 41.4 32.0 11.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.1 1.5 2.6 9.1 0.0
Delay (s) 56.1 55.0 50.5 16.0 56.6 44.0 41.1 11.5
Level of Service E E D B E D D B
Approach Delay (s) 55.6 19.4 44.5 26.0
Approach LOS E B D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 119.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2655
HCM 6th TWSC
4: Smith Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum + Proj AM Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1878 146 16 743 71 40
Future Vol, veh/h 1878 146 16 743 71 40
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 055010
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 1 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 1878 146 16 743 71 40
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 2029 0 2361 1017
Stage 1 ---- 1956 -
Stage 2 - - - - 405 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 276 - ~ 30 235
Stage 1 - - - - 96 -
Stage 2 - - - - 642 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 275 - ~ 27 234
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 81 -
Stage 1 - - - - 96 -
Stage 2 - - - - 578 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.3 176.5

HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 106 - - 275 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.047 - - 0.058 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 176.5 - - 18.9 0.9
HCM Lane LOS F - - C A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 6.8 - - 0.2 -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Packet Page 2656
Queues
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum + Proj AM Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 372 984 101 458 63 722 161 388
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.83 0.57 0.71 0.46 0.85 0.67 0.35
Control Delay 56.2 41.8 65.8 50.6 66.6 50.0 63.8 29.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 56.2 41.8 65.8 50.6 66.6 50.0 63.8 29.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 261 352 73 166 46 243 116 101
Queue Length 95th (ft) 437 508 150 258 104 #443 214 178 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1060 2431 769 1211
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 120 180 130
Base Capacity (vph) 629 1556 403 1104 484 1105 403 1113 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 0.63 0.25 0.41 0.13 0.65 0.40 0.35 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2657
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum + Proj AM Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 372 862 122 101 369 89 63 461 261 161 257 131 Future Volume (veh/h) 372 862 122 101 369 89 63 461 261 161 257 131 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 372 862 122 101 369 89 63 461 261 161 257 131 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 412 1052 149 130 507 121 82 552 310 197 730 360 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.34 0.34 0.07 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3118 441 1781 2834 675 1781 2178 1224 1781 2295 1131 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 372 491 493 101 230 228 63 376 346 161 197 191 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1783 1781 1777 1732 1781 1777 1625 1781 1777 1648 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.0 22.4 22.4 4.9 10.8 11.1 3.1 17.7 17.9 7.8 7.5 7.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.0 22.4 22.4 4.9 10.8 11.1 3.1 17.7 17.9 7.8 7.5 7.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.69
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 412 600 602 130 318 310 82 450 412 197 565 525 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.82 0.82 0.78 0.72 0.74 0.77 0.83 0.84 0.82 0.35 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 784 701 704 502 701 684 603 601 550 502 601 558 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.1 26.9 26.9 40.4 34.3 34.4 41.8 31.3 31.4 38.5 23.2 23.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.1 5.7 5.7 3.8 1.2 1.3 5.6 5.8 6.8 3.1 0.1 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.8 9.9 9.9 2.2 4.6 4.6 1.5 8.0 7.5 3.5 3.1 3.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.2 32.6 32.6 44.2 35.5 35.7 47.4 37.1 38.2 41.7 23.3 23.5 LnGrp LOS DCCDDDDDDDCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 1356 559 785 549
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.6 37.1 38.4 28.7
Approach LOS CDDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.5 34.9 14.8 27.5 25.5 20.9 9.1 33.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 35.0 25.0 30.0 39.0 35.0 30.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.9 24.4 9.8 19.9 20.0 13.1 5.1 9.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.2 0.2 2.2 0.5 1.6 0.1 1.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Packet Page 2658
Queues
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum + Proj PM Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 1090 1193 40 19
v/c Ratio 0.02 0.37 0.42 0.14 0.07
Control Delay 23.7 2.3 4.2 0.9 0.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 23.7 2.3 4.2 0.9 0.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 1 48 55 0 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 70 173 0 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1105 809 608 371
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100
Base Capacity (vph) 327 2986 2989 781 743
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.37 0.40 0.05 0.03
Intersection Summary
Packet Page 2659
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Moores Ave/Driveway & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum + Proj PM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 3 1063 27 0 1170 23 38 0 2 10 0 9
Future Volume (vph) 3 1063 27 0 1170 23 38 0 2 10 0 9
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.94
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3524 3527 1765 1699
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3524 3527 1848 1744
Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 3 1063 27 0 1170 23 38 0 2 10 0 9
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 38 0 0 18 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 1089 0 0 1192 0020010
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 2 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 47.8 41.8 2.6 2.6
Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 47.8 41.8 2.6 2.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.79 0.69 0.04 0.04
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 29 2788 2440 79 75
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.31 c0.34
v/s Ratio Perm c0.00 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.10 0.39 0.49 0.02 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 29.3 1.9 4.3 27.7 27.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.0
Delay (s) 29.8 2.3 5.0 27.7 27.7
Level of Service C A A C C
Approach Delay (s) 2.4 5.0 27.7 27.7
Approach LOS A A C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 4.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.4 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2660
Queues
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum + Proj PM Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 396 804 157 997 155 930 158 259 560 437 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.60 0.77 1.22 0.78 0.98 0.32 0.74 0.60 0.60 Control Delay 67.7 40.2 88.1 156.3 89.1 78.0 16.2 78.1 51.6 7.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 67.7 40.2 88.1 156.3 89.1 78.0 16.2 78.1 51.6 7.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 364 325 150 ~620 149 473 34 127 251 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #559 446 228 #794 226 #649 100 176 335 98 Internal Link Dist (ft) 863 1273 857 699
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 235 125 130 195
Base Capacity (vph) 475 1340 535 956 297 951 497 1038 1450 894 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.83 0.60 0.29 1.04 0.52 0.98 0.32 0.25 0.39 0.49 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2661
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Mowry Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum + Proj PM Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 396 750 54 157 837 160 155 930 158 259 560 437 Future Volume (veh/h) 396 750 54 157 837 160 155 930 158 259 560 437 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 396 750 54 157 837 160 155 930 158 259 560 437 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 418 1260 91 181 744 142 179 1024 452 312 1020 453 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3360 242 1781 2963 566 1781 3554 1570 3456 3554 1577 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 396 397 407 157 502 495 155 930 158 259 560 437 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1825 1781 1777 1752 1781 1777 1570 1728 1777 1577 Q Serve(g_s), s 30.5 25.0 25.0 12.1 35.0 35.0 11.9 35.2 11.1 10.3 18.6 38.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 30.5 25.0 25.0 12.1 35.0 35.0 11.9 35.2 11.1 10.3 18.6 38.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 418 666 684 181 446 440 179 1024 452 312 1020 453 V/C Ratio(X) 0.95 0.60 0.60 0.87 1.12 1.12 0.87 0.91 0.35 0.83 0.55 0.97 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 511 666 684 575 446 440 320 1024 452 1116 1020 453 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.4 35.0 35.0 61.6 52.2 52.2 61.7 47.8 39.3 62.3 42.0 49.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 22.8 1.0 1.0 4.7 81.2 81.5 4.8 11.4 0.2 2.2 0.4 33.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 16.1 10.9 11.2 5.7 25.5 25.2 5.6 17.0 4.3 4.6 8.2 19.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 75.3 36.0 36.0 66.4 133.3 133.6 66.6 59.2 39.4 64.5 42.4 82.1 LnGrp LOS E D D E F F E E D E D F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1200 1154 1243 1256
Approach Delay, s/veh 49.0 124.3 57.6 60.8
Approach LOS D F E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.4 45.4 19.0 57.5 17.5 45.3 36.2 40.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.8 * 5.3 4.8 * 5.3 3.5 5.3 3.5 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 * 40 45.0 * 35 25.0 40.0 40.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.3 37.2 14.1 27.0 13.9 40.1 32.5 37.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 1.2 0.1 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 72.2
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Packet Page 2662
Queues
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum + Proj PM Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 37 195 1777 79 1380 1779 1025
v/c Ratio 0.48 0.31 0.63 1.14 0.63 0.92 1.50 0.35
Control Delay 83.1 34.2 67.5 96.1 87.8 59.6 263.6 17.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 83.1 34.2 67.5 96.1 87.8 59.6 263.6 17.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 46 8 179 ~1106 76 467 ~1245 189
Queue Length 95th (ft) 92 46 275 #1305 133 #576 #1426 253 Internal Link Dist (ft) 422 383 699 992
Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 260
Base Capacity (vph) 183 196 309 1561 244 1559 1186 2905 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.19 0.63 1.14 0.32 0.89 1.50 0.35 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2663
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Mowry Ave & Alpenrose Ct Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum + Proj PM Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 48 8 29 157 38 1777 79 1203 177 1779 1005 20 Future Volume (vph) 48 8 29 157 38 1777 79 1203 177 1779 1005 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1644 1791 2773 1770 4973 3433 5068 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1644 1791 2773 1770 4973 3433 5068 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 8 29 157 38 1777 79 1203 177 1779 1005 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 0 125 0 13 0010
Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 9 0 0 195 1652 79 1367 0 1779 1024 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 6 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 33152 16
Permitted Phases 3
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.3 7.3 25.1 75.3 10.4 43.5 50.2 83.3 Effective Green, g (s) 7.3 7.3 25.1 75.3 10.4 43.5 50.2 83.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.05 0.17 0.51 0.07 0.30 0.34 0.57 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 88 81 307 1426 125 1477 1177 2883
v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.01 0.11 c0.40 0.04 c0.27 c0.52 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20
v/c Ratio 0.55 0.12 0.64 1.16 0.63 0.93 1.51 0.36
Uniform Delay, d1 67.9 66.5 56.4 35.6 66.1 49.9 48.1 17.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.7 0.2 3.1 79.6 7.4 10.0 234.6 0.0 Delay (s) 71.6 66.7 59.5 115.2 73.6 59.9 282.7 17.1
Level of Service E E E F E E F B
Approach Delay (s) 69.5 109.7 60.6 185.6
Approach LOS E F E F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 131.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.18
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 146.4 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.8% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Packet Page 2664
HCM 6th TWSC
4: Smith Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum + Proj PM Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1
Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1103 60 20 1164 40 19
Future Vol, veh/h 1 1103 60 20 1164 40 19
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 022000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 1 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 1 1103 60 20 1164 40 19
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 1164 0 0 1165 0 1759 584
Stage 1 - ---- 1137 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 622 -
Critical Hdwy 6.44 - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ---- 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ---- 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.52 - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 260 - - 595 - 76 455
Stage 1 - - - - - 268 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 498 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 260 - - 594 - 68 454
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - 181 -
Stage 1 - - - - - 265 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 451 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.7 26.7

HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 224 - - 594 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.263 - - 0.034 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 26.7 0.1 - 11.3 0.5
HCM Lane LOS D A - B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 - - 0.1 -
Packet Page 2665
Queues
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum + Proj PM Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 282 446 67 543 99 846 113 507
v/c Ratio 0.77 0.36 0.46 0.76 0.55 0.85 0.58 0.49
Control Delay 55.6 26.9 61.3 46.2 60.7 47.0 60.5 30.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 55.6 26.9 61.3 46.2 60.7 47.0 60.5 30.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 179 117 43 171 64 277 73 120
Queue Length 95th (ft) 321 183 106 277 142 #566 156 234 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1060 2431 769 1211
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 120 180 130
Base Capacity (vph) 661 1648 423 1152 508 1164 423 1038 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 0.27 0.16 0.47 0.19 0.73 0.27 0.49 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Packet Page 2666
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Central Ave & Cedar Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Cedar Blvd Townhomes TIS Synchro 11 Report
Cum + Proj PM Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 282 389 57 67 389 154 99 724 122 113 306 201 Future Volume (veh/h) 282 389 57 67 389 154 99 724 122 113 306 201 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 282 389 57 67 389 154 99 724 122 113 306 201 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 325 1076 156 87 531 207 128 859 145 145 604 386 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3104 451 1781 2490 972 1781 3034 511 1781 2065 1319 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 282 221 225 67 276 267 99 424 422 113 262 245 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1778 1781 1777 1686 1781 1777 1768 1781 1777 1607 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.8 7.7 7.9 3.1 12.1 12.3 4.6 18.7 18.7 5.2 10.2 10.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.8 7.7 7.9 3.1 12.1 12.3 4.6 18.7 18.7 5.2 10.2 10.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.82
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 325 616 617 87 379 359 128 503 501 145 520 470 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.36 0.36 0.77 0.73 0.74 0.77 0.84 0.84 0.78 0.50 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 834 746 747 534 746 708 641 640 637 534 640 579 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.1 20.3 20.3 39.2 30.5 30.6 38.0 28.1 28.1 37.5 24.5 24.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.8 0.1 0.1 5.3 1.0 1.1 3.7 6.6 6.7 3.4 0.3 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.6 3.1 3.2 1.5 5.1 5.0 2.1 8.6 8.5 2.4 4.2 3.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.9 20.4 20.5 44.5 31.5 31.8 41.7 34.8 34.8 41.0 24.7 24.9 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCDCCDCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 728 610 945 620
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.4 33.1 35.5 27.8
Approach LOS CCDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.1 33.9 11.8 28.6 20.2 22.8 11.0 29.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 35.0 25.0 30.0 39.0 35.0 30.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.1 9.9 7.2 20.7 14.8 14.3 6.6 12.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.7 0.1 2.6 0.4 2.2 0.1 2.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Packet Page 2667
38600 Cedar Boulevard TIS
Appendix | I
Appendix I – ACTC Model Outputs
Packet Page 2668
5 VISION THAT MOVES YOUR COMMUNITY
ACTC Model Outputs
TAZ Total Population VMT Production VMT per Capita
#934 ‐ No Project 844 19,615 23.24
#934 ‐ With Project 1,087 20,035 18.43
Packet Page 2669
CALIFORNIA | FLORIDA | TEXAS
Corporate Office 4305 Hacienda Drive, Suite 550, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925.463.0611 www.TJKM.com 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: May 23, 2023
To: Brain Steele
Caden Proctor
Waymark Development
Waymark Development
CC: Carmelisa Lopez
Jayson Imai
City of Newark
City of Newark
From: Steven Matthew Dauterman, PE, PTOE, RSP1
Chris D. Kinzel, PE, TE
TJKM
TJKM
Subject: Cedar/Smith Signal Warrant and Fair Share Assessment This memorandum summarizes the findings of an in-depth signal warrant assessment and fair share assessment for the intersection of Cedar Boulevard and Smith Avenue in the City of Newark and in conjunction with two proposed developments along Cedar Boulevard (38478 Cedar Boulevard by Robson Homes [herein referred to as the Robson Development] and 38600 Cedar Boulevard by Waymark [herein referred to as the Waymark Development]).

This memorandum is intended to provide supplemental analyses with respect to the third iteration of a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) that was conducted by TJKM Transportation Consultants for the Waymark Development (titled Cedar Boulevard Townhomes and last revised on April 21, 2023) and based on a meeting between the Waymark team, TJKM, and City staff on May 11, 2023. At the meeting, the City had requested a more thorough investigation that utilized an identical methodology with a previous signal warrant assessment that was conducted for the intersection by Hexagon Transportation Consultations in association with the Robson Development. TJKM requested the latest copy of the Robson Development TIS/ signal warrant assessment; both were provided to TJKM by City staff on May 12, 2023.

This memorandum supports the following conclusions:
• Consistent with the Hexagon signal warrant assessment, Warrant 1 (“Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant”) as discussed in Chapter 4C (“Traffic Control Signals – General”) of the California Manual of Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD) is likely not satisfied under existing conditions.
• Under 2040 Cumulative Conditions, there is some likelihood that Warrant 1 may be satisfied. • Under 2022 Existing Conditions, consistent with the Hexagon signal warrant assessment, CAMUTCD Signal Warrant 2 (“Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant”) would not be satisfied. This finding does not change when accounting for additional traffic generated by either the Robson or Waymark developments or both.

APPENDIX F-2
Packet Page 2670
Cedar/Smith Signal Warrant and Fair Share Assessment
May 23, 2023
2 • Under 2040 Cumulative Conditions, CA-MUTCD Warrant 2 is anticipated to be satisfied. These conditions would occur regardless of any additional traffic generated by the Robson or Waymark developments or both.
• Under 2022 Existing Conditions, CA-MUTCD Signal Warrant 3 (“Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant”) would exceed the volume thresholds during the weekday morning commuter (a.m.) peak hour. These conditions would occur regardless of any additional traffic generated by the Robson or Waymark developments or both. This trend continues under 2040 Cumulative Conditions.
o The CA-MUTCD stipulates that “[t]his signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time.” Given the location of the intersection and surrounding community, the intent of Warrant 3 (i.e., for “unusual cases”) does not appear to be satisfied. The applicability of Warrant 3 in this case is questioned.
• Under 2022 Existing Conditions, CA-MUTCD Signal Warrants 4 (“Pedestrian Volume Warrant”) and 5 (“School Crossing Volume Warrant”) are not satisfied. These conditions are unlikely to be changed with the construction of the Robson or Waymark developments or both. Further, this trend is expected to continue under 2040 Cumulative Conditions. • Under 2022 Existing Conditions, CA-MUTCD Signal Warrant 7 (“Crash Experience Warrant”) is not satisfied. This warrant was not assessed under 2040 conditions, given that it is supposed to be based on historical crashes.
• Traffic generated by the Robson and Waymark developments account for an insignificant increase in utilization at the subject intersection.
o The Robson development is expected to increase utilization by 23 a.m. and 28 p.m. peak hour trips, respectively. This development is expected to account for 1.91 percent of expected regional growth by 2040.
o The Waymark development is expected to increase utilization by 2 a.m. and 3 p.m. peak hour trips. This development is expected to account for 0.19 percent of expected regional growth by 2040.
o Added project trips from both developments were only assigned to Cedar Boulevard; as such, they are not expected to increase side-street traffic volumes (which plays a critical role in the determination of CA-MUTCD Warrants 1, 2, and 3).

Packet Page 2671
Cedar/Smith Signal Warrant and Fair Share Assessment
May 23, 2023
3 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND PARAMETERS
Signal Warrant Assessment
Signal warrant analyses are based off of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) 2009 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Guidelines for nine separate signal warrants are discussed specifically in Chapter 4C, Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies, by which only one warrant needs to be satisfied to support the installation of a traffic control signal and additional warrants met would further support the appropriateness of installation. That said, satisfaction of one or more warrants shall not itself require installation of a traffic signal; a traffic signal should be both warranted and justified.

The State of California has adopted and has modified the federal guidelines to meet the needs of the State. This assessment uses the California Manual of Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD).

As discussed in a meeting with City staff on May 11, 2023, TJKM was requested to provide a more indepth investigation that utilized an identical methodology with a previous signal warrant assessment that was conducted for the intersection by Hexagon Transportation Consultations in association with the Robson Development. TJKM requested the latest copy of the Robson Development TIS/ signal warrant assessment; both were provided to TJKM by City staff on May 12, 2023.

The Hexagon analysis (titled Signal Warrant Analysis for the Intersection at Cedar Boulevard & Smith Avenue in Newark, CA and dated September 24, 2021) is provided in Appendix A. The traffic counts utilized as the base of this analysis are provided in Appendix B. Excerpts utilized from the Robson TIS are provided in Appendix C. Excerpts utilized from the Waymark TIS are provided in Appendix D.

Consistent with the Hexagon signal warrant assessment, this memo analyzes six of the nine warrants:
• Warrant 1 – Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume;
• Warrant 2 – Four-Hour Vehicular Volume;
• Warrant 3 – Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume;
• Warrant 4 – Pedestrian Volume;
• Warrant 5 – School Crossing Volume;
• Warrant 7 – Crash Experience.

Consistent with the Hexagon signal warrant assessment and/or per requests by City staff, the analysis assumed the following parameters:
• Cedar Boulevard is considered the Major Street;
• Smith Avenue is considered the Minor Street;
• The thresholds for “two or more lanes for moving traffic on the major street” and “one lane for moving traffic on the minor street” were used;
Packet Page 2672
Cedar/Smith Signal Warrant and Fair Share Assessment
May 23, 2023
4 • An 85th percentile speed of above 40 miles per hour (mph) is to be used in lieu of the posted speed limit.
o This impacts which thresholds are used for Warrants 1, 2, and 3. • A very conservative right-turn reduction (RTR) of zero percent was applied to the minor street (i.e., none at all).
o In the third iteration of the Waymark TIS, a conservative 50 percent RTR was applied to the minor street to account for gaps in traffic flow, pursuant CA-MUTCD 4C.01.08-09. Previous estimations for RTR were approximated to average around 67% using Synchro (this was done by converting the intersection to a signal and determining the expected right-turnon-red reduction (RTOR) values from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology). Though not used in this study, justification was asked to be provided for the previous 50% RTR; the Synchro HCM 2000 analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix E.

Fair Share Assessment
In order to determine the potential fair share contribution needed from the Robson and Waymark developments, the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) method for calculating equitable mitigation measures was utilized as per Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002).

The following equations where used:

𝑃𝑃 = 𝑇𝑇
𝑇𝑇𝑏𝑏−𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒
(Eq. 1)
𝐶𝐶 = (𝑃𝑃)(𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡) (Eq. 2)
where,
• P = the equitable share for the proposed project’s traffic impact. • T = the vehicle trips generated by the project during the peak hour. • Tb = the forecasted traffic volume on an impacted highway at the time of general plan buildout. • Te = the traffic volume existing on the impacted highway facility. • C = the equitable cost of traffic mitigation for the proposed project. • Ct = the total cost estimate for improvements necessary to mitigate the forecasted traffic demand on the impacted highway facility.

Packet Page 2673
Cedar/Smith Signal Warrant and Fair Share Assessment
May 23, 2023
5 CA-MUTCD SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION
Warrant 1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 1 is satisfied when for each of any eight hours of an average day, the traffic volumes given in the tables shown below exist on the major-street and on the higher-volume minor-street approaches to the intersection. Therefore, if the vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns in the CA-MUTCD Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection and satisfy either Condition A or Condition B, for each of any eight hours of an average weekday, then Warrant 1 is satisfied.

Condition A – Minimum Vehicular Volume: The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns in the CA-MUTCD Table 4C-1 must exist on the major-street and the highervolume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; or Condition B – Interruption of Continuous Traffic: The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns in the CA-MUTCD Table 4C-1 must exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection.

However, if the 100 percent requirements cannot be satisfied, then the 80 percent columns may be used “only after an adequate trial of other alternatives that could cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic has failed to solve the traffic problems.” Under the 80 percent column requirements, a combination of Condition A and Condition B must be met. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns must exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, and must satisfy both Condition A and Condition B.

Condition A – Minimum Vehicular Volume: The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns in the CA-MUTCD Table 4C-1 must exist on the major-street and the highervolume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; and Condition B – Interruption of Continuous Traffic: The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns in the CA-MUTCD Table 4C-1 must exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection.

Therefore, if the vehicles per hour (vph) given in both of the 100 percent columns in the CA-MUTCD Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection and satisfy either Condition A or Condition B, for each of any eight hours of an average weekday, then Warrant 1 is satisfied. The 80 percent columns may be used in place of the 100% columns when a combination of Conditions A and B is satisfied.

If the posted speed limit or 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, then the traffic volumes in the 70 percent and 56 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 100 percent and 80 percent columns, respectively.

Packet Page 2674
Cedar/Smith Signal Warrant and Fair Share Assessment
May 23, 2023
6 As noted previously, the analysis herein assumes the thresholds for two lanes for moving traffic on the major street and one lane for moving traffic on the minor street for the evaluation of the warrant.

Additionally, given that the supposed 85th-percentile speed along Cedar Boulevard is above 40 mph, the 70 percent thresholds were utilized for the purposes of this assessment. The specific volumes requirements used in this study for Conditions A and B were taken from the CA-MUTCD Table 4C-1, as illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1: Warrant 1 – Eight Hour Vehicular Volume Thresholds (CA-MUTCD Table 4C-1) Notes:
a. Basic minimum hourly volume.
b. Used for a combination of A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures. c. May be used when the major-street speed exceeds 40 mph or in isolated community with a population of less than 10,000.
d. May be used for a combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures when the majorstreet speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000.

The four hours of turning movement counts, collected in 2022, were utilized in the assessment of the warrant. It is noted that the full assessment of the warrant does require at least eight hours of data, however additional data is not anticipated to change the conclusions of the assessment at this time.

Of the four hours analyzed as illustrated in Table 2, none satisfy Condition A and only two satisfy Condition B; thus, it is not expected that the Warrant 1 would be met under existing conditions given that any additional hours would likely experience less utilization of the intersection due to being outside the peak periods.

In order to analyze 2040 Cumulative Conditions, the 2022 volumes were grown to 2040 by applying inherent growth factors. These factors were calculated based on the ratio between the 2022 and 2040 peak hour traffic volumes at the subject intersection from the Waymark TIS (1.99 for the a.m. hours and 2.27 for the p.m. hours). As illustrated in Table 2, only two of the four hours analyzed would satisfy Condition A and all four would satisfy Condition B. Thus, there is a likelihood that Warrant 1 may be satisfied under 2040 cumulative conditions.

Major Street Minor Street 100% (a) 80% (b) 70% (c) 56% (d) 100% (a) 80% (b) 70% (c) 56% (d) 1 1 500 400 350 280 150 120 105 84
2 or more 1 600 480 420 336 150 120 105 84
2 or more 2 or more 600 480 420 336 200 160 140 112
1 2 or more 500 400 350 280 200 160 140 112
Major Street Minor Street 100% (a) 80% (b) 70% (c) 56% (d) 100% (a) 80% (b) 70% (c) 56% (d) 1 1 750 600 525 420 75 60 53 42
2 or more 1 900 720 630 504 75 60 53 42
2 or more 2 or more 900 720 630 504 100 80 70 56
1 2 or more 750 600 525 420 100 80 70 56
Condition A - Minimum Vehicular Volume
Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
Number of Lanes for moving
traffic on each Approach
Vehicles per hour on Major Street (total of both
approaches)
Vehicles per hour on higher-volume minor-street
approach (one direction only)
Number of Lanes for moving
traffic on each Approach
Vehicles per hour on Major Street (total of both
approaches)
Vehicles per hour on higher-volume minor-street
approach (one direction only)
Packet Page 2675
Cedar/Smith Signal Warrant and Fair Share Assessment
May 23, 2023
7 Table 2: Warrant 1 Assessment
Either Condition A or B Must be Satisfied
Start Time
Volumes
(Major/Minor)
70% Threshold
Conditions A
70% Threshold
Conditions B
VPH 420 / 105 630 / 53
7:00:00 AM (2022 Existing) 707 / 51 Y / N Y / N
8:00:00 AM (2022 Existing) 1,366 / 82 Y / N Y / Y
4:00:00 PM (2022 Existing) 935 / 56 Y / N Y / Y
5:00:00 PM (2022 Existing) 1,046 / 46 Y / N Y / N
7:00:00 AM (2040 Cumulative) 1,409 / 102 Y / N Y / Y
8:00:00 AM (2040 Cumulative) 2,722 / 163 Y / Y Y / Y
4:00:00 PM (2040 Cumulative) 2,122 / 127 Y / Y Y / Y
5:00:00 PM (2040 Cumulative) 2,374 / 104 Y / N Y / Y
Y- Threshold is Satisfied
N- Threshold is Not Satisfied
Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 2 is intended to be applied at intersections where the volume of intersection traffic is the principal reason to consider the installation of a traffic control signal. The warrant satisfied when the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major-street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only), for each of any four hours of an average day, all fall above either CA-MUTCD Figure 4C-1 or Figure 4C-2 (depending on applicability) for the combination of approach lanes.

If the posted speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the build-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-2 is used.

Given that the supposed 85th-percentile speed along Cedar Boulevard is above 40 mph, Figures 4C-2 is applicable in the evaluation of warrant. The four hours of turning movement counts, collected in 2022, were utilized in the assessment of the warrant, as illustrated in Figure 1. As illustrated, only one of the four hours analyzed under the existing conditions would be above the volume thresholds. As such, a Warrant 2 is not satisfied under existing conditions. This finding does not change when accounting for additional traffic generated by either the Robson or Waymark developments or both (as added project traffic would only add traffic to the major street).

In order to analyze 2040 Cumulative Conditions, the 2022 volumes were grown to 2040 by applying inherent growth factors. These factors were calculated based on the ratio between the 2022 and 2040 peak hour traffic volumes at the subject intersection from the Waymark TIS (1.99 for the a.m. hours and 2.27 for the p.m. hours). As illustrated in Figure 1, all four of the hours analyzed under the cumulative conditions would be above the volume thresholds. As such, a Warrant 2 is satisfied under Packet Page 2676
Cedar/Smith Signal Warrant and Fair Share Assessment
May 23, 2023
8 cumulative conditions. This finding does not change when accounting for additional traffic generated by either the Robson or Waymark developments or both (as added project traffic would only add traffic to the major street).

Figure 1: Warrant 2 Assessment
Warrant 3: Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 3 is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of one hour of an average day, the minor-street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. Per the CA-MUTCD, the warrant “shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time” The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if the criteria in either of the following two categories are met:

A. Warrant 3 is satisfied when, for the same one hour of an average day, the total delay on one minor-street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach or five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; the Packet Page 2677
Cedar/Smith Signal Warrant and Fair Share Assessment
May 23, 2023
9 volume on the same minor-street approach equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes; and the total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches; or B. Warrant 3 is satisfied when the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the majorstreet (both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only) for one hour of an average day falls above either CA-MUTCD Figure 4C-3 or Figure 4C-4 (depending on applicability) for the combination of approach lanes.

If the posted speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the build-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-4 is used.

Given that the supposed 85th-percentile speed along Cedar Boulevard is above 40 mph, Figure 4C-2 is applicable in the evaluation of warrant. The eight analysis scenarios were assessed as part of Warrant

3. Data for each scenarios was based on a combination of the Robson and Waymark TISs. • 2022 Existing
• 2022 Existing plus Robson
• 2022 Existing plus Waymark
• 2022 Existing plus Robson and Waymark
• 2040 Cumulative
• 2040 Cumulative plus Robson
• 2040 Cumulative plus Waymark
• 2040 Cumulative plus Robson and Waymark
The traffic volumes by scenario are illustrated in Table 3, and the assessment is illustrated in Figure 2.

As illustrated under 2022 existing conditions. The a.m. peak hour would exceed the volume thresholds on Figure 4C-2. This finding does not change when accounting for additional traffic generated by either the Robson or Waymark developments or both (as added project traffic would only add traffic to the major street). This trend is also consistent under 2040 cumulative conditions.

As noted previously, the CA-MUTCD stipulates that “[t]his signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time.” Given the location of the intersection and surrounding community, the intent of Warrant 3 (i.e., for “unusual cases”) does not appear to be satisfied. The applicability of Warrant 3 in this case is questioned.

Packet Page 2678
Cedar/Smith Signal Warrant and Fair Share Assessment
May 23, 2023
10 Table 3: Warrant 3 Assessment Volumes
Scenario Major Minor
2022 Existing (AM) 1,429 95
2022 Existing (PM) 1,048 53
2022 Existing plus Robson (AM) 1,452 95
2022 Existing plus Robson (PM) 1,076 53
2022 Existing plus Waymark (AM) 1,431 95
2022 Existing plus Waymark (PM) 1,051 53
2022 Existing plus Robson and Waymark (AM) 1,454 95
2022 Existing plus Robson and Waymark (PM) 1,079 53
2040 Cumulative (AM) 2,781 111
2040 Cumulative (PM) 2,345 59
2040 Cumulative plus Robson (AM) 2,804 111
2040 Cumulative plus Robson (PM) 2,373 59
2040 Cumulative plus Waymark (AM) 2,783 111
2040 Cumulative plus Waymark (PM) 2,348 59
2040 Cumulative plus Robson and Waymark (AM) 2,806 111
2040 Cumulative plus Robson and Waymark (PM) 2,376 59
Figure 2: Warrant 3 Assessment
Packet Page 2679
Cedar/Smith Signal Warrant and Fair Share Assessment
May 23, 2023
11 Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume
Warrant 4 is satisfied when the pedestrian volume crossing the major street at the study intersection meets either of the following criteria:

A. For each of any four hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) all fall above the curve in Figure 4C-5; or B. For one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day, the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) fall above the curve in Figure 4C-7.

If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 35 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-6 may be used in place of Figure 4C-5 to evaluate Criterion A and Figure 4C-8 may be used in place of Figure 4C-7 to evaluate Criterion B.

Warrant 4 shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal or STOP sign controlling the street that pedestrians desire to cross is less than 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.

The minimum thresholds for all four figures are illustrated in Table 4.

Table 4: Warrant 4 – Minimum Pedestrian Thresholds (CA-MUTCD Figures 4C-5 to 4C-8) Minimum Pedestrian Thresholds Condition A:

Four Hours (Pedestrians/Hour)
Condition B:

One Hour (Pedestrians/Hour)
Figures 4C-5 and Figure 4C-7 107 133
Figures 4C-6 and Figure 4C-8 75 93
Given that the supposed 85th-percentile speed along Cedar Boulevard is above 40 mph, Figures 4C-6 and FC-8 are applicable in the evaluation of warrant.

Based on the 2022 counts, only five pedestrians were observed crossing Cedar Boulevard during the four-hour count collection; thus, Warrant 4 is not satisfied under existing conditions. Further, with the inclusion of the Robson and Waymark developments, the amount of foot-traffic crossing Cedar Boulevard is not expected to substantially change to a point where Warrant 4 would be triggered.

Warrant 5: School Crossing
Warrant 5 is applicable where schoolchildren crossing the major street are the principal reason for a traffic control signal installation. A minimum of 20 schoolchildren (referring to students in elementary school through high school) are required to cross the road during the highest crossing hour to satisfy the warrant.

Packet Page 2680
Cedar/Smith Signal Warrant and Fair Share Assessment
May 23, 2023
12 The warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal along the major street is less than 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. Of further note, before a decision is made to install a traffic control signal, consideration shall be given to the implementation of other remedial measures, such as warning signs and flashers, school speed zones, school crossing guards, or a grade-separated crossing.

Based on the 2022 counts, only five pedestrians were observed crossing Cedar Boulevard during the four-hour count collection. TJKM could not verify if any of these pedestrians were schoolchildren, however to total amount being below the threshold to satisfy the Warrant 5. With the inclusion of the Robson and Waymark developments, the amount of foot-traffic crossing Cedar Boulevard may increase, but not by enough to meet the threshold where Warrant 5 would be triggered.

Warrant 7: Crash Experience
Warrant 7 is applicable where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider the installation of a traffic control signal. This warrant is valid when all the following criteria are met:

A. Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash frequency;
B. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a 12-month period. Each crash should involve personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash; and C. For each of any eight hours of an average day, the vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in the CA-MUTCD Table 4C-1, or the vehicles per hour in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in the CA-MUTCD Table 4C-1 exists on the majorstreet and the higher-volume minor-street approach, respectively, to the intersection, or the volume of the pedestrian traffic is not less than 80 percent of the requirements specified in Warrant 4. These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same eight hours.

On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the eight hours.

TJKM is not aware of any safety trial or enforcement campaigns occurring at the intersection.

With respect to crash history, TJKM requested the reported collision history for an 11-year period (January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2022) at the subject intersection from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database using the University of California at Berkeley’s (UC Berkeley) Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). Based on the TIMS network, it appears that only five major collisions have been reported at the subject intersection (all of these collisions did not occur within the same 12-month period and two reported collisions are not susceptible to correction with the installation of a signal [both involved parked vehicles]). Crash diagrams are provided in Appendix F.

Packet Page 2681
Cedar/Smith Signal Warrant and Fair Share Assessment
May 23, 2023
13 Due to Warrant 7 requiring that all three criteria be met, Warrant 7 is not satisfied under 2022 existing conditions.

Of note, this warrant was not assessed under 2040 conditions, given that it is supposed to be based on historical crashes.

FAIR SHARE EVALUATION
As noted in the signal warrant evaluation, a signal is warranted under 2040 future conditions (as per Warrant 2) and may be considered warranted under 2022 existing and 2040 future conditions (as per Warrant 3). In order to account for the contribution of traffic generated by both the Robson and Waymark developments, a fair share analysis was conducted for the subject intersection. “Fair Share” is defined as the percent contribution of project traffic to the growth from Existing Conditions to Cumulative plus Project Conditions.

The Robson development is expected to generate 23 a.m. and 28 p.m. new peak hour trips. The Waymark development is expected to generate 2 a.m. and 3 p.m. new peak hour trips. Table 4 shows the fair share for a.m. plus p.m. peak hour volumes at these eight intersections. As illustrated, the Robson fair share is anticipated at approximately 1.91%, whereas Waymark’s fair share is anticipated at 0.19%.

Currently, it is anticipated that the rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost to install a traffic signal at the subject intersection would be between $600,000 and $750,000. As such, the fair share contribution for both developments (assuming the higher end) would be approximately $15,000 and $2,000, respectively.

Table 4: Fair Share Analysis
Scenarios
Existing
Robson
Project
Trips
Waymark
Project
Trips
Cumulative
plus Project
Trips
Growth
Robson
Fair
Share
Waymark
Fair Share
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) =
(D - A)
(F) =
(B / E)
(G) =
(C / E)
AM Peak Hour 1,524 23 2 2,894 1,370 1.68% 0.15%
PM Peak Hour 1,101 28 3 2,407 1,306 2.14% 0.23%
Combined 2,625 51 5 5,301 2,676 1.91% 0.19%
Notes:
(A) Based on 2022 existing volumes from the Waymark TIS. (B) Based on the Robson TIS
(C) Based on the Waymark TIS.
(D) Based on the 2040 cumulative volumes from the Waymark TIS plus both the Robson and Waymark trip assignments.

Packet Page 2682
Cedar/Smith Signal Warrant and Fair Share Assessment
May 23, 2023
Appendix A – Hexagon Signal Warrant Assessment (2021)
Packet Page 2683
Memorandum
Date: September 24, 2021
To: Jayson Imai, City of Newark
From: Gary Black
Daniel Choi
Subject: Signal Warrant Analysis for the Intersection at Cedar Boulevard & Smith Avenue in Newark, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a signal warrant analysis to determine the need for a change in traffic control for the intersection of Cedar Boulevard & Smith Avenue in Newark, California. Vehicular traffic volumes were collected for 24-hours in September 2021 along each approach to the intersection. Peak-hour turning movement counts (7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00- 6:00 PM), which included pedestrian crossing movements, were also collected at the intersection.

Roadway volume counts and peak-hour turning movement counts can be found in Attachment A.

The intersection was evaluated for the following signal warrants found in the 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD):
• Warrant 1 – Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
• Warrant 2 – Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
• Warrant 3 – Peak Hour
• Warrant 4 – Pedestrian Volume
• Warrant 5 – School Crossing
• Warrant 7 – Crash Experience
For the signal warrant analysis, Cedar Boulevard was considered the major street, and Smith Avenue was considered the minor road. The MUTCD notes that the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not itself require the installation of a traffic signal. Therefore, the analysis presented in this memo is for informational purposes for City of Newark staff to determine whether a traffic signal should be installed at the intersection.

Warrant 1- Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
The Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume warrant (Warrant 1) consists of two parts: A) the minimum vehicular volume and B) the interruption of continuous traffic. The first part is intended for locations where a large volume of intersection traffic is the principal reason to consider the installation of a traffic signal. The second part is intended for locations where part A is not satisfied and where traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that minor street traffic suffers excessive delay or conflict entering the street.

The minimum volumes needed to meet Warrant 1 is shown on Table 4C-1 in the 2014 CAMUTCD (see below). The warrant should be applied to each of any 8 hours of an average day. Since a Packet Page 2684
Cedar and Smith Signal Warrant Analysis September 24, 2021 P a g e | 2
speed study determined that the 85th percentile speed along Cedar Boulevard exceeds 40 mph, 70% volumes are used for the analysis.

Warrant 1 would be met under the following conditions:
a) Part A is met under the 100% basic minimum hourly volume (70% when major-street approach exceeds 40 mph)
b) Part B is met under the 100% basic minimum hourly volume (70% when major-street approach exceeds 40 mph)
c) Parts A and B are met under the 80% basic minimum hourly volume (56% when majorstreet approach exceeds 40 mph) The vehicular volumes collected finds that Warrant 1 is not met during any 8 hours at the intersection. The signal warrant worksheet can be found in Attachment B.

Warrant 2- Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
The Four-Hour Vehicular Volume warrant (Warrant 2) is intended for locations where volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider the installation of a traffic signal. The hourly volume of the total of both major street approaches should be plotted against the minor street Packet Page 2685
Cedar and Smith Signal Warrant Analysis September 24, 2021 P a g e | 3
approach volume for any four hours of an average day. Since a speed study determined that the 85th percentile speed along Cedar Boulevard exceeds 40 mph, 70% volumes are used for the analysis.

For Warrant 2 to be met, the plotted point of any four hours of an average day should be above the “2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE” line of Figure 4C-2 in the 2014 CAMUTCD (see below).

Based on the plotted points of the roadway vehicular volumes collected, Warrant 2 is not met during any 4 hours at the intersection. The signal warrant worksheet can be found in Attachment B.

Warrant 3- Peak Hour
The Peak Hour signal warrant (Warrant 3) is intended for use at locations where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor street approach suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. Warrant 3 consists of two parts and would be met when either part meets the warrant conditions. The two parts are as follows:

Part A: All three conditions of Part A must be met:
1) The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor-street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: 4 vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and
2) The total volume on the same minor-street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic and 3) The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches
Part B: The plotted point of representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the minor street approach should be above the “2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE” line of Figure 4C-2 in the 2014 CAMUTCD (see below).

Packet Page 2686
Cedar and Smith Signal Warrant Analysis September 24, 2021 P a g e | 4
Since a speed study determined that the 85th percentile speed along Cedar Boulevard exceeds 40 mph, 70% volumes are used for the analysis.

Part B of Warrant 3 is met during the peak hour at the intersection. The signal warrant worksheet can be found in Attachement B. It should be noted that the analyses conducted for the 37478 Cedar Boulevard (Robson Homes development) project found that using factored volumes based on historical counts would meet the peak-hour warrant. Since the peak-hour warrant is met, the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection should be considered.

Warrant 4- Pedestrian Volume
The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant (Warrant 4) is intended for use at locations where traffic volumes on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street. Warrant 4 consists of two parts and would be met when both parts meet the warrant conditions. The two parts are as follows:

Part 1: Either condition in Part 1 must be met:
1) The plotted point of representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the minor street approach of any four hours in an average day should be above line on Figure 4C-6 in the 2014

CAMUTCD
2) The plotted point of representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the minor street approach of the peak hour in an average day should be above line on Figure 4C-8 in the 2014

CAMUTCD
Packet Page 2687
Cedar and Smith Signal Warrant Analysis September 24, 2021 P a g e | 5
The plotted points have a minimum pedestrian threshold of 75 and 93 pedestrians crossing the major streets, for the any four hours and peak hour, respectively.

Part 2: Either condition in Part 2 must be met:
1) The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater than 300 ft 2) The proposed traffic signal will not restrict progressive traffic flow along the major street.

Peak-hour turning movement counts found that no pedestrians crossed the major street during the peak hours. Since no pedestrians crossed the major street during the peak hours, it can be concluded that Warrant 4 is not met at the intersection. The proposed Robson Homes project could generate a small number of pedestrian trips at this intersection. The Birch Grove Park, Birch Grove Elementary School, and businesses along Cherry Street are located west of the intersection and would require any pedestrian trips to cross Cedar Boulevard. However, the addition of projectgenerated trips would not generate enough pedestrian trips to meet the minimum thresholds of Warrant 4.

Warrant 5- School Crossing
The School Crossing signal warrant (Warrant 5) is intended for application where the fact that schoolchildren cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. Consideration shall be given to other remedial measures such as warning signs, school speed zones, and school crossing guards before a traffic control signal should be considered.

As discussed above, turning movement counts found that no pedestrians crossed the major street during the peak hours. Therefore, it can be concluded Warrant 5 is not met at the intersection.

Warrant 7- Crash Experience
The Crash Experience signal warrant (Warrant 7) is intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic signal. Warrant 7 would be met when all of the following conditions are met:
a) Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash frequency and
b) Five or more reported crashes of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a 12-month period, each crash involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash and c) For each of any 8 hours of an average day, the vehicles per hour (vph) given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1, or the vph in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exists on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approach, respectively, to the intersection, or the volume of pedestrian traffic is not less than 80 percent of the requirements specified in the Pedestrian Volume warrant.

These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours.

Packet Page 2688
Cedar and Smith Signal Warrant Analysis September 24, 2021 P a g e | 6
The engineering and traffic study for Cedar Boulevard, between Central Avenue and Moores Avenue found that a total for four accidents occurred along the corridor between 2012 and 2016.

One of these accidents occurred at the Cedar Boulevard & Smith Avenue intersection. Recent data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) found that two accidents have occurred at the intersection in the last ten years.

Warrant 7 is not met because all three conditions of the warrant are not met for this intersection.

The signal warrant worksheet can be found in Attachment B.

Conclusions
The MUTCD provides signal warrants to provide guidance on when a traffic signal should be considered at an unsignalized intersection. Warrants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 were evaluated for the intersection of Cedar Boulevard and Smith Avenue. The analysis finds that only the peak-hour signal warrant (Warrant 3) is met based on roadway volume data. Warrants 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 are not met based on roadway volume data, peak-hour turning movement counts, and historical crash data.

Since the peak-hour warrant is met, the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection should be considered.

Packet Page 2689
Cedar and Smith Signal Warrant Analysis September 24, 2021 P a g e | 7
Cedar and Smith Signal Warrant Analysis
Attachments
Packet Page 2690
Attachment A
Roadway Counts
Packet Page 2691