Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 233 959 246 241 1251 199 314 942 129 282 761 196 Future Volume (vph) 233 959 246 241 1251 199 314 942 129 282 761 196 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 345 150 225 150 215 85 180 120
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1038 5274 701 1076
Travel Time (s) 14.2 71.9 10.6 16.3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 4
Detector Phase 52216638 744
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 23.0 37.8 37.8 25.2 40.0 40.0 18.6 31.0 26.0 38.4 38.4 Total Split (%) 19.2% 31.5% 31.5% 21.0% 33.3% 33.3% 15.5% 25.8% 21.7% 32.0% 32.0% Maximum Green (s) 18.5 33.3 33.3 20.7 35.5 35.5 14.1 26.5 21.5 33.9 33.9 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max None Max None Max Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 57 (48%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd.
7.1-37
7-712
_____ "i ttt .,, "i ttt .,, "i"i ttf+ __ "i tt
I
f01 1--211
•~•0■5 ••0
1 ~ 0 6 (R~
- - - -
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd. WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 233 959 246 241 1251 199 314 942 129 282 761 196 Future Volume (veh/h) 233 959 246 241 1251 199 314 942 129 282 761 196 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 233 959 246 241 1251 199 314 942 129 282 761 196 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 260 1559 482 269 1586 490 371 1002 137 308 1018 452 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.17 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1577 1781 5106 1577 3456 4538 619 1781 3554 1577 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 233 959 246 241 1251 199 314 706 365 282 761 196 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1577 1781 1702 1577 1728 1702 1754 1781 1777 1577 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.4 19.3 15.4 15.9 26.8 11.9 10.7 24.5 24.6 18.7 23.3 12.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.4 19.3 15.4 15.9 26.8 11.9 10.7 24.5 24.6 18.7 23.3 12.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.35 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 260 1559 482 269 1586 490 371 752 387 308 1018 452 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.62 0.51 0.90 0.79 0.41 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.75 0.43 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 275 1559 482 307 1586 490 406 752 387 319 1018 452 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 0.56 0.56 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.4 35.6 34.3 50.0 37.8 32.6 52.6 46.0 46.0 48.8 38.9 34.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 28.6 1.8 3.8 16.0 2.3 1.4 14.4 20.9 33.4 29.3 5.0 3.0 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 8.7 7.9 6.2 8.0 10.9 4.6 5.3 12.2 13.9 10.6 10.5 4.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 78.9 37.5 38.1 66.0 40.1 34.0 67.0 66.8 79.4 78.1 43.9 37.9 LnGrp LOS E D D E D C EEEEDD
Approach Vol, veh/h 1438 1691 1385 1239
Approach Delay, s/veh 44.3 43.1 70.2 50.7
Approach LOS D D E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.6 41.1 17.4 38.9 22.0 41.8 25.2 31.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.7 33.3 14.1 33.9 18.5 35.5 21.5 26.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.9 21.3 12.7 25.3 17.4 28.8 20.7 26.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 5.3 0.2 3.5 0.1 4.2 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 51.6
HCM 6th LOS D
7.1-38
7-713
_____ "i ttt .,, "i ttt .,, "i"i ttf+ "i tt
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 124 1014 165 157 1110 775 263 603 125 314 281 44 Future Volume (vph) 124 1014 165 157 1110 775 263 603 125 314 281 44 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 180 215 120 215 200 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 105 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 55 50 45
Link Distance (ft) 5274 1330 1673 1048
Travel Time (s) 71.9 16.5 22.8 15.9
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 8
Detector Phase 5 2 16638874
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 15.0 44.8 19.2 49.0 49.0 25.0 27.0 27.0 29.0 31.0 Total Split (%) 12.5% 37.3% 16.0% 40.8% 40.8% 20.8% 22.5% 22.5% 24.2% 25.8% Maximum Green (s) 10.5 40.3 14.7 44.5 44.5 20.5 22.5 22.5 24.5 26.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max None Max Max None Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd.
7.1-39
7-714
_____ "i ttf+ "i ttt .,, "i tt .,, "i f+
0 6 (R)
- - - -
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 124 1014 165 157 1110 775 263 603 125 314 281 44 Future Volume (veh/h) 124 1014 165 157 1110 775 263 603 125 314 281 44 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 124 1014 165 157 1110 775 263 603 125 314 281 44 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 149 1604 260 186 1955 607 289 683 304 341 349 55 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.36 0.36 0.03 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4426 719 1781 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 1579 247 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 124 779 400 157 1110 775 263 603 125 314 0 325 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1741 1781 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 0 1826 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.2 22.7 22.8 10.5 24.6 45.9 17.4 19.8 8.3 20.8 0.0 20.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.2 22.7 22.8 10.5 24.6 45.9 17.4 19.8 8.3 20.8 0.0 20.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 149 1233 631 186 1955 607 289 683 304 341 0 403 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.63 0.63 0.84 0.57 1.28 0.91 0.88 0.41 0.92 0.00 0.81 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 156 1233 631 218 1955 607 304 683 304 364 0 403 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.44 0.44 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.1 31.6 31.7 57.0 43.1 52.4 49.4 47.2 42.5 47.6 0.0 44.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.7 1.1 2.1 22.3 1.2 137.2 28.7 15.4 4.1 27.5 0.0 15.7 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 9.0 9.4 6.0 11.3 42.5 9.8 9.9 3.5 11.5 0.0 10.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.8 32.7 33.8 79.3 44.3 189.6 78.1 62.6 46.6 75.2 0.0 60.0 LnGrp LOS E C C E D F E E D E A E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1303 2042 991 639
Approach Delay, s/veh 36.5 102.1 64.7 67.5
Approach LOS D F E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.0 48.0 24.0 31.0 14.6 50.4 27.4 27.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.7 40.3 20.5 26.5 10.5 44.5 24.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.5 24.8 19.4 22.2 10.2 47.9 22.8 21.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 6.3 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 73.0
HCM 6th LOS E
7.1-40
7-715
_____ "i ttf+ "i ttt .,, "i tt .,, "i f+
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd. WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 124 1014 165 157 1110 775 263 603 125 314 281 44 Future Volume (vph) 124 1014 165 157 1110 775 263 603 125 314 281 44 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 180 215 120 215 200 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 105 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 55 50 45
Link Distance (ft) 5274 1330 1673 1048
Travel Time (s) 71.9 16.5 22.8 15.9
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 16738 74
Permitted Phases 6 8
Detector Phase 5 2 16738874
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 16.3 36.4 19.0 39.1 36.0 27.4 28.6 28.6 36.0 37.2 Total Split (%) 13.6% 30.3% 15.8% 32.6% 30.0% 22.8% 23.8% 23.8% 30.0% 31.0% Maximum Green (s) 11.8 31.9 14.5 34.6 31.5 22.9 24.1 24.1 31.5 32.7 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max None None Max Max None Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd.
7.1-41
7-716
0 6 (R)
- - - -
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd. WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 124 1014 165 157 1110 775 263 603 125 314 281 44 Future Volume (veh/h) 124 1014 165 157 1110 775 263 603 125 314 281 44 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 124 1014 165 157 1110 775 263 603 125 314 281 44 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 150 1375 223 184 1684 702 291 1147 512 392 430 67 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.36 0.36 0.16 0.32 0.32 0.11 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4426 719 1781 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 1579 247 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 124 779 400 157 1110 775 263 603 125 314 0 325 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1741 1781 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 0 1826 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.2 24.6 24.6 10.4 21.8 39.6 17.4 16.6 7.0 10.6 0.0 18.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.2 24.6 24.6 10.4 21.8 39.6 17.4 16.6 7.0 10.6 0.0 18.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 150 1058 541 184 1684 702 291 1147 512 392 0 498 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.74 0.74 0.85 0.66 1.10 0.90 0.53 0.24 0.80 0.00 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 175 1058 541 215 1684 702 340 1147 512 907 0 498 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.63 0.63 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.1 37.0 37.0 52.3 32.6 32.1 49.2 33.1 29.9 51.9 0.0 38.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.2 2.9 5.7 24.1 2.0 65.9 23.9 1.7 1.1 3.8 0.0 6.5 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 4.2 10.1 10.8 5.6 8.5 31.3 9.4 7.1 2.7 4.7 0.0 9.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 70.3 39.9 42.7 76.4 34.6 98.0 73.1 34.9 31.0 55.7 0.0 45.2 LnGrp LOS E D D E C F E C C E A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1303 2042 991 639
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.6 61.9 44.5 50.4
Approach LOS D E D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.9 41.8 24.1 37.2 14.6 44.1 18.1 43.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.5 31.9 22.9 32.7 11.8 34.6 31.5 24.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.4 26.6 19.4 20.9 10.2 41.6 12.6 18.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.0 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.2
HCM 6th LOS D
7.1-42
7-717
_____ "i ttf+ "i ttt .,, "i tt .,, "i"i f+
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 3: Da Vall Dr. & Dinah Shore Dr.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 107 904 166 84 1203 185 289 552 74 93 324 174 Future Volume (vph) 107 904 166 84 1203 185 289 552 74 93 324 174 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 175 215 185 0 125 125 135 135
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 918 366 1131 331
Travel Time (s) 20.9 8.3 15.4 4.5
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Detector Phase 52216 38874
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 14.0 53.7 53.7 16.8 56.5 27.0 32.1 32.1 17.4 22.5 Total Split (%) 11.7% 44.8% 44.8% 14.0% 47.1% 22.5% 26.8% 26.8% 14.5% 18.8% Maximum Green (s) 9.5 49.2 49.2 12.3 52.0 22.5 27.6 27.6 12.9 18.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max None Max Max None Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 117 (98%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 3: Da Vall Dr. & Dinah Shore Dr.
7.1-43
7-718
_____ "i tt .,, "i tf+
- - - -
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 3: Da Vall Dr. & Dinah Shore Dr.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 107 904 166 84 1203 185 289 552 74 93 324 174 Future Volume (veh/h) 107 904 166 84 1203 185 289 552 74 93 324 174 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 107 904 166 84 1203 185 289 552 74 93 324 174 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 131 1646 734 107 1388 212 315 929 414 117 338 177 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.46 0.46 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.18 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3089 473 1781 3554 1585 1781 2251 1183 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 107 904 166 84 689 699 289 552 74 93 254 244 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1785 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1657 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.1 22.0 7.5 5.6 41.9 42.5 19.1 16.3 4.3 6.2 17.0 17.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.1 22.0 7.5 5.6 41.9 42.5 19.1 16.3 4.3 6.2 17.0 17.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 131 1646 734 107 798 802 315 929 414 117 267 249 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.55 0.23 0.79 0.86 0.87 0.92 0.59 0.18 0.80 0.95 0.98 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 141 1646 734 183 798 802 334 929 414 191 267 249 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 54.8 23.2 19.3 55.7 29.8 29.9 48.5 38.7 34.3 55.3 50.6 50.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 27.9 1.3 0.7 12.1 12.0 12.5 28.2 2.8 0.9 11.5 44.5 52.3 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 9.4 2.8 2.9 20.1 20.6 10.6 7.2 1.7 3.1 10.6 10.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 82.7 24.5 20.0 67.7 41.7 42.4 76.7 41.5 35.3 66.8 95.0 103.1 LnGrp LOS F C C E D D E D D E F F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1177 1472 915 591
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.2 43.5 52.1 93.9
Approach LOS C D D F
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.7 60.1 25.7 22.5 13.4 58.4 12.4 35.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.3 49.2 22.5 18.0 9.5 52.0 12.9 27.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 24.0 21.1 19.6 9.1 44.5 8.2 18.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 7.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.1 2.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.5
HCM 6th LOS D
7.1-44
7-719
-----~ tt ~ --~ tt
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 4: Rattler Rd. & School Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 24 123 34 175 229 20
Future Volume (vph) 24 123 34 175 229 20
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 40
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 445 524 1443
Travel Time (s) 12.1 14.3 39.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.1-45
7-720
____ ¥
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour
4: Rattler Rd. & School Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 24 123 34 175 229 20
Future Vol, veh/h 24 123 34 175 229 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 50 50 50 50 50 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 48 246 68 350 458 40
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 964 478 498 0 - 0
Stage 1 478 -----
Stage 2 486 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 283 587 1066 - - -
Stage 1 624 -----
Stage 2 618 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 265 587 1066 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 395 -----
Stage 1 584 -----
Stage 2 618 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 19.1 1.4 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1066 - 544 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.064 - 0.54 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 - 19.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 3.2 - -
7.1-46
7-721
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 63 1506 1532 146 173 179
Future Volume (vph) 63 1506 1532 146 173 179
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 300 205 200 200
Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 110 60
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 40
Link Distance (ft) 647 2660 288
Travel Time (s) 8.0 33.0 4.9
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Shared Lane Traffic (%) 38%
Turn Type Prot NA NA pm+ov Prot Perm
Protected Phases 52644
Permitted Phases 6 4
Detector Phase 526444
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 9.5 37.5 28.0 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (%) 15.8% 62.5% 46.7% 37.5% 37.5% 37.5%
Maximum Green (s) 5.0 33.0 23.5 18.0 18.0 18.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 55555
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.
7.1-47
7-722
____ "'i"'i ttt ttt 'f' "'iV
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 63 1506 1532 146 173 179
Future Volume (veh/h) 63 1506 1532 146 173 179
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 63 1506 1532 146 231 117
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 187 2808 2149 1143 1069 476
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.55 0.14 0.14 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5274 5274 1585 3563 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 63 1506 1532 146 231 117
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1702 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 11.3 17.2 2.4 2.9 3.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 11.3 17.2 2.4 2.9 3.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 187 2808 2149 1143 1069 476
V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.54 0.71 0.13 0.22 0.25
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 288 2808 2149 1143 1069 476
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.79 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.3 8.6 22.4 4.0 15.7 15.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.7 1.6 0.2 0.5 1.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 2.7 7.7 1.5 1.1 3.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.4 9.4 24.0 4.1 16.2 17.1
LnGrp LOS C A C A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1569 1678 348
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.1 22.3 16.5
Approach LOS B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.5 22.5 7.8 29.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.0 18.0 5.0 23.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.3 5.3 3.1 19.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.6 0.9 0.0 3.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
7.1-48
7-723
_____ "'i"'i ttt ttt 'f' "'iV
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 6: Los Alamos Rd. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 1556 94 58 1597 95 115
Future Volume (vph) 1 1556 94 58 1597 95 115
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 200 200 255 125 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50
Link Distance (ft) 2660 3172 1424
Travel Time (s) 33.0 39.3 19.4
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8
Permitted Phases 2 8
Detector Phase 5221688
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 9.5 28.0 28.0 9.5 28.0 22.5 22.5
Total Split (%) 15.8% 46.7% 46.7% 15.8% 46.7% 37.5% 37.5% Maximum Green (s) 5.0 23.5 23.5 5.0 23.5 18.0 18.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max Max Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 6: Los Alamos Rd. & Ramon Rd.
7.1-49
7-724
_____ ll ttt 'f' "i ttt "i"i 'f'
]
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 6: Los Alamos Rd. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 1556 94 58 1597 95 115
Future Volume (veh/h) 1 1556 94 58 1597 95 115
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1556 94 58 1597 95 115
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 2162 671 92 2808 1037 476
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.55 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 3456 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1556 94 58 1597 95 115
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 1585 1781 1702 1728 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 17.5 3.1 1.9 12.3 1.2 3.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.5 3.1 1.9 12.3 1.2 3.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2162 671 92 2808 1037 476
V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.14 0.63 0.57 0.09 0.24
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2162 671 148 2808 1037 476
HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.86 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.4 16.2 27.9 8.8 15.1 15.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 0.4 6.9 0.8 0.2 1.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.9 0.9 0.9 2.9 0.4 1.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.2 16.6 34.8 9.7 15.3 17.1
LnGrp LOS C B C A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1650 1655 210
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.8 10.6 16.3
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 29.9 37.5 22.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 23.5 23.5 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 19.5 14.3 5.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.0 6.1 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
7.1-50
7-725
_____ ll ttt 'f' "i ttt "i"i 'f'
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 7: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 NB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 1036 1 190 1016 451 0 0 456 430 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 1036 1 190 1016 451 0 0 456 430 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 430 210 0 0 205
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 581 1228 688 840
Travel Time (s) 11.3 23.9 10.4 12.7
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 50%
Turn Type Split NA Free Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 8 5 2 6
Permitted Phases Free 6
Detector Phase 8 8 5 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 48.0 48.0 45.0 72.0 27.0 27.0
Total Split (%) 40.0% 40.0% 37.5% 60.0% 22.5% 22.5%
Maximum Green (s) 43.5 43.5 40.5 67.5 22.5 22.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 55
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 7: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 NB Ramps
7.1-51
7-726
_________ "i 4' .,, "i"i tt ttt .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 7: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 NB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 1036 1 190 1016 451 0 0 456 430 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 1036 1 190 1016 451 0 0 456 430 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1037 0 0 1016 451 0 0 456 430
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222220022
Cap, veh/h 1138 0 1075 2152 0 0 1313 408
Arrive On Green 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.52 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1585 3456 3647 0 0 5274 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1037 0 0 1016 451 0 0 456 430
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1728 1777 0 0 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 33.5 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 30.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 33.5 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 30.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1138 0 1075 2152 0 0 1313 408
V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.00 0.95 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.35 1.06
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1291 0 1166 2152 0 0 1313 408
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.66 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.2 0.0 0.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.4 44.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.1 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 59.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 15.8 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 18.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.3 0.0 0.0 38.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 37.1 104.4 LnGrp LOS D A D A A A D F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1037 1467 886
Approach Delay, s/veh 48.3 26.7 69.8
Approach LOS D C E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 77.2 41.8 35.4 42.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 67.5 40.5 22.5 43.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 35.3 32.9 35.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.0 2.0 0.0 2.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.6
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
7.1-52
7-727
.,, "'i"'i tt ttt
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 8: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 SB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 260 2 938 0000 1207 119 240 1252 0 Future Volume (vph) 260 2 938 0000 1207 119 240 1252 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 490 135 0 0 0 195 225 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 200 90 90 110
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1337 718 776 688
Travel Time (s) 26.0 14.0 11.8 10.4
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 10% 49% 10%
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2
Detector Phase 4 4 4 2216
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 10.0 35.0
Total Split (%) 41.7% 41.7% 41.7% 41.7% 41.7% 16.7% 58.3% Maximum Green (s) 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 5.5 30.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 8: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 SB Ramps
7.1-53
7-728
I \ .,
i '" El
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 8: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 SB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 260 2 938 0000 1207 119 240 1252 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 260 2 938 0000 1207 119 240 1252 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 174 0 1031 0 1207 119 240 1252 0
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 022220
Cap, veh/h 609 0 1083 0 1917 542 317 1806 0
Arrive On Green 0.34 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.12 0.68 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 3170 0 5611 1585 3456 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 174 0 1031 0 1207 119 240 1252 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 0 1870 1585 1728 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.3 0.0 19.0 0.0 10.8 3.2 4.0 12.9 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.3 0.0 19.0 0.0 10.8 3.2 4.0 12.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 609 0 1083 0 1917 542 317 1806 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.29 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.63 0.22 0.76 0.69 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 609 0 1083 0 1917 542 317 1806 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.69 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.4 0.0 19.3 0.0 16.6 14.1 25.7 6.9 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 17.0 0.0 1.6 0.9 7.1 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.0 8.6 0.0 4.1 1.1 1.8 2.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.7 0.0 36.3 0.0 18.1 15.0 32.8 8.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A D A B B C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1205 1326 1492
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.2 17.9 12.3
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 25.0 25.0 35.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.5 20.5 20.5 30.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 12.8 21.0 14.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.6 0.0 7.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
7.1-54
7-729
_____ "i 4+ .,, ----- ttf+ .,, "i"i tt
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 9: Bob Hope Dr. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 178 950 496 120 630 75 521 1073 490 135 1535 520 Future Volume (vph) 178 950 496 120 630 75 521 1073 490 135 1535 520 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 280 470 240 180 205 280 215 225
Storage Lanes 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 120 120 120
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 676 1191 1119 476
Travel Time (s) 8.4 14.8 17.0 7.2
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 523167
Permitted Phases Free 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 388523167
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 Total Split (s) 19.2 38.0 12.4 31.2 31.2 24.0 55.7 12.4 13.9 45.6 19.2 Total Split (%) 16.0% 31.7% 10.3% 26.0% 26.0% 20.0% 46.4% 10.3% 11.6% 38.0% 16.0% Maximum Green (s) 14.7 33.5 7.9 26.7 26.7 19.5 51.2 7.9 9.4 41.1 14.7 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None None C-Max None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 40.1 (33%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 9: Bob Hope Dr. & Ramon Rd.
7.1-55
7-730
0 6 (R) 08
- - - -
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 9: Bob Hope Dr. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 178 950 496 120 630 75 521 1073 490 135 1535 520 Future Volume (veh/h) 178 950 496 120 630 75 521 1073 490 135 1535 520 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 178 950 0 120 630 75 521 1073 490 135 1535 520 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 239 992 174 925 412 562 2376 817 191 1828 677 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.28 0.00 0.05 0.26 0.26 0.16 0.47 0.47 0.06 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 178 950 0 120 630 75 521 1073 490 135 1535 520 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.1 31.6 0.0 4.1 19.1 4.4 17.8 17.1 26.0 4.6 33.1 33.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 31.6 0.0 4.1 19.1 4.4 17.8 17.1 26.0 4.6 33.1 33.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 239 992 174 925 412 562 2376 817 191 1828 677 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.96 0.69 0.68 0.18 0.93 0.45 0.60 0.71 0.84 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 423 992 228 925 412 562 2376 817 271 1828 677 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.8 42.6 0.0 56.1 39.9 34.5 49.6 21.7 20.4 55.7 35.4 29.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.5 19.1 0.0 5.7 2.1 0.2 21.8 0.6 3.2 4.8 4.8 8.2 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 2.7 15.6 0.0 1.9 8.2 1.6 9.2 6.6 9.3 2.1 13.9 13.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 59.3 61.7 0.0 61.8 42.0 34.7 71.4 22.3 23.6 60.5 40.2 37.4 LnGrp LOS E E E D C E C C E D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1128 825 2084 2190
Approach Delay, s/veh 61.3 44.2 34.9 40.8
Approach LOS E D C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.1 60.3 10.5 38.0 24.0 47.5 12.8 35.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.4 51.2 7.9 33.5 19.5 41.1 14.7 26.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.6 28.0 6.1 33.6 19.8 35.6 8.1 21.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.3 1.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 43.0
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
7.1-56
7-731
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 14: Rattler Rd. & School Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 48 34 0 199 215 0
Future Volume (vph) 48 34 0 199 215 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 354 1443 236
Travel Time (s) 9.7 39.4 6.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.1-57
7-732
_____ "i .,, - t t
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour
14: Rattler Rd. & School Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 48 34 0 199 215 0
Future Vol, veh/h 48 34 0 199 215 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 51 51 51 51 51 51
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 94 67 0 390 422 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 812 422 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 422 -----
Stage 2 390 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 ----
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 ----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 348 632 0 - - 0
Stage 1 662 - 0 - - 0
Stage 2 684 - 0 - - 0
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 348 632 ----
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 466 -----
Stage 1 662 -----
Stage 2 684 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.3 0 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - 466 632 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.202 0.105 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - 14.7 11.4 -
HCM Lane LOS - B B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.7 0.4 -
7.1-58
7-733
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 15: Rattler Rd. & School Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 34 40 68 179 175 50
Future Volume (vph) 34 40 68 179 175 50
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 334 236 360
Travel Time (s) 9.1 6.4 9.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.1-59
7-734
____ ¥
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour
15: Rattler Rd. & School Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 34 40 68 179 175 50
Future Vol, veh/h 34 40 68 179 175 50
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 50 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 50 50 50 50 50 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 68 80 136 358 350 100
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1030 400 450 0 - 0
Stage 1 400 -----
Stage 2 630 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 259 650 1110 - - -
Stage 1 677 -----
Stage 2 531 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 227 650 1110 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 227 -----
Stage 1 594 -----
Stage 2 531 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 22.6 2.4 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1110 - 350 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.123 - 0.423 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 - 22.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - 2 - -
7.1-60
7-735
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
15284-03 TA Report.docx
APPENDIX 7.2: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND
QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
7-736
URBAN CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
15284-03 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
7-737
URBAN CROSSROADS
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 839 133 311 1022 225 Future Volume (vph) 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 839 133 311 1022 225 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 345 0 225 0 215 85 180 120
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1038 5274 701 1076
Travel Time (s) 14.2 71.9 10.6 16.3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 84
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 388744
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 19.0 32.0 23.0 36.0 15.8 36.0 36.0 29.0 49.2 49.2 Total Split (%) 15.8% 26.7% 19.2% 30.0% 13.2% 30.0% 30.0% 24.2% 41.0% 41.0% Maximum Green (s) 14.5 27.5 18.5 31.5 11.3 31.5 31.5 24.5 44.7 44.7 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 57 (48%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd.
7.2-1
7-738
----- ~ tt~
l - - - -
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 839 133 311 1022 225 Future Volume (veh/h) 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 839 133 311 1022 225 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 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 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 839 133 311 1022 225 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 197 1124 162 254 1272 179 295 953 423 338 1324 588 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.19 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4503 650 1781 4518 637 3456 3554 1576 1781 3554 1579 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 170 623 323 227 663 344 239 839 133 311 1022 225 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1749 1781 1702 1752 1728 1777 1576 1781 1777 1579 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.3 20.2 20.4 15.0 20.9 21.0 8.2 27.1 8.1 20.6 30.4 12.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.3 20.2 20.4 15.0 20.9 21.0 8.2 27.1 8.1 20.6 30.4 12.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 197 849 436 254 959 493 295 953 423 338 1324 588 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.73 0.74 0.89 0.69 0.70 0.81 0.88 0.31 0.92 0.77 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 215 849 436 275 959 493 325 953 423 364 1324 588 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 0.71 0.71 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.5 41.4 41.4 50.6 38.5 38.5 53.9 42.1 35.1 47.7 33.2 27.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 26.9 5.6 10.7 21.3 2.9 5.7 13.2 11.5 1.9 27.1 4.4 1.9 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 6.3 8.8 9.7 8.0 8.7 9.4 4.0 13.0 3.3 11.4 13.3 4.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 79.4 46.9 52.2 71.9 41.4 44.2 67.1 53.5 37.0 74.9 37.6 29.4 LnGrp LOS E D D E D D E D D E D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1116 1234 1211 1558
Approach Delay, s/veh 53.4 47.8 54.4 43.8
Approach LOS DDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.6 34.4 14.7 49.2 17.8 38.3 27.3 36.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 27.5 11.3 44.7 14.5 31.5 24.5 31.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.0 22.4 10.2 32.4 13.3 23.0 22.6 29.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.4 0.1 5.8 0.1 3.7 0.2 1.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.4
HCM 6th LOS D
7.2-2
7-739
----- ~ tt~ - ~~ tt .,, ~ tt
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd. WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 839 133 311 1022 225 Future Volume (vph) 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 839 133 311 1022 225 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 345 150 225 150 215 85 180 120
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1038 5274 701 1076
Travel Time (s) 14.2 71.9 10.6 16.3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 4
Detector Phase 52216638 744
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 19.0 32.0 32.0 23.0 36.0 36.0 15.8 36.0 29.0 49.2 49.2 Total Split (%) 15.8% 26.7% 26.7% 19.2% 30.0% 30.0% 13.2% 30.0% 24.2% 41.0% 41.0% Maximum Green (s) 14.5 27.5 27.5 18.5 31.5 31.5 11.3 31.5 24.5 44.7 44.7 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max None Max None Max Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 57 (48%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd.
7.2-3
7-740
_____ "i ttt .,, "i ttt .,, "i"i ttf+ __ "i tt
l - - - -
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd. WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 839 133 311 1022 225 Future Volume (veh/h) 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 839 133 311 1022 225 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 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 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 839 133 311 1022 225 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 197 1274 393 254 1438 444 295 1192 188 338 1324 588 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.19 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1576 1781 5106 1577 3456 4444 700 1781 3554 1579 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 642 330 311 1022 225 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1576 1781 1702 1577 1728 1702 1740 1781 1777 1579 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.3 17.4 7.4 15.0 18.0 7.4 8.2 20.4 20.6 20.6 30.4 12.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.3 17.4 7.4 15.0 18.0 7.4 8.2 20.4 20.6 20.6 30.4 12.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 197 1274 393 254 1438 444 295 913 467 338 1324 588 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.65 0.31 0.89 0.61 0.28 0.81 0.70 0.71 0.92 0.77 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 215 1274 393 275 1438 444 325 913 467 364 1324 588 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 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.5 40.3 36.6 50.6 37.4 33.6 53.9 39.6 39.7 47.7 33.2 27.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 26.9 2.6 2.0 23.5 1.6 1.3 13.2 4.5 8.8 27.1 4.4 1.9 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 6.3 7.3 3.0 8.1 7.4 2.9 4.0 8.8 9.6 11.4 13.3 4.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 79.4 42.9 38.6 74.1 39.0 34.9 67.1 44.1 48.4 74.9 37.6 29.4 LnGrp LOS E D D E D C E D D E D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1116 1234 1211 1558
Approach Delay, s/veh 48.0 45.1 49.8 43.8
Approach LOS DDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.6 34.4 14.7 49.2 17.8 38.3 27.3 36.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 27.5 11.3 44.7 14.5 31.5 24.5 31.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.0 19.4 10.2 32.4 13.3 20.0 22.6 22.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.4 0.1 5.8 0.1 4.5 0.2 3.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 46.5
HCM 6th LOS D
7.2-4
7-741
_____ "i ttt .,, "i ttt .,, "i"i ttf+ "i tt
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 49 1186 224 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 395 62 Future Volume (vph) 49 1186 224 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 395 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 180 215 120 215 200 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 105 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 55 50 45
Link Distance (ft) 5274 1330 1673 1048
Travel Time (s) 71.9 16.5 22.8 15.9
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 8
Detector Phase 5 2 16638874
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 13.2 36.5 25.0 48.3 48.3 14.6 22.5 22.5 36.0 43.9 Total Split (%) 11.0% 30.4% 20.8% 40.3% 40.3% 12.2% 18.8% 18.8% 30.0% 36.6% Maximum Green (s) 8.7 32.0 20.5 43.8 43.8 10.1 18.0 18.0 31.5 39.4 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max None Max Max None Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 120
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd.
7.2-5
7-742
I.-., _,
0 5 0 6 (R)
- - - -
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 49 1186 224 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 395 62 Future Volume (veh/h) 49 1186 224 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 395 62 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 49 1186 224 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 395 62 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 63 1150 217 304 2053 637 124 533 238 468 541 85 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.15 0.15 0.26 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4313 815 1781 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 1578 248 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 936 474 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 0 457 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1724 1781 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 0 1826 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 32.0 32.0 20.5 26.6 13.5 6.6 4.6 16.3 31.5 0.0 26.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 32.0 32.0 20.5 26.6 13.5 6.6 4.6 16.3 31.5 0.0 26.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.47 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 63 908 460 304 2053 637 124 533 238 468 0 626 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 1.03 1.03 1.07 0.63 0.35 0.81 0.29 0.92 1.10 0.00 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 129 908 460 304 2053 637 150 533 238 468 0 626 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.4 44.0 44.0 53.1 35.9 31.1 55.0 45.3 50.3 44.3 0.0 34.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.6 30.6 39.4 71.8 1.5 1.5 22.8 1.4 40.2 72.1 0.0 7.3 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 1.6 16.6 18.0 15.3 11.5 5.5 3.7 2.1 8.9 22.7 0.0 12.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.0 74.6 83.4 124.9 37.4 32.6 77.9 46.7 90.5 116.3 0.0 41.9 LnGrp LOS E F F F D C E D F F A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1459 1835 472 972
Approach Delay, s/veh 77.2 52.4 73.5 81.3
Approach LOS E D E F
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.0 36.5 12.9 45.6 8.8 52.7 36.0 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.5 32.0 10.1 39.4 8.7 43.8 31.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.5 34.0 8.6 28.3 5.3 28.6 33.5 18.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 68.1
HCM 6th LOS E
7.2-6
7-743
_____ "i ttf+ "i ttt .,, "i tt .,, "i f+
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd. WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 49 1186 224 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 395 62 Future Volume (vph) 49 1186 224 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 395 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 180 215 120 215 200 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 105 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 55 50 45
Link Distance (ft) 5274 1330 1673 1048
Travel Time (s) 71.9 16.5 22.8 15.9
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 16738 74
Permitted Phases 6 8
Detector Phase 5 2 16738874
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 13.4 42.0 29.0 57.6 26.4 13.0 22.6 22.6 26.4 36.0 Total Split (%) 11.2% 35.0% 24.2% 48.0% 22.0% 10.8% 18.8% 18.8% 22.0% 30.0% Maximum Green (s) 8.9 37.5 24.5 53.1 21.9 8.5 18.1 18.1 21.9 31.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max None None Max Max None Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd.
7.2-7
7-744
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd. WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 49 1186 224 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 395 62 Future Volume (veh/h) 49 1186 224 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 395 62 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 49 1186 224 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 395 62 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 63 1396 264 346 2464 1029 124 587 262 576 414 65 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.39 0.97 0.97 0.07 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4313 815 1781 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 1578 248 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 936 474 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 0 457 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1724 1781 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 0 1826 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 30.8 30.8 21.2 2.1 0.5 6.6 4.5 16.0 17.5 0.0 29.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 30.8 30.8 21.2 2.1 0.5 6.6 4.5 16.0 17.5 0.0 29.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.47 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 63 1102 558 346 2464 1029 124 587 262 576 0 479 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.52 0.21 0.81 0.26 0.83 0.89 0.00 0.95 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 132 1102 558 364 2464 1029 126 587 262 631 0 479 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.58 0.58 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.4 37.8 37.8 36.0 1.1 0.5 55.0 43.7 48.5 49.0 0.0 43.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.1 5.0 9.3 31.8 0.8 0.5 30.6 1.1 25.5 14.4 0.0 31.0 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 1.6 12.9 13.7 9.6 0.6 0.3 3.9 2.0 7.9 8.5 0.0 16.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.5 42.8 47.1 67.8 1.9 1.0 85.6 44.8 74.0 63.3 0.0 74.6 LnGrp LOS E D D E A A F D EEAE
Approach Vol, veh/h 1459 1835 472 972
Approach Delay, s/veh 45.1 13.5 66.9 68.6
Approach LOS D B E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.8 43.3 12.8 36.0 8.8 62.4 24.5 24.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.5 37.5 8.5 31.5 8.9 53.1 21.9 18.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 23.2 32.8 8.6 31.5 5.3 4.1 19.5 18.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.5 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.9
HCM 6th LOS D
7.2-8
7-745
_____ "i ttf+ "i ttt .,, "i tt .,, "i"i f+
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
3: Da Vall Dr. & Dinah Shore Dr.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 198 803 315 73 609 44 144 224 119 109 521 290 Future Volume (vph) 198 803 315 73 609 44 144 224 119 109 521 290 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 175 215 185 0 125 125 135 135
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 918 366 1131 331
Travel Time (s) 20.9 8.3 15.4 4.5
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Detector Phase 52216 38874
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 25.0 46.9 46.9 15.1 37.0 20.0 38.4 38.4 19.6 38.0 Total Split (%) 20.8% 39.1% 39.1% 12.6% 30.8% 16.7% 32.0% 32.0% 16.3% 31.7% Maximum Green (s) 20.5 42.4 42.4 10.6 32.5 15.5 33.9 33.9 15.1 33.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max None Max Max None Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 117 (98%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 75
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 3: Da Vall Dr. & Dinah Shore Dr.
7.2-9
7-746
_____ "i tt .,, "i tf+
- - - -
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 3: Da Vall Dr. & Dinah Shore Dr.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 198 803 315 73 609 44 144 224 119 109 521 290 Future Volume (veh/h) 198 803 315 73 609 44 144 224 119 109 521 290 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 198 803 315 73 609 44 144 224 119 109 521 290 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 227 1500 669 93 1166 84 172 1065 475 135 615 342 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.42 0.42 0.05 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3361 243 1781 3554 1585 1781 2204 1223 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 198 803 315 73 322 331 144 224 119 109 420 391 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1827 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1650 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.1 20.2 17.2 4.9 17.3 17.4 9.5 5.7 6.8 7.2 26.8 26.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.1 20.2 17.2 4.9 17.3 17.4 9.5 5.7 6.8 7.2 26.8 26.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 227 1500 669 93 616 634 172 1065 475 135 496 461 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.54 0.47 0.78 0.52 0.52 0.84 0.21 0.25 0.81 0.85 0.85 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 304 1500 669 157 616 634 230 1065 475 224 496 461 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 51.4 25.9 25.0 56.2 31.2 31.3 53.3 31.4 31.8 54.6 40.8 40.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.3 1.4 2.4 13.1 3.1 3.1 18.1 0.4 1.3 10.8 16.2 17.5 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 7.0 8.8 6.5 2.5 8.0 8.2 5.0 2.4 2.7 3.5 13.3 12.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 69.7 27.3 27.4 69.3 34.4 34.3 71.5 31.9 33.1 65.4 57.0 58.4 LnGrp LOS E C C E C C E C C E E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1316 726 487 920
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.7 37.9 43.9 58.6
Approach LOS C D D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.8 55.2 16.1 38.0 19.8 46.1 13.6 40.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.6 42.4 15.5 33.5 20.5 32.5 15.1 33.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.9 22.2 11.5 28.9 15.1 19.4 9.2 8.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.9 0.1 1.9 0.2 3.3 0.1 1.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.6
HCM 6th LOS D
7.2-10
7-747
-----~ tt ~ --~ tt
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
4: Rattler Rd. & School Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 18 297 336 262 302 55
Future Volume (vph) 18 297 336 262 302 55
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 40
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 445 524 1443
Travel Time (s) 12.1 14.3 39.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.2-11
7-748
____ ¥
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
4: Rattler Rd. & School Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 30.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 297 336 262 302 55
Future Vol, veh/h 18 297 336 262 302 55
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 62 62 62 62 62 62
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 29 479 542 423 487 89
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 2039 532 576 0 - 0
Stage 1 532 -----
Stage 2 1507 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 62 547 997 - - -
Stage 1 589 -----
Stage 2 202 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 28 547 997 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 118 -----
Stage 1 269 -----
Stage 2 202 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 109.3 7.2 0
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 997 - 453 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.544 - 1.122 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 12.8 - 109.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - F - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 3.4 - 17.7 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
7.2-12
7-749
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 298 1711 1215 331 292 380
Future Volume (vph) 298 1711 1215 331 292 380
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 300 205 200 200
Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 110 60
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 40
Link Distance (ft) 647 2660 288
Travel Time (s) 8.0 33.0 4.9
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Shared Lane Traffic (%) 44%
Turn Type Prot NA NA pm+ov Prot Perm
Protected Phases 52644
Permitted Phases 6 4
Detector Phase 526444
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 13.0 37.5 24.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (%) 21.7% 62.5% 40.8% 37.5% 37.5% 37.5%
Maximum Green (s) 8.5 33.0 20.0 18.0 18.0 18.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 55555
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.
7.2-13
7-750
____ "'i"'i ttt ttt 'f' "'iV
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 298 1711 1215 331 292 380
Future Volume (veh/h) 298 1711 1215 331 292 380
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 298 1711 1215 331 224 453
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 409 2808 1821 1041 534 951
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.55 0.12 0.12 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5274 5274 1585 1781 3170
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 298 1711 1215 331 224 453
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1702 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.0 13.6 13.7 6.3 6.0 7.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.0 13.6 13.7 6.3 6.0 7.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 409 2808 1821 1041 534 951
V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.61 0.67 0.32 0.42 0.48
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 490 2808 1821 1041 534 951
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.5 9.1 23.1 6.3 16.8 17.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.4 1.0 1.6 0.7 2.4 1.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 3.2 5.8 4.5 2.5 6.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.9 10.1 24.7 7.0 19.2 18.9
LnGrp LOS C B C A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 2009 1546 677
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.1 20.9 19.0
Approach LOS B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.5 22.5 11.6 25.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.0 18.0 8.5 20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.6 9.0 7.0 15.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 10.3 1.8 0.2 3.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
7.2-14
7-751
_____ "'i"'i ttt ttt 'f' "'iV
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
6: Los Alamos Rd. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 1885 107 114 1465 89 115
Future Volume (vph) 1 1885 107 114 1465 89 115
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 200 200 255 125 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50
Link Distance (ft) 2660 3172 1424
Travel Time (s) 33.0 39.3 19.4
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8
Permitted Phases 2 8
Detector Phase 5221688
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 9.5 28.0 28.0 9.5 28.0 22.5 22.5
Total Split (%) 15.8% 46.7% 46.7% 15.8% 46.7% 37.5% 37.5% Maximum Green (s) 5.0 23.5 23.5 5.0 23.5 18.0 18.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max Max Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 6: Los Alamos Rd. & Ramon Rd.
7.2-15
7-752
_____ ll ttt 'f' "i ttt "i"i 'f'
]
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 6: Los Alamos Rd. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 1885 107 114 1465 89 115
Future Volume (veh/h) 1 1885 107 114 1465 89 115
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1885 107 114 1465 89 115
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 2008 623 146 2808 1037 476
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.55 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 3456 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1885 107 114 1465 89 115
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 1585 1781 1702 1728 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 21.9 3.6 3.8 10.9 1.1 3.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 21.9 3.6 3.8 10.9 1.1 3.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2008 623 146 2808 1037 476
V/C Ratio(X) 0.94 0.17 0.78 0.52 0.09 0.24
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2008 623 148 2808 1037 476
HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.80 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.4 17.4 27.0 8.5 15.1 15.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.4 0.5 23.0 0.7 0.2 1.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.0 1.1 2.3 2.6 0.4 1.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.8 17.9 50.0 9.2 15.3 17.1
LnGrp LOS C B D A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1992 1579 204
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.0 12.2 16.3
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.4 28.1 37.5 22.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 23.5 23.5 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.8 23.9 12.9 5.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
7.2-16
7-753
_____ ll ttt 'f' "i ttt "i"i 'f'
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
7: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 NB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 910 1 380 718 560 0 0 320 270 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 910 1 380 718 560 0 0 320 270 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 430 210 0 0 205
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 581 1228 688 840
Travel Time (s) 11.3 23.9 10.4 12.7
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 50%
Turn Type Split NA Free Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 8 5 2 6
Permitted Phases Free 6
Detector Phase 8 8 5 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 22.5 22.5 15.0 37.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (%) 37.5% 37.5% 25.0% 62.5% 37.5% 37.5%
Maximum Green (s) 18.0 18.0 10.5 33.0 18.0 18.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 55
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 75
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 7: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 NB Ramps
7.2-17
7-754
_________ "i 4' .,, "i"i tt ttt .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 7: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 NB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 910 1 380 718 560 0 0 320 270 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 910 1 380 718 560 0 0 320 270 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 911 0 0 718 560 0 0 320 270
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222220022
Cap, veh/h 1025 0 605 1998 0 0 1595 495
Arrive On Green 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1585 3456 3647 0 0 5274 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 911 0 0 718 560 0 0 320 270
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1728 1777 0 0 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.7 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.8 8.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.7 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.8 8.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1025 0 605 1998 0 0 1595 495
V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.00 1.19 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.55
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1069 0 605 1998 0 0 1595 495
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.5 0.0 0.0 21.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 15.1 17.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.1 0.0 0.0 97.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.7 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 3.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.6 0.0 0.0 118.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 15.4 21.4 LnGrp LOS C A F AAABC
Approach Vol, veh/h 911 1278 590
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.6 67.3 18.1
Approach LOS C E B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 38.2 15.0 23.2 21.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.0 10.5 18.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.8 12.5 10.5 16.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.6 0.0 1.7 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
7.2-18
7-755
.,, "'i"'i tt ttt
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
8: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 SB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 415 1 1278 0000 8 6 3 1 0 0 1 3 0 1100 0 Future Volume (vph) 415 1 1278 0000 8 6 3 1 0 0 1 3 0 1100 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 490 135 0 0 0 195 225 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 200 90 90 110
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1337 718 776 688
Travel Time (s) 26.0 14.0 11.8 10.4
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 10% 49% 10%
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2
Detector Phase 4 4 4 2216
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 27.0 27.0 27.0 23.5 23.5 9.5 33.0
Total Split (%) 45.0% 45.0% 45.0% 39.2% 39.2% 15.8% 55.0% Maximum Green (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 19.0 19.0 5.0 28.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 75
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 8: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 SB Ramps
7.2-19
7-756
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 8: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 SB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 415 1 1278 0000 8 6 3 1 0 0 1 3 0 1100 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 415 1 1278 0000 8 6 3 1 0 0 1 3 0 1100 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 277 0 1427 0 863 100 130 1100 0
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 022220
Cap, veh/h 668 0 1189 0 1830 517 255 1688 0
Arrive On Green 0.38 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.15 0.95 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 3170 0 5611 1585 3456 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 277 0 1427 0 863 100 130 1100 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 0 1870 1585 1728 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.9 0.0 22.5 0.0 7.3 2.7 2.1 2.4 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.9 0.0 22.5 0.0 7.3 2.7 2.1 2.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 668 0 1189 0 1830 517 255 1688 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.47 0.19 0.51 0.65 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 668 0 1189 0 1830 517 288 1688 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.9 0.0 18.8 0.0 16.1 14.5 24.6 0.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 98.5 0.0 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 0.0 23.2 0.0 2.8 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.3 0.0 117.2 0.0 17.0 15.4 25.7 2.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A F A B B C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1704 963 1230
Approach Delay, s/veh 100.5 16.8 4.8
Approach LOS F B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 24.1 27.0 33.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 19.0 22.5 28.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 9.3 24.5 4.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.0 0.0 7.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.6
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
7.2-20
7-757
_____ "i 4+ .,, ----- ttf+ .,, "i"i tt
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
9: Bob Hope Dr. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 360 1040 438 150 515 40 252 563 250 210 1375 793 Future Volume (vph) 360 1040 438 150 515 40 252 563 250 210 1375 793 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 280 470 240 180 205 280 215 225
Storage Lanes 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 120 120 120
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 676 1191 1119 476
Travel Time (s) 8.4 14.8 17.0 7.2
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 523167
Permitted Phases Free 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 388523167
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 Total Split (s) 36.0 49.0 12.4 25.4 25.4 16.0 41.4 12.4 17.2 42.6 36.0 Total Split (%) 30.0% 40.8% 10.3% 21.2% 21.2% 13.3% 34.5% 10.3% 14.3% 35.5% 30.0% Maximum Green (s) 31.5 44.5 7.9 20.9 20.9 11.5 36.9 7.9 12.7 38.1 31.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None None C-Max None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 40.1 (33%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 9: Bob Hope Dr. & Ramon Rd.
7.2-21
7-758
07 - - - -
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 9: Bob Hope Dr. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 360 1040 438 150 515 40 252 563 250 210 1375 793 Future Volume (veh/h) 360 1040 438 150 515 40 252 563 250 210 1375 793 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 360 1040 0 150 515 40 252 563 250 210 1375 793 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 439 1170 205 929 414 307 1958 702 270 1902 792 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.33 0.00 0.06 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.38 0.38 0.08 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 360 1040 0 150 515 40 252 563 250 210 1375 793 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.2 33.3 0.0 5.1 15.0 2.3 8.6 9.2 12.5 7.2 27.7 44.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.2 33.3 0.0 5.1 15.0 2.3 8.6 9.2 12.5 7.2 27.7 44.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 439 1170 205 929 414 307 1958 702 270 1902 792 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.89 0.73 0.55 0.10 0.82 0.29 0.36 0.78 0.72 1.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 907 1318 228 929 414 331 1958 702 366 1902 792 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.0 38.2 0.0 55.5 38.3 33.6 53.7 25.6 22.1 54.3 32.3 30.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.8 7.2 0.0 10.4 0.7 0.1 14.2 0.4 1.4 7.3 2.4 32.3 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 5.3 14.6 0.0 2.4 6.3 0.9 4.2 3.6 4.6 3.3 11.3 27.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.9 45.3 0.0 65.9 39.0 33.7 67.9 26.0 23.5 61.6 34.8 62.3 LnGrp LOS D D E D C E C C E C F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1400 705 1065 2378
Approach Delay, s/veh 47.8 44.4 35.3 46.3
Approach LOS DDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.9 50.5 11.6 44.0 15.2 49.2 19.8 35.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.7 36.9 7.9 44.5 11.5 38.1 31.5 20.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.2 14.5 7.1 35.3 10.6 46.7 14.2 17.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 4.4 0.0 4.2 0.1 0.0 1.1 1.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
7.2-22
7-759
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
10: Rattler Rd. & Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 34 21 596 597 2
Future Volume (vph) 2 34 21 596 597 2
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 40
Link Speed (mph) 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 281 470 524
Travel Time (s) 6.4 8.0 8.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.2-23
7-760
____ ¥
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
10: Rattler Rd. & Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 34 21 596 597 2
Future Vol, veh/h 2 34 21 596 597 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 2 37 23 648 649 2
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1344 650 651 0 - 0
Stage 1 650 -----
Stage 2 694 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 167 469 935 - - -
Stage 1 520 -----
Stage 2 496 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 163 469 935 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 303 -----
Stage 1 507 -----
Stage 2 496 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.7 0.3 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 935 - 455 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 - 0.086 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - 13.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.3 - -
7.2-24
7-761
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
11: Rattler Rd. & Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 4 44 16 613 628 3
Future Volume (vph) 4 44 16 613 628 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 25 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 10
Link Speed (mph) 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 281 82 470
Travel Time (s) 6.4 1.4 8.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.2-25
7-762
____ ¥
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
11: Rattler Rd. & Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 44 16 613 628 3
Future Vol, veh/h 4 44 16 613 628 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 25 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 4 48 17 666 683 3
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1385 685 686 0 - 0
Stage 1 685 -----
Stage 2 700 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 158 448 908 - - -
Stage 1 500 -----
Stage 2 493 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 155 448 908 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 295 -----
Stage 1 491 -----
Stage 2 493 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14.6 0.2 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 908 - 429 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 - 0.122 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9 - 14.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.4 - -
7.2-26
7-763
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
12: Ramon Rd. & Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 2009 1562 33 0 29
Future Volume (vph) 0 2009 1562 33 0 29
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 30
Link Distance (ft) 650 647 292
Travel Time (s) 8.1 8.0 6.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.2-27
7-764
ttt ttf+
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
12: Ramon Rd. & Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 2009 1562 33 0 29
Future Vol, veh/h 0 2009 1562 33 0 29
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - ---- 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 2184 1698 36 0 32
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 - 0 - 867
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Critical Hdwy - ---- 7.14
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -----
Follow-up Hdwy - ---- 3.92
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - - 0 254
Stage 1 0 - - - 0 -
Stage 2 0 - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - ---- 2 5 4
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -----
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 21.2
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 254
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.124
HCM Control Delay (s) - - - 21.2
HCM Lane LOS - - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0.4
7.2-28
7-765
ttt tt~
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
13: Ramon Rd. & Access 4
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 26 2009 1588 3 0 18
Future Volume (vph) 26 2009 1588 3 0 18
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 150 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 60 90
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 30
Link Distance (ft) 1330 650 268
Travel Time (s) 16.5 8.1 6.1
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.2-29
7-766
______ "i ttt ttf+
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
13: Ramon Rd. & Access 4
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 26 2009 1588 3 0 18
Future Vol, veh/h 26 2009 1588 3 0 18
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 150 ---- 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 28 2184 1726 3 0 20
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1729 0 - 0 - 865
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Critical Hdwy 5.34 ---- 7.14
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 ---- 3.92
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 171 - - - 0 255
Stage 1 - - - - 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 171 ---- 2 5 5
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -----
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0 20.3
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 171 - - - 255
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.165 - - - 0.077
HCM Control Delay (s) 30.2 - - - 20.3
HCM Lane LOS D - - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - - - 0.2
7.2-30
7-767
"'i ttt tt~
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
14: Rattler Rd. & School Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 109 149 0 280 208 0
Future Volume (vph) 109 149 0 280 208 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 354 1443 236
Travel Time (s) 9.7 39.4 6.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.2-31
7-768
_____ "i .,, - t t
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
14: Rattler Rd. & School Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 109 149 0 280 208 0
Future Vol, veh/h 109 149 0 280 208 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 60 60 60 60 60 60
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 182 248 0 467 347 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 814 347 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 347 -----
Stage 2 467 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 ----
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 ----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 347 696 0 - - 0
Stage 1 716 - 0 - - 0
Stage 2 631 - 0 - - 0
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 347 696 ----
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 463 -----
Stage 1 716 -----
Stage 2 631 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 15 0 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - 463 696 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.392 0.357 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - 17.7 13 -
HCM Lane LOS - C B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 1.8 1.6 -
7.2-32
7-769
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
15: Rattler Rd. & School Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 33 70 176 213 138 351
Future Volume (vph) 33 70 176 213 138 351
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 334 236 360
Travel Time (s) 9.1 6.4 9.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.2-33
7-770
____ ¥
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
15: Rattler Rd. & School Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 19.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 33 70 176 213 138 351
Future Vol, veh/h 33 70 176 213 138 351
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 50 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 55 55 55 55 55 55
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 60 127 320 387 251 638
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1597 570 889 0 - 0
Stage 1 570 -----
Stage 2 1027 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 117 521 762 - - -
Stage 1 566 -----
Stage 2 345 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 68 521 762 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 68 -----
Stage 1 328 -----
Stage 2 345 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 164.3 5.9 0
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 762 - 166 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.42 - 1.128 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 13.1 - 164.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - F - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.1 - 9.8 - -
7.2-34
7-771
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
4: Rattler Rd. & School Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 133 95 310 387 20
Future Volume (vph) 10 133 95 310 387 20
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 40
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 445 524 1443
Travel Time (s) 12.1 14.3 39.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.2-35
7-772
____ ¥
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
4: Rattler Rd. & School Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 133 95 310 387 20
Future Vol, veh/h 10 133 95 310 387 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 50 50 50 50 50 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 20 266 190 620 774 40
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1794 794 814 0 - 0
Stage 1 794 -----
Stage 2 1000 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 89 388 813 - - -
Stage 1 445 -----
Stage 2 356 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 68 388 813 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 190 -----
Stage 1 341 -----
Stage 2 356 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 43.6 2.5 0
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 813 - 362 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.234 - 0.79 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.8 - 43.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - E - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 - 6.6 - -
7.2-36
7-773
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 246 1590 1840 243 338 311
Future Volume (vph) 246 1590 1840 243 338 311
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 300 205 200 200
Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 110 60
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 40
Link Distance (ft) 647 2660 288
Travel Time (s) 8.0 33.0 4.9
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Shared Lane Traffic (%) 34%
Turn Type Prot NA NA pm+ov Prot Perm
Protected Phases 52644
Permitted Phases 6 4
Detector Phase 526444
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 9.8 37.5 27.7 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (%) 16.3% 62.5% 46.2% 37.5% 37.5% 37.5%
Maximum Green (s) 5.3 33.0 23.2 18.0 18.0 18.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 55555
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.
7.2-37
7-774
____ "'i"'i ttt ttt 'f' "'iV
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 246 1590 1840 243 338 311
Future Volume (veh/h) 246 1590 1840 243 338 311
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 246 1590 1840 243 426 216
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 305 2808 1974 1088 1069 476
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.73 0.13 0.13 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5274 5274 1585 3563 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 246 1590 1840 243 426 216
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1702 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.2 8.6 21.4 4.3 5.7 6.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.2 8.6 21.4 4.3 5.7 6.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 305 2808 1974 1088 1069 476
V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.57 0.93 0.22 0.40 0.45
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 305 2808 1974 1088 1069 476
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.33 1.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.0 4.8 25.4 5.2 16.7 17.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.6 0.8 9.5 0.5 1.1 3.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 1.6 10.9 2.9 2.2 6.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.6 5.6 34.9 5.6 17.8 20.1
LnGrp LOS D A C A B C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1836 2083 642
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.3 31.5 18.6
Approach LOS B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.5 22.5 9.8 27.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.0 18.0 5.3 23.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.6 8.6 6.2 23.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 11.0 1.7 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
7.2-38
7-775
_____ "'i"'i ttt ttt 'f' "'iV
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
10: Rattler Rd. & Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 4 58 54 401 517 4
Future Volume (vph) 4 58 54 401 517 4
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 40
Link Speed (mph) 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 281 470 524
Travel Time (s) 6.4 8.0 8.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.2-39
7-776
____ ¥
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
10: Rattler Rd. & Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 58 54 401 517 4
Future Vol, veh/h 4 58 54 401 517 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 4 63 59 436 562 4
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1118 564 566 0 - 0
Stage 1 564 -----
Stage 2 554 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 229 525 1006 - - -
Stage 1 569 -----
Stage 2 575 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 215 525 1006 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 351 -----
Stage 1 535 -----
Stage 2 575 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.1 1 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1006 - 509 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.058 - 0.132 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.8 - 13.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.5 - -
7.2-40
7-777
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
11: Rattler Rd. & Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 6 82 40 449 567 7
Future Volume (vph) 6 82 40 449 567 7
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 25 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 10
Link Speed (mph) 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 281 82 470
Travel Time (s) 6.4 1.4 8.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.2-41
7-778
____ ¥
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
11: Rattler Rd. & Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 82 40 449 567 7
Future Vol, veh/h 6 82 40 449 567 7
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 25 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 7 89 43 488 616 8
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1194 620 624 0 - 0
Stage 1 620 -----
Stage 2 574 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 206 488 957 - - -
Stage 1 536 -----
Stage 2 563 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 197 488 957 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 334 -----
Stage 1 512 -----
Stage 2 563 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14.5 0.7 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 957 - 473 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.045 - 0.202 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - 14.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.7 - -
7.2-42
7-779
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
14: Rattler Rd. & School Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 94 113 0 321 294 0
Future Volume (vph) 94 113 0 321 294 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 354 1443 236
Travel Time (s) 9.7 39.4 6.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.2-43
7-780
_____ "i .,, - t t
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
14: Rattler Rd. & School Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 94 113 0 321 294 0
Future Vol, veh/h 94 113 0 321 294 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 50 50 50 50 50 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 188 226 0 642 588 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1230 588 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 588 -----
Stage 2 642 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 ----
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 ----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 196 509 0 - - 0
Stage 1 555 - 0 - - 0
Stage 2 524 - 0 - - 0
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 196 509 ----
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 335 -----
Stage 1 555 -----
Stage 2 524 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 22.6 0 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - 335 509 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.561 0.444 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - 28.6 17.6 -
HCM Lane LOS - D C -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 3.3 2.3 -
7.2-44
7-781
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
15: Rattler Rd. & School Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 63 56 129 285 238 145
Future Volume (vph) 63 56 129 285 238 145
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 334 236 360
Travel Time (s) 9.1 6.4 9.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.2-45
7-782
____ ¥
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
15: Rattler Rd. & School Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 73.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 63 56 129 285 238 145
Future Vol, veh/h 63 56 129 285 238 145
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 50 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 50 50 50 50 50 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 126 112 258 570 476 290
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1707 621 766 0 - 0
Stage 1 621 -----
Stage 2 1086 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 100 487 847 - - -
Stage 1 536 -----
Stage 2 324 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 70 487 847 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 70 -----
Stage 1 373 -----
Stage 2 324 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s$ 555.4 3.5 0
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 847 - 117 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.305 - 2.034 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.1 -$ 555.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - F - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.3 - 19.7 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
7.2-46
7-783
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 942 153 294 761 196 Future Volume (vph) 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 942 153 294 761 196 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 345 0 225 0 215 85 180 120
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1038 5274 701 1076
Travel Time (s) 14.2 71.9 10.6 16.3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 84
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 388744
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 20.8 35.9 23.4 38.5 18.8 36.0 36.0 24.7 41.9 41.9 Total Split (%) 17.3% 29.9% 19.5% 32.1% 15.7% 30.0% 30.0% 20.6% 34.9% 34.9% Maximum Green (s) 16.3 31.4 18.9 34.0 14.3 31.5 31.5 20.2 37.4 37.4 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 57 (48%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 110
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd.
7.2-47
7-784
----- ~ tt~
~ -4 IIIIIIIIIIIC=:JJ
7 ,.. J
- - - -
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 942 153 294 761 196 Future Volume (veh/h) 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 942 153 294 761 196 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 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 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 942 153 294 761 196 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 242 1065 266 281 1251 205 371 933 414 300 1149 510 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.26 0.26 0.16 0.28 0.28 0.11 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4069 1016 1781 4414 725 3456 3554 1576 1781 3554 1578 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 233 822 407 262 981 500 314 942 153 294 761 196 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1681 1781 1702 1735 1728 1777 1576 1781 1777 1578 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.6 28.2 28.3 17.4 34.0 34.0 10.7 31.5 9.5 19.7 22.1 11.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.6 28.2 28.3 17.4 34.0 34.0 10.7 31.5 9.5 19.7 22.1 11.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.60 1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 242 891 440 281 964 492 371 933 414 300 1149 510 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.92 0.93 0.93 1.02 1.02 0.85 1.01 0.37 0.98 0.66 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 242 891 440 281 964 492 412 933 414 300 1149 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 0.69 0.69 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.5 43.1 43.2 49.9 43.0 43.0 52.6 44.3 36.1 49.7 34.9 31.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 47.4 16.4 27.8 28.6 28.4 38.1 13.9 31.9 2.5 46.5 3.0 2.2 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 9.9 13.3 14.6 9.7 17.3 19.0 5.2 17.4 3.9 12.4 9.7 4.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 98.9 59.5 70.9 78.5 71.4 81.1 66.5 76.2 38.7 96.2 38.0 33.5 LnGrp LOS F E E E F F E F D F D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1462 1743 1409 1251
Approach Delay, s/veh 69.0 75.3 69.9 50.9
Approach LOS E E E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.4 35.9 17.4 43.3 20.8 38.5 24.7 36.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.9 31.4 14.3 37.4 16.3 34.0 20.2 31.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.4 30.3 12.7 24.1 17.6 36.0 21.7 33.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.2 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 67.2
HCM 6th LOS E
7.2-48
7-785
----- ~ tt~ - ~~ tt .,, ~ tt
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd. WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 942 153 294 761 196 Future Volume (vph) 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 942 153 294 761 196 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 345 150 225 150 215 85 180 120
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1038 5274 701 1076
Travel Time (s) 14.2 71.9 10.6 16.3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 4
Detector Phase 52216638 744
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 20.8 35.9 35.9 23.4 38.5 38.5 18.8 36.0 24.7 41.9 41.9 Total Split (%) 17.3% 29.9% 29.9% 19.5% 32.1% 32.1% 15.7% 30.0% 20.6% 34.9% 34.9% Maximum Green (s) 16.3 31.4 31.4 18.9 34.0 34.0 14.3 31.5 20.2 37.4 37.4 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max None Max None Max Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 57 (48%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd.
7.2-49
7-786
_____ "i ttt .,, "i ttt .,, "i"i ttf+ __ "i tt
~ -4 IIIIIIIIIIIC=:JJ
7 t.. J - - - -
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd. WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 942 153 294 761 196 Future Volume (veh/h) 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 942 153 294 761 196 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 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 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 942 153 294 761 196 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 242 1336 412 281 1447 447 371 1161 188 300 1149 510 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.26 0.26 0.16 0.28 0.28 0.11 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1576 1781 5106 1577 3456 4424 716 1781 3554 1578 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 724 371 294 761 196 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1576 1781 1702 1577 1728 1702 1737 1781 1777 1578 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.6 21.1 16.4 17.4 28.5 13.1 10.7 23.9 24.0 19.7 22.1 11.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.6 21.1 16.4 17.4 28.5 13.1 10.7 23.9 24.0 19.7 22.1 11.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.41 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 242 1336 412 281 1447 447 371 894 456 300 1149 510 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.74 0.60 0.93 0.88 0.47 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.98 0.66 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 242 1336 412 281 1447 447 412 894 456 300 1149 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 0.63 0.63 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.5 40.5 38.8 49.9 41.0 35.5 52.6 41.5 41.5 49.7 34.9 31.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 47.4 3.6 6.2 26.9 5.2 2.2 13.9 7.9 14.7 46.5 3.0 2.2 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 9.9 8.9 6.9 9.6 12.1 5.2 5.2 10.6 11.8 12.4 9.7 4.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 98.9 44.1 45.0 76.8 46.2 37.7 66.5 49.3 56.2 96.2 38.0 33.5 LnGrp LOS F D D E D D E D E F D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1462 1743 1409 1251
Approach Delay, s/veh 53.0 49.8 55.0 50.9
Approach LOS DDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.4 35.9 17.4 43.3 20.8 38.5 24.7 36.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.9 31.4 14.3 37.4 16.3 34.0 20.2 31.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.4 23.1 12.7 24.1 17.6 30.5 21.7 26.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.3 0.2 4.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 3.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.1
HCM 6th LOS D
7.2-50
7-787
_____ "i ttt .,, "i ttt .,, "i"i ttf+ "i tt
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 124 1073 165 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 281 44 Future Volume (vph) 124 1073 165 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 281 44 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 180 215 120 215 200 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 105 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 55 50 45
Link Distance (ft) 5274 1330 1673 1048
Travel Time (s) 71.9 16.5 22.8 15.9
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 8
Detector Phase 5 2 16638874
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 15.0 42.6 21.4 49.0 49.0 25.0 27.0 27.0 29.0 31.0 Total Split (%) 12.5% 35.5% 17.8% 40.8% 40.8% 20.8% 22.5% 22.5% 24.2% 25.8% Maximum Green (s) 10.5 38.1 16.9 44.5 44.5 20.5 22.5 22.5 24.5 26.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max None Max Max None Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd.
7.2-51
7-788
- - - -
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 124 1073 165 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 281 44 Future Volume (veh/h) 124 1073 165 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 281 44 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 124 1073 165 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 281 44 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 149 1517 233 224 1947 604 289 666 297 352 351 55 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.34 0.34 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4465 686 1781 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 1579 247 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 124 818 420 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 0 325 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1747 1781 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 0 1826 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.2 25.1 25.1 13.0 25.8 45.8 17.4 19.9 10.9 21.6 0.0 20.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.2 25.1 25.1 13.0 25.8 45.8 17.4 19.9 10.9 21.6 0.0 20.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 149 1156 593 224 1947 604 289 666 297 352 0 406 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.71 0.71 0.87 0.60 1.30 0.91 0.90 0.54 0.93 0.00 0.80 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 156 1156 593 251 1947 604 304 666 297 364 0 406 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.35 0.35 0.35 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.1 34.4 34.5 56.5 43.7 52.5 49.4 47.7 44.1 47.3 0.0 44.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.1 1.3 2.5 24.2 1.4 147.1 28.7 18.1 6.8 29.0 0.0 15.2 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 4.1 10.0 10.5 7.6 11.9 44.0 9.8 10.1 4.7 12.1 0.0 10.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.2 35.7 37.0 80.7 45.1 199.6 78.1 65.8 50.9 76.3 0.0 59.3 LnGrp LOS E D D F D F E E D E A E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1362 2142 1026 651
Approach Delay, s/veh 38.9 105.0 66.6 67.9
Approach LOS D F E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.6 45.3 24.0 31.2 14.6 50.3 28.2 27.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.9 38.1 20.5 26.5 10.5 44.5 24.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.0 27.1 19.4 22.2 10.2 47.8 23.6 21.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.4 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 75.4
HCM 6th LOS E
7.2-52
7-789
_____ "i ttf+ "i ttt .,, "i tt .,, "i f+
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd. WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 124 1073 165 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 281 44 Future Volume (vph) 124 1073 165 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 281 44 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 180 215 120 215 200 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 105 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 55 50 45
Link Distance (ft) 5274 1330 1673 1048
Travel Time (s) 71.9 16.5 22.8 15.9
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 16738 74
Permitted Phases 6 8
Detector Phase 5 2 16738874
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 16.2 40.0 20.0 43.8 33.0 27.4 27.0 27.0 33.0 32.6 Total Split (%) 13.5% 33.3% 16.7% 36.5% 27.5% 22.8% 22.5% 22.5% 27.5% 27.2% Maximum Green (s) 11.7 35.5 15.5 39.3 28.5 22.9 22.5 22.5 28.5 28.1 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max None None Max Max None Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd.
7.2-53
7-790
_____ "i ttf+ "i ttt .,, "i tt .,, "i"i f+
0 6 (R)
- - - -
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd. WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 124 1073 165 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 281 44 Future Volume (veh/h) 124 1073 165 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 281 44 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 124 1073 165 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 281 44 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 150 1461 224 223 1880 768 291 999 446 403 370 58 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.28 0.28 0.12 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4465 686 1781 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 1579 247 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 124 818 420 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 0 325 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1747 1781 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 0 1826 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.2 25.5 25.6 13.0 25.9 44.2 17.4 17.6 9.7 11.0 0.0 19.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.2 25.5 25.6 13.0 25.9 44.2 17.4 17.6 9.7 11.0 0.0 19.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 150 1114 572 223 1880 768 291 999 446 403 0 428 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.73 0.74 0.87 0.62 1.02 0.90 0.60 0.36 0.81 0.00 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 174 1114 572 230 1880 768 340 999 446 821 0 428 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.1 35.7 35.8 56.6 44.7 40.3 49.2 37.3 34.5 51.7 0.0 42.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.5 2.2 4.2 27.9 1.5 38.4 23.9 2.7 2.2 3.9 0.0 12.0 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 4.1 10.4 11.0 7.8 12.0 28.9 9.4 7.7 3.9 4.9 0.0 10.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.6 37.9 40.0 84.4 46.2 78.7 73.1 40.0 36.7 55.6 0.0 54.8 LnGrp LOS E D D F D F E D D E A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1362 2142 1026 651
Approach Delay, s/veh 41.3 61.6 48.0 55.2
Approach LOS D E D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.5 43.8 24.1 32.6 14.6 48.7 18.5 38.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.5 35.5 22.9 28.1 11.7 39.3 28.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.0 27.6 19.4 21.9 10.2 46.2 13.0 19.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.3 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.8
HCM 6th LOS D
7.2-54
7-791
_____ "i ttf+ "i ttt .,, "i tt .,, "i"i f+
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
3: Da Vall Dr. & Dinah Shore Dr.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 119 904 166 84 1203 185 289 576 74 93 345 184 Future Volume (vph) 119 904 166 84 1203 185 289 576 74 93 345 184 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 175 215 185 0 125 125 135 135
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 918 366 1131 331
Travel Time (s) 20.9 8.3 15.4 4.5
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Detector Phase 52216 38874
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 14.0 54.2 54.2 16.8 57.0 26.0 34.6 34.6 14.4 23.0 Total Split (%) 11.7% 45.2% 45.2% 14.0% 47.5% 21.7% 28.8% 28.8% 12.0% 19.2% Maximum Green (s) 9.5 49.7 49.7 12.3 52.5 21.5 30.1 30.1 9.9 18.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max None Max Max None Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 117 (98%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 3: Da Vall Dr. & Dinah Shore Dr.
7.2-55
7-792
_____ "i tt .,, "i tf+
- - - -
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 3: Da Vall Dr. & Dinah Shore Dr.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 119 904 166 84 1203 185 289 576 74 93 345 184 Future Volume (veh/h) 119 904 166 84 1203 185 289 576 74 93 345 184 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 119 904 166 84 1203 185 289 576 74 93 345 184 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 141 1633 728 107 1360 208 314 943 421 116 348 182 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.46 0.46 0.06 0.44 0.44 0.18 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3089 473 1781 3554 1585 1781 2255 1180 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 119 904 166 84 689 699 289 576 74 93 270 259 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1785 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1658 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.9 22.1 7.6 5.6 42.6 43.2 19.1 17.1 4.3 6.2 18.2 18.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.9 22.1 7.6 5.6 42.6 43.2 19.1 17.1 4.3 6.2 18.2 18.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 141 1633 728 107 782 786 314 943 421 116 274 256 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.55 0.23 0.79 0.88 0.89 0.92 0.61 0.18 0.80 0.99 1.01 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 141 1633 728 183 782 786 319 943 421 147 274 256 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 54.5 23.5 19.6 55.7 30.7 30.9 48.6 38.7 34.0 55.3 50.6 50.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 34.8 1.4 0.7 12.1 13.6 14.2 30.3 2.9 0.9 21.2 51.3 59.2 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 4.9 9.5 2.8 2.9 20.7 21.2 10.8 7.5 1.7 3.4 11.7 11.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 89.3 24.9 20.3 67.7 44.3 45.1 78.9 41.6 34.9 76.5 101.9 110.0 LnGrp LOS F C C E D D E D C E F F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1189 1472 939 622
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.7 46.1 52.6 101.5
Approach LOS C D D F
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.7 59.6 25.7 23.0 14.0 57.3 12.3 36.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.3 49.7 21.5 18.5 9.5 52.5 9.9 30.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 24.1 21.1 20.5 9.9 45.2 8.2 19.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 2.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 51.3
HCM 6th LOS D
7.2-56
7-793
-----~ tt ~ --~ tt
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
4: Rattler Rd. & School Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 24 123 34 185 240 20
Future Volume (vph) 24 123 34 185 240 20
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 40
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 445 524 1443
Travel Time (s) 12.1 14.3 39.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.2-57
7-794
____ ¥
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
4: Rattler Rd. & School Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 24 123 34 185 240 20
Future Vol, veh/h 24 123 34 185 240 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 50 50 50 50 50 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 48 246 68 370 480 40
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1006 500 520 0 - 0
Stage 1 500 -----
Stage 2 506 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 267 571 1046 - - -
Stage 1 609 -----
Stage 2 606 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 250 571 1046 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 382 -----
Stage 1 569 -----
Stage 2 606 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 20 1.3 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1046 - 528 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.065 - 0.557 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 - 20 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 3.4 - -
7.2-58
7-795
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 117 1497 1610 186 286 206
Future Volume (vph) 117 1497 1610 186 286 206
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 300 205 200 200
Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 110 60
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 40
Link Distance (ft) 647 2660 288
Travel Time (s) 8.0 33.0 4.9
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Shared Lane Traffic (%) 25%
Turn Type Prot NA NA pm+ov Prot Perm
Protected Phases 52644
Permitted Phases 6 4
Detector Phase 526444
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 9.5 37.5 28.0 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (%) 15.8% 62.5% 46.7% 37.5% 37.5% 37.5%
Maximum Green (s) 5.0 33.0 23.5 18.0 18.0 18.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 55555
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.
7.2-59
7-796
____ "'i"'i ttt ttt 'f' "'iV
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 117 1497 1610 186 286 206
Future Volume (veh/h) 117 1497 1610 186 286 206
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 117 1497 1610 186 325 164
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 247 2808 2060 1115 1069 476
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.55 0.13 0.13 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5274 5274 1585 3563 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 117 1497 1610 186 325 164
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1702 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 11.2 18.3 3.2 4.2 4.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 11.2 18.3 3.2 4.2 4.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 247 2808 2060 1115 1069 476
V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.53 0.78 0.17 0.30 0.34
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 288 2808 2060 1115 1069 476
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.76 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.8 8.6 23.4 4.5 16.2 16.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.7 2.3 0.2 0.7 2.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 2.7 8.3 2.0 1.6 4.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.2 9.3 25.8 4.8 16.9 18.4
LnGrp LOS C A C A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1614 1796 489
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.7 23.6 17.4
Approach LOS B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.5 22.5 8.8 28.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.0 18.0 5.0 23.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.2 6.8 4.0 20.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.6 1.3 0.0 2.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.5
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
7.2-60
7-797
_____ "'i"'i ttt ttt 'f' "'iV
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
6: Los Alamos Rd. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 1639 115 58 1691 119 115
Future Volume (vph) 1 1639 115 58 1691 119 115
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 200 200 255 125 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50
Link Distance (ft) 2660 3172 1424
Travel Time (s) 33.0 39.3 19.4
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8
Permitted Phases 2 8
Detector Phase 5221688
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 9.5 28.0 28.0 9.5 28.0 22.5 22.5
Total Split (%) 15.8% 46.7% 46.7% 15.8% 46.7% 37.5% 37.5% Maximum Green (s) 5.0 23.5 23.5 5.0 23.5 18.0 18.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max Max Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 6: Los Alamos Rd. & Ramon Rd.
7.2-61
7-798
_____ ll ttt 'f' "i ttt "i"i 'f'
]
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 6: Los Alamos Rd. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 1639 115 58 1691 119 115
Future Volume (veh/h) 1 1639 115 58 1691 119 115
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1639 115 58 1691 119 115
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 2162 671 92 2808 1037 476
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.55 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 3456 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1639 115 58 1691 119 115
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 1585 1781 1702 1728 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 18.5 3.8 1.9 13.4 1.5 3.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.5 3.8 1.9 13.4 1.5 3.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2162 671 92 2808 1037 476
V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.17 0.63 0.60 0.11 0.24
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2162 671 148 2808 1037 476
HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.86 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.9 16.5 27.9 9.1 15.2 15.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.5 6.9 1.0 0.2 1.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.4 1.2 0.9 3.2 0.5 1.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.1 17.0 34.8 10.0 15.4 17.1
LnGrp LOS C B C B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1754 1749 234
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.5 10.9 16.2
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 29.9 37.5 22.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 23.5 23.5 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 20.5 15.4 5.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.4 5.8 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.6
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
7.2-62
7-799
_____ ll ttt 'f' "i ttt "i"i 'f'
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
7: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 NB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 1060 1 190 1058 450 0 0 455 430 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 1060 1 190 1058 450 0 0 455 430 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 430 210 0 0 205
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 581 1228 688 840
Travel Time (s) 11.3 23.9 10.4 12.7
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 50%
Turn Type Split NA Free Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 8 5 2 6
Permitted Phases Free 6
Detector Phase 8 8 5 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 49.0 49.0 46.2 71.0 24.8 24.8
Total Split (%) 40.8% 40.8% 38.5% 59.2% 20.7% 20.7%
Maximum Green (s) 44.5 44.5 41.7 66.5 20.3 20.3
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 55
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 7: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 NB Ramps
7.2-63
7-800
_________ "i 4' .,, "i"i tt ttt
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 7: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 NB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 1060 1 190 1058 450 0 0 455 430 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 1060 1 190 1058 450 0 0 455 430 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1061 0 0 1058 450 0 0 455 430
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222220022
Cap, veh/h 1164 0 1115 2126 0 0 1217 378
Arrive On Green 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.54 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1585 3456 3647 0 0 5274 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1061 0 0 1058 450 0 0 455 430
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1728 1777 0 0 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 34.3 0.0 0.0 34.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 28.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 34.3 0.0 0.0 34.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 28.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1164 0 1115 2126 0 0 1217 378
V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.00 0.95 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.37 1.14
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1321 0 1201 2126 0 0 1217 378
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.7 0.0 0.0 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.2 45.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 89.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 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 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 20.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.8 0.0 0.0 36.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 39.1 135.3 LnGrp LOS D A D A A A D F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1061 1508 885
Approach Delay, s/veh 47.8 25.8 85.9
Approach LOS D C F
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 76.3 43.2 33.1 43.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 66.5 41.7 20.3 44.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 36.7 30.6 36.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.0 2.0 0.0 2.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.0
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
7.2-64
7-801
.,, "'i"'i tt ttt
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
8: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 SB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 260 2 985 0000 1248 140 240 1275 0 Future Volume (vph) 260 2 985 0000 1248 140 240 1275 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 490 135 0 0 0 195 225 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 200 90 90 110
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1337 718 776 688
Travel Time (s) 26.0 14.0 11.8 10.4
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 10% 49% 10%
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2
Detector Phase 4 4 4 2216
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 24.0 24.0 10.0 34.0
Total Split (%) 43.3% 43.3% 43.3% 40.0% 40.0% 16.7% 56.7% Maximum Green (s) 21.5 21.5 21.5 19.5 19.5 5.5 29.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 8: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 SB Ramps
7.2-65
7-802
I \ .,
i '" El
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 8: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 SB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 260 2 985 0000 1248 140 240 1275 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 260 2 985 0000 1248 140 240 1275 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 174 0 1078 0 1248 140 240 1275 0
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 022220
Cap, veh/h 638 0 1136 0 1824 515 317 1747 0
Arrive On Green 0.36 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.12 0.65 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 3170 0 5611 1585 3456 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 174 0 1078 0 1248 140 240 1275 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 0 1870 1585 1728 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.2 0.0 19.8 0.0 11.6 3.9 4.0 14.2 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.2 0.0 19.8 0.0 11.6 3.9 4.0 14.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 638 0 1136 0 1824 515 317 1747 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.68 0.27 0.76 0.73 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 638 0 1136 0 1824 515 317 1747 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.66 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.7 0.0 18.7 0.0 17.6 15.0 25.7 7.7 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 16.0 0.0 2.1 1.3 6.8 1.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 0.0 8.7 0.0 4.5 1.4 1.7 3.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.9 0.0 34.7 0.0 19.7 16.3 32.5 9.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A C A B B C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1252 1388 1515
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.8 19.3 13.2
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 24.0 26.0 34.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.5 19.5 21.5 29.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 13.6 21.8 16.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.8 0.0 6.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.9
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
7.2-66
7-803
_____ "i 4+ .,, ----- ttf+ .,, "i"i tt
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
9: Bob Hope Dr. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 240 950 517 120 630 75 545 1073 490 135 1535 590 Future Volume (vph) 240 950 517 120 630 75 545 1073 490 135 1535 590 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 280 470 240 180 205 280 215 225
Storage Lanes 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 120 120 120
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 676 1191 1119 476
Travel Time (s) 8.4 14.8 17.0 7.2
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 523167
Permitted Phases Free 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 388523167
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 Total Split (s) 20.0 38.0 12.4 30.4 30.4 25.0 55.7 12.4 13.9 44.6 20.0 Total Split (%) 16.7% 31.7% 10.3% 25.3% 25.3% 20.8% 46.4% 10.3% 11.6% 37.2% 16.7% Maximum Green (s) 15.5 33.5 7.9 25.9 25.9 20.5 51.2 7.9 9.4 40.1 15.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None None C-Max None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 40.1 (33%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 9: Bob Hope Dr. & Ramon Rd.
7.2-67
7-804
0 6 (R) 07 0 8
- - - -
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 9: Bob Hope Dr. & Ramon Rd.
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 240 950 517 120 630 75 545 1073 490 135 1535 590 Future Volume (veh/h) 240 950 517 120 630 75 545 1073 490 135 1535 590 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 240 950 0 120 630 75 545 1073 490 135 1535 590 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 303 992 174 860 383 590 2376 817 191 1786 693 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.28 0.00 0.05 0.24 0.24 0.17 0.47 0.47 0.06 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 240 950 0 120 630 75 545 1073 490 135 1535 590 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.2 31.6 0.0 4.1 19.6 4.5 18.6 17.1 26.0 4.6 33.5 40.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.2 31.6 0.0 4.1 19.6 4.5 18.6 17.1 26.0 4.6 33.5 40.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 303 992 174 860 383 590 2376 817 191 1786 693 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.96 0.69 0.73 0.20 0.92 0.45 0.60 0.71 0.86 0.85 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 446 992 228 860 383 590 2376 817 271 1786 693 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.7 42.6 0.0 56.1 41.9 36.2 49.0 21.7 20.4 55.7 36.3 30.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.9 19.1 0.0 5.7 3.3 0.2 20.3 0.6 3.2 4.8 5.7 12.5 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 3.6 15.6 0.0 1.9 8.5 1.7 9.4 6.6 9.3 2.1 14.2 16.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 59.6 61.7 0.0 61.8 45.2 36.4 69.3 22.3 23.6 60.5 41.9 42.8 LnGrp LOS E E E D D E C C E D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1190 825 2108 2260
Approach Delay, s/veh 61.2 46.8 34.8 43.3
Approach LOS E D C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.1 60.3 10.5 38.0 25.0 46.5 15.0 33.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.4 51.2 7.9 33.5 20.5 40.1 15.5 25.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.6 28.0 6.1 33.6 20.6 42.0 10.2 21.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
7.2-68
7-805
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
10: Rattler Rd. & Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 4 58 54 215 359 4
Future Volume (vph) 4 58 54 215 359 4
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 40
Link Speed (mph) 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 281 470 524
Travel Time (s) 6.4 8.0 8.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.2-69
7-806
____ ¥
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
10: Rattler Rd. & Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 58 54 215 359 4
Future Vol, veh/h 4 58 54 215 359 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 4 63 59 234 390 4
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 744 392 394 0 - 0
Stage 1 392 -----
Stage 2 352 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 382 657 1165 - - -
Stage 1 683 -----
Stage 2 712 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 363 657 1165 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 475 -----
Stage 1 648 -----
Stage 2 712 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11.3 1.7 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1165 - 641 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.05 - 0.105 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 - 11.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.4 - -
7.2-70
7-807
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
11: Rattler Rd. & Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 6 82 40 263 410 7
Future Volume (vph) 6 82 40 263 410 7
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 25 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 10
Link Speed (mph) 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 281 82 470
Travel Time (s) 6.4 1.4 8.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.2-71
7-808
____ ¥
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
11: Rattler Rd. & Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 82 40 263 410 7
Future Vol, veh/h 6 82 40 263 410 7
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 25 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 7 89 43 286 446 8
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 822 450 454 0 - 0
Stage 1 450 -----
Stage 2 372 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 344 609 1107 - - -
Stage 1 642 -----
Stage 2 697 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 331 609 1107 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 449 -----
Stage 1 617 -----
Stage 2 697 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.2 1.1 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1107 - 595 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.039 - 0.161 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 - 12.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.6 - -
7.2-72
7-809
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
12: Ramon Rd. & Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1614 1730 86 0 57
Future Volume (vph) 0 1614 1730 86 0 57
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 30
Link Distance (ft) 650 647 292
Travel Time (s) 8.1 8.0 6.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.2-73
7-810
ttt ttf+
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
12: Ramon Rd. & Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1614 1730 86 0 57
Future Vol, veh/h 0 1614 1730 86 0 57
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - ---- 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 1754 1880 93 0 62
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 - 0 - 987
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Critical Hdwy - ---- 7.14
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -----
Follow-up Hdwy - ---- 3.92
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - - 0 212
Stage 1 0 - - - 0 -
Stage 2 0 - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - ---- 2 1 2
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -----
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 28.8
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 212
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.292
HCM Control Delay (s) - - - 28.8
HCM Lane LOS - - - D
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 1.2
7.2-74
7-811
ttt tt~
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
13: Ramon Rd. & Access 4
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 67 1614 1780 7 0 31
Future Volume (vph) 67 1614 1780 7 0 31
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 150 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 60 90
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 30
Link Distance (ft) 1330 650 268
Travel Time (s) 16.5 8.1 6.1
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.2-75
7-812
______ "i ttt ttf+
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
13: Ramon Rd. & Access 4
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 67 1614 1780 7 0 31
Future Vol, veh/h 67 1614 1780 7 0 31
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 150 ---- 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 73 1754 1935 8 0 34
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1943 0 - 0 - 972
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Critical Hdwy 4.7 ---- 7.14
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3 ---- 3.92
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 192 - - - 0 217
Stage 1 - - - - 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 192 ---- 2 1 7
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -----
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.4 0 24.6
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 192 - - - 217
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.379 - - - 0.155
HCM Control Delay (s) 34.8 - - - 24.6
HCM Lane LOS D - - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.6 - - - 0.5
7.2-76
7-813
"'i ttt tt~
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
14: Rattler Rd. & School Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 48 34 0 209 226 0
Future Volume (vph) 48 34 0 209 226 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 354 1443 236
Travel Time (s) 9.7 39.4 6.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.2-77
7-814
_____ "i .,, - t t
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
14: Rattler Rd. & School Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 48 34 0 209 226 0
Future Vol, veh/h 48 34 0 209 226 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 51 51 51 51 51 51
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 94 67 0 410 443 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 853 443 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 443 -----
Stage 2 410 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 ----
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 ----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 330 615 0 - - 0
Stage 1 647 - 0 - - 0
Stage 2 670 - 0 - - 0
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 330 615 ----
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 451 -----
Stage 1 647 -----
Stage 2 670 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.6 0 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - 451 615 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.209 0.108 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - 15.1 11.6 -
HCM Lane LOS - C B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.8 0.4 -
7.2-78
7-815
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
15: Rattler Rd. & School Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 34 40 68 189 186 50
Future Volume (vph) 34 40 68 189 186 50
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 334 236 360
Travel Time (s) 9.1 6.4 9.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
7.2-79
7-816
____ ¥
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
15: Rattler Rd. & School Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 34 40 68 189 186 50
Future Vol, veh/h 34 40 68 189 186 50
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 50 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 50 50 50 50 50 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 68 80 136 378 372 100
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1072 422 472 0 - 0
Stage 1 422 -----
Stage 2 650 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 244 632 1090 - - -
Stage 1 662 -----
Stage 2 520 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 214 632 1090 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 214 -----
Stage 1 579 -----
Stage 2 520 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 24.2 2.3 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1090 - 333 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.125 - 0.444 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.8 - 24.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - 2.2 - -
7.2-80
7-817
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection: 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB
Directions Served L L TTTTTTRL L RR
Maximum Queue (ft) 198 91 111 123 151 197 216 215 76 74 100 65 Average Queue (ft) 146 29 80 97 117 165 168 179 50 54 78 40 95th Queue (ft) 226 102 120 140 162 214 228 234 80 87 117 70 Link Distance (ft) 578 578 578 2555 2555 2555 200
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 205 200 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5
Intersection: 10: Rattler Rd. & Access 1
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 46 24
Average Queue (ft) 27 8
95th Queue (ft) 57 30
Link Distance (ft) 247
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: Rattler Rd. & Access 2
Movement EB NB NB
Directions Served LR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 48 12 10
Average Queue (ft) 29 2 2
95th Queue (ft) 59 16 13
Link Distance (ft) 246 48
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 25
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0
7.2-81
7-818
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection: 12: Ramon Rd. & Access 3
Movement SB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 23
95th Queue (ft) 44
Link Distance (ft) 228
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 13: Ramon Rd. & Access 4
Movement EB SB
Directions Served L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 28
Average Queue (ft) 12 16
95th Queue (ft) 37 39
Link Distance (ft) 204
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 8
7.2-82
7-819
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection: 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB
Directions Served L L TTTTTTRL L RR
Maximum Queue (ft) 95 29 121 138 136 184 224 270 35 90 111 64 Average Queue (ft) 60 8 80 90 105 136 161 212 18 55 86 40 95th Queue (ft) 107 37 135 152 148 200 240 297 44 102 118 78 Link Distance (ft) 578 578 578 2555 2555 2555 200
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 205 200 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 9
Queuing Penalty (veh) 16
Intersection: 10: Rattler Rd. & Access 1
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 36 33
Average Queue (ft) 26 10
95th Queue (ft) 47 36
Link Distance (ft) 247
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: Rattler Rd. & Access 2
Movement EB NB NB SB
Directions Served LR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 69 25 5 4
Average Queue (ft) 44 14 1 1
95th Queue (ft) 76 39 8 8
Link Distance (ft) 246 48 414
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 25
Storage Blk Time (%) 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 8
7.2-83
7-820
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection: 12: Ramon Rd. & Access 3
Movement WB SB
Directions Served TR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 40
Average Queue (ft) 6 28
95th Queue (ft) 34 56
Link Distance (ft) 578 228
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 13: Ramon Rd. & Access 4
Movement EB SB
Directions Served L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 69 41
Average Queue (ft) 41 27
95th Queue (ft) 70 57
Link Distance (ft) 204
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 24
7.2-84
7-821
City of Rancho Mirage 102
Appendix E
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis
7-822
DATE: June 30, 2023
TO: Nicole Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.
FROM: John Kain and Marlie Whiteman, Urban Crossroads, Inc.
JOB NO: 15284-03 VMT Screening.docx
CATANA SPECIFIC PLAN VEHI CLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
SCREENING ANALYSIS
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis for the Catana Specific Plan ( Project), which is at the northwest corner of E. Ramon Avenue and Rattler Road in Rancho Mirage.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed Project includes the developm ent of consists of 215 single family rental homes, 90 affordable apartment dwelling units and 75,000 square feet of commercial land use. The preliminary Project site plan is shown on Exhibit A.
BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires all lead agencies to adopt VMT as the measure for identifying transp ortation impacts for land use projects.
City of Rancho Mirage Resolution 2021-06 ( City Guidelines) aligns the City’s VMT analysis policy with SB 743 and the City’s goals as set forth in the General Plan Update (2017). The purpose of the policy is to comply with State laws while maintaining the resort residential character of the community.
The City’s VMT policy establishes VMT as the metric to measure transportation impacts in conformance with CEQA.
VMT SCREENING
Exhibit A of Resolution 2021-06 sets forth screening criteria under which Projects are not required to submit detailed VMT analysis. This guidance for determination of non-significant VMT impact is primarily intended to avoid unnecessary analysis and findings that would be inconsistent with the intent of SB 743. VMT screening criteria for development projects include the following:
7-823
URBAN CROSSROADS
Nicole Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.
June 30, 2023
15284-03 VMT Screening.docx
EXHIBIT A: PRELIMNARY PROJECT SITE PLAN
7-824
URBAN I CROSSROADS
LEGEND:
~ ~ = RIGHT ·IN/RIGHT ·OUT ONLY
~~ =LEFT·IN/RIGHT·IN/RIGHT·OUT ONLY
;-
Nicole Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.
June 30, 2023
15284-03 VMT Screening.docx
TABLE 1: SCREENING FOR LAND USE PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM VMT ANALYSIS Screening Steps Description Result
1. Small Projects
Screening
Projects with low trip generation based on the County Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Tables resulting in a 3,000 metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent per year screening level threshold. Specific examples include single family housing projects less than or equal to 110 dwelling units, multi-family housing projects less than or equal to 147 dwelling units, and retail buildings with area less than or equal to 60,000 sf.
Does not meet.
2. Projects Near High
Quality Transit
Projects within a half mile of an existing major transit stop which maintains a service interval frequency of 15 minutes or less during peak commute periods.
Does not meet.
3. Local Serving Retail Projects with no single store on-site exceeding 50,000 sf and determined to be local-serving by the Engineering Department.
Meets for retail
component.
4. Affordable Housing Projects with a high percentage of affordable units as determined by the Planning and Engineering departments.
Meets for
residential
component.
5. Local Essential
Service
Projects such as day care, police or fire facility, medical/dental office building less than 50,000 sf, government offices, or other uses deemed essential by the Engineering Department.
Does not meet.
6. Map Based
Screening
Projects within an area of development under threshold as shown on screening map allowed by the Engineering Department. Does not meet.
7. Redevelopment
Projects
Projects which replace an existing VMT-generating land use and do not result in a net overall increase in VMT. Does not meet.
PROJECT LOCAL SERVING RETAIL
As noted above, City of Rancho Mirage in Resolution 2021-06 includes Local Serving Retail in the list of project types which can be presumed to have non-significant VMT impacts. In effect, the introduction of new Local-serving retail has been determined to reduce VMT by shortening trips that will occur. This determination can be made for retail buildings which do not exceed 50,000 square feet.
The OPR SB 743 Technical Advisory further addresses local retail uses, as follows:
“By adding retail opportunities into the ur ban fabric and thereby improving retail destination proximity, local-serving retail development tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT. Thus, lead agencies generally may presume such development creates a less-than- significant transportation impact.”
The proposed Catana Specific Plan Project includes six buildings that have a combined square footage of 75,000 square feet, each of which is anticipated to be less than 25,000 square feet.
The addition of these retail shops at this location, with building sizes well under 50 ,000 sf, will allow residents to interact with local businesses rather than traveling farther to serve their retail needs.
7-825
URBAN I CROSSROADS
Nicole Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.
June 30, 2023
15284-03 VMT Screening.docx
PROJECT HIGH PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Resolution 2021-06 indicates that projects in which “a high percentage of affordable housing is provided as determined by the Planning and Engineering Departments” can be presumed to have non-significant VMT impacts.
The Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transporta tion Impacts in CEQA (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, December 2018) states that affordable housing generally improves jobs-housing match, shortens commutes and reduces VMT. This technical advisory concludes that low income housing generates less VMT than market-rate housing.
Of the 305 Project residential uni ts, 90 dwelling units are affordab le housing. This equates to
29.5% of the dwelling units. In comparison, recent residential projects in Rancho Mirage have not included an affordable housing component.
The Residential component of the Project is imme diately adjacent to the planned on-site retail parcel. Sidewalks connect the affordable housing and single-family rental housing units to the retail site. The Project is also located adjacent to the Rancho Mirage High School. The existing sidewalk along the west side of Rattler Road connects the site to the existing high school.
Off-site elementary and middle schools are located near to the site. The Sunny Sands Elementary School is approximately 2 miles away, and the Nellie N Coffman Middle School is approximately
2.5 miles away.
Adding affordable housing to this location, with existing off- site retail/service jobs located at Cathedral Village Shopping Center and Agua Caliente Resort Casino Spa provides housing opportunities for current employees in the area. Low-wage workers in particular would be more likely to choose a residential location close to their workplace, if one is available.
CONCLUSION
The Project was evaluated against screening criteria as outlined in the City Guidelines. Based on the results of this screening analysis the following findings are made:
The Project’s retail component meets the Project Type Screening criteria for Local Serving Retail.
The Project’s residential component meets the Project Type Screening criteria for Affordable Housing by having 29.5% affordable housing.
The screening of this Project as Local-Se rving Retail and With High Percentage of Affordable Housing is appropriate. The mix of affordable housing, single-family rental housing, and retail will allow on-site interaction between residents, retail jobs, and retail services which will reduce auto VMT by encouraging pedestrian and bicycle activity. This determination of non-significant VMT impact is consistent with the intent of SB-743.
If you have any questions, please contact us directly at [email protected] for John or [email protected] for Marlie.
7-826
URBAN I CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments
Catana Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments
The City received one comment letter to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Project. The following provides individual comments and responses. The complete comments are attached to this response in Appendix A.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Letter dated January 19, 2024
Comment 1:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) from the City of Rancho Mirage (City) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA guidelines.1
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.
Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.
CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on Projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.
CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority. (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.) Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the Project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: McKellar McGowan Holdings, LLC.
7-827
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments
Objective: The Project proposes a mixed-use neighborhood of 210 one- to two -story single family homes, 95 apartments, and 75,000 sq. ft. of retail and office uses on approximately 36 acres. The Project proposed residential building heights up to 37 feet tall and commercial/retail building heights up to 28 feet tall. The Project proposes to generate increased levels of light and glare from interior and exterior building lighting, safety and security lighting, and landscape lighting, and does not propose the use of high intensity outdoor lighting. The Project proposes the use of drought-tolerant landscape materials.
Location: The proposed Project is located in the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road, Rancho Mirage, CA, 92270. Assessor’s Parcel Number 670- 230-021. The Project is located within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Area outside of a Conservation Area.
Timeframe: The MND does not indicate a timeline for Project construction.
Response 1:
The comment is noted. It provides a description of the Project and requires no further response.
Comment 2:
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (i.e., biological resources). CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. The MND has not adequately identified and disclosed the Project’s impacts (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative) on biological resources and whether those impacts are reduced to less than significant.
CDFW’s comments and recommendations on the MND are explained in greater detail below and summarized here. CDFW is concerned that the MND does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, impacts to biological resources. CDFW also concludes that the MND lacks sufficient information to facilitate a meaningful review by CDFW, including a complete and accurate assessment of biological resources on the Project site and an incomplete Project description. CDFW requests that additional information and analyses be added to a revised MND, along with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant.
Response 2:
The comment is noted. Individual responses to the issues summarized by the commenter are provided below.
7-828
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments
Comment 3:
Project Description
Compliance with CEQA is predicated on a complete and accurate description of the proposed Project. Without a complete and accurate Project description, the MND likely provides an incomplete assessment of Project-related impacts to biological resources. CDFW has identified gaps in information related to the Project description.
The MND lacks an adequate discussion of plans for artificial nighttime lighting. CDFW requests that the MND is revised to include design plans for artificial nighttime lighting and lighting specifications. Artificial nighttime lighting can negatively impact biological resources in a variety of ways as discussed in the Artificial Nighttime Lighting section below. To conduct a meaningful review and provide biological expertise on how to protect biological resources, CDFW requires a complete and accurate Project description.
Response 3:
The description of lighting, including the types of lighting expected on the Project site, and City lighting standards is provided on page 20 of the Initial Study. As stated on that page, the City requires photometric plans, which have been included in the plan sets on file at the City, which demonstrate that there will be no light spill-over from the Project site to adjacent properties.
Comment 4:
Existing Environmental Setting
Compliance with CEQA is predicated on a complete and accurate description of the environmental setting that may be affected by the proposed Project. CDFW is concerned that the assessment of the existing environmental setting has not been adequately analyzed in the MND. CDFW is concerned that without a complete and accurate description of the existing environmental setting, the MND may provide an incomplete analysis of Project -related environmental impacts.
The MND lacks a complete assessment of biological resources within the Project site and surrounding area. A complete and accurate assessment of the environmental setting and Project-related impacts to biological resources is needed to both identify appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and demonstrate that these measures reduce Project impacts to less than significant.
Response 4:
The comment is noted. However, the Initial Study, and the appended Biological Resources Report which was provided to the commenter, describe comprehensively the environmental setting, including a complete list of the species with potential to occur on- site, those identified during the field survey, and those with no potential to occur. See pages 31 through 33 of the Initial Study, and pages 5 through 23 of the Biological Resources Report. 7-829
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments
Comment 5:
Mitigation Measures
CEQA requires that an MND include mitigation measures to avoid or reduce significant impacts.
CDFW is concerned that the mitigation measures proposed in the MND are not adequate to avoid or reduce impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance. To support the City in ensuring that Project impacts to biological resources are reduced to less than significant, CDFW recommends adding mitigation measures for assessment of biological resources, artificial nighttime lighting, CVMSHCP co mpliance, and salvage of sand- dependent Covered Species, as well as revising the mitigation measures for nesting birds and burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia).
Assessment of Biological Resources
Habitat Conservation Plan and Compliance Report (Biological Assessment) indicates that a field assessment was conducted on January 24, 2023, and that the “entire si te and adjacent properties (where accessible) were assessed on foot to record pertinent field data and current site conditions.” The Biological Assessment lacks additional details on what survey methods were used, if any species-specific focused surveys were conducted, and if any focused surveys were conducted independently from other survey activities. These among other details on the assessment of biological resources are important to include in a MND and supporting documentation to allow CDFW and (sic) to conduct a meaningful review and provide biological expertise. Details on survey methods also help support any findings from the assessment of biological resources and the appropriateness of any identified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. CDFW recommends that the MND and its supporting documents are revised to include additional details on survey methods.
Table 1 of the MND indicates that “[f]ive plant species have a low probability of growing on the site, including Chaparral sand- verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita; California Rare Plan Rank (CRPR) 1B.1), Abram’s spurge ( Euphorbia abramsiana ; CRPR 2B.2), Arizona spurge (Euphorbia arizonica; CRPR 2B.3), flat -seeded spurge ( Euphorbia platysperma, CRPR 1B.2), and slender cottonheads (Nemacaulis denudata var. gracilis; CRPR 2B.2). None of these plant species are listed as threatened or endangered and are generally not expected to occur on the site considering the past history of disturbance on this parcel, including grubbing and use of soil binders.” CDFW notes that the single field assessment, conducted by one individual over the 36-acre site, was conducted in January, outside of the bloom period of several of these special- status species, including Abram’s spurge, Arizona spurge, flat -seeded spurge, and slender cottonheads. Based on review of recent aerial imagery using Google Earth Pro, vegetation on the Project site is re -establishing following the grading activities and application of soil binders conducted in 2018. CDFW notes it is unlikely that grading activities and the application of soil binders would eliminate the seedbank within the Project site, including the seedbank of any rare plant species that may exist. Section 15125(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that knowledge of the regional setting of a project is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts, that special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to the 7-830
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments
region, and that significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project are adequately investigated and discussed. The Project’s potential impacts on plants that meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered, per Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines, must be analyzed in the MND.
CDFW recommends that the MND is revised to include the findings of a thorough, recent, floristic-based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, conducted at the appropriate time of year when the rare plant species, identified as having suitable or potentially suitable habitat within the Project site, are identifiable. Based on findings from a recent floristic- based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, CDFW recommends that the MND is revised to include an analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to biological resources and identification of appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures.
Recent and complete information on biological resources; analysis of a Project’s direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts; and appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures support the City in demonstrating that Project impacts to biological resources are less than significant.
CDFW recommends that the City include in a revised MND the following mitigation measure:
Mitigation Measure BIO-[A]
Prior to Project construction activities, a thorough, recent, floristic-based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, following CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (see https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants ) shall be performed by a qualified biologist. Should any state -listed plant species be present in the Project area, the Project proponent shall obtain appropriate CESA authorization for those species prior to the start of Project activities. Should other special -status plants or natural communities be present in the Project area, on -site or off -site habitat restor ation (whichever is applicable) and/or enhancement and preservation should be evaluated and discussed in detail. Where habitat preservation is not available on - site, off- site land acquisition, management, and preservation should be evaluated.
P
ursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, section 15097(f), CDFW has prepared a draft mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for revised MM BIO -1, and MM BIO -2, as well as CDFW-recommended MM BIO-[A], MM BIO-[B], MM BIO-[C], and MM BIO-[D].
7-831
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments
Response 5:
As the commenter is aware, there is no protection in law for species other than those that are listed as endangered by either the State or federal government. Furthermore, the biological resource study correctly determined that Abram’s spurge, Arizona spurge, flat -seeded spurge, and slender cottonheads are absent due to site disturbance and marginal habitat . The commenter provides no substantial evidence other than opinion that there is any potential that the seed bank for any endangered species could have survived previous grading. The previous site disturbance and isolation of the site by development to the north, south and east, and fencing and development to the west, eliminates the potential for any significant population of plants to be self-sustaining on the site. Finally, the project will be required to pay CVMSHCP fees, which are expressly designed to mitigate for the presence of covered species. The Initial Study correctly analyzed the impacts to plants, and no additional mitigation measures are required.
Comment 6:
Nesting Birds
It is the Project proponent’s responsibility to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 afford protective measures as follows: section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.).
have the potential to provide nesting opportunities for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).” The Project site contains suitable habitat for nesting birds. The MND includes Mitigation Measures BIO-2 for nesting birds, which indicates that “[t]o avoid impacting nesting birds, either avoidance of project -related disturbance during the nesting season (1 February through 31 August) or nesting bird surveys conducted by a qualified ornithologist or biologist immediately prior to on-site disturbance during the nesting season shall be required.” Conducting work outside the peak breeding season is an important avoidance and minimization measure. CDFW also recommends the completion of pre- construction nesting bird surveys regardless of the time of year. The timing of the nesting season varies greatly depending on several factors, such as bird species, weather conditions in any given year, and long- term climate changes (e.g., drought, warming, etc.). In response to warming, birds have been reported to breed earlier, thereby reducing temperatures that nests are exposed to during breeding and tracking shifts in availability of resources (Socolar et al., 2017 2).
CDFW staff have observed that climate change conditions may result in the nesting bird season occurring earlier and later in the year than historical nesting season dates. 7-832
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments
CDFW recommends that disturbance of occupied nests of migratory birds and raptors within the Project site and surrounding area be avoided any time birds are nesting on- site. CDFW considers the Mitigation Measure BIO-2 to be insufficient in scope and timing to reduce impacts to nesting birds to less than significant. CDFW recommends the City revise Mitigation Measure BIO-2 with the following additions in bold and removals in strikethrough:
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Nesting Birds
Regardless of the time of year, nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified avian biologist no more than 3 days prior to vegetation removal or ground- disturbing activities. Pre-construction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior.
The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a r
esult of survey and monitoring efforts. If active nests are found during the pre - construction nesting bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground. Nest buffers are species specific and shall be at least 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors. A smaller or larger buffer may be determined by the qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species and based on nest and buffer monitoring results. Construction activities may not occur inside the established buffers, which shall remain on site until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the Project has been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance. To avoid impacting nesting birds, either avoidance of project -related disturbance during the nesting season (1 February through 31 August) or nesting bird surveys conducted by a qualified ornithologist or biologist immediately prior to on- site disturbance during the nesting season shall be required. If nesting birds are found, no work would be permitted near the nest until young have fledged. There is no established protocol for nest avoidance, however, when consulted the CDFW generally recommends avoidance buffers of about 500 feet for birds -of-prey and species listed as threatened or endangered, and 100 – 300 feet for unlisted songbirds.
Response 6:
The comment is noted. However, the commenter appears to imply that birds may nest on the site outside of the established nesting period, without providing substantial evidence. The City’s responsibility is to assure that nesting birds. It is important to note that MBTA covered species include almost all bird species that could nest on the site, and that since a pre- construction survey will be required, all birds nesting on the site will be identified, regardless of MBTA status.
The Initial Study mitigates impacts to nesting bird species to less than significant levels as written. The mitigation measure and the Initial Study correctly protect nesting birds, and do not require amendment.
7-833
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments
Comment 7:
Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern. Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests is defined by Fish and Game Code section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.). Take is defined in Fish and Game Code section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.”
vegetation, there is a very low potential for burrowing owl to occur onsite. None were identified during the site survey, nor were their sign or suitable burrows sighted.” CDFW is concerned about the accuracy of the conclusion that burrowing owl have a very low potential to occur onsite.
CDFW notes that in California, preferred habitat for burrowing owl is generally typified by short, sparse vegetation with few shrubs, and that burrowing owls may occur in ruderal grassy fields, vacant lots, and pastures if the vegetation structure is suitable and there are useable burrows and foraging habitat proximity. In addition, burrowing owls frequently move into disturbed areas prior to and during construction activities since they are adapted to highly modified habitats The Project site contains suitable habitat for burrowing owl, and burrowing owl have the potential to move onto the Project site before the start of Project construction. CDFW requests this information on the suitability of burrowing owl habitat on the Project site is updated in a revised MND. CDFW is also concerned about the limited information provided in the MND and its supporting documents regarding surveys for burrowing owl.
The Project’s Biol ogical Resources Assessment (Biological Assessment) dated January 24, 2023, does not indicate the methods used to conduct surveys for burrowing owl and if a complete burrowing owl habitat assessment or focused surveys for burrowing owl were conducted following guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012). Given the MND’s lack of discussion on survey methods and lack of findings from a recent habitat assessment for burrowing owls following the guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, it is uncertain if suitable burrows or burrow surrogates exist within the Project area or surrounding areas. CDFW recommends the MND is revised to include the findings of focused surveys following guidelines outlined in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Focused surveys for burrowing owl provide information needed to determine the potential effects of proposed projects and activities on burrowing owls, and to avoid take in accordance with Fish and Game Code sections 86, 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. If focused surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat in or adjacent to the Project area, CDFW recommends that the MND is revised to include an impact assessment per guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Impact assessments evaluate the extent to which burrowing owls and their habitat may be impacted, directly or indirectly, on and within a reasonable distance of the proposed Project. Focused surveys and an impact assessment will also inform appropriate avoid ance, minimization, and mitigation measures for the Project and help demonstrate that impacts to burrowing owls are less than significant.
7-834
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments
Although the MND includes Mitigation Measure BIO-1, CDFW considers the measure insufficient in scope and timing to reduce impacts to burrowing owl to less than significant. CDFW recommends that the City revise Mitigation Measure BIO -1 with the following additions in bold and removals in strikethrough:
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Burrowing Owl Surveys
Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist according to the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prior to vegetation removal or ground- disturbing activities. If burrow ing owls are detected during the focused surveys, the qualified biologist and Project proponent shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and monitoring actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measures if avoidance is proposed. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat or burrow cannot be avoided, the Burrowing Owl Plan shall also describe minimization and relocation actions that will be implemented . Proposed implementation of burrow exclusion and closure should only be considered as a last resort, after all other options have been evaluated as exclusion is not in itself an avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and has the possibility to resu lt in take. If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be provided regarding adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls along with proposed relocation actions. The Project proponent shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.
Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of Project-related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Rep ort on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist following the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities.
To avoid impacting nesting birds, either avoidance of project -r elated disturbance during the
nesting season (1 February through 31 August) or nesting bird surveys conducted by a qualified ornithologist or biologist immediately prior to on-site disturbance during the nesting season shall be required. If nesting birds are found, no work would be permitted near the nest until young have fledged. There is no established protocol for nest avoidance, however, when consulted the CDFW generally recommends avoidance buffers of about 500 feet for birds-of-prey and species listed as threatened or endangered, and 100–300 feet for unlisted songbirds.
Response 7:
The comment is noted. However, the commenter provides no evidence to contradict the professional biologist’s statement that no owl, sign or appropriate burrows are located on the 7-835
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments
site. As stated in both the Initial Study and the Biological Resources Study, the site is heavily disturbed and has sparse vegetation. As a result, the biologist had good visibility of site conditions, and would have seen owl, sign or burrows if they occurred. Furthermore, the Initial Study requires, in Mitigation Measure BIO-1, “A preconstruction survey following CDFG’s Staff Report for Burrowing Owl (2012) must be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to initiating construction…” (emphasis added). The Initial Study therefore fully acknowledges the Department’s requirements. It further requires that they be implemented prior to initiation of construction, which is the appropriate protocol for sites where no individuals, sign or burrows have previously been identified. The City is aware that the species could move onto the site prior to construction, and has provided the appropriate mitigation to protect the species from take.
The mitigation measure is appropriate and complete, lists performance standards should the species be identified, and no further amendment is required.
Comment 8:
Artificial Nighttime Lighting
The Proposed project will result in new sources of artificial nighttime lighting. Page 20 of the MND indicates that the “ultimate development of the Project site can be expected to generate increased levels of light and glare from interior and exterior building lighting, safety and security lighting, landscape lighting, and vehicles accessing the site during the day and nighttime; however, the SP [Specific Plan] does not propose the use of high intensity outdoor lighting.”
high quality, attractive, and informative. The standards require lighting to be shielded and directed downward in order to reduce glare, preserve dark night skies, while still providing directional, safety, and informational functions.” No additional details are provided on lighting design plans or specifications or additional avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures associated with artificial nighttime lighting.
The Project is located adjacent to open- space areas to the west and east —areas that provide suitable nesting, roosting, foraging, and refugia habitat for birds, migratory birds that fly at night, bats, other nocturnal and crepuscular wildlife, and Covered Species under the CVMSHCP. The open-space area to the e ast contains modeled habitat for CVMSHCP Covered Species including, but not limited to, flat -tailed horned lizard ( Phrynosoma mcallii ), Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard ( Uma inornata), Palm Springs pocket mouse ( Perognathus longimembris bangsi), and Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus).
The Project’s proposed artificial nighttime lighting has the potential to significantly and adversely affect fish and wildlife in the open-space areas adjacent to the Project site. Artificial lighting alters ecological processes including, but not limited to, the temporal niches of species; the repair and recovery of physiological function; the measurement of time through interference with the detection of circadian and lunar and seasonal cycles; the detection of resources and natural enemies; and navigation8. Many species use photoperiod cues for communication (e.g., bird song9), determining when to begin foraging10, behavioral thermoregulation11, and migration12.
Phototaxis, a phenomenon that results in attraction and movement towards light, can disorient, entrap, and temporarily blind wildlife species that experience it8.
7-836
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments
CDFW recommends the MND is revised to include an analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of artificial nighttime lighting expected to adversely affect biological resources within open- space areas adjacent to the Project site. CDFW also recommends the MND is revised to include lightning design plans and lighting specifications to allow CDFW to conduct a meaningful review and provide appropriate biological expertise. Also, the MND lacks a mitigation measure for artificial nighttime lighting. To support the City in avoiding or reducing impacts of artificial nighttime lighting on biological resources to less than significant, CDFW recommends that the City add the following mitigation measure to a revised MND:
Mitigation Measure BIO-[B]: Artificial Nighttime Lighting Throughout construction and the lifetime operations of the Project, the City of Rancho Mirage and Project proponent shall eliminate all nonessential lighting throughout the Project area and avoid or limit the use of artificial light at night during the hours of dawn and dusk when many wildlife species are most active. The City of Rancho Mirage and Project proponent shall ensure that all lighting for the Project is fully shielded, cast downward, reduced in intensity to the greatest extent possible, and does not result in lighting trespass including glare into surrounding areas or upward into the night sky (see the International Dark -Sky Association standards at http://darksky.org/). The City of Rancho Mirage and Project proponent shall ensure use of LED lighting with a correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvins or less, proper disposal of hazardous waste, and recycling of lighting that contains toxic compounds with a qualified recycler.
Response 8:
The commenter is incorrect. The site is not located adjacent to open space. The site is located adjacent to vacant lands which will be developed in the future, consistent with the zoning designations assigned. The site is bordered by roadways on its east and south boundaries, and by the fully developed Rancho Mirage High School on its north. Furthermore, and as stated in the Initial Study, the Project is required to comply with City lighting standards, which prohibit spill-over of light to adjacent properties. The Project has submitted a photometric analysis which demonstrates such compliance. The Project is located in an urban area, and is not adjacent or in the vicinity of any Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Conservation Area. The Project’s impacts associated with lighting have been correctly analyzed, and no change to the Initial Study is required. Also see further discussion below regarding the Plan.
Comment 9:
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
Local Development Mitigation Fee
CVMSHCP, and is therefore subject to payment of the Development Mitigation Fee, which will mitigate potential impacts to covered species as a standard requirement imposed by the City.” To document the City’s obligation as a Local Permittee under the CVMSHCP to impose a local development mitigation fee for this Project, CDFW recommends the City add the following mitigation measure to a revised MND:
7-837
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments
Mitigation Measure BIO-[C]: CVMSHCP Compliance
Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the City of Rancho Mirage shall ensure compliance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) and its associated Implementing Agreement and shall ensure the collection of payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee and transfer of revenues to the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission.
Response 9:
The comment is noted. However, as allowed under CEQA, requirements of law are not mitigation measures, and are assumed to be implemented. Because the payment of the CVMSHCP fee is a requirement by the City, as stated in the Initial Study, its payment will reduce impacts to less than significant levels, and no mitigation measure is required.
Comment 10:
Salvage of Sand-D
ependent Covered Species
Further, Section 6.6.1 of the CVMSHCP (Obligations of Local Permittees) states that within and outside Conservation Areas “on parcels approved for Development, the Permittees shall encourage the opportunity to salvage Covered sand-dependent species in accordance with the Implementation Manual.” The Project site contains modeled habitat for CVMSHCP Covered Species including, but not limited to, flat-tailed horned lizard, Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, Palm Springs pocket mouse, and Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrel. To be consistent with the CVMSHCP, CDFW recommends that the City of Rancho Mirage include in a revised MND the following mitigation measure:
Mitigation Measure BIO-[D]: Salvage of Sand-Dependent Covered Species Prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, the City of Rancho Mirage will collaborate with the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission to plan and implement a salvage of Covered sand-dependent species within the Project site.
Response 10:
The comment is noted. However, as stated by the commenter, the City’s responsibility is to “encourage” the collection of sand-dependent species. There is no requirement that it do so, nor is mitigation required, since the impacts associated with sand- dependent species are fully covered by the CVMSHCP, and the project will be required to pay the mitigation fee.
Comment 11:
Landscaping
use of water -efficient fixtures and drought -tolerant landscape materials”. No other details are provided in the MND on the Project’s proposed landscaping plans. CDFW recommends incorporation of water-wise concepts in any Project landscape design plans. In particular, CDFW 7-838
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments
recommends xeriscaping with locally native California species and installing water-efficient and targeted irrigation systems (such as drip irrigation). Native plants support butterflies, birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, bees, and other pollinators that evolved with those plants.
More information on native plants suitable for the Project location and nearby nurseries is available at Calscape: https://calscape.org/. Local water agencies/cities and resource conservation cities in your area may be able to provide information on plant nurseries that carry locally native species, and some facilities display drought -tolerant locally native species demonstration gardens. Information on drought -tolerant landscaping and water -efficient irrigation systems is available on California’s Save our Water website:
https://saveourwater.com/. CDFW also recommends that the MND include recommendations regarding landscaping from Section 4.0 of the CVMSHCP “Table 4- 112: Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping” (pp. 4- 180 to 4 - 182; https://cvmshcp.org/plan- documents/).
Response 11:
The comment is noted. However, as stated on page 61 of the Initial Study, the Project is required to comply with both the City’s water efficient landscaping standards and CVWD’s water conservation requirements in landscaping, which includes water budgeting for landscaped areas. The Project will therefore be regulated to assure low water use in landscaping, as clearly stated in the Initial Study.
Comment 12:
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types o f information reported to
CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and- Animals.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G.
Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)
7-839
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments
CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts to biological resources. CDFW concludes that the MND does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, impacts to biological resources. CDFW also concludes that the MND lacks sufficient information for a meaningful review of impacts to biological resources,
Response 12:
The City thanks the Department for its comments and will continue to assure that it and its applicants comply with Department requirements and State law.
7-840
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments
APPENDI
X A
COMMENT LETTERS
7-841
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
January 19, 2024
Sent via email
Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Catana Specific Plan (PROJECT)
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
SCH# 2023120616
Dear Pilar Lopez:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) from the City of Rancho Mirage (City) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA guidelines.1
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.
Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.
CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on Projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.
1CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000. 7-842
Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024
CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority. (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.) Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the Project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: McKellar McGowan Holdings, LLC.
Objective: The Project proposes a mixed-use neighborhood of 210 one- to two-story single family homes, 95 apartments, and 75,000 sq. ft. of retail and office uses on approximately 36 acres. The Project proposed residential building heights up to 37 feet tall and commercial/retail building heights up to 28 feet tall. The Project proposes to generate increased levels of light and glare from interior and exterior building lighting, safety and security lighting, and landscape lighting, and does not propose the use of high intensity outdoor lighting. The Project proposes the use of drought-tolerant landscape materials.
Location: The proposed Project is located in the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road, Rancho Mirage, CA, 92270. Assessor’s Parcel Number 670-230-021. The Project is located within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Area outside of a Conservation Area.
Timeframe: The MND does not indicate a timeline for Project construction.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (i.e., biological resources). CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. The MND has not adequately identified and disclosed the Project’s impacts (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative) on biological resources and whether those impacts are reduced to less than significant.
CDFW’s comments and recommendations on the MND are explained in greater detail below and summarized here. CDFW is concerned that the MND does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, impacts to 7-843
Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024
biological resources. CDFW also concludes that the MND lacks sufficient information to facilitate a meaningful review by CDFW, including a complete and accurate assessment of biological resources on the Project site and an incomplete Project description. CDFW requests that additional information and analyses be added to a revised MND, along with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant.
Project Description
Compliance with CEQA is predicated on a complete and accurate description of the proposed Project. Without a complete and accurate Project description, the MND likely provides an incomplete assessment of Project-related impacts to biological resources.
CDFW has identified gaps in information related to the Project description.
The MND lacks an adequate discussion of plans for artificial nighttime lighting. CDFW requests that the MND is revised to include design plans for artificial nighttime lighting and lighting specifications. Artificial nighttime lighting can negatively impact biological resources in a variety of ways as discussed in the Artificial Nighttime Lighting section below. To conduct a meaningful review and provide biological expertise on how to protect biological resources, CDFW requires a complete and accurate Project description.
Existing Environmental Setting
Compliance with CEQA is predicated on a complete and accurate description of the environmental setting that may be affected by the proposed Project. CDFW is concerned that the assessment of the existing environmental setting has not been adequately analyzed in the MND. CDFW is concerned that without a complete and accurate description of the existing environmental setting, the MND may provide an incomplete analysis of Project-related environmental impacts.
The MND lacks a complete assessment of biological resources within the Project site and surrounding area. A complete and accurate assessment of the environmental setting and Project-related impacts to biological resources is needed to both identify appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and demonstrate that these measures reduce Project impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
CEQA requires that an MND include mitigation measures to avoid or reduce significant impacts. CDFW is concerned that the mitigation measures proposed in the MND are not adequate to avoid or reduce impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance. To support the City in ensuring that Project impacts to biological resources are reduced to less than significant, CDFW recommends adding mitigation measures 7-844
Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024
for assessment of biological resources, artificial nighttime lighting, CVMSHCP compliance, and salvage of sand-dependent Covered Species, as well as revising the mitigation measures for nesting birds and burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia). 1) Assessment of Biological Resources
Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Compliance Report (Biological Assessment) indicates that a field assessment was conducted on January 24, 2023, and that the “entire site and adjacent properties (where accessible) were assessed on foot to record pertinent field data and current site conditions.” The Biological Assessment lacks additional details on what survey methods were used, if any species-specific focused surveys were conducted, and if any focused surveys were conducted independently from other survey activities. These among other details on the assessment of biological resources are important to include in a MND and supporting documentation to allow CDFW and to conduct a meaningful review and provide biological expertise. Details on survey methods also help support any findings from the assessment of biological resources and the appropriateness of any identified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. CDFW recommends that the MND and its supporting documents are revised to include additional details on survey methods.
Table 1 of the MND indicates that “[f]ive plant species have a low probability of growing on the site, including Chaparral sand-verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita; California Rare Plan Rank (CRPR) 1B.1), Abram’s spurge (Euphorbia abramsiana; CRPR 2B.2), Arizona spurge (Euphorbia arizonica; CRPR 2B.3), flat-seeded spurge (Euphorbia platysperma, CRPR 1B.2), and slender cottonheads (Nemacaulis denudata var. gracilis; CRPR 2B.2). None of these plant species are listed as threatened or endangered and are generally not expected to occur on the site considering the past history of disturbance on this parcel, including grubbing and use of soil binders.” CDFW notes that the single field assessment, conducted by one individual over the 36-acre site, was conducted in January, outside of the bloom period of several of these special-status species, including Abram’s spurge, Arizona spurge, flat-seeded spurge, and slender cottonheads. Based on review of recent aerial imagery using Google Earth Pro, vegetation on the Project site is re-establishing following the grading activities and application of soil binders conducted in 2018. CDFW notes it is unlikely that grading activities and the application of soil binders would eliminate the seedbank within the Project site, including the seedbank of any rare plant species that may exist. Section 15125(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that knowledge of the regional setting of a project is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts, that special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to the region, and that significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project are adequately investigated and discussed. The Project’s potential impacts on plants that meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered, per Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines, must be analyzed in the MND.
7-845
Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024
CDFW recommends that the MND is revised to include the findings of a thorough, recent, floristic-based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, conducted at the appropriate time of year when the rare plant species, identified as having suitable or potentially suitable habitat within the Project site, are identifiable.
Based on findings from a recent floristic-based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, CDFW recommends that the MND is revised to include an analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to biological resources and identification of appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. Recent and complete information on biological resources; analysis of a Project’s direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts; and appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures support the City in demonstrating that Project impacts to biological resources are less than significant.
CDFW recommends that the City include in a revised MND the following mitigation measure:
Mitigation Measure BIO-[A]
Prior to Project construction activities, a thorough, recent, floristic-based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, following CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (see
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants) shall be performed by a qualified biologist. Should any state-listed plant species be present in the Project area, the Project proponent shall obtain appropriate CESA authorization for those species prior to the start of Project activities. Should other special-status plants or natural communities be present in the Project area, on-site or off-site habitat restoration (whichever is applicable) and/or enhancement and preservation should be evaluated and discussed in detail. Where habitat preservation is not available on- site, off-site land acquisition, management, and preservation should be evaluated.
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, section 15097(f), CDFW has prepared a draft mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for revised MM BIO-1, and MM BIO-2, as well as CDFW-recommended MM BIO-[A], MM BIO-[B], MM BIO-[C], and MM BIO-[D].
2) Nesting Birds
It is the Project proponent’s responsibility to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 afford protective measures as follows: section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and 7-846
Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024
Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.).
would have the potential to provide nesting opportunities for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).” The Project site contains suitable habitat for nesting birds. The MND includes Mitigation Measures BIO-2 for nesting birds, which indicates that “[t]o avoid impacting nesting birds, either avoidance of project-related disturbance during the nesting season (1 February through 31 August) or nesting bird surveys conducted by a qualified ornithologist or biologist immediately prior to on-site disturbance during the nesting season shall be required.” Conducting work outside the peak breeding season is an important avoidance and minimization measure. CDFW also recommends the completion of pre-construction nesting bird surveys regardless of the time of year. The timing of the nesting season varies greatly depending on several factors, such as bird species, weather conditions in any given year, and long-term climate changes (e.g., drought, warming, etc.). In response to warming, birds have been reported to breed earlier, thereby reducing temperatures that nests are exposed to during breeding and tracking shifts in availability of resources (Socolar et al., 20172).
CDFW staff have observed that climate change conditions may result in the nesting bird season occurring earlier and later in the year than historical nesting season dates.
CDFW recommends that disturbance of occupied nests of migratory birds and raptors within the Project site and surrounding area be avoided any time birds are nesting on- site. CDFW considers the Mitigation Measure BIO-2 to be insufficient in scope and timing to reduce impacts to nesting birds to less than significant. CDFW recommends the City revise Mitigation Measure BIO-2 with the following additions in bold and removals in strikethrough:
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Nesting Birds
Regardless of the time of year, nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified avian biologist no more than 3 days prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. Pre-construction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior.
2 Socolar JB, Epanchin PN, Beissinger SR and Tingley MW (2017). Phenological shifts conserve thermal niches.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(49): 12976-12981. 7-847
Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024
The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey and monitoring efforts. If active nests are found during the pre-construction nesting bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground. Nest buffers are species specific and shall be at least 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors. A smaller or larger buffer may be determined by the qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species and based on nest and buffer monitoring results. Construction activities may not occur inside the established buffers, which shall remain on site until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the Project has been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance. To avoid impacting nesting birds, either avoidance of project-related disturbance during the nesting season (1 February through 31 August) or nesting bird surveys conducted by a qualified ornithologist or biologist immediately prior to on-site disturbance during the nesting season shall be required. If nesting birds are found, no work would be permitted near the nest until young have fledged. There is no established protocol for nest avoidance, however, when consulted the CDFW generally recommends avoidance buffers of about 500 feet for birds-of-prey and species listed as threatened or endangered, and 100–300 feet for unlisted songbirds.
3) Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern. Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests is defined by Fish and Game Code section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.). Take is defined in Fish and Game Code section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.”
sparsely with vegetation, there is a very low potential for burrowing owl to occur onsite.
None were identified during the site survey, nor were their sign or suitable burrows sighted.” CDFW is concerned about the accuracy of the conclusion that burrowing owl have a very low potential to occur onsite. CDFW notes that in California, preferred habitat for burrowing owl is generally typified by short, sparse vegetation with few 7-848
Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024
shrubs,3 and that burrowing owls may occur in ruderal grassy fields, vacant lots, and pastures if the vegetation structure is suitable and there are useable burrows and foraging habitat proximity.4 In addition, burrowing owls frequently move into disturbed areas prior to and during construction activities since they are adapted to highly modified habitats5,6 The Project site contains suitable habitat for burrowing owl, and burrowing owl have the potential to move onto the Project site before the start of Project construction. CDFW requests this information on the suitability of burrowing owl habitat on the Project site is updated in a revised MND. CDFW is also concerned about the limited information provided in the MND and its supporting documents regarding surveys for burrowing owl.
The Project’s Biological Resources Assessment (Biological Assessment) dated January 24, 2023, does not indicate the methods used to conduct surveys for burrowing owl and if a complete burrowing owl habitat assessment or focused surveys for burrowing owl were conducted following guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 20127). Given the MND’s lack of discussion on survey methods and lack of findings from a recent habitat assessment for burrowing owls following the guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, it is uncertain if suitable burrows or burrow surrogates exist within the Project area or surrounding areas. CDFW recommends the MND is revised to include the findings of focused surveys following guidelines outlined in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation7. Focused surveys for burrowing owl provide information needed to determine the potential effects of proposed projects and activities on burrowing owls, and to avoid take in accordance with Fish and Game Code sections 86, 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. If focused surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat in or adjacent to the Project area, CDFW recommends that the MND is revised to include an impact assessment per guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Impact assessments evaluate the extent
3 Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia), in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C., USA.
4 Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, R. G. Anthony. 2003. Space use and pesticide exposure risk of male burrowing owls in an agricultural landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 155-164. 5 Chipman, E. D., N. E. McIntyre, R. E. Strauss, M. C. Wallace, J. D. Ray, and C. W. Boal. 2008. Effects of human land use on western burrowing owl foraging and activity budgets. Journal of Raptor Research 42(2): 87-98. 6 Coulombe, H. N. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the Burrowing Owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. Condor 73:162–176.
7 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. State of California, Natural Resources Agency.
7-849
Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024
to which burrowing owls and their habitat may be impacted, directly or indirectly, on and within a reasonable distance of the proposed Project. Focused surveys and an impact assessment will also inform appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for the Project and help demonstrate that impacts to burrowing owls are less than significant.
Although the MND includes Mitigation Measure BIO-1, CDFW considers the measure insufficient in scope and timing to reduce impacts to burrowing owl to less than significant. CDFW recommends that the City revise Mitigation Measure BIO-1 with the following additions in bold and removals in strikethrough:
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Burrowing Owl Surveys
Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist according to the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are detected during the focused surveys, the qualified biologist and Project proponent shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and monitoring actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measures if avoidance is proposed. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat or burrow cannot be avoided, the Burrowing Owl Plan shall also describe minimization and relocation actions that will be implemented. Proposed implementation of burrow exclusion and closure should only be considered as a last resort, after all other options have been evaluated as exclusion is not in itself an avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and has the possibility to result in take. If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be provided regarding adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls along with proposed relocation actions. The Project proponent shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.
Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of Project-related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist following the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and 7-850
Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024
prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities.
To avoid impacting nesting birds, either avoidance of project-related disturbance during the nesting season (1 February through 31 August) or nesting bird surveys conducted by a qualified ornithologist or biologist immediately prior to on-site disturbance during the nesting season shall be required. If nesting birds are found, no work would be permitted near the nest until young have fledged. There is no established protocol for nest avoidance, however, when consulted the CDFW generally recommends avoidance buffers of about 500 feet for birds-of-prey and species listed as threatened or endangered, and 100–300 feet for unlisted songbirds.
4) Artificial Nighttime Lighting
The Proposed project will result in new sources of artificial nighttime lighting. Page 20 of the MND indicates that the “ultimate development of the Project site can be expected to generate increased levels of light and glare from interior and exterior building lighting, safety and security lighting, landscape lighting, and vehicles accessing the site during the day and nighttime; however, the SP [Specific Plan] does not propose the use of high intensity outdoor lighting.” Page 64 of the MND indicates that the “Specific Plan provides standards requiring signage to be high quality, attractive, and informative. The standards require lighting to be shielded and directed downward in order to reduce glare, preserve dark night skies, while still providing directional, safety, and informational functions.” No additional details are provided on lighting design plans or specifications or additional avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures associated with artificial nighttime lighting.
The Project is located adjacent to open-space areas to the west and east—areas that provide suitable nesting, roosting, foraging, and refugia habitat for birds, migratory birds that fly at night, bats, other nocturnal and crepuscular wildlife, and Covered Species under the CVMSHCP. The open-space area to the east contains modeled habitat for CVMSHCP Covered Species including, but not limited to, flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii), Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata), Palm Springs pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris bangsi), and Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus). The Project’s proposed artificial nighttime lighting has the potential to significantly and adversely affect fish and wildlife in the open-space areas adjacent to the Project site. Artificial lighting alters ecological processes including, but not limited to, the temporal niches of species; the repair and recovery of physiological function; the measurement of time through interference with the detection of circadian and lunar and seasonal cycles; the detection of resources and 7-851
Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024
natural enemies; and navigation8. Many species use photoperiod cues for communication (e.g., bird song9), determining when to begin foraging10, behavioral thermoregulation11, and migration12. Phototaxis, a phenomenon that results in attraction and movement towards light, can disorient, entrap, and temporarily blind wildlife species that experience it8.
CDFW recommends the MND is revised to include an analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of artificial nighttime lighting expected to adversely affect biological resources within open-space areas adjacent to the Project site. CDFW also recommends the MND is revised to include lightning design plans and lighting specifications to allow CDFW to conduct a meaningful review and provide appropriate biological expertise. Also, the MND lacks a mitigation measure for artificial nighttime lighting. To support the City in avoiding or reducing impacts of artificial nighttime lighting on biological resources to less than significant, CDFW recommends that the City add the following mitigation measure to a revised MND:
Mitigation Measure BIO-[B]: Artificial Nighttime Lighting
Throughout construction and the lifetime operations of the Project, the City of Rancho Mirage and Project proponent shall eliminate all nonessential lighting throughout the Project area and avoid or limit the use of artificial light at night during the hours of dawn and dusk when many wildlife species are most active.
The City of Rancho Mirage and Project proponent shall ensure that all lighting for the Project is fully shielded, cast downward, reduced in intensity to the greatest extent possible, and does not result in lighting trespass including glare into surrounding areas or upward into the night sky (see the International Dark-Sky Association standards at http://darksky.org/). The City of Rancho Mirage and Project proponent shall ensure use of LED lighting with a correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvins or less, proper disposal of hazardous waste, and recycling of lighting that contains toxic compounds with a qualified recycler.
8 Gatson, K. J., Bennie, J., Davies, T., Hopkins, J. 2013. The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biological Reviews, 88.4: 912-927. 9 Miller, M. W. 2006. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American robins. The Condor 108:130– 139.
10 Stone, E. L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2009. Street lighting disturbs commuting bats. Current Biology 19:1123– 1127.
11 Beiswenger, R. E. 1977. Diet patterns of aggregative behavior in tadpoles of Bufo americanus, in relation to light and temperature. Ecology 58:98–108.
12 Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution - Review. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:191–198.
7-852
Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024
5) Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Local Development Mitigation Fee
the CVMSHCP, and is therefore subject to payment of the Development Mitigation Fee, which will mitigate potential impacts to covered species as a standard requirement imposed by the City.” To document the City’s obligation as a Local Permittee under the CVMSHCP to impose a local development mitigation fee for this Project, CDFW recommends the City add the following mitigation measure to a revised MND:
Mitigation Measure BIO-[C]: CVMSHCP Compliance
Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the City of Rancho Mirage shall ensure compliance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) and its associated Implementing Agreement and shall ensure the collection of payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee and transfer of revenues to the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission.
Salvage of Sand-Dependent Covered Species
Further, Section 6.6.1 of the CVMSHCP (Obligations of Local Permittees) states that within and outside Conservation Areas “on parcels approved for Development, the Permittees shall encourage the opportunity to salvage Covered sand-dependent species in accordance with the Implementation Manual.” The Project site contains modeled habitat for CVMSHCP Covered Species including, but not limited to, flat-tailed horned lizard, Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, Palm Springs pocket mouse, and Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrel. To be consistent with the CVMSHCP, CDFW recommends that the City of Rancho Mirage include in a revised MND the following mitigation measure:
Mitigation Measure BIO-[D]: Salvage of Sand-Dependent Covered Species Prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, the City of Rancho Mirage will collaborate with the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission to plan and implement a salvage of Covered sand-dependent species within the Project site.
6) Landscaping
including the use of water-efficient fixtures and drought-tolerant landscape materials”.
No other details are provided in the MND on the Project’s proposed landscaping plans.
CDFW recommends incorporation of water-wise concepts in any Project landscape 7-853
Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024
design plans. In particular, CDFW recommends xeriscaping with locally native California species and installing water-efficient and targeted irrigation systems (such as drip irrigation). Native plants support butterflies, birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, bees, and other pollinators that evolved with those plants. More information on native plants suitable for the Project location and nearby nurseries is available at Calscape:
https://calscape.org/. Local water agencies/cities and resource conservation cities in your area may be able to provide information on plant nurseries that carry locally native species, and some facilities display drought-tolerant locally native species demonstration gardens. Information on drought-tolerant landscaping and water-efficient irrigation systems is available on California’s Save our Water website:
https://saveourwater.com/. CDFW also recommends that the MND include recommendations regarding landscaping from Section 4.0 of the CVMSHCP “Table 4- 112: Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping” (pp. 4-180 to 4- 182; https://cvmshcp.org/plan-documents/).
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)
CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts to biological resources. CDFW concludes that the MND does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, impacts to biological resources. CDFW also concludes that the MND lacks sufficient information for a meaningful review of impacts to biological resources, 7-854
Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024
including a complete assessment of biological resources and Project description. The CEQA Guidelines indicate that recirculation is required when insufficient information in the MND precludes a meaningful review (§ 15088.5) or when a new significant effect is identified and additional mitigation measures are necessary (§ 15073.5). CDFW recommends that a revised MND, including a complete assessment of biological resources and Project description, be recirculated for public comment. CDFW also recommends that revised and additional mitigation measures and analysis as described in this letter be added to a revised MND.
CDFW personnel are available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to avoid and minimize impacts. Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Jacob Skaggs, Senior Environmental Scientist Specialist, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Kim Freeburn
Environmental Program Manager
Attachment 1: MMRP for CDFW-Proposed Mitigation Measures
ec:
Heather Brashear, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisor), CDFW [email protected]
Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento [email protected]
Peter Satin, Coachella Valley Conservation Commission
[email protected]
7-855
Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024