South San Francisco City Council
July 13, 2022

AM PM AM PM AM PM

1. I-280 Southbound Off-Ramp at Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane Left/Through 1,200 65 190 68 197 77 203
Right 150 65 72 67 62 68 66

2. I-280 Southbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue*
Left 120 197 153 205 158 209 161
Left/Through 840
183 90 190 92 197 96
Through/Right 3,615
Right 80 54 51 58 51 62 57

3. I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue*
Left 230 85 202 89 211 91 207
Through/Left/Right 1,280 334 660 365 701 325 701

4. US-101 Southbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue*
Left 280 112 81 112 84 56 86
Left/Through 960 112 82 112 84 56 86
Right 280 24 130 24 136 24 140

5. US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue*
Left 560 256 345 260 391 295 419
Right (through) 2,400 69 68 93 86 102 103

6. I-380 Westbound Off-Ramp at El Camino Real*
Left 980 246 303 248 303 248 303
Right 980 252 834 280 838 296 799

7. I-380 Eastbound Off-Ramp at El Camino Real*
Left 520 131 340 135 352 157 355
Through/Left/Right 1,760 96 263 105 287 151 306
Right 330 88 245 96 267 118 277

8. US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Airport Boulevard
Left 430 208 143 213 166 230 174
Through 720 209 224 220 240 230 254

9. US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Produce Avenue
Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
75 Approach Lanes
Storage
Distance
(ft)
Existing 2024 No Project 2024 Plus Phase 1
(Partial Circulation)
Queue Length Queue Length Queue Length

AM PM AM PM AM PM
Left 620 220 162 182 168 221 202
Right 100 69 40 58 40 59 42

10. US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at South Airport Boulevard Left/Through 740 473 176 492 188 492 182
Right 740 45 33 46 34 46 34
Notes: Ramps analyzed using Synchro software; * indicates additional analysis with Simtraffic software. Bold type indicates conditions where queue length exceeds storage capacity due to Project-related trips (none applicable). Queues do not take into account downstream spillover from adjacent intersections. Storage distance and queues in feet per lane.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020
Table 6-4. Cumulative Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues - Partial Circulation Network Alternative (Project Buildout)
Approach Lanes
Storage
Distance
(ft)
2040 No Project 2040 Plus Project
(Buildout)
2040 Plus Project
Buildout (Partial
Circulation)
Queue Length Queue Length Queue Length

AM PM AM PM AM PM

1. I-280 Southbound Off-Ramp at Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane Left/Through 1,200 105 215 118 230 198 254
Right 150 74 91 104 103 356 74

2. I-280 Southbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue*
Left 120 232 179 243 195 239 200
Left/Through 840
221 102 227 120 224 123
Through/Right 3,615
Right 80 68 68 74 79 73 76

3. I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue*
Left 230 93 225 419 240 418 240
Through/Left/Right 1,335 394 818 1,171 778 1,633 801

4. US-101 Southbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue*
Left 280 115 87 65 88 130 91
Left/Through 960 116 87 65 89 130 91
Right 280 26 138 26 138 64 140

5. US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue*
Left/Through 2,600 277 603 2,299 1,040 1,723 1,074
Right 560 324 335 961 498 818 505
Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
76 Approach Lanes
Storage
Distance
(ft)
2040 No Project 2040 Plus Project
(Buildout)
2040 Plus Project
Buildout (Partial
Circulation)
Queue Length Queue Length Queue Length

AM PM AM PM AM PM

6. I-380 Westbound Off-Ramp at El Camino Real*
Left 980 253 212 250 217 257 265
Right 980 331 668 359 637 338 851

7. I-380 Eastbound Off-Ramp at El Camino Real*
Left 520 157 294 234 378 178 360
Through/Left/Right 1,760 170 271 271 312 227 328
Right 330 160 252 242 273 207 305

8. US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Airport Boulevard
Left 430 278 253 360 270 384 245
Through 720 282 307 368 318 392 311

9. US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Produce Avenue
Left 620 208 182 272 226 280 255
Right 100 63 43 63 45 62 44

10. US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at South Airport Boulevard Left/Through 740 526 283 514 274 577 302
Right 740 46 39 47 39 591 344
Notes: Ramps analyzed using Synchro software; * indicates additional analysis with Simtraffic software. Bold type indicates conditions where queue length exceeds storage capacity due to Project-related trips. Storage distance and queues in feet per lane.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020

6.4.3 Transit Performance Analysis
Without any changes to transit center access, traffic signals, or added vehicle traffic on Sneath Lane, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not substantially affect SamTrans operations at the San Bruno BART transit center compared to Project and No Project conditions. No changes to transit capacity and crowding would occur relative to the Project condition. Therefore, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would have a less than significant impact on transit performance.

6.4.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Analysis

6.4.4.1 Effects on BART Station Access
The Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not address bicycle and pedestrian connections between the Specific Plan Area and San Bruno BART Station. Instead, bicycle and pedestrian access to BART would occur via existing sidewalks and crosswalks. While these facilities could accommodate the roughly 200 peak hour BART passengers generated by the Phase 1 Project, crowding is expected to occur at existing Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
77 pedestrian facilities with the 800 to 900 peak hour passengers under Project Buildout conditions. Figure 3-1 illustrates a VisWalk simulation of pedestrian crowding at the BART Station entrance under Project Buildout conditions. Specifically, the northwestern curb ramp at the BART Station entrance would be substantially crowded during the AM peak hour, while the northeastern curb ramp would be substantially crowded during the PM peak hour. This crowding may result in a hazardous condition if not all pedestrians are accommodated on the sidewalk, and for interactions between pedestrians and bicyclists traveling to or from the Centennial Way Trail.

The design and operations of the traffic signal and crosswalks contribute to crowding due to the relatively long wait times for pedestrians crossing the street and single marked crosswalk across Huntington Avenue.

This configuration may prompt some pedestrians to cross in the unmarked crosswalk on the southern side of the intersection rather than waiting to cross to the marked northern crosswalk. The unmarked southern crosswalk has a longer crossing distance that is less likely to be accomplished in the allocated walk time and may leave some pedestrians crossing against traffic on Huntington Avenue or waiting in the median.

The combination of limited sidewalk capacity, auto-oriented signal operations, and crosswalk design poses a potentially hazardous condition with the addition of trips by pedestrians and bicyclists traveling to and from the San Bruno BART Station under Project Buildout conditions with the Partial Circulation Network Alternative such that a Significant Impact would occur.

Figure 6-2. Pedestrian Space during AM and PM Peak Hours, Project Buildout with Partial Circulation Network Alternative

6.4.4.2 Other Effects
Under both the Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would increase vehicle trips along designated bicycle routes and in areas with high levels of pedestrian activity.

Such areas would include Herman Avenue, South Linden Avenue, Sneath Lane, San Bruno Avenue, Spruce Avenue, and the edges of downtown San Bruno and downtown South San Francisco. However, since Project traffic would be distributed across several routes accessing freeway ramps, walking and biking conditions Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
78 are not expected to be adversely affected by the Partial Circulation Network Alternative relative to No Project conditions.

6.4.5 Emergency Vehicle Analysis
Neither the Phase 1 nor Project Buildout conditions under the Partial Circulation Network Alternative are anticipated to substantially affect emergency vehicle operations relative to the No Project conditions. The proposed site plan fully accommodates emergency vehicles and would not include design features that would cause emergency vehicle to be slowed or unable to access the site or surrounding areas.

6.5 Impacts and Mitigations

6.5.1 Vehicular Traffic

6.5.1.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled
Impact TRANS-13A: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would have a less-than-significant impact on vehicle miles traveled, under Phase 1 conditions, due to the Project’s location, transit-oriented nature, and other characteristics. (Less-than-Significant)
Impact TRANS-13B: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would have a less-than-significant impact on vehicle miles traveled, under Project Buildout conditions, due to the Project’s location, transit-oriented nature, and other characteristics. (Less-than-Significant)
As documented in Section 6.2, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not change the Project’s proximity to transit and presumption of less than significant impact to VMT. While the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not realize the slight decrease in VMT associated with more direct trips between San Bruno and the Lindenville District in South San Francisco, the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout under the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would have a less-than-significant impact on VMT, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

6.5.2 Design Hazards

6.5.2.1 Geometric Design Hazards
Impact TRANS-14A: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not increase hazards to street users, under Phase 1 conditions, due to a design feature or land uses incompatible with the surrounding street network. (Less-thanSignificant) Impact TRANS-14B: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not increase hazards to street users, under Project Buildout conditions, due to a design Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
79 feature or land uses incompatible with the surrounding street network. (Less-thanSignificant) The Partial Circulation Network Alternative would provide onsite circulation changes consistent with design standards, but would not provide access improvements to the San Bruno BART Station under the Phase 1 Project or Project Buildout. Therefore, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative under both Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions would have a less-than-significant impact on design hazards, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure: None required.

6.5.2.2 Freeway Ramp Queuing
Impact TRANS-15A: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not add vehicle trips to existing freeway off-ramp vehicle queues, under Phase 1 conditions, that exceed storage capacity resulting in a potentially hazardous condition, and as such would have a less than significant impact on freeway ramp queuing. (Less-than-Significant)
Impact TRANS-15B: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would cause vehicle queues, under Project Buildout conditions, to exceed storage capacity at one freeway ramp (I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue) resulting in a significant impact. (Significant)
As documented in Section 6.4.2, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative does not cause vehicle trips associated with the Phase 1 Project to exceed ramp storage capacities at any ramps studied; however, queues would exceed ramp storage capacity due to Project-related travel at one study location (I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue) under Project Buildout conditions (shown in Table 6-4). As such, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would have a significant impact at this location at Project Buildout, while Phase 1 would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: Although the purpose of the Partial Circulation Network Alternative is to evaluate a condition where the extension of Southline Avenue to Sneath Lane does not occur, this street extension as included in the Proposed Project would mitigate ramp queueing conflicts associated with Project Buildoutrelated traffic. However, without the direct implementation by the Project Sponsor, no plan or funding mechanism exists to implement this mitigation since it is not presently included in a capital improvement or fee program adopted by the City of South San Francisco or the City of San Bruno where the mitigation is jointly located. Therefore, while the proposed mitigation could reduce the Partial Circulation Network Alternative impact to a less-than-significant level, because a funding mechanism does not exist, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. There are no other feasible mitigation measures. (Significant and Unavoidable)
Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
80 6.5.2.3 At-Grade Rail Crossings
Impact TRANS-16A: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would increase vehicle queues beyond available storage at the South Linden Avenue grade crossing, under Phase 1 conditions, but would not exacerbate risk of collisions; therefore, it would have a less than significant impact on at-grade rail crossing hazards. (Less-than-Significant)
Impact TRANS-16B: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would increase vehicle queues beyond available storage at the South Linden Avenue grade crossing, under Project Buildout conditions, but would not exacerbate risk of collisions; therefore, it would have a less than significant impact on at-grade rail crossing hazards. (Less-than-Significant)
The Partial Circulation Network Alternative would result in increased traffic volumes at the realigned atgrade rail crossing at South Linden Avenue under Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions. However, Project-related crossing improvements would limit the risk of collisions associated with increased traffic, consistent with the Phase 1 and Project site plans. Therefore, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative under the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions would have a less-than-significant impact on the South Linden Avenue at-grade rail crossing, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure: None required.

Impact TRANS-17A: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not increase vehicle queues, under Phase 1 conditions, beyond available storage at the Scott Street at-grade rail crossing and would not exacerbate risk of collisions, resulting in no impact to the at-grade rail crossing. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-17B: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not increase vehicle queues, under Project Buildout conditions, beyond available storage at the Scott Street at-grade rail crossing and would not exacerbate risk of collisions, resulting in no impact to the at-grade rail crossing. (Less-thanSignificant) The Partial Circulation Network Alternative would result in an increase in vehicle traffic across the at-grade rail crossing at Scott Street, but would not increase vehicle queues beyond available storage under the Phase 1 or Project Buildout conditions. As a result, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative, under Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions, would have a less-than-significant impact on the Scott Street atgrade rail crossing, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure: None required.

Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
81 6.5.2.4 Traffic Signal Warrant
Impact TRANS-18A: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not meet any traffic signal warrants within the Specific Plan area, under Phase 1 conditions, and as such the Phase 1 Project results in a less than significant impact. (Less-than-Significant)
Impact TRANS-18B: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not meet any traffic signal warrants within the Specific Plan area, under Project Buildout conditions, and as such the Project Buildout results in a less than significant impact. (Less-than-Significant)
None of the Project’s five unsignalized driveways meet peak hour signal warrants under Phase 1 or Project Buildout conditions with the Partial Circulation Network Alternative as described in Sections 6.3.2 and 6.4.1.

The Project would provide appropriate pedestrian crossing treatments at these unsignalized crossings. As a result, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative under both Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions would have a less-than-significant impact on traffic signal warrants, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure: None required.

Impact TRANS-19A: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would meet Peak Hour Signal Warrant at the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue Intersection, under Phase 1 conditions, resulting in a significant impact. (Significant)
Impact TRANS-19B: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would meet Peak Hour Signal Warrant at the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue Intersection, under Project Buildout conditions, resulting in a significant impact. (Significant)
As documented in Section 6.4.1, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would result in a net increase of about 133 PM vehicle trips under Phase 1 conditions and 571 PM peak hour trips under Project Buildout conditions at the intersection of Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue. This intersection meets CA-MUTCD peak hour signal warrant during the PM peak hour under Existing, 2024 No Project, and 2040 No Project conditions. The addition of Phase 1 and Project Buildout traffic would substantially contribute to the need for a signal at this intersection. As such, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative under both the Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions would have a significant impact at this location.

Mitigation Measures: The Project Sponsor should provide a fair share contribution towards implementation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue to alleviate potential conflicts associated with Project Buildout-related traffic. However, the traffic signal is not presently included in a capital improvement or fee program adopted by the City of San Bruno, therefore, the City of San Bruno does not have a mechanism for funding this mitigation and cannot ensure this Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
82 mitigation occurs will be implemented. Therefore, while the proposed mitigation could reduce the Project Buildout impact on this intersection to a less-than-significant level, because a funding mechanism does not exist, the impact would be remain significant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable) Emergency Vehicle Access
Impact TRANS-20A: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not produce a detrimental impact to emergency vehicle access in the study area, under Phase 1 conditions. (Less-than-Significant)
Impact TRANS-20B: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not produce a detrimental impact to emergency vehicle access in the study area, under Project Buildout conditions. (Less-than-Significant)
As documented in Section 6.4.5, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not include design elements that would hinder emergency access, and all roadways and facilities will be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. Therefore, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative under the Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions would have a less than significant impact on emergency vehicle access and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: None required

6.5.3 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit
Impact TRANS-21A: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, under Phase 1 conditions, and results in a less than significant impact based on compliance with such plans and policies. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-21B: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, under Project Buildout conditions, and results in a less than significant impact based on compliance with such plans and policies. (Less-thanSignificant) As documented in Section 6.1, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not implement the connection of Sneath Lane and Southline Avenue, the extension of the Centennial Way Trail, and access improvements to the San Bruno BART Station consistent with adopted plans and policies by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, C/CAG, BART and MTC. However, the Alternative would not necessarily preclude these changes in the future, and therefore the Partial Circulation Network Alternative under the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs and would have a less than significant impact.

Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
83 Impact TRANS-22A: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would increase travel times for some bus routes, under Phase 1 conditions, but would not decrease the overall performance of transit service, and as such results in a less than significant impact on transit. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-22B: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would increase travel times for some bus routes, under Project Buildout conditions, but would not decrease the overall performance of transit service, and as such results in a less than significant impact on transit. (Less-than-Significant) As documented in Section 6.4.3, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not substantially affect transit operations or contribute to transit overcrowding. Therefore, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative under both Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions would have a less than significant impact on transit performance and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure: None required.

Impact TRANS-23A: Development of the proposed Project Buildout Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not decrease the performance and safety of bicycle and pedestrian facilities near the Project under Phase 1 conditions, resulting in a lessthan-significant impact. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-23B: Development of the proposed Project Buildout Partial Circulation Network Alternative would decrease the performance and safety of bicycle and pedestrian facilities near the Project under Project Buildout conditions, resulting in a significant impact. (Significant)
As documented in Section 4.4.4, the Project Buildout Partial Circulation Network Alternative would result in substantial crowding to pedestrian and bicycle facilities near the San Bruno BART Station entrance. While existing facilities could accommodate Phase 1 pedestrian volumes, existing sidewalk, crosswalk, and signal facilities are insufficient to accommodate Project Buildout pedestrian volumes, and may pose a hazardous condition due to crowding. Therefore, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would have a less than significant impact under Phase 1 conditions, while the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would have a significant impact under Project Buildout conditions.

Mitigation Measure: Although the purpose of the Partial Circulation Network Alternative is to evaluate a condition where the extension of Southline Avenue to Sneath Lane and associated changes to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure do not occur, the implementation of pedestrian improvements at the San Bruno BART Station entrance as included in the Proposed Project would alleviate this potentially significant impact under Project Buildout conditions. Pedestrian improvements would include adding a bulbout, curb ramps, and marked high-visibility crosswalk on the southern leg of the intersection, a high-visibility crosswalk on the northern leg of the intersection, and retiming the signal to include pedestrian recall. However, without the direct implementation by the Project Sponsor, no funding mechanism exists to implement this Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
84 mitigation since it is not presently included in a capital improvement or fee program adopted by the City of South San Francisco or City of San Bruno where the mitigation is jointly located. Therefore, while the proposed mitigation could reduce the Partial Circulation Network Alternative impact to a less-thansignificant level, because a funding mechanism does not exist, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. There are no other feasible mitigation measures. (Significant and Unavoidable) Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
85 7. Reduced Underground Parking
Alternative
The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative considers a similar Phase 1 Project with a modified parking layout that places all parking at- or above-grade instead of below-grade. The Phase 1 Project footprint would expand to cover 80 Tanforan, where a parking garage would be constructed. The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would provide a total of 1,095 parking spaces for approximately 684,700 square feet (1.6 per 1,000 square feet) in Phase 1. Table 7-1 compares the Phase 1 Project with the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative. The remaining Project Buildout projections, except as modified for Phase 1, remain the same as the Project.

Table 7-1. Phase 1 Project vs. Reduced Underground Parking Alternative Scenario
Phase 1
Project
Buildout Project Reduced Underground
Parking Alternative
Office / R&D 612,700 615,000 2,730,300
Public Restaurant/Retail 16,400 11,800 11,800
Other Amenities 71,800 57,900 57,900
Total Active Land Use 700,900 684,700 2,800,000
Vehicle Parking Stalls
(# south of Southline Avenue)
1,103 to 1,379
(1,103 to 1,194)
1,095
(1,095)
4,594 to 5,395
(1,194)
Vehicle Trip
Generation
AM 656 617 2,293
PM 605 565 2,073
Daily 5,458 4,986 18,007
Net New Vehicle Trip
Generation
AM 485 446 2,122
PM 455 415 1,923
Daily 3,954 3,482 16,503
As illustrated in Table 7-1, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative includes reductions in building area and parking compared to the Project, which would result in fewer vehicle trips. The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative includes a 2,300 square foot increase in office space, a 4,600 square foot decrease in public restaurant/retail space, and a 13,900 square foot decrease in amenity space. Based on the trip generation methodology described in Section 3.5, these changes would result in a net decrease in vehicle trips under Phase 1 conditions. The total Project Buildout square footage would remain unchanged, although total office space may increase by up to 18,500 square feet. Moreover, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative includes 284 fewer parking spaces than the Phase 1 Project’s higher parking option that Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
86 was analyzed in Sections 1-5 (1,379 spaces, of which 1,194 were south of Southline Avenue). Because there is no increase to building square footage or parking supply and driveway locations would not change, it is presumed that Phase 1 and Project Buildout trip generation and driveway volumes would not increase under the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative, and trip distribution and assignment would remain unchanged. Consequently, the trip generation estimates provided in Table 7-1, likely overestimate the actual trip generation associated with Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions.

This section analyzes the transportation and circulation effects of the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative under both the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions.

7.1 Plan and Policy Consistency Analysis
The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would remain consistent with local and regional plans and policies. The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would implement all transportation infrastructure changes identified in the Phase 1 Project, including the connection of Sneath Lane and Southline Avenue, the extension of the Centennial Way Trail, and access improvements to the San Bruno BART Station consistent with adopted plans and policies by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, C/CAG, BART and MTC. The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would remain consistent with regional plans and policies given the Project’s proximity to transit (described in Section 4.1).

7.2 VMT Analysis
The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would meet OPR’s criteria for a presumption of less than significant VMT impact based on the Project’s proximity to the San Bruno BART Station and the SamTrans ECR route (see Section 4.2). The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would implement a high-density land use in proximity to a high-quality transit corridor, include a parking supply below City requirements for comparable projects, and implement a TDM program to achieve a 45 percent alternative mode share.

7.3 Site Plan Analysis
As shown in Figure 7-1, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not substantively change circulation within the Specific Plan area, and therefore would not pose any design hazards. The primary circulation change associated with the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would be extending the park walkway along Tanforan Avenue to Dollar Avenue. Otherwise, Project driveways would remain in the same locations under the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative, including a single right in/right out driveway for the amenity building, a signalized driveway connecting to Southline Avenue for the primary garage entrance, and an unsignalized driveway connecting to Dollar Avenue as the secondary garage entrance. Access to the shuttle and ride-hailing mobility hubs would occur at the Southline Avenue and Dollar Avenue driveways, along with pedestrian connections to adjacent buildings. No other new driveways or changes to circulation patterns would occur.

The site plan would retain all other circulation elements, including adding Southline Avenue as an east-west connection between Maple Avenue and South Linden Avenue, the realignment of the South Linden Avenue Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
87 at-grade rail crossing, and driveways connecting to Southline Avenue, Dollar Avenue, Maple Avenue, South Linden Avenue, and Tanforan Avenue. Southline Avenue would include bike lanes connecting to the Centennial Way Trail, and all new or modified streets would include new sidewalks and curb ramps.

Proposed infrastructure within the Specific Plan area would be consistent with design standards and compatible with the intensity of proposed employment uses.

The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not include changes to streets, sidewalks, crosswalks, bicycle facilities, or transit circulation outside of the Specific Plan area other than the changes listed above.

The effects of the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative are consistent with discussion provided in Section 4.4.4.

7.3.1 Signal Warrant Analysis
Driveway volumes would not materially change relative to Phase 1 or Project Buildout conditions; therefore, no driveways would meet peak hour vehicle or pedestrian volume signal warrants under the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative.

7.3.2 At-Grade Rail Crossing Analysis
The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not affect traffic volumes crossing the at-grade rail crossing of Caltrain relative to the Phase 1 Project. Like the Phase 1 Project, the synchronization of traffic signals and presence of medians in the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would limit the risk of collisions associated with Project-related traffic. Consequently, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would have a less than significant impact on the South Linden Avenue at-grade rail crossing.

7.4 Offsite Transportation Analysis

7.4.1 Signal Warrant Analysis
The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would result in the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Lane intersection meeting the peak hour signal warrant during PM peak hour for both the Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions consistent with the analysis in Section 4.4.1. Phase 1 would add 11 PM peak hour trips to this intersection, while Project Buildout would add approximately 301 PM peak hour trips. As with the Project, although Phase 1 is unlikely to materially change the intersection’s operations, the addition of Project Buildout-related trips may exacerbate the risk of collisions at this multi-lane stopcontrolled intersection, which experienced eight reported injury collisions between 2014 and 2019.16 16 California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), 2014-2019, retrieved via the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)
Revised Specific Plan Alternative Site Plan
Figure 7-1
\\Fpsf03.fpainc.local\data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\CA_Template_LetterPortrait.mxd Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
89 7.4.2 Freeway Ramp Queueing Analysis
The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not change the trip generation, distribution, or assignment relative to the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout; therefore, the effects on freeway ramp queueing would remain consistent with the analysis provided in Section 4.4.2. No offramps would experience queues exceeding storage capacities under Phase 1 or Project Buildout conditions with the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative.

7.4.3 Transit Performance Analysis
The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not change transit performance relative to the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout; consequently, the effects on transit delay and crowding would remain consistent with the analysis provided in Section 4.4.3.

7.4.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Analysis
Under both the Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would increase vehicle trips along designated bicycle routes and in areas with high levels of pedestrian activity consistent with the analysis provided in Section 4.4.4. Such areas would include Herman Avenue, South Linden Avenue, Sneath Lane, San Bruno Avenue, Spruce Avenue, and the edges of downtown San Bruno and downtown South San Francisco. However, since traffic would be distributed across several routes accessing freeway ramps, walking and biking conditions are not expected to be adversely affected by the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative relative. By extending the greenway along Tanforan Avenue, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would enhance east-west pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between the BART Station and Tanforan Avenue.

7.4.5 Emergency Vehicle Analysis
The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative is not anticipated to substantially affect emergency vehicle operations relative to the No Project conditions. The proposed site plan fully accommodates emergency vehicles and would not include design features that would cause emergency vehicle to be slowed or unable to access the site or surrounding areas.

7.5 Impacts and Mitigations

7.5.1 Vehicular Traffic

7.5.1.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled
Impact TRANS-24A: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would have a less-than-significant impact on vehicle miles traveled, under Phase 1 conditions, due to the Project’s location, transit-oriented nature, and other characteristics. (Less-than-Significant)
Impact TRANS-24B: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would have a less-than-significant impact on vehicle miles traveled, under Project Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
90 Buildout conditions, due to the Project’s location, transit-oriented nature, and other characteristics. (Less-than-Significant)
As documented in Sections 4.2 and 7.2, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not change the Project’s proximity to transit and presumption of less than significant impact to VMT. The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative is an employment center located within ½ mile of a major transit station and high quality transit corridor, with a parking ratio below what would otherwise be required by the City for projects of this type, and Project elements designed to encourage transit use and reduce the number of automobile trips to and from the site. As such, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout would have a less-than-significant impact on VMT, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

7.5.2 Design Hazards

7.5.2.1 Geometric Design Hazards
Impact TRANS-25A: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not increase hazards to street users, under Phase 1 conditions, due to a design feature or land uses incompatible with the surrounding street network. (Less-thanSignificant) Impact TRANS-25B: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not increase hazards to street users, under Project Buildout conditions, due to a design feature or land uses incompatible with the surrounding street network. (Less-than-Significant)
As documented in Sections 4.3 and 7.3, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative includes a range of improvements to vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure that would be consistent with design standards and compatible with the intensity of proposed employment uses. Therefore, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would have a less-than-significant impact on design hazards under Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure: None required.

7.5.2.2 Freeway Ramp Queuing
Impact TRANS-26A: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not add vehicle trips to existing freeway off-ramp vehicle queues, under Phase 1 conditions, that exceed storage capacity resulting in a potentially hazardous condition, and as such would have a less than significant impact on freeway ramp queuing. (Less-than-Significant)
Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
91 Impact TRANS-26B: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not add vehicle trips to existing freeway off-ramp vehicle queues, under Project Buildout conditions, that exceed storage capacity resulting in a potentially hazardous condition, and as such would have a less than significant impact on freeway ramp queuing. (Less-than-Significant)
As documented in Sections 4.4.2 and 7.4.2, vehicle trips associated with the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not exceed ramp storage capacities at any of the intersections studied, and would not lead to potential hazardous interference with the freeway mainline. Therefore, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would have a less-than-significant impact on freeway ramp queuing under Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: None Required

7.5.2.3 At-Grade Rail Crossings
Impact TRANS-27A: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would increase vehicle queues beyond available storage at the South Linden Avenue grade crossing, under Phase 1 conditions, but would not exacerbate risk of collisions; therefore, it would have a less than significant impact on at-grade rail crossing hazards. (Less-than-Significant)
Impact TRANS-27B: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would increase vehicle queues beyond available storage at the South Linden Avenue grade crossing, under Project Buildout conditions, but would not exacerbate risk of collisions; therefore, it would have a less than significant impact on at-grade rail crossing hazards. (Less-than-Significant)
The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would result in increased traffic volumes at the realigned atgrade rail crossing at South Linden Avenue under Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions as documented in Sections 4.3.3 and 7.3.2. However, Project-related crossing improvements would limit the risk of collisions associated with increased traffic, consistent with the Phase 1 and Project Buildout site plans.

Therefore, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative under the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions would have a less-than-significant impact on the South Linden Avenue at-grade rail crossing, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure: None required.

Impact TRANS-28A: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not increase vehicle queues, under Phase 1 conditions, beyond available storage at the Scott Street at-grade rail crossing and would not exacerbate risk of collisions, resulting in no impact to the at-grade rail crossing. (Less-than-Significant) Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
92 Impact TRANS-28B: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not increase vehicle queues, under Project Buildout conditions, beyond available storage at the Scott Street at-grade rail crossing and would not exacerbate risk of collisions, resulting in no impact to the at-grade rail crossing. (Less-thanSignificant) The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would result in a net decrease in traffic volumes crossing the Caltrain corridor along Scott Street, as some vehicle traffic crossing the Caltrain corridor at Scott Street would shift to Southline Avenue (documented in Sections 4.3.3 and 7.3.2). As a result, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would have a less-than-significant impact on the Scott Street at-grade rail crossing under Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure: None required.

7.5.2.4 Traffic Signal Warrant
Impact TRANS-29A: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not meet any traffic signal warrants within the Specific Plan area, under Phase 1 conditions, and as such the Phase 1 Project results in a less than significant impact. (Less-than-Significant)
Impact TRANS-29B: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not meet any traffic signal warrants within the Specific Plan area, under Project Buildout conditions, and as such the Project Buildout results in a less than significant impact. (Less-than-Significant)
None of the Project’s five unsignalized driveways meet peak hour signal warrants under Phase 1 or Project Buildout conditions with the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative as described in Sections 4.3.2 and

7.4.1. The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would provide appropriate pedestrian crossing treatments at these unsignalized crossings. As a result, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative under both Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions would have a less-than-significant impact on traffic signal warrants, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure: None required.

Impact TRANS-30A: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would meet Peak Hour Signal Warrant at the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue Intersection, under Phase 1 conditions, resulting in a significant impact. (Significant)
Impact TRANS-30B: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would meet Peak Hour Signal Warrant at the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue Intersection, under Project Buildout conditions, resulting in a significant impact. (Significant)
Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
93 As documented in Sections 4.4.1 and 7.4.1, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would result in a net increase of about 11 PM vehicle trips under Phase 1 conditions and 301 PM peak hour trips under Project Buildout conditions at the intersection of Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue. This intersection meets CA-MUTCD peak hour signal warrant during the PM peak hour under Existing, 2024 No Project, and 2040 No Project conditions. The addition of Phase 1 and Project Buildout traffic would substantially contribute to the need for a signal at this intersection. As such, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative under both the Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions would have a significant impact at this location.

Mitigation Measures: The Project Sponsor should provide a fair share contribution towards implementation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue to alleviate potential conflicts associated with Project Buildout-related traffic. However, the traffic signal is not presently included in a capital improvement or fee program adopted by the City of San Bruno, therefore, the City of San Bruno does not have a mechanism for funding this mitigation and cannot ensure this mitigation occurs will be implemented. Therefore, while the proposed mitigation could reduce the Project Buildout impact on this intersection to a less-than-significant level, because a funding mechanism does not exist, the impact would be remain significant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable)

7.5.2.5 Emergency Vehicle Access
Impact TRANS-30A: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not produce a detrimental impact to emergency vehicle access in the study area, under Phase 1 conditions. (Less-than-Significant)
Impact TRANS-30B: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not produce a detrimental impact to emergency vehicle access in the study area, under Project Buildout conditions. (Less-than-Significant) As documented in Sections 4.4.5 and 7.4.5, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not include design elements that would hinder emergency access, and all roadways and facilities will be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. Therefore, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative under the Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions would have a less than significant impact on emergency vehicle access and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: None required

7.5.3 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit
Impact TRANS-31A: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, under Phase 1 conditions, and results in a less than significant impact based on compliance with such plans and policies. (Less-than-Significant) Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
94 Impact TRANS-31B: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, under Project Buildout conditions, and results in a less than significant impact based on compliance with such plans and policies. (Less-thanSignificant) As documented in Sections 4.4.4 and 7.4.4, Reduced Underground Parking Alternative exhibits consistency with plans, policies, and programs adopted by the City of South San Francisco, City of San Bruno, C/CAG, BART, and MTC. The Project would provide employment near regional transit, would enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities to support transit access, would connect local street networks, and would include a TDM program that meets City requirements. Therefore, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative under Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs and would have a less than significant impact.

Impact TRANS-32A: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would increase travel times for some bus routes, under Phase 1 conditions, but would not decrease the overall performance of transit service, and as such results in a less than significant impact on transit. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-32B: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would increase travel times for some bus routes, under Project Buildout conditions, but would not decrease the overall performance of transit service, and as such results in a less than significant impact on transit. (Less-than-Significant) As documented in Sections 4.4.4 and 7.4.4, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would increase average transit travel times on SamTrans ECR bus route (and portions of SamTrans routes 140 and 141) by one to three minutes, but is unlikely to affect the route’s performance overall or require additional buses to maintain comparable headways. No other routes operating in the Project vicinity would have increased average transit times due to the Project. The Project would also add transit ridership to BART, SamTrans, and Caltrain, but would not materially contribute to overcrowding. In addition, the Project delivers pedestrian infrastructure designed to enhance access to the SamTrans transit center and BART station.

Therefore, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative under Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions would have a less than significant impact on transit performance and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure: None required.

Impact TRANS-33A: Development of the proposed Project Buildout Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not decrease the performance and safety of bicycle and pedestrian facilities near the Project under Phase 1 conditions, resulting in a lessthan-significant impact. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-33B: Development of the proposed Project Buildout Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not decrease the performance and safety of bicycle and Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
95 pedestrian facilities near the Project under Project Buildout conditions, resulting in a significant impact. (Less-than-Significant)
As documented in Sections 4.4.4 and 7.4.4, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not degrade the performance or safety of bicycle or pedestrian facilities. The Project would extend the Centennial Way Trail, enhance bicycle and pedestrian access to the San Bruno BART Station, and provide new bike lane and sidewalk facilities. Therefore, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative under Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions would have a less than significant impact on bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure: None required.

Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
96 Appendix: VMT Totals for Greenhouse
Gas Analysis
The following table summarizes VMT totals for use in greenhouse gas analysis. The C/CAG Model estimates VMT and auto mode share based on regional travel behavior and proximity to transit. However, the model outputs do not fully reflect the implementation of the Project’s TDM program as required by city ordinance (most notably subsidized transit passes), and does not take into account active transportation facilities like the Centennial Way Trail as well as access improvements between the project and regional transit stations.

It is anticipated that the project’s TDM program would result in a 23 percent reduction in VMT over the C/CAG Model estimates based on these factors.

Appendix Table: VMT Totals for GHG Analysis
Scenario TAZ Total VMT
Total Project VMT
(Drive Alone Mode
Share)
Total Project VMT
with TDM Program
Existing 258,500 - -
Existing Plus Phase I 362,200 103,800 (71%) 79,900 (55%) 2024 260,000 - -
2024 Plus Phase I 363,800 103,800 (71%) 79,900 (55%)
2040 No Project 264,100 - -
2040 Plus Project Buildout 663,500 399,400 (71%) 307,500 (55%) Southline Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
April 2022
97 Appendix: Traffic Operations Memo
The following memorandum analyzes traffic operations for the Phase 1 Project, Project Buildout, and Partial Circulation Alternative. The Phase 1 Project analysis also covers the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative as discussed in Section 7.

Memorandum
Date: January 4, 2022
To: Adena Friedman, City of South San Francisco
From: Fehr & Peers
Subject: Southline Traffic Operations Analysis
SF20-1089
Executive Summary
The following memorandum presents a traffic operations analysis of the Southline Specific Plan and associated transportation infrastructure changes (“Project”). The Project would redevelop an approximately 26.5-acre industrial site in the City of South San Francisco’s Lindenville District, adjacent to the San Bruno Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail station. The Project would demolish all existing on-site uses and construct a transit-oriented office/research and development (R&D) campus with a maximum anticipated building area of 2.8 million square feet. New development would include office/R&D and amenity space serving approximately 11,000 employees; approximately 5,700 parking spaces; a new east-west street connection between Sneath Lane and South Linden Avenue (referred to as “Southline Avenue” 1 ); off-site
transportation, circulation, and infrastructure improvements at several locations outside the Specific Plan area; supportive utilities and related infrastructure; and open space.

In addition to creating the new Southline Avenue, the Project would modify off-site transportation infrastructure including constructing a new intersection connecting Sneath Lane, Huntington Avenue, Maple Avenue, and Southline Avenue; extending the Centennial Way Trail to the San Bruno BART Station; providing a signalized driveway to the SamTrans Transit Center; and enhancing pedestrian access to the San Bruno BART station with new bulbouts and high visibility crosswalks. Most of this off-site transportation infrastructure is 1 The South San Francisco General Plan identifies a proposed South Linden extension in a northeast/southwest direction across the Project site, connecting to South Maple Ave. (See General Plan, Figure 2-1.) Southline Avenue is provisionally named for the purpose of the Specific Plan and CEQA review.

January 4, 2022

2 located within the City of South San Francisco; however, certain improvements, including portions of the new intersection connecting Sneath Lane, Huntington Avenue, Maple Avenue, are located in the City of San Bruno.

The Project would be developed in phases over time with Phase 1 anticipated to be constructed by 2024, and full buildout in 2030. Phase 1 would include construction of the new Southline Avenue east–west connection road and the following development, generally located south of the new road: two new office buildings, with a total building area of up to 612,715 square feet; the four-story, 88,200-square foot amenities building; associated parking; and landscaping and open space amenities. Phase 1 also includes most of the proposed on-site and off-site infrastructure, roadway, and pedestrian improvements within the off-site improvement areas, including development of Southline Avenue and the intersection connecting Sneath Lane, Huntington Avenue, Maple Avenue.

This memorandum summarizes Project traffic patterns and anticipated changes in intersection Level of Service (LOS). Under California Senate Bill 743, passed in 2013, a development project’s contributions to LOS no longer constitute a significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Since LOS has been eliminated from consideration under CEQA, this analysis is intended to be informational only, providing the City of South San Francisco and City of San Bruno with an overview of how the local roadway network surrounding the Project functions from an operations standpoint. However, for the purposes of evaluating environmental impacts under CEQA, the new regulations have removed traffic congestion from the range of required subjects analyzed within CEQA documents.

This memorandum summarizes the Project’s projected travel patterns and effects on LOS under 6 different scenarios as further described in the Methodology section below. These scenarios include evaluation of both Phase 1 Project under 2024 conditions and Project Buildout under the 2040 condition, both as compared to a no project and existing condition. A Partial Circulation Scenario evaluates the Project’s effects without the proposed reconfiguration of the intersection connecting Southline Avenue to Sneath Lane and Huntington Avenue.

Key Findings Include:
• Project-related traffic would be distributed across several streets connecting to 10 freeway ramps and several arterials; consequently, traffic volumes and associated congestion effects are not concentrated along any particular corridor. This information is shown in Figures 9 and 10 as well as Table 7.
• Under existing conditions, three intersections (all within San Bruno) experience LOS E or F conditions under existing conditions, two of which do not meet LOS standards.

January 4, 2022

3 • Under 2024 no project conditions, five intersections experience LOS E or F conditions (one in South San Francisco, four in San Bruno), and three of these intersections do not meet LOS standards. Under 2024 plus Phase 1 conditions, the same four intersections experience LOS E or F conditions and the same three intersections do not meet LOS standards, while one intersection improves due to shifts in traffic patterns. This information is shown in Table 7.
• Under 2040 No Project conditions, nine intersections (five within South San Francisco and four within San Bruno) experience LOS E or F conditions, three of which do not meet LOS standards. Under 2040 Project Buildout conditions, 12 intersections (six within South San Francisco and six without San Bruno) experience LOS E or F conditions, and five intersections do not meet LOS standards. This information is shown in Figures 11 and 12 as well as Table 7.
• Without the proposed Southline Avenue connection of South Linden Avenue to Sneath Lane, as studied here under the Partial Circulation Scenario, more trips would occur in areas south of the Project (particularly along Herman Avenue and San Mateo Avenue) and in areas to the north of the Project (along Victory Avenue and Spruce Avenue). These streets lack capacity to accommodate large increases in Project-related traffic. This information is shown in Figures 9 through 12 and Table 7, and further described on pages 15 and 24.

January 4, 2022

4 City LOS Policies
This memorandum analyzes the effects of Project vehicle traffic at signalized and unsignalized intersections using level of service (LOS). LOS is a quantitative description of an intersection’s performance based on the average delay experienced by drivers. Intersection levels of service range from LOS A, which indicates free flow conditions with short delays, to LOS F, which indicates congested or overloaded vehicle flow conditions with extremely long delays.

California Senate Bill 743 stipulates that vehicle LOS and similar measures related to auto delay shall not be used as the basis for determining the significance of transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, local agencies may continue to use vehicle congestion metrics to inform non-CEQA transportation planning and evaluation.

The City of South San Francisco and City of San Bruno have each adopted LOS policies. These policies differ by jurisdiction as described below:
• The South San Francisco General Plan exempts development within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station, or a City-designated ferry terminal, from LOS standards (Policy

4.2-G-17). The City has concluded that Policy 4.2-G-17 applies to the entirety of the Project given most of the site is within ¼ mile of the San Bruno BART Station. • The San Bruno General Plan strives to maintain acceptable levels of service for vehicular movement along the city’s street network, and acknowledges that acceptable level of service could vary based on
characteristics of the area
under consideration (Policy
T-B). It establishes a LOS D
standard at intersections
highlighted in yellow in
(including the Huntington
Avenue/Sneath Lane
intersection, which has lane
configurations affected by
the Project).

Figure 1 – City of San Bruno LOS Standards
January 4, 2022

5 Methodology
The following section describes the methodology for this analysis. The analysis scenarios, travel demand model methodology, and trip generation, distribution, and assignment are consistent with the approach presented in the Transportation Impact Analysis.

Analysis Scenarios
The impacts of the proposed Project to the surrounding transportation system were evaluated for the five scenarios listed below:
• Scenario 1: Existing Conditions
• Scenario 2: 2024 Baseline (No Project)
• Scenario 3: 2024 Baseline Plus Project Phase 1 Conditions • Scenario 4: Cumulative 2040 Conditions
• Scenario 5: Cumulative 2040 Plus Project Buildout Conditions A description of the methods used to estimate the amount of traffic and VMT generated by the proposed Project is provided below.

1. Existing Conditions (Pre-COVID-19)
Existing conditions represent the baseline condition upon which Project impacts are measured. The existing condition reflects transportation conditions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the atypical travel patterns and transit service levels during the COVID-19 pandemic, new data was not collected for this analysis. Instead, to establish a representative existing condition, this analysis utilized local traffic data collected in 2017 and 2018 and transit service levels prior to the COVID19 pandemic (including Caltrain service levels of five trains per hour, per direction). This approach enables analysis of an observed condition and no major developments have since been completed in the immediate Project area that might substantially affect traffic patterns; however, there is inherently some uncertainty in the data’s representation of existing conditions due to its age and the unusual circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. 2024 Baseline
The 2024 Baseline condition represents a near-term condition after the COVID-19 pandemic is presumed to have ended, in which travel patterns have returned to normal. The 2024 Baseline condition includes prorated local and regional growth consistent with the 2040 forecasts, reflecting the 2017/2018 conditions plus the addition of roughly one quarter of total growth between the 2017/2018 condition and 2040 forecasts. There remains substantial uncertainties around the January 4, 2022

6 COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on travel behavior and the duration of these effects; this approach assumes travel behavior returns to typical conditions and the effects of the pandemic are short term in nature. The 2024 Baseline also includes the completion of the Caltrain Electrification Project, a Project currently under construction that will increase Caltrain service levels to six trains per hour, per direction.

3. 2024 Baseline Plus Project Phase 1 Conditions
The 2024 Baseline Plus Phase 1 conditions represent the 2024 condition with the addition of Phase 1 of the Project based on the anticipated Phase 1 construction schedule. Phase 1 of the Project includes several major transportation network improvements, including the construction of Southline Avenue; constructing a new intersection connecting Sneath Lane, Huntington Avenue, Maple Avenue, and Southline Avenue; providing a signalized driveway to the SamTrans Transit Center; and extension of various bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including extending the Centennial Way Trail to the San Bruno BART station and enhancing pedestrian access to the San Bruno BART station with new bulbouts and high visibility crosswalks. As such, under 2024 Baseline Plus Phase 1 conditions, traffic volumes reflect the existing traffic volumes, some redistribution of traffic to the new Southline Avenue, and traffic associated with the land uses in Phase 1 of the Project.

4. Cumulative 2040 Conditions
Cumulative 2040 conditions include transportation demand resulting from reasonably foreseeable land use changes and conditions associated with planned transportation Projects. Cumulative conditions are based on forecasted land use and transportation conditions included in Plan Bay Area 2040, as represented in the C/CAG Model. Forecasts for cumulative conditions include several adjustments to reflect reasonably foreseeable Projects affecting the study area, including completion of all approved employment Projects within the City of South San Francisco as of May 2020, and completion of the Bayhill Specific Plan in the City of San Bruno (a plan that may be considered reasonably foreseeable even though it is not yet approved). Along the Caltrain railroad corridor, cumulative conditions include the operation of 12 trains per hour, per direction during peak periods; this service level reflects completion of the California High Speed Rail Project to operate four high speed trains per hour, per direction (as described in Plan Bay Area) as well as the Caltrain Business Plan’s adopted service vision of operating eight trains per hour, per direction during peak periods.

Cumulative conditions do not assume completion of any roadway changes (with the exception of the US-101 Managed Lanes project south of I-380). The South Linden and Scott Street grade separations are also not included since these Projects are not yet fully funded or included in the regional transportation plan. As of September 2020, both South San Francisco and San Bruno have provided direction to proceed with studying a hybrid approach for the South Linden Avenue grade crossing that involves partially raising the railway and lowering the roadway, along with closing Scott Street to vehicles and maintaining a crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists.

January 4, 2022

7 5. Cumulative 2040 Plus Project Buildout Conditions
Cumulative plus Project conditions represent the cumulative condition with the addition of the complete Project buildout to determine the extent to which the proposed Project would contribute to long-term cumulative transportation impacts.

6. Partial Circulation Scenario (Cumulative 2040 Plus Project Buildout Conditions) The Partial Circulation Scenario matches Scenario 5 (Cumulative 2040 Plus Project Buildout Conditions) with the omission of a new reconfiguration of the intersection connecting Southline Avenue to Sneath Lane and Huntington Avenue. In this scenario, Southline Avenue would terminate at Maple Avenue at its western portion.

Travel Demand Model Methodology
The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Travel Demand Model (C/CAG Model) was used as a basis for analyzing travel behavior, including trip distribution and vehicle miles traveled. The C/CAG Model is a trip-based regional travel demand model that considers regional land use patterns, approximated highway congestion, and connecting transit service within the nine-county Bay Area region. As part of the ongoing City of South San Francisco General Plan Update study, the C/CAG model was reviewed, and updated through a series of diagnostic tests to assess the model’s performance and reasonableness, and a series of refinements were made to the model inputs for land use, roadway network and transit service within South San Francisco. These updates improve the C/CAG model’s effectiveness in reasonably estimating current travel patterns and changes in travel patterns in response to Project land use and transportation network changes.

To further enhance the reasonableness of trip assignment from the C/CAG Model, the City of South San Francisco’s sub-area model was applied using Project trip generation and trip distribution from the C/CAG Model. The sub-area model, developed for the City of South San Francisco General Plan Update, reflects origin-destination patterns consistent with the C/CAG Model and incorporates refinements to the level of detail in the local street network. The sub-area model, developed in the Visum software platform, provides a more detailed representation of traffic circulation and operational performance of the roadway network in the vicinity of the Project and within the San Francisco and San Bruno areas. The roadway network in the sub-area model was refined to include most streets and major driveways in South San Francisco. The traffic assignment process in the subarea model incorporates details such as signal timings, intersection lane geometries, and turning movement delays, allowing for a more realistic representation of existing traffic patterns and those associated with the Project land use and proposed street extension. Figure 2 illustrates the increased local network detail in the South San Francisco model compared to the C/CAG model.

Figure 3 highlights the proposed street extension in the South San Francisco General Plan.

January 4, 2022

8 Figure 2. Comparison of Model Network Detail
C/CAG Model South San Francisco Model
Figure 3. South San Francisco General Plan – Proposed Streets Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment
The amount of traffic added to the roadway system by the proposed Project was estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. The first step, trip generation, estimates the amount of traffic that would be generated once the proposed Project was built and fully occupied. The second step, trip distribution, estimates the direction of travel to and from the Project. The third step, trip assignment, assigns the proposed Project trips to specific street segments and intersection turning movements. The results are described below.

Trip Generation
Project person trip and vehicle trip forecasts were developed to capture the multimodal nature of Project travel as a transit-oriented development. Person trip generation represents trips by one person in any mode of transportation, whereas vehicle trip generation represents trips by one January 4, 2022

9 vehicle. Vehicle trip estimates include trips associated with single occupancy vehicles, taxis, ridehailing companies (like Uber and Lyft), carpools, and shuttles.

The Project includes two land use alternatives – an office use and a life science use. For purposes of this analysis, the office use was analyzed to reflect a land use condition with a employee density – typically offices have one employee per 250 square feet, compared to one employee per 450 square feet for life science uses. Therefore, the Office Alternative would have a larger effect on the surrounding environment when compared to the Life Sciences Alternative. As such, this section analyzes the Office Alternative when considering project impacts under the buildout scenario.

Trip generation estimates were prepared for the Phase 1 Project (701,000 square feet), inclusive of the approximately 16,400 square foot publicly-accessible ground floor uses in the amenities buildings, in addition to the Project Buildout (up to 2,800,000 square feet).

The Project is subject to the City’s Transportation Demand Management ordinance. The Project will be required to comply with a maximum drive alone mode share of 55 percent. Under the Transportation Demand Management ordinance, the Project must comply with standard monitoring practices to enforce these mode share requirements. A Preliminary TDM Plan has been prepared for the Project, which is applicable to the entire Project site.

Office Trip Generation
Office trip generation was calculated using local data from comparable sites, as further described below, based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition recommendation for using local data for similar atypical developments like the proposed Project, which is very large in scale, adjacent to high frequency transit service, has a reduced parking supply, and is subject to stringent transportation demand management requirements. Based on the ITE recommendation, this analysis estimates person trip and vehicle trip rates based on observed counts and mode share surveys for comparable high intensity technology office uses in Downtown Redwood City near the Redwood City Caltrain Station, as analyzed in the Redwood City Moves Transportation Plan. Based on a review of comparable trip generation and mode share data for other transit-oriented office sites located in San Francisco, Oakland, and San Mateo, the Downtown Redwood City location was selected based on land use, transit, and TDM characteristics that most closely resemble the Project. These person trip and vehicle trip rates from the Downtown Redwood City data were adjusted to reflect the Project’s mode share requirements consistent with the City of South San Francisco’s TDM ordinance – a maximum peak period drive alone rate of 55 percent including single-occupancy vehicles and single-passenger trips via ride-hailing companies or taxis, as compared to an observed peak period drive-alone rate of 50 percent in the downtown Redwood City surveys.

Person trip generation for non-auto modes was based on transit, carpool, and active transportation data from South San Francisco TDM surveys and the proximity of the Project to transit services and active transportation facilities. An estimated 23 percent of peak hour trips would occur via BART, January 4, 2022

10 10 percent via Caltrain, eight percent via Carpool, two percent via SamTrans buses, and two percent via bicycling. Trips via BART and SamTrans would require walking from the Project to the San Bruno BART Station or SamTrans bus transit center, while trips via Caltrain would connect via first/last mile shuttles or via biking.

Amenity Uses
Trip generation for the Project’s publicly accessible restaurant/retail uses were estimated using the High Turnover Restaurant classification from the Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Since the publicly accessible amenities are generally expected to draw pedestrian trips from elsewhere within the Project site and adjacent areas, the High Turnover Restaurant classification provides a conservative assessment of vehicle trips that is typically more reflective of a more automobileoriented use.

Amenity uses accessible only to tenants of the Project such as an employee cafeteria, fitness center, basketball court, auditorium would not generate external vehicle trips, but would generate employee-related person trips for individuals employed at these services. Trip generation for these internal private amenities was estimated at about one quarter of office rates based on anticipated employee densities and mix of staffed and unstaffed uses . Trip generation for the public and private amenity uses were included in both the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout.

Trip Internalization
Since the Project includes complementary mixed uses, some trips would be “internalized” within the Project Site (trips beginning and ending within the Project by walking). An internalization rate of three percent (AM peak hour) and two percent (PM peak hour) was applied to all vehicle trips during the respective peak hours based on the MXD+ Model, a weighted average of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Mixed-Use Trip Generation Model (MXD) and the NHCRP 684 methodology.

Credit for Existing Trip Generation
The Project’s net change in vehicle trips was calculated to reflect the estimated amount of vehicle trips occurring at the Project site under existing conditions. Due to the atypical travel patterns associated with the COVID-19 public health crisis and related shelter-in-place order, driveway counts of existing Project site uses were not conducted for purposes of this analysis. Instead, trip generation estimates for existing uses were estimated based on land use characteristics and the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Existing land uses include approximately 344,000 square feet of light industrial and office uses, about 85 percent of which is occupied. Both Phase 1 and the Project Buildout would include the Southline Avenue extension and associated infrastructure; therefore, both Phase 1 and Project Buildout trip generation include the full trip credit associated with existing land uses. In total, existing uses generate an estimated 1,504 daily vehicle trips, including 171 AM peak hour vehicle trips and 150 PM peak hour vehicle trips.

January 4, 2022

11 Trip Generation Results
Phase 1 of the Project would generate approximately 7,930 daily person trips and 3,954 daily vehicle trips. These totals include 1,043 AM peak hour person trips, 485 net new AM peak hour vehicle trips, 950 PM peak hour person trips, and 455 net new PM peak hour vehicle trips. Table 1 and Table 2 show person trip and vehicle trip generation estimates for Phase 1, respectively.

The Project Buildout would generate approximately 28,461 daily person trips and 16,876 vehicle trips. These totals include 3,918 AM peak hour person trips, 2,150 net new AM peak hour vehicle trips, 3,528 PM peak hour person trips, and 1,952 PM peak hour vehicle trips. Table 3 and Table 4 show person trip and vehicle trip generation estimates for the Project Buildout respectively.

Table 1. Person Trip Generation | Phase 1
Mode Mode Share AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour Daily
Drive Alone 55% 499 447 3,837
Carpool 8% 73 65 550
BART 23% 209 187 1,281
Caltrain1 10% 91 81 557
SamTrans 2% 18 16 111
Walk/Bike2 2% 18 16 111
Total Person Trips Monitored by TDM Ordinance 100% 908 812 6,448 Person Trips, Public Amenity Visitors - 135 138 1,482
Total Person Trips - 1,043 950 7,930
Notes:

1. Based on travel demand data from high intensity tech office mode share and person trip generation surveys from Downtown Redwood City near the Redwood City Caltrain Station as well as requirements from City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance.

2. Mode share estimates based on City of South San Francisco TDM Surveys and analysis based on local context.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.

January 4, 2022

12 Table 2. Vehicle Trip Generation | Phase 1
Land Use Size (KSF)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Rate (per
KSF) In Out Total Rate (per KSF) In Out Total
Rate
(per
KSF)
Total
Office1 613 0.81 464 35 499 0.73 58 387 445 6.16 3,774
Private Amenities2 72 0.23 15 1 16 0.20 2 13 15 1.72 124 Public Amenities3 16 9.94 87 72 159 9.77 97 59 156 115 1,840 Internalization Adjustment
(3% AM / 2% PM) -15 -3 -18 -3 -8 -11 -280
Project Trips 551 105 656 154 451 605 5,458
Existing Office4 11 ITE
Equation -10 -2 -12 ITE Equation -2 -12 -14 9.74 -125
Existing Light Industrial5 278 ITE
Equation -140 -19 -159 ITE Equation -18 -118 -136 4.96 -1,379 Net New Project Trips 401 84 485 134 321 455 3,954
Notes:

1. Based on travel demand data from high intensity tech office mode share and vehicle trip generation surveys from Downtown Redwood City near the Redwood City Caltrain Station as well as requirements from City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance. Values rounded in table.

2. Includes external trips associated with employee commutes and deliveries only, assumed to be 72 percent less than the office trip generation rate based upon expected uses and employee densities.

3. Source: ITE 932 High Turnover Restaurant, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 10th ed. Values rounded in table.

4. Source: ITE 710, General Office Building, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 10th ed.

Fitted curve equation used for individual land uses. Includes occupied spaces only as of March 2020. Values rounded in table. All existing uses are assumed to be removed with the Phase 1 Project.

5. Source: ITE 110, General Light Industrial, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 10th ed.

Fitted curve equation used for individual land uses. Includes occupied spaces only as of March 2020. Values rounded in table. All existing uses are assumed to be removed with the Phase 1 Project.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.

January 4, 2022

13 Table 3. Person Trip Generation | Project Buildout
Mode Mode Share AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Drive Alone 55% 2,105 1,879 15,984
Carpool 8% 306 273 2,317
BART 23% 880 786 5,394
Caltrain1 10% 383 342 2,345
SamTrans 2% 77 68 469
Walk/Bike2 2% 77 68 469
Total Person Trips Monitored by TDM Ordinance 100% 3,828 3,416 26,978 Person Trips, Public Amenity Visitors - 90 112 1,483
Total Person Trips - 3,918 3,528 28,461
Notes:

1. Based on travel demand data from high intensity tech office mode share and person trip generation surveys from Downtown Redwood City near the Redwood City Caltrain Station as well as requirements from City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance.

2. Mode share estimates based on City of South San Francisco TDM Surveys and assignment to transit providers based on local context and expected travel patterns.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.

January 4, 2022

14 Table 4. Vehicle Trip Generation | Project Buildout
Land Use Size
(KSF)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Rate (per
KSF) In Out Total Rate (per KSF) In Out Total Rate (per KSF) Total Office1 2,712 0.81 2,053 155 2,208 0.73 256 1,713 1,969 6.16 16,696 Private Amenities2 72 0.23 15 1 16 0.20 2 13 15 1.72 124 Public Amenities3 16 9.94 87 72 159 9.77 97 59 156 115 1,840 Internalization Adjustment
(3% AM / 2% PM) -56 -6 -62 -6 -32 -38 -280
Project Trips 2,099 222 2,321 349 1,753 2,102 18,380
Existing Office4 11 ITE Equation -10 -2 -12 ITE Equation -2 -12 -14 9.74 -125 Existing Light
Industrial5
278 ITE Equation -140 -19 -159 ITE Equation -18 -118 -136 4.96 -1,379 Net New Project Trips 1,949 201 2,150 329 1,623 1,952 16,876 Notes:

1. Based on travel demand data from high intensity tech office mode share and vehicle trip generation surveys from Downtown Redwood City near the Redwood City Caltrain Station as well as requirements from City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance. Values rounded in table.

2. Includes external trips associated with employee commutes and deliveries only, assumed to be 72 percent less than the office trip generation rate based upon expected uses and employee densities.

3. Source: ITE 932 High Turnover Restaurant, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 10th ed. Values rounded in table.

4. Source: ITE 710, General Office Building, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 10th ed.

Fitted curve equation used for individual land uses. Includes occupied spaces only as of March 2020. Values rounded in table.

5. Source: ITE 110, General Light Industrial, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 10th ed.

Fitted curve equation used for individual land uses. Includes occupied spaces only as of March 2020. Values rounded in table.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.

Project Vehicle Trip Distribution, and Project Vehicle Trip Assignment Figure 4 displays vehicle trip distribution by county based on the C/CAG Model. Approximately 65 percent of vehicle trips would travel between the Project and other locations in San Mateo County.

About 21 percent of trips would travel between the Project and San Francisco County. The remainder of trips would be split between Alameda County, Santa Clara County, and elsewhere in the East Bay and North Bay. This summary does not include trip distribution associated with nonauto trips.

January 4, 2022

15 Figure 4 Vehicle Trip Distribution – Summary by County Figure 5 and Figure 6 illustrate Phase 1 and Project Buildout trip distribution and assignment based on the City’s sub-area model, depicting street segments with greater than 25 Projectgenerated trips. Vehicle trip distribution from the Project is shown in green, while volumes assigned to individual streets are illustrated proportionally in blue. The Project’s location and access to multiple freeway ramps would result in drivers using several different routes to access US-101, I380, and I-280. Because 2040 freeway conditions are projected to be highly congested, some Project trips may travel somewhat longer distances via parallel corridors such as El Camino Real or Junipero Serra Boulevard. Approximately 56 percent of Project-generated trips would travel via San Bruno, and 44 percent via South San Francisco.

Figure 7 and Figure 8 illustrate the total difference in volumes associated with the Project Buildout (the Project Buildout trip assignment plus the change in travel patterns associated with the new street connection). By adding the Southline Avenue connection between Sneath Lane/Huntington Avenue and South Linden Avenue, the Project would shift vehicle trips from other routes, resulting in a net decrease in traffic volumes on parallel routes like Spruce Avenue and Scott Street. 2024 conditions generally mirror those shown in 2040 with lower traffic volumes associated with Phase

1. Figure 9 and 10 illustrate the difference in AM and PM peak hour volumes for the Partial Circulation Scenario as compared to the Project Buildout. Under the Partial Circulation Scenario, more Project traffic uses Spruce Avenue, Herman Street, and San Mateo Avenue to access the Project via a more circuitous paths, while Huntington Avenue, Sneath Lane, and El Camino Real experience comparatively lower volumes given the lack of direct connection to the Project.

San Mateo County,
65%
San Francisco
County, 21%
Alameda County, 4%
Santa Clara County ,
4%
Other, 5%
30 177
69 29
228
228
46 177
151
29 29
177
177
95 177
46 177
132 132
46 81
180
191 267
119 119 57 58
226
53 307 191 188 183
182
61 307 136
307 268 264 277
160 155
268 267
136 52
180
182
182 225 180
120 160 151 150 110
42 47
47 41
156
75 47
82 46 88 86
86 86
124
84 104
156 156
40 76
56 25
56 80
60 47
233 177
179
50 50
152
323
223
94 220 222
17 1
8 2
1 3
36 136
259
58 60
25 47
95 323
135
211
51 62
224
150 152 153
47 223 211
327
250 143
82 42
112
79 26
79 42
170
42 249
111
49 48
32 34
95 94
40 36
56 47
47 140
26 29
51 50
93 92
70 70
33 573 686
49 256
58 58
84 320 257 258
713
488
47 207
56 88
66 54 51
98 55
193 205
31 84
37 50
190 191
59 315 175
183 182
27 53
89 100
25 47
65 100 113
57 72
46 45
27 58 57
39 86 88
39 30
82 37
49 36 35
71 86
85 27
101
55 67
180
47 113
57 58
26 30
25 42
63 88
70 41
57 52 112
28 27
77 48
54 39
39 29
29 48
45 38
56 57
\\fpsf03\Data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Analysis\Model\Plots Project Trip Distribution & Assignment - AM Peak Hour
Figure 5
30% 14%
18%
38%
XX%
Trip Distribution 200 400 800
Project Site
120
115
162
115
115
27 120
47 47
115
125
132
136 136
119
120
85 85
155
136 136
304 235 303
59 59 41 44 180
83 304
235 226 222
221
275 114 304
303
303 304
82 78
303 303
115 80
221
176
70 69 69 69 40 40
74 74
33 33
68 68
36 74
73 33
42 42
175 172 170 33
33 33
54 27
27 59
81 81
25 226
206
214
52 52
132
226
99 128
29 90 93
103
194
54 54
44 96
257
31 32 39
42 29 225
53 172 98 108
40 123
128 131
135
133
39 122 171 114
281
196 197
67 105 116
64 47 46
151
30 30
151
63 195 64
115 232 233
63 36 40
26 25 31 31
539
110
539
187 72 182 75 74
36 280
185 187 616
515 512
28 507 244
30 57 37 32 105
36 78
8 16
1 2
320
229 244
53 35
72 227 229
41 265 136
85 219 134
108
107
40 31
107 107
54 52
39 38
33 107 108
38 34
53 38
72 72
37 36
100
58 58
107
57 135
75 107
40 40
31 30
100 99
66 106 106
72 50
71 69
32 39
\\fpsf03\Data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Analysis\Model\Plots Project Trip Distribution & Assignment - PM Peak Hour
Figure 6
26% 16%
19%
39%
XX%
Trip Distribution
Project Site
150 300 650
228
-53 -27
-70
-80
32 231
212
36 -51
-69
32 -67
101 33 -42
190
159
38 -52
33 50
257
-26
-51 -54
151
36 34 37
40 189
214
172
67 58
327
39 31
-36
56 56
-27
27 327
45 -91
-28
124 124
48 31
-39
39 -27
-27
27 -39 -36
35 -64
64 33
83 59
135
116 110 113 93 94 11
1 6
35 82
268
-157
88 64
82 52 53
27 52
28 63
64 -102
45 64 62
52 28
51 60
165 160
61 59
4 -
5 102 -158
87 44
120
-62
161
5 52
28 28
3 4
7 11
3 3
5 35
119 123 123 110
105
-27
154
32 29 41
30 41
27 40
28 42
69 69
42 56
26 127 41 59
53 -26 26
53 53 53
55 51 51
51 26
69 152
31 174
-27
129
33 32 29 31 40 42 63 66 92
41 39 26
92 52
124 -71
122
26 -101
77 -10
-
0 159
-89
-192
41 30
53 50
36 181
607
292
-157
115
185
41 -164
106110
-160
463
43 6
8 6
-106 -11
5 4
7 31 62
236
-36 -34
40 110
49 -122
119 60 76
82 -35
-26 -34
105
41 186 181
35 38
3 1
6 82
40 106 118 77
51 3
6 25
36 13
3 8
96 436
288
31 27
28 32 33
344
365 383
126
36 40 39
64 172
64 32
48 73
34 38
-38
62 17
3 8
5 49
33 41 41
37 37
270
973
1075
611
31 27 200
33 33
89 -83
-43
-43 -42
-40
-43 -29
28 -1
4 40 -158
200 20
-1
0 57
460 461
95 50
36 105
-50
29 196 38
47 30
34 32
32 29 38
-39
211
119
-53
39 38
-26
37 37
31 49
26 27 29
44 92
31 27
26 343 345
36 -57
3 2
6 7
48 303 282
70 49
140
107 -89
-50 48 52 32 36
35 48 53
26 26
66 71
-50 -47
42 64 63
31 40 39
27 28
62 74
43 -84
27 31
30 29 29
40 -53
33 62
50 42
-47
34 35
34 52
29 43
32 41
34 100
-43 -48
34 27
50 49
82 29 28
66 29 34
43 40
38 39
\\fpsf03\Data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Analysis\Model\Plots 2040 Project Buildout
Volume Difference - AM Peak Hour
Figure 7
Decrease
Increase 350 700 1400
Change in Volume Volume - veh/hr
Project Site
46 94
79 -32
-51
158 79
123
54 70
85 78
44 90
28 -41
-33
-37
120
54 54 62
27 161
226
35 94
43 58
86 86
104 31
26 191 43 39 33
64 94 94
11 1
0 25
136 136
72 117
89 89 89 80
11 7
7 0 312
99 113
136 99 94
90 135 49 113 138
30 93 81
101 98
137 136
49 86
142 110
125
89 7
3 7
08 125
110 91 90
30 107 107
30 32
88 5
-8
1 9
39 96 40
96 5
-7
4 7
27 34 26
56 -34
49 49
34 50 39 38 39 38
28 29
46 39
39 94 34
26 38 31
34 34
27 39 39 39
69 37
88 47
118 120
55 -76
53 42
33 33 33
40 115
29 33 70 72 102
-31
102
106
-28
-44
94 36
37 42
49 -98 -15
-
3 203
-146
-189
26 29
32 31
160
85 367
528
88 -114
7 -1
7 19 -115
82 432
52 -1
4 34
43 3
-
7 140
123
179
-39 -35
29 29 43
-53
56 -140
37 154
34 41
58 -34 -30
63 154
82 85
158
170
16 8
1 6
43 63 8
2 4
7 153 47
33 5
3 72
29 2
5 41 388
402
45 41
-50
453
340
71 230
283 -44 96 91
59 55
68 44
38 164
69 31
47 61
-41
33 33
38 428
352 737 128
-163
31 31
28 45
30 37
-28
-47
28 -3
2 3
21 107
-186 -177
117
135 119
637
27 50
165
680 304
37 38
-59
-29
34 26 27
41 30
-74
101
262 304
30 -27
43 36
28 46
256 262
49 -6
1 5
73 34
238 96
27 147
94 -53
-4
32 6
-41
36 42 28 34
34 37 40
46 -53
-44 -94
41 28
34 30
55 52
28 37
50 50
-40
34 29 29
38 28
34 -82
-94
48 49
39 30
-38
-57
-70 -88
34 34
29 27
70 38
33 36
34 52
39 -27
\\fpsf03\Data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Analysis\Model\Plots 2040 Project Buildout
Volume Difference - PM Peak Hour
Figure 8
Decrease
Increase 350 700 1400
Change in Volume Volume - veh/hr
Project Site Project Site
-61
150 72
85 128 28
26 -36 39
128
-46
-43
30 131
41 -62
75 152 152
-36
-29
-107
-110
-41
-147
30 78
86 -26
-147
42 38
30 -27
65 65
-26 -49 -63
-197
30 -61 -61
-45
-232
-40
-38
-53
-3
-
4 53 -77 -53 -46 -50
30 -77 -39
-36 -197 -230 -197
17 1
7 41
57 57
6 1
0 23
29 34
72 42
29 37 26 27 26 26
-72
-41
40 57
57 55
76 76
31 -93
-27
39 111
48 -28
40 26
38 37
90 26
44 -34
-27
39 -42
27 74
148
361
182
66 66
345
213
32 66
-6
3 1
6 77
176
-46
17 -
0 52 -50
172
-4
4 3
2 -26
126 126
221
-145
45 93
43 91
77 134
53 -57
-65
-77
73 36 39
87 -65
-3
6 4
3 53
-44
-92
-73
-65
34 53
-57
-214
-11
1 9
08 88
-139
33 42
63 74
-152
74 119
-107 49
38 39
-29
65 -32
31 43
103
100
28 38 38
-78
-594 -662
303
-215
-69
156
157
26 -8
1 6
44 310
-210 -203
315
-292 -285
-30
50 48
31 -44
37 -139
-91
205
31 -54
-78 -90
-34
-30
-70
42 -78 -78
41 -10
4 1
9 -68 -69
-30
-27
109
45 29
58 49
30 109 139
30 307 294
353
64 98
164
36 92
238
138
42 42
34 29
362
-51
-35
29 -28
-26 -32
28 186
171
\\fpsf03\Data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Analysis\Model\Plots Southline - 2040 Full Buildout / Partial Circulation Scenario Volume Difference - AM Peak Hour
Figure 9
Decrease
Increase 150 350
650
Change in Volume Volume - veh/hr
Project Site
83 54
46 35 209
44 264
64 35
36 42
-28
89 67
-44
46 221
38 257
171
32 45
-51
-52
132
125
105
30 31
33 39
28 -42 -42
-56 -61
105
-42
-199
91 133
-33
-254
-80
54 -57
-33 -30 -30
-29
-85
37 -57
37 57
-42 -44
-28
-3
-
0 253
11 2
8 00
-57
114
151
28 62
69 74
33 33
37 44 31 31 28 28
28 -48
132 132
-55 -36 -41
74 74 75 74 75 75 80 67
26 67 67
38 94
235
149
114
38 38
-50
28 47
51 31
-50
-46
-67
31 109
137 206
424
41 199
402
26 41 31
133
84 -117
83 -86
145
-95
-8
1 6
44 146
-84
3 -
2 55
155
-62 -56
160
-31 -48
-267
187
134
54 130
50 -31
83 160
-57
-54
39 -51
-46
46 42 125
46 -139
107
-95 -107
95 59
7 -1
5 27
-139 -55
39 -305
93 89
-208 -222
74 29
27 -29
74 -242
54 54
28 35
29 -198
98 64
57 105 105
45 167
-47 -47
40 -89
-153
29 -38
35 108 106
-815
-163
-112
317
-32
-37
-62
109
-44
127
36 28
41 119
38 7
-
9 189 -75
338 32
-
7 85
-109 -88
-463
80 -26
48 -139
-515 -173
83 -70
-32
-26
-60
233
-57
-674
26 -126 -173
32 39 39
-39
-121 -126
-211
-97 -30
-30
-87
58 178
55 35
60 -28
101
64 32
35 62
57 185
31 38
45 31
152
70 104
-67
110
58 62
29 44
192
47 121
83 62
72 102
32 104
-52
233
\\fpsf03\Data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Analysis\Model\Plots Southline - 2040 Full Buildout / Partial Circulation Scenario Volume Difference - PM Peak Hour
Figure 10
Decrease
Increase 200 400
800
Change in Volume Volume - veh/hr
Project Site
January 4, 2022

22 Level of Service Methodology
LOS for the study intersections were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition and HCM 2000 methodologies. While HCM methodology and Synchro traffic analysis software represents the state of the practice in evaluating isolated intersection operations, this methodology presents some limitations for both signalized and unsignalized intersections within a congested network. As congestion increases, use of deterministic traffic modeling tools such as Synchro may not fully reflect the extent of vehicular queuing and spillover effects between intersections.

To better evaluate the congested and multimodal traffic conditions characterized by high vehicular and pedestrian demand, dedicated pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit stops and the adjacent Caltrain rail crossing, Vissim, a microsimulation software was selected as the analysis tool for the roadway network and study intersections adjacent to the Project site and the San Bruno BART station. Vissim analyzes traffic by simulating and capturing the interactions between individual cars, trucks, buses, pedestrians and bicycles. In addition to vehicular LOS, Vissim can evaluate vehicle queuing, transit and emergency vehicle delays, pedestrian and bicycle delays, and pedestrian density – topics that are covered in the Project’s Transportation Impact Analysis EIR section.

Signalized Intersections
The method from Chapter 19 of the HCM 6th Edition bases signalized intersection operations on the average control delay experienced by motorists traveling through it. Control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. This method uses various intersection characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing) to estimate the average control delay. Table 5 summarizes the relationship between average delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections according to the HCM 6th Edition methodology.

For select intersections where the HCM 6th Edition methodology was not able to process results (typically due to non-standard signal phasing), the HCM 2000 methodology was used instead.

Unsignalized Intersections
Traffic conditions at the unsignalized study intersections (stop sign and yield sign-controlled intersections) were evaluated using the method from Chapters 20 and 21 of the HCM 6 th Edition.

With this method, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for each stop-controlled approach that must yield the right-of-way. At four-way stopcontrolled intersections, the control delay is calculated for the entire intersection and for each approach. The delays and corresponding LOS for the entire intersection are reported. At two-way stop-controlled intersections the movement with the highest delay and corresponding LOS is reported. Table 6 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections.

January 4, 2022

23 Table 5: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Service
Description Average Control Delay
Per Vehicle (Seconds)
A
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length. ≤ 10
B
Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. > 10 and ≤ 20
C
Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. > 20 and ≤ 35 D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. > 35 and ≤ 55
E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
> 55 and ≤ 80
F
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2016. Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition Table 6: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Service
Description Average Control Delay
Per Vehicle (Seconds)
A Little or no traffic delays. ≤ 10
B Short traffic delays. > 10 and ≤ 15
C Average traffic delays. > 15 and ≤ 25
D Long traffic delays. > 25 and ≤ 35
E Very long traffic delays. > 35 and ≤ 50
F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded. > 50 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2016. Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition January 4, 2022

24 LOS Results
Table 7, Figure 11, and Figure 12 show LOS results in relation to LOS Standards in the City of San Bruno (see Figure 1 for LOS D intersections). As a transit-oriented development adjacent to the San Bruno BART station, the Project is exempt from the City of South San Francisco’s LOS standards as noted above in the policy review section. Overall, the LOS results mirror the trends described in previous sections: Project-related trips travel across several routes connecting to US-101, I-380, I280, and surface streets, and as such, few intersections within the study area experience a large enough change in traffic volumes to see highly congested conditions specifically due to Project trips. Overall, the analysis yielded the following findings:
• Under Existing conditions, two intersections (both within San Bruno) experience LOS E or F conditions under existing conditions, two of which do not meet LOS standards under the City of San Bruno’s LOS D policy.
• Under 2024 No Project conditions, four intersections experience LOS E or F conditions (one in South San Francisco, three in San Bruno), and two of these intersections do not meet LOS standards. under the City of San Bruno’s LOS D policy • Under 2024 plus Phase 1 conditions, three of the same intersections experience LOS E or F conditions and two of these intersections do not meet LOS standards under the City of San Bruno’s LOS D policy, while one intersection improves due to shifts in traffic patterns. • Under 2040 No Project conditions, eight intersections (five within South San Francisco and three within San Bruno) experience LOS E or F conditions, two of which do not meet LOS standards under the City of San Bruno’s LOS D policy.
• Under 2040 Project Buildout conditions, 11 intersections (six within South San Francisco and five without San Bruno) experience LOS E or F conditions, and four intersections do not meet LOS standards under the City of San Bruno’s LOS D policy.

While LOS results typically worsen over time and between no project and plus project conditions, this is not always the case as traffic patterns may change and congestion may improve over time due to a range of factors including implementation of transportation and circulation improvements that allow for improved circulation. With respect to this analysis, in some locations, LOS improves between 2024 and 2040 due to signal optimization. In others, LOS improves due to shifts in traffic patterns associated with the Project’s Southline Avenue extension and new intersection.

Under the Partial Circulation Scenario, Project-generated traffic would shift from a relatively balanced distribution between north, south, east, and west to a heavier concentration of trips traveling north and south on smaller residential and industrial streets such as Herman Street/Dollar Avenue, San Mateo Avenue, South Maple Avenue, and Victory Avenue. Additionally, cut-through traffic on Southline Avenue would not occur. As a result, while LOS would be comparatively January 4, 2022

25 improved intersections such as El Camino Real/Sneath Lane (#12) and Sneath Lane/Huntington Avenue (#30), while LOS would deteriorate at intersections such as Herman Avenue/Scott Street (#11), San Bruno Avenue/San Mateo Avenue (#19), and Huntington Avenue/Herman Avenue (#21).

Under these conditions, eight intersections experience LOS E or F conditions, and three intersections do not meet LOS standards (within the City of San Bruno). Although queueing effects were not simulated along smaller residential and industrial streets around the Project site, it is anticipated that residents and businesses would see more congested local street segments under the Partial Circulation Scenario that could cause additional delay and difficulty accessing driveways (particularly along Herman Street, San Mateo Avenue, and South Maple Avenue).

A sensitivity test was performed to understand the effects of closing the Scott Street at-grade rail crossing (adjacent to intersections 11 and 16). This closure was found to shift traffic to the South Linden Avenue and San Bruno Avenue grade crossings, but would have minimal overall effect on intersection LOS (in part due to the shifts in traffic patterns that would already occur by adding the Southline Avenue extension).
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Crestmoor
Canyon
3101
West Orange Avenue
Chestnut Av
South Airport Boulevard
Westborough Bl
El Camino Real
San Bruno Avenue West
y Wr obr aH
South Linden Avenue El Camino Real
Orange Avenue
Grand Avenue
Huntington Av
North Mcdonnell Road
Country Club Drive
DubuqueAv
Utah Avenue
Gateway Bl
Sneath Lane
Linden Av
San Bruno Avenue East
South Spruce Avenue
ProduceAv
EastGrandAv
eunevA oet a MnaS
Cherry Av Dorado Wy
Crestwood Drive
Spruce
Avenue
Avalon Drive
Mitchell Avenue
·82
%&280
%&380
14 15
17 24
31 20
26 25
27 18 19 22
23 11 16
28 13
10 7 8
2 3
1 4
29 30
12 6
9 21
\\Fpsf03.fpainc.local\data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\CA_Template_LetterPortrait.mxd Study Intersection Level of Service (AM)
Figure 11
! Study Intersections
Microsimulation Network
New Street - Southline Avenue
Cities
South Maple
Avenue
Hun�ngton Avenue
Sea
Sco� St
Miller Av
Baden Av
Biscuit Av
Airport Bl
San Mateo Av
San
Bruno
South
San Francisco

DOWNTOWN

DOWNTOWN

LINDENVILLE

BAYHILL
Tanforan
Shopping
Center
Orange
Memorial
Park
!5
Project Site A-C
D
E
F
Study Intersection Level of Service
Does Not Meet City LOS Standard
Scenario Not Analyzed
2040 No Project
2040 + Full Buildout
2040 + Full Buildout
Partial Circulation
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Crestmoor
Canyon
3101
West Orange Avenue
Chestnut Av
South Airport Boulevard
Westborough Bl
El Camino Real
San Bruno Avenue West
y Wr obr aH
South Linden Avenue El Camino Real
Orange Avenue
Grand Avenue
Huntington Av
North Mcdonnell Road
Country Club Drive
DubuqueAv
Utah Avenue
Gateway Bl
Sneath Lane
Linden Av
San Bruno Avenue East
South Spruce Avenue
ProduceAv
EastGrandAv
eunevA oet a MnaS
Cherry Av Dorado Wy
Crestwood Drive
Spruce
Avenue
Avalon Drive
Mitchell Avenue
·82
%&280
%&380
14 15
17 24
31 20
26 25
27 18 19 22
23 11 16
28 13
10 7 8
2 3
1 4
29 30
12 6
9 21
\\Fpsf03.fpainc.local\data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\CA_Template_LetterPortrait.mxd Study Intersection Level of Service (PM)
Figure 12
! Study Intersections
Microsimulation Network
New Street - Southline Avenue
Cities
South Maple
Avenue
Hun�ngton Avenue
Sea
Sco� St
Miller Av
Baden Av
Biscuit Av
Airport Bl
San Mateo Av
San
Bruno
South
San Francisco

DOWNTOWN

DOWNTOWN

LINDENVILLE

BAYHILL
Tanforan
Shopping
Center
Orange
Memorial
Park
!5
Project Site A-C
D
E
F
Study Intersection Level of Service
Does Not Meet City LOS Standard
2040 No Project
2040 + Full Buildout
2040 + Full Buildout
Partial Circulation
Scenario Not Analyzed
January 4, 2022

28 LOS Results Notes (Table 7)
As shown on Table 7: LOS Results (bold text) indicates LOS E or F. Highlighting indicates that the intersection does not meet City LOS standards (no standards applicable in South San Francisco, noted SSF; LOS D standard for select intersections in San Bruno, noted as SB). Delay is reported as a weighted average of seconds per vehicle for all movements. As explained in Level of Service Methodology, LOS is based on the methodology in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition.

Intersections 5, 6, 9, 12, and 30 were analyzed using Vissim to provide a more detailed simulation of traffic congestions at closely-spaced Project intersections. Intersections 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 19, 22, 23, 26, and 27 were analyzed based on HCM 2000 in Synchro due to signal timing conditions incompatible with Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition analysis. All others were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition in Synchro. Calculations based on signal timing were provided by the City of South San Francisco, the City of San Bruno, and Caltrans from 2017-2020.

January 4, 2022

29 Table 7: LOS Results
Intersection City Peak
Hour
2017/2018 2024 No Project 2024 + Phase 1 2040 No Project 2040 + Full Buildout 2040 +Full Buildout
Partial Circulation
Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS 1 Airport Boulevard / Miller Avenue1 SSF
AM 27.2 C 27.5 C 27.9 C 28.7 C 30.3 C 31.4 C
PM 20.7 C 22 C 23.1 C 32.4 C 37.6 D 36.5 D
2 Airport Boulevard / Baden Avenue SSF
AM 42.2 D 42.3 D 41.5 D 37.6 D 37.3 D 37.1 D
PM 30.4 C 30.1 C 29.6 C 56.8 E 64.3 E 47.1 D
3 Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue1 SSF
AM 35.9 D 36.9 D 36.9 D 39.6 D 42.4 D 44.8 D
PM 45.2 D 47.3 D 47.8 D 65.1 E 74.3 E 68.9 E
4 Linden Avenue / Baden Avenue1 SSF
AM 23.7 C 23.7 C 25.4 C 24.6 C 29 C 29.6 C
PM 35.4 D 36.2 D 43.5 D 60.1 E >80 F >80 F
5 Linden Avenue / Dollar Avenue2 SSF
AM 27.3 C 28.9 C 24.8 C 47.0 D 67.0 E 30.0 C
PM 26.6 C 41.2 D 31.5 C 66.7 E 69.4 E 37.9 D
6 Linden Avenue / San Mateo Avenue2 SSF
AM 6.4 A 5.6 A 11.5 B 6.8 A 8.8 A 19.1 B
PM 7.5 A 8.8 A 17.3 B 10.2 B >80 F 18.4 B
7 Airport Boulevard / San Mateo Avenue /
Produce Avenue1
SSF
AM 34.6 C 37.3 D 39.4 D 38.6 D 41.7 D 41.8 D
PM 42.8 D 43 D 43.7 D 41.6 D 45.2 D 47.1 D
8 Airport Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard /
Mitchell Avenue SSF
AM 42.1 D 45.9 D 47.4 D 55.9 E 62.6 E 53.6 D
PM 53.9 D 67.0 E 70.0 E >80 F >80 F >80 F
9 Huntington Avenue / San Bruno BART
Station2
SB
AM 10.0 A 10.8 B 10.8 A 8.4 B 22.6 C 12.0 B
PM 9.2 A 9.7 A 11.4 A 8.7 A 15.2 C 13.0 B
10 Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor Lane / NB
101 On/Off Ramps1
SSF
AM 30.3 C 33.5 C 33.9 C 41.4 D 40.1 D 54.6 D
PM 27.3 C 29.0 C 29.6 C 46.9 D 48.8 D 54.7 D
11 Herman Street / Scott Street SB
AM 8.2 A 7.6 A 8.4 A 10.7 A 10.1 B >80 F
PM 6.8 A 7.4 A 7.4 A 10.5 B 9.9 A 35.2 E
12 El Camino Real / Sneath Lane2 SB
AM 29.5 C 30.8 C 32.0 C 33.1 C 42.4 D 33.6 C
PM 42.5 D 44.4 D 48.8 D 48.3 D 77.0 E 51.4 D
13 Spruce Avenue / Huntington Avenue SB
AM
Not analyzed – no data available due to COVID-19
PM
14 Sneath Lane / 280 SB On/Off Ramp SB
AM 78.6 E >80 F >80 F >80 F >80 F >80 F
PM 17.4 B 18.5 B 19.7 B 25.3 C 29.7 C 29.5 C
15 Sneath Lane / 280 NB On/Off Ramp SB
AM 16.0 B 16.8 B 18.0 B 20.6 C 30.1 C 28.8 C
PM 19.0 B 21 C 22.2 C 27.3 C 31.2 C 31.7 C
January 4, 2022

30 Intersection City Peak
Hour
2017/2018 2024 No Project 2024 + Project 2040 No Project 2040 + Full Buildout 2040 +Full Buildout
Partial Circulation
Average
Delay LOS Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS Average
Delay
LOS
16 San Mateo Avenue / Scott Street SB
AM 6.0 A 6.2 A 5.7 A 7.1 A 7.4 A 10.2 B
PM 6.3 A 6.6 A 5.8 A 7.5 A 7.1 A 11.9 B
17 Sneath Lane / Cherry Avenue SB
AM 7.1 A 7.3 A 7.6 A 8.9 A 10.5 B 10.2 B
PM 10.3 B 10.6 B 10.6 B 12.7 B 13.4 B 13.5 B
18 San Bruno Avenue / Huntington Avenue1 SB
AM 15.0 B 13.8 B 15.0 B 17.3 B 20.1 C 23.1 C
PM 16.6 B 17.5 B 16.4 B 22.1 C 18.7 B 24.9 C
19 San Bruno Avenue / San Mateo Avenue1 SB
AM 16.5 B 15.5 B 17.5 B 18.1 B 20.1 C 29.5 C
PM 19.8 B 20.5 C 20.2 C 25.6 C 25.8 C 28.1 C
20 San Bruno Avenue / 280 SB Off Ramp SB
AM 21.3 C 21.4 C 21.5 C 21.8 C 22.3 C 22.1 B
PM 12.5 B 12.6 B 12.8 B 15.6 B 15.9 B 15.4 B
21 Huntington Avenue / Herman Street SB
AM 11.9 B 12.3 B 11.8 B 13.8 B 18.2 C 43.0 E
PM 19.5 C 22.2 C 18.9 C 32.1 D 32.6 D 73.0 F
22 San Bruno Avenue / 101 SB On/Off Ramps1 SB
AM 20.5 C 20.5 C 20.9 C 21.3 C 23.0 C 23.4 C
PM 19.9 B 20.2 C 21.0 C 22 C 26.5 C 27.3 C
23 San Bruno Avenue / 101 NB On/Off Ramps1 SB
AM 20.5 C 21.0 C 22.6 C 27.8 C 34.4 C 34.6 C
PM 27.0 C 27.9 C 28.9 C 34.5 C 37.3 D 38.1 D
24 San Bruno Avenue / Cherry Avenue SB
AM 37.3 D 40.3 D 40.7 D 67.8 E 74.9 E 78.8 E
PM 53.1 D 60.9 E 66.1 E 37.9 D 40.8 D 38.1 D
25 El Camino Real / 380 EB On/Off Ramp1 SB
AM 21.0 C 18.0 B 18.5 B 22.6 C 21.3 C 20.7 C
PM 32.8 C 33.2 C 32.0 C 39.3 D 38.1 D 41.1 D
26 El Camino Real / 380 WB On/Off Ramp1 SB
AM 14.3 B 15.5 B 17.5 B 9.9 A 34.4 C 26.8 C
PM 21.7 C 23.9 C 24.4 C 15.6 B 25.2 C 27.0 C
27 El Camino Real / San Bruno Avenue SB
AM 40.5 D 38.1 D 39.2 D 42.7 D 52.9 D 45.0 D
PM 60.2 E 64.2 E 52.8 D 56.3 E 63.6 E 53.3 D
28 El Camino Real / Spruce Avenue / Hazelwood
Drive SB
AM 28.2 C 29.1 C 28.2 C 30.9 C 32.6 C 37.7 D
PM 35.1 D 36.6 D 35.6 D 44.2 D 46.8 D 52.3 D
29 Sneath Lane / Sea Biscuit Avenue SB
AM
Not analyzed – no data available due to COVID-19
PM
30 Sneath Lane / Huntington Avenue2 SB
AM 13.1 B 13.1 B 17.4 B 13.6 B 18.2 B 20.6 C
PM 25.3 C 25.3 C 33.8 C 26.9 C 56.9 E 27.0 C
31 San Bruno Avenue / 280 NB Off Ramp SB
AM 21.0 C 21.1 C 20.3 C 24.6 C 23.7 C 25.6 C
PM 24.5 C 25.5 C 25.6 C 26.1 C 25.5 C 26.5 C
Notes: 1HCM 2000 Methodology 2Analyzed with Vissim instead of Synchro

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave 09/24/2020
Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 52 449 154 3 29 126 0 0 362 32 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 52 449 154 3 29 126 0 0 362 32
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1580 1649 1692 3439 3417
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1580 1649 1692 3439 3417
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 59 510 175 3 33 143 0 0 411 36
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 59 342 346 0 0 176 0 0 441 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 4
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% 4%
Turn Type Over Perm NA Split NA NA
Protected Phases 1 6 1 1 4
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.4 52.4 52.4 11.4 23.0
Effective Green, g (s) 11.4 52.4 52.4 11.4 23.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.52 0.52 0.11 0.23
Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 180 864 886 392 785
v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.05 c0.13
v/s Ratio Perm c0.21 0.20
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.40 0.39 0.45 0.56
Uniform Delay, d1 40.8 14.3 14.2 41.4 34.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1 2.9
Delay (s) 42.2 15.7 15.5 42.5 36.9
Level of Service D B B D D
Approach Delay (s) 42.2 15.6 42.5 36.9
Approach LOS D B D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave. 09/24/2020
Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 526 282 25 125 141 3 374 207
Future Volume (veh/h) 526 282 25 125 141 3 374 207
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
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 1590 1710 1590 1590 1590 1590
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 380 392 130 147 390 29
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 0 9 9 9 9
Cap, veh/h 444 425 1209 1874 492 212
Arrive On Green 0.29 0.29 0.41 0.62 0.16 0.16
Sat Flow, veh/h 1514 1449 2938 3100 3100 1299
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 380 392 130 147 390 29
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1514 1449 1469 1510 1510 1299
Q Serve(g_s), s 23.7 26.2 2.7 1.9 12.4 1.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 23.7 26.2 2.7 1.9 12.4 1.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 444 425 1209 1874 492 212
V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.92 0.11 0.08 0.79 0.14
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 500 478 1209 1874 1190 512
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.93 0.93 0.63 0.63 0.79 0.79
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.3 34.2 18.1 7.6 40.2 35.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.7 19.8 0.0 0.1 9.9 1.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.9 11.4 0.9 0.6 5.2 0.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.0 54.0 18.1 7.6 50.2 36.9
LnGrp LOS D D B A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 772 277 419
Approach Delay, s/veh 49.1 12.6 49.2
Approach LOS D B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 45.7 20.9 66.6 33.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 4.6 4.6 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 * 39 48.4 33.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 14.4 3.9 28.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 1.6 0.6 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.2
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave. 09/24/2020
Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 186 205 82 192 110 59 33 333 282 383 391 124 Future Volume (vph) 186 205 82 192 110 59 33 333 282 383 391 124 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3000 2814 1527 1298 1464 2927 1309 1421 2956 1285 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3000 2814 1527 1298 1464 2927 1309 1421 2956 1285 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 196 216 86 202 116 62 35 351 297 403 412 131 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 18 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 86
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 480 0 202 116 6 35 351 297 266 549 45 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 58 20
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 12% 12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 7 7 6 6 2 6 7! 2! 2
Permitted Phases 7 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 22.6 11.0 11.0 11.0 16.4 16.4 73.5 36.3 36.3 36.3 Effective Green, g (s) 22.6 11.0 11.0 11.0 16.4 16.4 73.5 36.3 36.3 36.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.70 0.35 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 645 294 159 135 228 457 916 491 1021 444 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.07 c0.08 0.02 c0.12 0.23 c0.19 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.74 0.69 0.73 0.05 0.15 0.77 0.32 0.54 0.54 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 38.5 45.3 45.6 42.3 38.3 42.5 6.1 27.7 27.6 23.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.1 6.5 15.4 0.1 0.2 7.3 0.2 4.2 2.0 0.5 Delay (s) 42.6 51.9 61.0 42.4 38.5 49.7 6.3 31.9 29.6 23.8 Level of Service D D E D D D A C C C
Approach Delay (s) 42.6 53.1 30.3 29.5
Approach LOS D D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
! Phase conflict between lane groups.
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave. 09/24/2020
Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 27 347 39 233 75 11 9 118 428 40 229 28 Future Volume (vph) 27 347 39 233 75 11 9 118 428 40 229 28 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 0.99
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 2765 1413 1451 1482 2224 1451
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (perm) 2765 1413 1451 1450 2224 1386
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 29 373 42 251 81 12 10 127 460 43 246 30 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 8 0 0 0 170 0 5 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 434 0 251 85 0 0 137 290 0 314 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 13 9 9 19
Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pt+ov Perm NA
Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 4
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 26.7 16.6 16.6 19.7 39.8 19.7
Effective Green, g (s) 26.7 16.6 16.6 19.7 36.3 19.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.23 0.23 0.27 0.50 0.27
Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1011 321 329 391 1105 374
v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.18 0.06 0.13
v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 c0.23
v/c Ratio 0.43 0.78 0.26 0.35 0.26 0.84
Uniform Delay, d1 17.4 26.5 23.2 21.5 10.6 25.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 10.9 0.2 0.2 0.0 14.5
Delay (s) 18.8 37.4 23.3 21.7 10.7 39.7
Level of Service B D C C B D
Approach Delay (s) 18.8 33.6 13.2 39.7
Approach LOS B C B D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd. 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 122 182 147 307 167 168 160 39 404 202 644 98 Future Volume (vph) 122 182 147 307 167 168 160 39 404 202 644 98 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1254 2625 1201 1380 2839 1309 1687 2867 1703 3406 1490 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1254 2625 1201 1380 2839 1309 1687 2867 1703 3406 1490 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 128 192 155 323 176 177 168 41 425 213 678 103 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 134 0 0 147 0 386 0 0 0 64
Lane Group Flow (vph) 104 216 21 165 334 30 168 80 0 213 678 39 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 15 3 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 31% 31% 31% 19% 19% 19% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.4 14.4 14.4 18.0 18.0 18.0 14.7 9.6 44.9 39.8 39.8 Effective Green, g (s) 14.4 14.4 14.4 18.0 18.0 18.0 14.7 9.6 44.9 39.8 39.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.09 0.43 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 171 360 164 236 486 224 236 262 728 1291 564 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.08 c0.12 0.12 c0.10 0.03 0.13 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.61 0.60 0.13 0.70 0.69 0.14 0.71 0.30 0.29 0.53 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 42.6 42.6 39.8 41.0 40.9 36.9 43.1 44.6 19.7 25.3 20.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.74 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.2 1.8 0.1 8.3 3.8 0.3 8.2 0.2 1.0 1.5 0.2 Delay (s) 46.8 44.4 39.9 38.2 33.9 20.0 51.3 44.8 20.7 26.8 21.0 Level of Service DDDDCCDD CCC
Approach Delay (s) 43.5 31.3 46.5 24.9
Approach LOS DCDC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
8: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd. 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 96 314 368 29 159 18 330 456 349 22 116 187 Future Volume (veh/h) 96 314 368 29 159 18 330 456 349 22 116 187 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 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 1722 1722 1722 1574 1574 1574 1811 1811 1811 1663 1663 1663 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 103 338 116 31 171 15 355 490 0 24 125 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 12 12 12 22 22 22 6 6 6 16 16 16
Cap, veh/h 224 406 337 85 213 19 1445 1486 164 172 139
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 1640 1722 1430 1499 1422 125 3346 3532 0 1584 1663 1338 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 103 338 116 31 0 186 355 490 0 24 125 13 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1640 1722 1430 1499 0 1546 1673 1721 0 1584 1663 1338 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.2 20.0 7.2 2.1 0.0 12.2 6.9 9.6 0.0 1.4 7.7 0.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.2 20.0 7.2 2.1 0.0 12.2 6.9 9.6 0.0 1.4 7.7 0.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 224 406 337 85 0 232 1445 1486 164 172 139 V/C Ratio(X) 0.46 0.83 0.34 0.36 0.00 0.80 0.25 0.33 0.15 0.73 0.09 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 196 426 354 144 0 364 1502 1545 353 371 298 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) 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.8 39.7 33.4 47.7 0.0 43.1 19.0 19.8 0.0 42.8 45.6 42.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 11.4 0.4 1.0 0.0 3.1 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.2 2.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 44.3 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 2.5 16.1 2.5 0.8 0.0 4.8 2.7 3.9 0.0 0.6 3.3 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.6 95.4 33.8 48.7 0.0 46.2 19.3 20.2 0.0 43.0 47.8 42.7 LnGrp LOS D F C D A D B C D D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 557 217 845 A 162
Approach Delay, s/veh 72.8 46.6 19.8 46.7
Approach LOS E D B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 27.5 51.7 17.1 20.3 15.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 * 4.6 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.1 26.0 27.4 11.4 * 25 23.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 22.0 11.6 8.2 14.2 9.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 2.8 0.0 0.4 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.1
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 829 18 670 11 9 14 199 221 16 24 427 118 Future Volume (vph) 829 18 670 11 9 14 199 221 16 24 427 118 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 4.1 4.1 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1633 1641 2707 1695 1482 1656 3278 1626 3252 1455 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1633 1641 2707 1695 1482 1656 3278 1626 3252 1455 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 873 19 705 12 9 15 209 233 17 25 449 124 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 497 0 0 14 0 4 0 0 0 94
Lane Group Flow (vph) 445 447 208 0 21 1 209 246 0 25 449 30 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 11% 11% 11% Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 3 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.8 20.8 20.8 3.7 3.7 14.0 28.6 2.7 17.3 17.3 Effective Green, g (s) 20.8 20.8 20.8 3.7 3.7 14.0 28.6 2.7 17.3 17.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.41 0.04 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 4.1 4.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 481 483 797 88 77 328 1327 62 796 356 v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 0.27 c0.01 c0.13 0.07 0.02 c0.14
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.00 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.93 0.93 0.26 0.24 0.01 0.64 0.19 0.40 0.56 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 24.1 24.1 19.0 32.1 31.7 26.0 13.5 33.2 23.3 20.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 23.7 23.7 0.2 1.4 0.1 4.0 0.1 4.2 0.9 0.1 Delay (s) 47.8 47.8 19.2 33.5 31.8 30.0 13.6 37.4 24.3 20.7 Level of Service D D B C C C B D C C
Approach Delay (s) 35.2 32.8 21.1 24.1
Approach LOS D C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 30.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.6 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
14: 280 SB Ramps/Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 50 710 280 47 267 190 26 14 161 350 300 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 50 710 280 47 267 190 26 14 161 350 300 20 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 55 780 298 52 293 80 29 15 0 385 330 21 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 88 639 244 86 926 782 53 27 437 427 27
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.50 0.50 0.05 0.50 0.50 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1288 492 1781 1870 1580 1193 617 1585 1781 1740 111 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 55 0 1078 52 293 80 44 0 0 385 0 351 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1780 1781 1870 1580 1811 0 1585 1781 0 1850 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 0.0 45.0 2.6 8.5 2.4 2.2 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 16.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 0.0 45.0 2.6 8.5 2.4 2.2 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 16.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.66 1.00 1.00 0.06
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 88 0 884 86 926 782 80 0 437 0 454 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 1.22 0.60 0.32 0.10 0.55 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 393 0 884 393 928 784 439 0 550 0 571 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.2 0.0 22.8 42.3 13.7 12.2 42.4 0.0 0.0 32.9 0.0 31.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.7 0.0 109.3 2.5 0.3 0.1 2.2 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 3.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 0.0 44.0 1.2 3.3 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 7.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.9 0.0 132.1 44.8 14.0 12.3 44.6 0.0 0.0 44.1 0.0 35.6 LnGrp LOS D A F D B B D A D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1133 425 44 A 736
Approach Delay, s/veh 127.9 17.4 44.6 40.1
Approach LOS F B D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.0 49.4 25.8 7.9 49.5 7.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 45.0 28.0 20.0 45.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 10.5 20.9 4.6 47.0 4.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 78.6
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
15: 280 NB Ramps/Driveway & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020
Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 2 1031 187 103 367 1 134 4 233 0 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 2 2 1031 187 103 367 1 134 4 233 0 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 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 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 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2 1133 165 113 403 1 153 0 11 0 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 3 1586 680 318 666 2 362 0 161 0 6
Arrive On Green 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 6 3641 1561 1781 3730 9 3563 0 1585 0 1870 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 609 526 165 113 202 202 153 0 11 0 2 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1870 1777 1561 1781 1870 1869 1781 0 1585 0 1870 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.7 12.8 3.6 3.0 5.4 5.4 2.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.7 12.8 3.6 3.0 5.4 5.4 2.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 814 774 680 318 334 334 362 0 161 0 6 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.68 0.24 0.36 0.61 0.61 0.42 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1418 1347 1184 1186 1245 1244 1581 0 704 0 692 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 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.8 12.2 9.6 19.5 20.5 20.5 22.8 0.0 22.0 0.0 26.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.8 0.1 0.5 1.3 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 11.0 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.9 4.0 1.0 1.1 2.2 2.2 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.8 13.0 9.8 20.0 21.8 21.8 23.1 0.0 22.0 0.0 37.8 LnGrp LOS B B A B C C C A C A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1300 517 164 2
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.0 21.4 23.0 37.8
Approach LOS B C C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.8 9.0 27.6 3.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 3.5 4.1 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 24.0 41.0 20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 4.2 16.7 2.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.0 0.3 6.6 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
15: 280 NB Ramps/Driveway & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020
Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1
Future Volume (veh/h) 1
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 0
Arrive On Green 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0
LnGrp LOS A
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
17: Cherry Avenue & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020
Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT NBU NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 952 312 1 78 356 3 115 149
Future Volume (veh/h) 952 312 1 78 356 3 115 149
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 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 992 220 81 371 120 15
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 2061 898 118 2641 286 131
Arrive On Green 0.58 0.58 0.07 0.74 0.08 0.08
Sat Flow, veh/h 3647 1548 1781 3647 3456 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 992 220 81 371 120 15
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1548 1781 1777 1728 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.4 1.4 2.3 1.5 1.7 0.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.4 1.4 2.3 1.5 1.7 0.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2061 898 118 2641 286 131
V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.24 0.68 0.14 0.42 0.11
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 4191 1826 1205 6871 2472 1134
HCM Platoon Ratio 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
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.3 0.8 23.6 1.9 22.5 22.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.2 2.6 0.0 1.0 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.7 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.6 1.0 26.2 1.9 23.5 22.3
LnGrp LOS A A C A C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1212 452 135
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.6 6.3 23.4
Approach LOS A A C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.4 35.0 43.4 8.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 5.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 * 61 100.0 37.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 10.4 3.5 3.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 14.9 3.7 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.1
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
18: Huntington Avenue/Huntington Ave & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 89 457 49 6 310 0 0 178 7 84 125 124 Future Volume (vph) 89 457 49 6 310 0 0 178 7 84 125 124 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 10 10 12 10 12 10 12 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 3.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.93
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3155 1719 3209 1797 1719 3139
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3155 1719 3209 1797 1719 3139
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 97 497 53 7 337 0 0 193 8 91 136 135
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 86 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 97 545 0 7 337 0 0 199 0 91 185 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 18 13 13 9 9 17
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 2
Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 13 10 9 14 11 16 15 12
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.9 30.1 1.0 24.2 13.9 6.8 24.4
Effective Green, g (s) 6.9 31.1 1.0 25.2 13.9 6.8 24.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.47 0.02 0.38 0.21 0.10 0.37
Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 178 1473 25 1214 375 175 1150
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.17 0.00 0.11 c0.11 c0.05 0.06
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.37 0.28 0.28 0.53 0.52 0.16
Uniform Delay, d1 28.4 11.4 32.4 14.4 23.5 28.4 14.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.45 0.43 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 0.2 2.2 0.1 1.5 1.3 0.1
Delay (s) 30.2 11.6 49.2 6.3 24.9 29.6 14.3
Level of Service C B D A C C B
Approach Delay (s) 14.4 7.2 24.9 18.1
Approach LOS B A C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.6 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
19: San Mateo Avenue & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021
Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 136 412 0 66 305 117 4 112 131 0 26 70 Future Volume (vph) 136 412 0 66 305 117 4 112 131 0 26 70 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 2.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 0.89
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1687 3374 1687 3209 1773 1479 1567
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1687 3374 1687 3209 1767 1479 1567
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 149 453 0 73 335 129 4 123 144 0 29 77
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 91 0 48 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 149 453 0 73 433 0 0 127 53 0 58 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 7 5 1 6 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% 2% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 2% 7% 7%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 8 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.7 24.8 6.3 19.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 Effective Green, g (s) 11.7 24.8 6.3 20.4 25.4 24.4 25.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.37 0.09 0.31 0.38 0.37 0.38
Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 296 1256 159 982 673 541 597
v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.13 0.04 c0.14 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm c0.07 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.36 0.46 0.44 0.19 0.10 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 24.8 15.2 28.5 18.5 13.7 13.9 13.2
Progression Factor 1.16 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1
Delay (s) 29.3 10.0 29.3 18.8 13.9 13.9 13.3
Level of Service C B C B B B B
Approach Delay (s) 14.8 20.3 13.9 13.3
Approach LOS B C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.6 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 862 347 201 385 0 0 0 0 326 335 165 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 862 347 201 385 0 0 0 0 326 335 165 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 0 1885 1885 1885 1885 0 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 907 0 212 405 0 229 513 53
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 0 2173 840 2575 0 317 666 282
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.48 1.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5316 1598 3483 3676 0 1795 3770 1598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 907 0 212 405 0 229 513 53
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1716 1598 1742 1791 0 1795 1885 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 11.1 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 10.8 11.7 2.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 11.1 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 10.8 11.7 2.5 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2173 840 2575 0 317 666 282
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.42 0.25 0.16 0.00 0.72 0.77 0.19
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2173 840 2575 0 531 1114 472
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 18.2 0.0 18.5 0.0 0.0 35.0 35.3 31.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.7 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 4.7 5.3 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 18.8 0.0 18.6 0.1 0.0 36.1 36.0 31.7 LnGrp LOS A B B A A D D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 907 A 617 795
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.8 6.5 35.8
Approach LOS B A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.7 43.0 20.3 69.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.4 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 * 38 26.6 54.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 13.1 13.7 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 8.9 2.2 4.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 6th AWSC
21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.9
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 19 18 137 0 62 5 0 200 142 143 175 Future Vol, veh/h 19 19 18 137 0 62 5 0 200 142 143 175 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 21 21 20 149 0 67 5 0 217 154 155 190
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 2
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 3 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 3 1 1
HCM Control Delay 10.5 13.8 12.6 10.2

HCM LOS B B B B

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3
Vol Left, % 0% 0% 34% 69% 100% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 100% 41% 34% 0% 0% 100% 100%
Vol Right, % 0% 59% 32% 31% 0% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 105 242 56 199 143 88 88
LT Vol 0 0 19 137 143 0 0
Through Vol 105 100 19 0 0 88 88
RT Vol 0 142 18 62 0 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 114 263 61 216 155 95 95
Geometry Grp 8 8 7 7 7 7 7
Degree of Util (X) 0.204 0.439 0.115 0.4 0.284 0.161 0.113 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.424 6.007 6.827 6.65 6.589 6.081 4.285 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 557 597 523 541 544 589 831
Service Time 4.18 3.762 4.595 4.403 4.342 3.834 2.037
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.205 0.441 0.117 0.399 0.285 0.161 0.114 HCM Control Delay 10.8 13.4 10.5 13.8 12 10 7.6
HCM Lane LOS B B B B B A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.8 2.2 0.4 1.9 1.2 0.6 0.4
HCM 6th AWSC
21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
Intersection LOS
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4
Mvmt Flow 0
Number of Lanes 0
Approach
Opposing Approach
Opposing Lanes
Conflicting Approach Left
Conflicting Lanes Left
Conflicting Approach Right
Conflicting Lanes Right
HCM Control Delay

HCM LOS

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 459 313 4 147 381 0 0 0 0 1 242
Future Volume (vph) 0 459 313 4 147 381 0 0 0 0 1 242
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 3142 1535 3226 1603
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (perm) 3142 1535 3226 1603
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 478 326 4 153 397 0 0 0 0 1 252
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 673 0 0 142 412 0 0 0 0 0 127
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 3 3
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7
Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7%
Turn Type NA Split Split NA Split Split
Protected Phases 5 6 6 6 4 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.1 20.3 20.3 10.7
Effective Green, g (s) 20.1 20.3 20.3 10.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.16
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 962 475 998 261
v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.09 c0.13 c0.08
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.30 0.41 0.49
Uniform Delay, d1 20.1 17.2 17.9 25.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 0.4 0.3 1.4
Delay (s) 22.3 17.6 18.2 26.4
Level of Service C B B C
Approach Delay (s) 22.3 18.1 0.0
Approach LOS C B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.6 Sum of lost time (s) 14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 151
Future Volume (vph) 1 151
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1607 1509
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1607 1509
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 1 157
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 83
Lane Group Flow (vph) 127 74
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7%
Turn Type NA custom
Protected Phases 4 5
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.7 30.8
Effective Green, g (s) 10.7 30.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.47
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 262 708
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.48 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 24.9 9.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.1
Delay (s) 26.4 9.8
Level of Service C A
Approach Delay (s) 20.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
23: US 101 NB Off Ramp/US 101 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Ave/San Bruno Avenue 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 212 488 0 0 218 111 261 0 275 69 0 50 Future Volume (vph) 212 488 0 0 218 111 261 0 275 69 0 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3242 1759 3343 1473 1671 1475 1671 1495 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3242 1759 3343 1473 1671 1475 1671 1495 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adj. Flow (vph) 247 567 0 0 253 129 303 0 320 80 0 58
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 0 222 0 0 53
Lane Group Flow (vph) 247 567 0 0 253 30 0 303 98 80 0 5 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 4 4 5 2 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5
Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Prot
Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 7 7
Permitted Phases 6 8 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.5 30.9 14.9 14.9 15.8 15.8 5.7 5.7 Effective Green, g (s) 11.5 30.9 14.9 14.9 15.8 15.8 5.7 5.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.48 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.09 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 583 850 779 343 413 364 149 133
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.32 0.08 c0.05 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.18 0.07
v/c Ratio 0.42 0.67 0.32 0.09 0.73 0.27 0.54 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 23.3 12.6 20.3 19.2 22.1 19.4 27.8 26.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 1.5 0.1 0.0 5.7 0.1 1.9 0.0
Delay (s) 23.8 14.1 20.4 19.2 27.8 19.5 29.7 26.6
Level of Service C B C B C B C C
Approach Delay (s) 17.0 20.0 23.6 28.4
Approach LOS B C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 63.9 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
24: Cherry Avenue & San Bruno Avenue W 01/03/2022
Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 348 920 63 22 511 92 138 102 38 117 64 84 Future Volume (veh/h) 348 920 63 22 511 92 138 102 38 117 64 84 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1930 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 362 958 62 23 532 81 144 106 40 122 67 88 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333333333
Cap, veh/h 373 1606 104 79 988 150 211 354 134 257 128 797 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3361 218 1767 3065 465 1218 1276 481 688 459 1625 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 362 502 518 23 305 308 144 0 146 189 0 88 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1816 1767 1763 1768 1218 0 1757 1147 0 1625 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.4 23.9 23.9 1.1 12.8 12.9 9.7 0.0 5.9 9.4 0.0 2.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.4 23.9 23.9 1.1 12.8 12.9 25.0 0.0 5.9 15.3 0.0 2.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.27 0.65 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 373 842 867 79 568 570 211 0 488 384 0 797 V/C Ratio(X) 0.97 0.60 0.60 0.29 0.54 0.54 0.68 0.00 0.30 0.49 0.00 0.11 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 373 842 867 98 568 570 211 0 488 384 0 797 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.95 0.00 0.95 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.6 29.8 29.8 41.6 25.0 25.0 40.6 0.0 25.6 30.4 0.0 12.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 34.8 2.6 2.5 0.6 3.0 3.0 7.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 12.2 11.7 12.0 0.5 5.6 5.6 3.6 0.0 2.5 3.7 0.0 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.4 32.5 32.4 42.3 28.0 28.1 47.9 0.0 25.7 30.8 0.0 12.5 LnGrp LOS E CCDCCDACCAB
Approach Vol, veh/h 1382 636 290 277
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.9 28.6 36.7 25.0
Approach LOS DCDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 38.0 29.0 13.0 48.0 29.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 9.0 4.0 9.0 * 5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 29.0 25.0 5.0 * 43 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.4 14.9 17.3 3.1 25.9 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.2 0.6 0.0 8.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
25: El Camino Real & 380 WB On-Ramp/380 WB Off-Ramp 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 493 0 673 0 791 306 0 2090 234 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 493 0 673 0 791 306 0 2090 234 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 2760 5036 1495 5036 1523
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 2760 5036 1495 5036 1523
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 508 0 694 0 815 315 0 2155 241
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 116 0 0 128 0 0 60
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 508 0 578 0 815 187 0 2155 181 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 13 10 10 13
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Turn Type Prot custom NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 5 6 2
Permitted Phases 6 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 21.1 39.7 71.3 71.3 89.9 89.9
Effective Green, g (s) 21.1 36.1 71.3 71.3 89.9 89.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.30 0.59 0.59 0.75 0.75
Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 597 830 2992 888 3772 1140
v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.21 0.16 c0.43
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.12
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.70 0.27 0.21 0.57 0.16
Uniform Delay, d1 47.9 37.1 11.8 11.3 6.6 4.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.09 4.13 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 10.8 2.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.3
Delay (s) 58.7 39.2 13.1 47.1 7.2 4.6
Level of Service E D B D A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 47.4 22.6 7.0
Approach LOS A D C A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
26: El Camino Real & 380 EB Off-Ramp/380 EB On-Ramp 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 125 0 132 0 0 0 0 972 573 0 1511 1072 Future Volume (vph) 125 0 132 0 0 0 0 972 573 0 1511 1072 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.91 0.85 0.94 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1665 1502 1490 4552 5036 1495
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1665 1502 1490 4552 5036 1495
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 133 0 140 0000 1034 610 0 1607 1140
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168
Lane Group Flow (vph) 94 52 47 0000 1644 0 0 1607 972
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 9 11 11 9
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Parking (#/hr) 0 0
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 8 6 2
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.5 9.5 9.5 101.5 101.5 101.5
Effective Green, g (s) 9.5 9.5 9.5 101.5 101.5 101.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.85 0.85 0.85
Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 131 118 117 3850 4259 1264
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.03 0.36 0.32
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.65
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.44 0.41 0.43 0.38 0.77
Uniform Delay, d1 53.9 52.7 52.6 2.2 2.1 4.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.48 0.91 8.75
Incremental Delay, d2 14.4 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 3.9
Delay (s) 68.4 53.7 53.4 1.4 2.1 39.6
Level of Service E D D A A D
Approach Delay (s) 58.7 0.0 1.4 17.7
Approach LOS EAAB
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 207 454 185 201 241 119 214 1043 142 10 201 882 Future Volume (veh/h) 207 454 185 201 241 119 214 1043 142 10 201 882 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 218 478 111 212 254 64 225 1098 81 212 928 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 244 1007 430 266 624 153 697 1490 455 712 1490 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.20 0.29 0.29 0.21 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3526 1506 3428 2772 680 3428 5066 1545 3428 5066 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 218 478 111 212 159 159 225 1098 81 212 928 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1506 1714 1763 1689 1714 1689 1545 1714 1689 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.6 13.4 4.2 7.3 9.2 9.7 6.7 23.4 3.8 6.3 19.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.6 13.4 4.2 7.3 9.2 9.7 6.7 23.4 3.8 6.3 19.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 244 1007 430 266 397 380 697 1490 455 712 1490 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.47 0.26 0.80 0.40 0.42 0.32 0.74 0.18 0.30 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 295 1234 527 371 529 507 697 1490 455 712 1490 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 Upstream Filter(I) 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.9 35.4 12.5 54.4 39.6 39.8 40.7 38.2 20.2 40.2 36.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 20.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.3 0.9 0.1 2.0 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.7 5.7 2.4 3.1 4.0 4.0 2.8 10.0 1.8 2.6 8.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 70.9 35.5 12.6 54.9 39.6 39.8 40.8 41.5 21.1 40.2 38.6 LnGrp LOS E D B D D D D D C D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 807 530 1404 1201
Approach Delay, s/veh 41.9 45.8 40.2 37.7
Approach LOS D D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.9 39.9 20.1 32.1 28.4 39.4 12.8 39.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.6 3.5 * 5.1 3.5 4.1 3.5 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 35.3 20.0 * 36 13.0 35.3 13.0 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.7 21.0 16.6 11.7 8.3 25.4 9.3 15.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 123
Future Volume (veh/h) 123
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 61
Peak Hour Factor 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 3
Cap, veh/h 455
Arrive On Green 0.29
Sat Flow, veh/h 1545
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 61
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1545
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5
Prop In Lane 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 455
V/C Ratio(X) 0.13
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 455
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.2
LnGrp LOS B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 49 119 50 239 68 229 23 51 665 359 20 436 Future Volume (veh/h) 49 119 50 239 68 229 23 51 665 359 20 436 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.98 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 52 125 25 162 198 39 54 700 137 459 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 122 319 70 221 358 298 70 2203 681 494
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.43 0.43 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 389 1653 360 1211 1856 1541 1767 5066 1567 1767 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 90 0 112 162 198 39 54 700 137 459 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 793 0 1609 1211 1856 1541 1767 1689 1567 1767 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.6 0.0 7.2 15.9 11.6 2.5 3.6 10.9 6.5 30.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.2 0.0 7.2 23.2 11.6 2.5 3.6 10.9 6.5 30.3 Prop In Lane 0.58 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 200 0 311 221 358 298 70 2203 681 494 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.00 0.36 0.73 0.55 0.13 0.77 0.32 0.20 0.93 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 359 0 500 221 358 298 265 2203 681 648 HCM Platoon Ratio 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.0 0.0 42.0 52.1 43.7 40.1 57.1 22.2 21.0 42.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 0.0 0.7 11.9 1.8 0.2 16.1 0.4 0.7 16.9 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 0.0 3.0 5.6 5.5 1.0 1.9 4.4 2.5 15.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.6 0.0 42.7 64.0 45.6 40.3 73.2 22.6 21.7 59.0 LnGrp LOS D A D E D D E C C E
Approach Vol, veh/h 202 399 891
Approach Delay, s/veh 45.8 52.5 25.5
Approach LOS D D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.8 85.4 26.9 36.5 56.6 26.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.0 4.4 3.7 3.0 4.4 3.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 53.6 19.0 44.0 27.6 37.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 15.1 25.2 32.3 12.9 19.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 11.9 0.0 1.2 4.7 1.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1196 44
Future Volume (veh/h) 1196 44
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1259 44
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3
Cap, veh/h 3390 118
Arrive On Green 0.67 0.67
Sat Flow, veh/h 5025 176
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 846 457
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1689 1823
Q Serve(g_s), s 13.0 13.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.0 13.1
Prop In Lane 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2279 1230
V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.37
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2279 1230
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.5 8.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.6 5.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 8.9 9.3
LnGrp LOS A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1762
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.1
Approach LOS C
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 317 870 0 0 477 256 113 227 461 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 1 317 870 0 0 477 256 113 227 461 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 0 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 327 897 0 0 492 0 116 346 354
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 699 2258 0 0 1343 451 474 402
Arrive On Green 0.40 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3647 0 0 3647 1585 1781 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 327 897 0 0 492 0 116 346 354
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 0 0 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 4.7 15.3 19.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 4.7 15.3 19.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 699 2258 0 0 1343 451 474 402
V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.26 0.73 0.88
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 699 2258 0 0 1343 574 603 511
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.5 0.0 26.8 30.8 32.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.1 2.2 11.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 1.9 6.9 8.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 30.2 0.0 26.9 33.0 44.2 LnGrp LOS C A A A C C C D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1224 492 A 816
Approach Delay, s/veh 6.6 30.2 37.0
Approach LOS A C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 62.2 23.2 39.0 27.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 44.0 13.0 * 34 29.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 8.3 13.4 21.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 10.5 0.3 4.3 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing AM 08/05/2020
Southline SimTraffic Report

4: Train & Scott St Performance by movement
Movement EBT WBT SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 2.8 8.3 3.8 4.7
Vehicles Entered 156 90 12 258
Vehicles Exited 157 90 12 259
Hourly Exit Rate 157 90 12 259
Input Volume 158 84 10 251
% of Volume 100 108 117 103
Denied Entry Before 0000
Denied Entry After 0000
11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 6.4 9.2 2.8 3.9 4.5 2.7 7.3 11.0 9.6 10.1 6.7 4.8 Vehicles Entered 4 6 12 49 3 34 5 155 112 39 127 3
Vehicles Exited 4 6 12 49 3 34 5 154 111 40 127 3
Hourly Exit Rate 4 6 12 49 3 34 5 154 111 40 127 3
Input Volume 5 5 13 47 3 30 5 155 111 41 123 2
% of Volume 80 120 91 104 100 113 100 99 100 97 103 150 Denied Entry Before 000000000000
Denied Entry After 000000000000
11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 8.2
Vehicles Entered 549
Vehicles Exited 548
Hourly Exit Rate 548
Input Volume 541
% of Volume 101
Denied Entry Before 0
Denied Entry After 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing AM 08/05/2020
Southline SimTraffic Report

16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 5.8 0.8 4.0 6.3 7.0 6.4 4.3 6.0
Vehicles Entered 93 10 61 51 224 132 34 605
Vehicles Exited 93 10 61 51 224 131 34 604
Hourly Exit Rate 93 10 61 51 224 131 34 604
Input Volume 95 10 61 48 229 131 31 605
% of Volume 98 100 100 106 98 100 111 100
Denied Entry Before 00000000
Denied Entry After 00000000
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s) 12.2
Vehicles Entered 930
Vehicles Exited 927
Hourly Exit Rate 927
Input Volume 2543
% of Volume 36
Denied Entry Before 0
Denied Entry After 0
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing AM 08/05/2020
Southline SimTraffic Report

Intersection: 4: Train & Scott St
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 79 87 32
Average Queue (ft) 38 21 6
95th Queue (ft) 84 65 26
Link Distance (ft) 5 142 1849
Upstream Blk Time (%) 10
Queuing Penalty (veh) 16
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 33 58 200 132
Average Queue (ft) 16 30 68 62
95th Queue (ft) 40 47 142 107
Link Distance (ft) 525 5 1137 1856
Upstream Blk Time (%) 5
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR LT TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 107 130 102
Average Queue (ft) 48 67 53
95th Queue (ft) 84 105 89
Link Distance (ft) 174 939 1430
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 20

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave 09/24/2020
Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 85 272 302 2 122 387 0 0 264 92 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 85 272 302 2 122 387 0 0 264 92 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1565 1633 1741 3488 3275
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 1633 1741 3488 3275
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 93 299 332 2 134 425 0 0 290 101
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 93 269 364 0 0 559 0 0 311 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 5% 5% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 5% 5%
Turn Type Over Perm NA Split NA NA
Protected Phases 1 6 1 1 4
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.9 13.5 13.5 12.9 10.4
Effective Green, g (s) 12.9 13.5 13.5 12.9 10.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.21
Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 403 440 470 899 681
v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.16 c0.09
v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 0.21
v/c Ratio 0.23 0.61 0.77 0.62 0.46
Uniform Delay, d1 14.6 16.0 16.8 16.4 17.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 6.2 11.8 1.5 0.5
Delay (s) 15.0 22.2 28.6 17.9 17.8
Level of Service B C C B B
Approach Delay (s) 15.0 25.9 17.9 17.8
Approach LOS B C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave. 09/24/2020
Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 344 222 19 297 334 3 803 421
Future Volume (veh/h) 344 222 19 297 334 3 803 421
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1657 1710 1657 1657 1657 1657
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 229 239 316 355 854 154
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 0 4 4 4 4
Cap, veh/h 301 277 1121 2276 978 435
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.37 0.72 0.31 0.31
Sat Flow, veh/h 1578 1449 3061 3230 3230 1399
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 229 239 316 355 854 154
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1578 1449 1530 1574 1574 1399
Q Serve(g_s), s 13.7 16.0 7.3 3.5 25.7 8.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.7 16.0 7.3 3.5 25.7 8.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 301 277 1121 2276 978 435
V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.86 0.28 0.16 0.87 0.35
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 521 478 1121 2276 1240 551
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.97 0.97 0.85 0.85 0.55 0.55
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.3 39.2 22.4 4.3 32.6 26.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 3.1 0.0 0.1 6.3 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 5.4 5.9 2.6 1.0 10.3 2.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.7 42.3 22.4 4.4 38.9 27.9
LnGrp LOS D D C A D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 468 671 1008
Approach Delay, s/veh 41.0 12.9 37.2
Approach LOS D B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 41.2 35.7 76.9 23.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 4.6 4.6 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 * 39 48.4 33.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.3 27.7 5.5 18.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 3.4 1.5 1.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave. 09/24/2020
Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 152 50 85 638 233 232 59 455 120 108 447 102 Future Volume (vph) 152 50 85 638 233 232 59 455 120 108 447 102 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2893 3060 1660 1387 1547 3094 1384 1408 2953 1333 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 2893 3060 1660 1387 1547 3094 1384 1408 2953 1333 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 157 52 88 658 240 239 61 469 124 111 461 105 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 42 0 0 0 175 0 0 0 0 0 81
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 255 0 658 240 64 61 469 124 73 499 25 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 74 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 6 4
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 7 7 6 6 2 6 7! 2! 2
Permitted Phases 7 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.1 32.2 32.2 32.2 21.0 21.0 91.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.1 32.2 32.2 32.2 21.0 21.0 91.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.18 0.18 0.76 0.23 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 484 821 445 372 270 541 1049 328 689 311 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.22 0.14 0.04 c0.15 0.09 0.05 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.80 0.54 0.17 0.23 0.87 0.12 0.22 0.72 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 45.6 40.9 37.6 33.7 42.5 48.1 3.8 37.2 42.4 35.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 5.7 1.3 0.2 0.3 13.6 0.0 1.6 6.5 0.5 Delay (s) 46.1 46.6 38.8 33.9 42.8 61.7 3.9 38.8 49.0 36.4 Level of Service D D D C D E A D D D
Approach Delay (s) 46.1 42.3 49.0 45.9
Approach LOS D D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 45.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
! Phase conflict between lane groups.
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave. 09/24/2020
Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 30 170 35 353 238 23 17 188 409 36 234 41 Future Volume (vph) 30 170 35 353 238 23 17 188 409 36 234 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 0.98
Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 2724 1413 1462 1481 2224 1439
Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.94
Satd. Flow (perm) 2724 1413 1462 1424 2224 1368
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 32 183 38 380 256 25 18 202 440 39 252 44 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 4 0 0 0 197 0 6 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 238 0 380 277 0 0 220 243 0 329 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 13 9 9 19
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1 2 7
Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pt+ov Perm NA
Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 4
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 30.2 27.0 27.0 22.8 53.3 22.8
Effective Green, g (s) 30.2 27.0 27.0 22.8 49.8 22.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.55 0.25
Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 914 423 438 360 1230 346
v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.27 0.19 0.11
v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 c0.24
v/c Ratio 0.26 0.90 0.63 0.61 0.20 0.95
Uniform Delay, d1 21.8 30.2 27.2 29.7 10.1 33.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 20.7 2.2 2.2 0.0 35.3
Delay (s) 22.5 50.9 29.4 31.8 10.1 68.4
Level of Service C D C C B E
Approach Delay (s) 22.5 41.8 17.4 68.4
Approach LOS C D B E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd. 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 169 169 200 760 224 378 101 15 269 158 827 130 Future Volume (veh/h) 169 169 200 760 224 378 101 15 269 158 827 130 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1811 1811 1811 1811 1811 1811 1678 1678 1678 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 199 148 0 800 236 0 106 16 0 166 871 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 6 6 6 6 6 15 15 15 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 381 200 878 461 142 821 387 1393
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.09 0.26 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3450 1811 1535 3450 1811 1535 1598 3272 0 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 199 148 0 800 236 0 106 16 0 166 871 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1725 1811 1535 1725 1811 1535 1598 1594 0 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.5 9.5 0.0 27.0 13.4 0.0 7.8 0.4 0.0 9.7 23.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.5 9.5 0.0 27.0 13.4 0.0 7.8 0.4 0.0 9.7 23.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 381 200 878 461 142 821 387 1393 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.74 0.91 0.51 0.75 0.02 0.43 0.63
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 635 334 914 480 160 821 387 1393
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) 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.71 0.71 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.4 51.7 0.0 43.4 38.3 0.0 53.3 33.2 0.0 40.4 29.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 1.9 0.0 6.8 0.4 0.0 12.7 0.0 0.0 2.4 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 4.4 0.0 12.4 6.1 0.0 3.6 0.2 0.0 4.5 10.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.8 53.6 0.0 50.2 38.8 0.0 66.0 33.3 0.0 42.8 30.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D E C D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 347 A 1036 A 122 A 1037 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 52.0 47.6 61.7 32.6
Approach LOS D D E C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.7 52.3 17.8 31.2 35.8 35.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.9 * 4.9 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 36.0 22.1 17.1 * 31 31.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.8 25.8 11.5 11.7 2.4 29.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.6 0.8 0.1 0.0 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.8
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
8: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd. 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 50 100 391 58 355 14 486 192 61 5 189 521 Future Volume (veh/h) 50 100 391 58 355 14 486 192 61 5 189 521 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 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 1781 1781 1781 1811 1811 1811 1767 1767 1767 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 53 131 123 62 378 11 517 204 0 5 201 368 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 8 8 6 6 6 9 9 9 4 4 4
Cap, veh/h 127 424 382 137 458 13 875 900 391 410 332
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.23 0.23 0.08 0.24 0.24 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1697 1781 1484 1725 1749 51 3264 3445 0 1753 1841 1489 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 53 131 123 62 0 389 517 204 0 5 201 368 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1697 1781 1484 1725 0 1800 1632 1678 0 1753 1841 1489 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.1 6.4 7.3 3.6 0.0 22.1 14.0 4.8 0.0 0.2 10.0 23.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.1 6.4 7.3 3.6 0.0 22.1 14.0 4.8 0.0 0.2 10.0 23.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 127 424 382 137 0 471 875 900 391 410 332 V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.31 0.32 0.45 0.00 0.83 0.59 0.23 0.01 0.49 1.11 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 179 492 410 182 0 497 959 986 391 410 332 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) 0.80 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.4 34.1 31.6 46.1 0.0 36.5 33.4 30.0 0.0 31.8 35.6 40.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.0 9.7 2.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 81.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 9.8 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 1.3 5.3 2.5 1.6 0.0 10.5 5.9 2.0 0.0 0.1 4.5 16.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.0 44.2 31.9 47.0 0.0 46.2 36.2 30.5 0.0 31.8 35.9 122.7 LnGrp LOS D D C D A D D C C D F
Approach Vol, veh/h 307 451 721 A 574
Approach Delay, s/veh 39.8 46.3 34.6 91.5
Approach LOS D D C F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.4 28.9 35.4 11.9 29.4 28.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.1 29.0 23.4 11.1 29.0 23.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 9.3 16.0 5.1 24.1 25.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.9 1.5 0.0 0.7 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.9
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 381 24 271 31 44 29 5 352 335 45 11 18 Future Volume (vph) 381 24 271 31 44 29 5 352 335 45 11 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 1618 1631 2682 1756 1482 1703 3313 1703 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (perm) 1618 1631 2682 1756 1482 1703 3313 1703 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 397 25 282 32 46 30 5 367 349 47 11 19
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 224 0 0 27 0 0 7 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 202 220 58 0 78 3 0 372 389 0 0 30 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 18 18 26 26
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3
Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 5 2 1 1
Permitted Phases 4 3
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 7.2 7.2 20.8 36.9 2.9 Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 7.2 7.2 20.8 36.9 2.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.09 0.09 0.27 0.47 0.04 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 332 335 551 162 137 455 1571 63
v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.13 c0.04 c0.22 0.12 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.61 0.66 0.11 0.48 0.02 0.82 0.25 0.48
Uniform Delay, d1 28.1 28.4 25.1 33.5 32.1 26.7 12.2 36.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 4.6 0.1 2.2 0.1 10.9 0.1 5.6
Delay (s) 31.2 33.0 25.2 35.8 32.2 37.6 12.3 42.3
Level of Service C C C D C D B D
Approach Delay (s) 29.3 34.8 24.5
Approach LOS C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.8 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 489 172
Future Volume (vph) 489 172
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3406 1486
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3406 1486
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 509 179
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 135
Lane Group Flow (vph) 509 44
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3
Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6%
Turn Type NA Perm
Protected Phases 6
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.0 19.0
Effective Green, g (s) 19.0 19.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24
Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 831 362
v/s Ratio Prot c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.61 0.12
Uniform Delay, d1 26.1 22.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.2
Delay (s) 27.5 23.0
Level of Service C C
Approach Delay (s) 27.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
14: 280 SB Ramps/Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 32 280 24 85 630 549 92 82 267 132 82 54 Future Volume (veh/h) 32 280 24 85 630 549 92 82 267 132 82 54 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 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 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 33 286 22 87 643 350 94 84 0 135 84 35 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 76 737 57 139 869 721 124 111 205 145 60
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.43 0.43 0.08 0.46 0.46 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 1728 133 1795 1885 1564 970 867 1598 1795 1264 527 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 0 308 87 643 350 178 0 0 135 0 119 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1861 1795 1885 1564 1837 0 1598 1795 0 1790 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 0.0 6.7 2.8 16.5 9.2 5.5 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 3.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 0.0 6.7 2.8 16.5 9.2 5.5 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 3.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.53 1.00 1.00 0.29
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 76 0 793 139 869 721 235 0 205 0 205 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.00 0.39 0.63 0.74 0.49 0.76 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.58 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 608 0 1418 608 1436 1192 684 0 851 0 849 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.6 0.0 11.6 26.4 13.0 11.1 24.9 0.0 0.0 25.1 0.0 24.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.0 0.4 1.7 1.8 0.7 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.0 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 0.5 0.0 2.5 1.1 5.8 2.6 2.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.0 0.0 12.1 28.2 14.8 11.8 26.7 0.0 0.0 26.4 0.0 25.8 LnGrp LOS C A B C B B C A C A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 341 1080 178 A 254
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.7 14.9 26.7 26.1
Approach LOS B B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.0 31.7 10.3 8.1 29.7 11.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 45.0 28.0 20.0 45.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 18.5 6.3 4.8 8.7 7.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.8 0.6 0.1 2.9 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
15: 280 NB Ramps/Driveway & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020
Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 592 85 339 892 0 3 370 0 163 0 1 Future Volume (veh/h) 2 592 85 339 892 0 3 370 0 163 0 1 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2 598 34 342 901 0 375 0 2 0 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 3 896 390 616 1294 0 527 0 234 0 3
Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 12 3664 1594 1795 3770 0 3591 0 1594 0 1885 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 322 278 34 342 901 0 375 0 2 0 1
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1885 1791 1594 1795 1885 0 1795 0 1594 0 1885 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.0 8.0 0.9 8.9 11.9 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.0 8.0 0.9 8.9 11.9 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 461 438 390 616 1294 0 527 0 234 0 3 V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.64 0.09 0.56 0.70 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1341 1275 1134 1122 2356 0 1496 0 664 0 654 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 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.8 19.5 16.8 15.3 16.3 0.0 23.4 0.0 21.0 0.0 28.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 1.1 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.3 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.6 3.0 0.3 3.1 4.3 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.3 20.6 16.9 15.9 16.8 0.0 24.1 0.0 21.0 0.0 47.1 LnGrp LOS C C B B B A C A C A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 634 1243 377 1
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.7 16.6 24.1 47.1
Approach LOS C B C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.9 12.0 18.2 3.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 3.5 4.1 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 24.0 41.0 20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.9 7.7 11.0 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.9 0.6 2.9 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
15: 280 NB Ramps/Driveway & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020
Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2
Future Volume (veh/h) 2
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.99
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1
Cap, veh/h 0
Arrive On Green 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0
LnGrp LOS A
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
17: Cherry Avenue & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020
Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 624 131 152 924 307 167
Future Volume (veh/h) 624 131 152 924 307 167
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 643 61 157 953 316 30
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 1828 814 201 2533 487 223
Arrive On Green 0.51 0.51 0.11 0.71 0.14 0.14
Sat Flow, veh/h 3676 1594 1795 3676 3483 1598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 643 61 157 953 316 30
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1791 1594 1795 1791 1742 1598
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 0.5 5.0 6.2 5.0 1.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 0.5 5.0 6.2 5.0 1.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1828 814 201 2533 487 223
V/C Ratio(X) 0.35 0.07 0.78 0.38 0.65 0.13
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3716 1654 1069 6092 2192 1005
HCM Platoon Ratio 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
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.6 1.2 25.4 3.4 23.9 22.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.1 2.5 0.1 1.5 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 0.3 2.1 1.0 2.0 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 8.8 1.2 27.9 3.6 25.4 22.4
LnGrp LOS A A C A C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 704 1110 346
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.1 7.0 25.1
Approach LOS A A C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.6 35.0 46.6 12.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 5.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 * 61 100.0 37.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.0 8.3 8.2 7.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 7.4 12.5 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
18: Huntington Avenue/Huntington Ave & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 80 346 87 13 603 0 0 217 9 123 268 199 Future Volume (vph) 80 346 87 13 603 0 0 217 9 123 268 199 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 10 10 12 10 12 10 12 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 3.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3187 1770 3303 1850 1770 3257
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3187 1770 3303 1850 1770 3257
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 84 364 92 14 635 0 0 228 9 129 282 209
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 109 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 84 443 0 14 635 0 0 235 0 129 382 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 39 14 14 19 19 31
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 13 10 9 14 11 16 15 12
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.9 33.4 1.1 27.6 15.8 10.5 30.0
Effective Green, g (s) 6.9 34.4 1.1 28.6 15.8 10.5 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.46 0.01 0.38 0.21 0.14 0.40
Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 161 1450 25 1249 386 245 1292
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.14 0.01 c0.19 c0.13 c0.07 0.12
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.31 0.56 0.51 0.61 0.53 0.30
Uniform Delay, d1 32.8 13.0 37.0 18.1 27.1 30.2 15.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.39 0.45 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.1 14.8 0.3 2.7 0.9 0.1
Delay (s) 34.2 13.2 66.3 8.4 29.8 31.2 15.7
Level of Service C B E A C C B
Approach Delay (s) 16.4 9.6 29.8 18.9
Approach LOS B A C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.6 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
19: San Mateo Avenue & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021
Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 89 355 0 138 606 56 7 48 122 0 98 207 Future Volume (vph) 89 355 0 138 606 56 7 48 122 0 98 207 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 2.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 0.90
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3471 1736 3421 1816 1523 1626
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3471 1736 3421 1764 1523 1626
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 92 366 0 142 625 58 7 49 126 0 101 213
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 76 0 90 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 366 0 142 678 0 0 56 50 0 224 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 10
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 2
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 4%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 8 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.0 23.4 11.1 27.5 30.0 30.0 30.0 Effective Green, g (s) 7.0 23.4 11.1 28.5 31.0 30.0 31.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.31 0.15 0.38 0.41 0.40 0.41
Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 160 1074 254 1289 723 604 666
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.11 c0.08 c0.20 c0.14
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.57 0.34 0.56 0.53 0.08 0.08 0.34
Uniform Delay, d1 32.9 20.1 30.0 18.3 13.6 14.2 15.3
Progression Factor 1.19 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 0.2 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.3
Delay (s) 42.0 18.2 31.5 18.7 13.6 14.3 15.6
Level of Service D B C B B B B
Approach Delay (s) 23.0 20.9 14.1 15.6
Approach LOS C C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.6 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 461 146 1 419 834 0 0 0 0 197 113 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 461 146 1 419 834 0 0 0 0 197 113 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 507 0 460 916 0 235 98
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 0 1960 1297 2898 0 335 176
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.74 1.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5358 1610 3510 3705 0 3619 1900
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 507 0 460 916 0 235 98
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1729 1610 1755 1805 0 1810 1900 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 6.1 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 5.7 4.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 6.1 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 5.7 4.4
Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1960 1297 2898 0 335 176
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.26 0.35 0.32 0.00 0.70 0.56
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1960 1297 2898 0 869 456
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 19.3 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 39.6 39.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 1.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 2.3 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 2.5 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 19.6 0.0 8.0 0.2 0.0 40.6 40.1 LnGrp LOS A B A A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 507 A 1376 352
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.6 2.8 40.3
Approach LOS B A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 38.3 39.0 12.7 77.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.4 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.5 * 34 21.6 59.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.2 8.1 7.7 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 4.7 0.7 11.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.5
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 260
Future Volume (veh/h) 260
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 19
Peak Hour Factor 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0
Cap, veh/h 149
Arrive On Green 0.09
Sat Flow, veh/h 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 19
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.0
Prop In Lane 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 149
V/C Ratio(X) 0.13
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 386
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.6
LnGrp LOS D
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 6th AWSC
21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 19.5
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 29 16 20 168 0 192 8 0 362 91 134 469 Future Vol, veh/h 29 16 20 168 0 192 8 0 362 91 134 469 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 30 16 20 171 0 196 8 0 369 93 137 479
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 2
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 3 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 3 1 1
HCM Control Delay 12.9 30.2 19.3 14

HCM LOS B D C B

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3
Vol Left, % 0% 0% 45% 47% 100% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 100% 67% 25% 0% 0% 100% 100%
Vol Right, % 0% 33% 31% 53% 0% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 189 272 65 360 134 235 235
LT Vol 0 0 29 168 134 0 0
Through Vol 189 181 16 0 0 235 235
RT Vol 0 91 20 192 0 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 193 278 66 367 137 239 239
Geometry Grp 8 8 7 7 7 7 7
Degree of Util (X) 0.426 0.594 0.158 0.76 0.295 0.482 0.364 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.948 7.705 8.549 7.445 7.772 7.257 5.474 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 451 466 419 485 462 495 653
Service Time 5.719 5.476 6.329 5.2 5.534 5.019 3.234
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.428 0.597 0.158 0.757 0.297 0.483 0.366 HCM Control Delay 16.5 21.2 12.9 30.2 13.8 16.6 11.4
HCM Lane LOS C C B D B C B
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.1 3.8 0.6 6.5 1.2 2.6 1.7
HCM 6th AWSC
21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
Intersection LOS
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.98
Heavy Vehicles, % 2
Mvmt Flow 0
Number of Lanes 0
Approach
Opposing Approach
Opposing Lanes
Conflicting Approach Left
Conflicting Lanes Left
Conflicting Approach Right
Conflicting Lanes Right
HCM Control Delay

HCM LOS

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 391 333 26 417 689 0 0 0 0 164 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 391 333 26 417 689 0 0 0 0 164 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 3242 1595 3341 1665 1665
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95
Satd. Flow (perm) 3242 1595 3341 1665 1665
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 412 351 27 439 725 0 0 0 0 173 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 158 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 605 0 0 387 804 0 0 0 0 86 87
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 2 2 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Turn Type NA Split Split NA Split NA
Protected Phases 5 6 6 6 4 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.8 24.7 24.7 7.3 7.3
Effective Green, g (s) 19.8 24.7 24.7 7.3 7.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.37 0.37 0.11 0.11
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 968 594 1244 183 183
v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 c0.24 0.24 0.05 0.05
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.63 0.65 0.65 0.47 0.48
Uniform Delay, d1 20.1 17.2 17.2 27.7 27.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 2.6 1.2 1.9 1.9
Delay (s) 21.3 19.8 18.4 29.6 29.6
Level of Service C B B C C
Approach Delay (s) 21.3 18.8 0.0 20.1
Approach LOS C B A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.3 Sum of lost time (s) 14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 312
Future Volume (vph) 312
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00
Frt 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1568
Flt Permitted 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 328
RTOR Reduction (vph) 15
Lane Group Flow (vph) 313
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3%
Turn Type custom
Protected Phases 5
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 27.1
Effective Green, g (s) 27.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41
Clearance Time (s) 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 640
v/s Ratio Prot c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.49
Uniform Delay, d1 14.5
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6
Delay (s) 15.1
Level of Service B
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
23: US 101 NB Off Ramp/US 101 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Ave/San Bruno Avenue 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 195 388 0 0 698 347 350 0 333 104 0 72 Future Volume (vph) 195 388 0 0 698 347 350 0 333 104 0 72 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3367 1827 3471 1518 1736 1553 1736 1553 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3367 1827 3471 1518 1736 1553 1736 1553 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 210 417 0 0 751 373 376 0 358 112 0 77
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 272 0 0 261 0 0 68
Lane Group Flow (vph) 210 417 0 0 751 101 0 376 97 112 0 9 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 2 2 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Prot
Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 7 7
Permitted Phases 6 8 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.0 36.8 21.3 21.3 21.1 21.1 9.0 9.0 Effective Green, g (s) 11.0 36.8 21.3 21.3 21.1 21.1 9.0 9.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.47 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 472 857 943 412 467 417 199 178
v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.23 c0.22 c0.06 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.22 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.44 0.49 0.80 0.25 0.81 0.23 0.56 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 30.9 14.3 26.5 22.3 26.7 22.3 32.8 30.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.2 4.4 0.1 9.2 0.1 2.2 0.0
Delay (s) 31.6 14.5 31.0 22.4 36.0 22.4 35.0 30.9
Level of Service C B C C D C D C
Approach Delay (s) 20.2 28.1 29.4 33.3
Approach LOS CCCC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
24: Cherry Avenue & San Bruno Avenue W 01/03/2022
Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 201 471 128 70 1100 150 100 120 40 120 120 400 Future Volume (veh/h) 201 471 128 70 1100 150 100 120 40 120 120 400 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1945 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 216 506 119 75 1183 161 108 129 43 129 129 430 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 431 1566 366 96 1100 149 98 357 119 193 157 830 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.55 0.55 0.05 0.35 0.35 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2857 668 1781 3142 426 848 1333 444 518 585 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 216 314 311 75 667 677 108 0 172 258 0 430 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1748 1781 1777 1791 848 0 1778 1104 0 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.5 9.7 9.8 4.2 35.0 35.0 3.1 0.0 7.8 15.8 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.5 9.7 9.8 4.2 35.0 35.0 26.8 0.0 7.8 23.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.25 0.50 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 431 974 958 96 622 627 98 0 476 350 0 830 V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.32 0.32 0.78 1.07 1.08 1.10 0.00 0.36 0.74 0.00 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 431 974 958 143 622 627 98 0 476 382 0 866 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) 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.93 0.00 0.93 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.7 12.4 12.4 46.7 32.5 32.5 49.6 0.0 29.7 38.2 0.0 16.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.8 0.8 4.5 48.6 50.9 119.6 0.0 0.2 5.2 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.4 3.7 3.7 1.9 22.7 23.3 5.7 0.0 3.4 6.6 0.0 6.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.0 13.2 13.3 51.2 81.1 83.4 169.2 0.0 29.8 43.4 0.0 16.4 LnGrp LOS C B B D F F F A C D A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 841 1419 280 688
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.3 80.6 83.6 26.5
Approach LOS B F F C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.2 40.0 30.8 9.4 59.8 30.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 * 35 29.0 8.0 46.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.5 37.0 25.7 6.2 11.8 28.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 5.8 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.1
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
25: El Camino Real & 380 WB On-Ramp/380 WB Off-Ramp 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 480 0 1212 0 1569 318 0 1658 352 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 480 0 1212 0 1569 318 0 1658 352 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3467 2814 5136 1498 5136 1559
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3467 2814 5136 1498 5136 1559
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 500 0 1262 0 1634 331 0 1727 367
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 174 0 0 94
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 500 0 1255 0 1634 157 0 1727 273 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 13 13 8
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot custom NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 5 6 2
Permitted Phases 6 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 29.3 69.9 71.1 71.1 111.7 111.7
Effective Green, g (s) 29.3 66.3 71.1 71.1 111.7 111.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.44 0.47 0.47 0.74 0.74
Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 677 1243 2434 710 3824 1160
v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.45 c0.32 0.34
v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.18
v/c Ratio 0.74 1.01 0.67 0.22 0.45 0.24
Uniform Delay, d1 56.7 41.9 30.4 23.2 7.4 5.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.58 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 3.6 27.8 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.5
Delay (s) 60.4 69.7 27.2 37.1 7.8 6.4
Level of Service E E C D A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 67.1 28.9 7.5
Approach LOS A E C A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
26: El Camino Real & 380 EB Off-Ramp/380 EB On-Ramp 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 278 0 376 0000 1602 506 0 1438 704 Future Volume (vph) 278 0 376 0000 1602 506 0 1438 704
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.89 0.85 0.96 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1698 1498 1519 4753 5136 1536
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1698 1498 1519 4753 5136 1536
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 293 0 396 0000 1686 533 0 1514 741
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 59 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161
Lane Group Flow (vph) 240 168 163 0000 2219 0 0 1514 580 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4 5 14 14 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Parking (#/hr) 0 0
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 8 6 2
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 23.5 23.5 117.5 117.5 117.5
Effective Green, g (s) 23.5 23.5 23.5 117.5 117.5 117.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.78 0.78 0.78
Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 266 234 237 3723 4023 1203
v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 0.11 c0.47 0.29
v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.38
v/c Ratio 0.90 0.72 0.69 0.60 0.38 0.48
Uniform Delay, d1 62.1 60.1 59.8 6.6 5.0 5.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.44 5.78
Incremental Delay, d2 30.3 8.4 6.5 0.6 0.2 1.2
Delay (s) 92.4 68.5 66.2 10.5 7.4 33.9
Level of Service F E E B A C
Approach Delay (s) 76.1 0.0 10.5 16.2
Approach LOS EABB
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 181 286 214 299 428 184 10 313 1301 124 58 267 Future Volume (veh/h) 181 286 214 299 428 184 10 313 1301 124 58 267 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 193 304 99 318 455 161 333 1384 78 284 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 215 853 363 361 572 200 960 1396 426 972
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 3582 1524 3483 2574 902 3483 5147 1569 3483 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 193 304 99 318 315 301 333 1384 78 284 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1791 1524 1742 1791 1684 1742 1716 1569 1742 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.9 10.6 4.5 13.5 24.9 25.4 11.5 40.2 4.5 9.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.9 10.6 4.5 13.5 24.9 25.4 11.5 40.2 4.5 9.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 215 853 363 361 398 374 960 1396 426 972 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.36 0.27 0.88 0.79 0.80 0.35 0.99 0.18 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 455 931 396 488 430 404 960 1396 426 972 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 65.1 47.6 14.8 66.3 55.1 55.3 43.5 54.5 26.0 42.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.0 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.1 22.1 0.9 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.6 4.8 2.9 6.0 11.3 10.8 5.0 20.0 2.3 4.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 70.1 47.7 14.9 67.5 55.9 56.2 43.6 76.5 27.0 42.5 LnGrp LOS E D B E E E D E C D
Approach Vol, veh/h 596 934 1795
Approach Delay, s/veh 49.5 59.9 68.3
Approach LOS D E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 44.8 45.3 21.4 38.4 45.3 44.8 19.0 40.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.6 3.5 * 5.1 3.5 4.1 3.5 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 40.7 38.0 * 36 19.0 40.7 21.0 39.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.5 37.1 17.9 27.4 11.6 42.2 15.5 12.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 60.2
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1176 195
Future Volume (veh/h) 1176 195
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1251 153
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1
Cap, veh/h 1396 426
Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27
Sat Flow, veh/h 5147 1569
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1251 153
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1716 1569
Q Serve(g_s), s 35.1 9.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 35.1 9.0
Prop In Lane 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1396 426
V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.36
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1396 426
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.6 25.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.3 2.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 16.2 3.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.9 28.0
LnGrp LOS E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1688
Approach Delay, s/veh 55.5
Approach LOS E
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 77 67 48 358 152 367 96 205 1633 329 49 184 Future Volume (veh/h) 77 67 48 358 152 367 96 205 1633 329 49 184 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.97 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 81 71 24 268 312 138 216 1719 234 194 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 146 308 104 315 476 391 243 2834 876 220
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.55 0.55 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 389 1219 412 1291 1885 1545 1795 5147 1591 1795 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 81 0 95 268 312 138 216 1719 234 194 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 389 0 1631 1291 1885 1545 1795 1716 1591 1795 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.7 0.0 6.9 31.0 22.2 11.0 17.7 33.8 11.6 15.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 34.9 0.0 6.9 37.9 22.2 11.0 17.7 33.8 11.6 15.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 146 0 412 315 476 391 243 2834 876 220 V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.00 0.23 0.85 0.65 0.35 0.89 0.61 0.27 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 247 0 587 315 476 391 431 2834 876 395 HCM Platoon Ratio 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 65.8 0.0 44.5 59.6 50.2 46.0 63.8 22.7 17.8 64.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.2 0.0 0.3 19.6 3.2 0.5 10.8 1.0 0.7 10.9 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 0.0 2.9 11.9 11.0 4.4 8.9 13.9 4.5 8.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 69.0 0.0 44.8 79.2 53.4 46.5 74.5 23.7 18.5 75.6 LnGrp LOS E A D E D D E C B E
Approach Vol, veh/h 176 718 2169
Approach Delay, s/veh 55.9 61.7 28.2
Approach LOS E E C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.3 85.1 41.6 21.4 87.0 41.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.0 4.4 3.7 3.0 4.4 3.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 48.9 36.0 33.0 27.6 54.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.7 20.9 39.9 17.9 35.8 36.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 8.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.1
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 969 101
Future Volume (veh/h) 969 101
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1020 100
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1
Cap, veh/h 2563 251
Arrive On Green 0.54 0.54
Sat Flow, veh/h 4764 466
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 734 386
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1716 1799
Q Serve(g_s), s 18.9 18.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.9 18.9
Prop In Lane 0.26
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1846 968
V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.40
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1846 968
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.4 20.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 1.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.8 8.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.0 21.6
LnGrp LOS C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1314
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.2
Approach LOS C
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 147 505 0 0 987 619 268 501 295 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 147 505 0 0 987 619 268 501 295 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1885 1885 0 0 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 160 549 0 0 1073 0 291 545 321
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 226 2070 0 0 1677 559 586 497
Arrive On Green 0.13 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 3483 3676 0 0 3676 1598 1795 1885 1596
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 160 549 0 0 1073 0 291 545 321
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1742 1791 0 0 1791 1598 1795 1885 1596 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 12.0 25.2 15.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 12.0 25.2 15.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 226 2070 0 0 1677 559 586 497
V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.52 0.93 0.65
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 232 2070 0 0 1677 579 607 514
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.96 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 25.5 30.0 26.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.3 20.1 2.0 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 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 5.0 14.1 6.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 19.2 0.0 25.8 50.1 28.8 LnGrp LOS D A A A B C D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 709 1073 A 1157
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.6 19.2 38.1
Approach LOS B B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 57.0 9.9 47.1 33.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 51.0 6.0 41.0 29.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 6.0 22.5 27.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.7 0.0 9.6 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.5
HCM 6th LOS C
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.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

SimTraffic Performance Report
Exisitng PM 08/05/2020
Southline SimTraffic Report

2: Train & Scott St Performance by movement
Movement EBT WBT SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 2.0 7.7 3.9 5.3
Vehicles Entered 122 173 9 304
Vehicles Exited 122 173 9 304
Hourly Exit Rate 122 173 9 304
Input Volume 126 170 9 305
% of Volume 97 102 97 100
Denied Entry Before 0000
Denied Entry After 0000
11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 9.2 3.2 4.1 1.0 2.8 8.1 9.1 6.8 8.1 7.5 6.1 Vehicles Entered 0 5 7 138 1 28 7 129 81 35 197 5
Vehicles Exited 0 5 7 138 1 28 7 129 82 34 198 4
Hourly Exit Rate 0 5 7 138 1 28 7 129 82 34 198 4
Input Volume 1 5 7 139 1 25 9 136 82 38 201 4
% of Volume 0 100 100 99 133 113 76 95 100 90 98 100
Denied Entry Before 000000000000
Denied Entry After 000000000000
11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 6.8
Vehicles Entered 633
Vehicles Exited 633
Hourly Exit Rate 633
Input Volume 648
% of Volume 98
Denied Entry Before 0
Denied Entry After 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Exisitng PM 08/05/2020
Southline SimTraffic Report

16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s) 5.1 0.6 3.8 5.8 6.2 7.8 5.8 6.3
Vehicles Entered 44 4 76 63 154 236 103 680
Vehicles Exited 44 4 76 63 154 237 104 682
Hourly Exit Rate 44 4 76 63 154 237 104 682
Input Volume 49 4 76 57 156 241 107 690
% of Volume 89 94 100 111 99 98 97 99
Denied Entry Before 00000000
Denied Entry After 00000000
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s) 11.7
Vehicles Entered 1042
Vehicles Exited 1041
Hourly Exit Rate 1041
Input Volume 2985
% of Volume 35
Denied Entry Before 0
Denied Entry After 0
Queuing and Blocking Report
Exisitng PM 08/05/2020
Southline SimTraffic Report

Intersection: 2: Train & Scott St
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 82 145 28
Average Queue (ft) 14 38 2
95th Queue (ft) 53 102 15
Link Distance (ft) 8 138 482
Upstream Blk Time (%) 5 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 39 66 143 152
Average Queue (ft) 10 35 52 72
95th Queue (ft) 35 47 99 118
Link Distance (ft) 516 8 947 1729
Upstream Blk Time (%) 13
Queuing Penalty (veh) 21
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR LT TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 78 115 134
Average Queue (ft) 40 55 74
95th Queue (ft) 64 88 113
Link Distance (ft) 186 939 1415
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 29

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave 09/24/2020
Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 54 465 154 4 31 131 0 0 375 34 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 54 465 154 4 31 131 0 0 375 34
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1580 1649 1690 3438 3411
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1580 1649 1690 3438 3411
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 61 528 175 5 35 149 0 0 426 39
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 61 348 360 0 0 184 0 0 458 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% 4%
Turn Type Over Perm NA Split NA NA
Protected Phases 1 6 1 1 4
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.6 52.2 52.2 11.6 23.0
Effective Green, g (s) 11.6 52.2 52.2 11.6 23.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.52 0.52 0.12 0.23
Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 183 860 882 398 784
v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.05 c0.13
v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.21
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.40 0.41 0.46 0.58
Uniform Delay, d1 40.6 14.5 14.5 41.3 34.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.2 3.2
Delay (s) 42.1 15.9 15.9 42.4 37.4
Level of Service D B B D D
Approach Delay (s) 42.1 15.9 42.4 37.4
Approach LOS D B D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave. 09/24/2020
Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 543 283 26 129 146 4 386 214
Future Volume (veh/h) 543 283 26 129 146 4 386 214
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95
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 1590 1710 1590 1590 1590 1590
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 390 402 134 152 402 36
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 0 9 9 9 9
Cap, veh/h 454 434 1175 1856 509 217
Arrive On Green 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.61 0.17 0.17
Sat Flow, veh/h 1514 1449 2938 3100 3100 1286
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 390 402 134 152 402 36
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1514 1449 1469 1510 1510 1286
Q Serve(g_s), s 24.3 26.9 2.9 2.0 12.8 2.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.3 26.9 2.9 2.0 12.8 2.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 454 434 1175 1856 509 217
V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.93 0.11 0.08 0.79 0.17
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 500 478 1175 1856 1190 507
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.92 0.92 0.71 0.71 0.77 0.77
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.0 33.9 18.9 7.8 39.9 35.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.3 20.8 0.0 0.1 9.3 1.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.2 11.8 1.0 0.6 5.3 0.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.3 54.7 18.9 7.9 49.2 36.8
LnGrp LOS D D B A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 792 286 438
Approach Delay, s/veh 49.6 13.0 48.1
Approach LOS D B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 44.6 21.5 66.0 34.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 4.6 4.6 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 * 39 48.4 33.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 14.8 4.0 28.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 1.7 0.6 1.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave. 09/24/2020
Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 187 216 83 202 116 62 35 350 297 403 392 124 Future Volume (vph) 187 216 83 202 116 62 35 350 297 403 392 124 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2999 2814 1527 1298 1464 2927 1309 1421 2954 1264 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 2999 2814 1527 1298 1464 2927 1309 1421 2954 1264 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 197 227 87 213 122 65 37 368 313 424 413 131 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 17 0 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 86
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 494 0 213 122 7 37 368 313 280 557 45 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 65 25
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 12% 12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 7 7 6 6 2 6 7! 2! 2
Permitted Phases 7 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 22.8 11.0 11.0 11.0 16.8 16.8 73.3 35.7 35.7 35.7 Effective Green, g (s) 22.8 11.0 11.0 11.0 16.8 16.8 73.3 35.7 35.7 35.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.70 0.34 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 651 294 159 135 234 468 913 483 1004 429 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.08 c0.08 0.03 c0.13 0.24 c0.20 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.72 0.77 0.05 0.16 0.79 0.34 0.58 0.55 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 38.5 45.5 45.8 42.3 38.0 42.4 6.3 28.5 28.2 23.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.5 8.6 19.6 0.2 0.2 8.2 0.2 5.0 2.2 0.5 Delay (s) 43.0 54.1 65.4 42.5 38.2 50.6 6.5 33.5 30.4 24.2 Level of Service D D E D D D A C C C
Approach Delay (s) 43.0 55.6 30.7 30.5
Approach LOS D E C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
! Phase conflict between lane groups.
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave. 09/24/2020
Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 28 358 41 241 78 12 10 122 442 42 237 12 Future Volume (vph) 28 358 41 241 78 12 10 122 442 42 237 12 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 0.99
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 2764 1413 1449 1481 2224 1465
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.94
Satd. Flow (perm) 2764 1413 1449 1448 2224 1393
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 30 385 44 259 84 13 11 131 475 45 255 13 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 8 0 0 0 158 0 2 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 449 0 259 89 0 0 142 317 0 311 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 10 10 20
Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pt+ov Perm NA
Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 4
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 26.6 16.7 16.7 19.7 39.9 19.7
Effective Green, g (s) 26.6 16.7 16.7 19.7 36.4 19.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.23 0.23 0.27 0.50 0.27
Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1007 323 331 390 1108 375
v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.18 0.06 0.14
v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 c0.22
v/c Ratio 0.45 0.80 0.27 0.36 0.29 0.83
Uniform Delay, d1 17.6 26.6 23.1 21.6 10.7 25.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 12.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 13.4
Delay (s) 19.0 39.2 23.3 21.8 10.8 38.4
Level of Service B D C C B D
Approach Delay (s) 19.0 34.9 13.3 38.4
Approach LOS B C B D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd. 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 126 187 151 315 172 173 165 40 415 208 647 101 Future Volume (veh/h) 126 187 151 315 172 173 165 40 415 208 647 101 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1441 1441 1441 1618 1618 1618 1796 1796 1796 1811 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 110 229 0 332 181 0 174 42 0 219 681 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 31 31 31 19 19 19 7 7 7 6 6 6
Cap, veh/h 155 326 488 256 204 836 522 1503
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.12 0.25 0.00 0.30 0.44 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1372 2881 1221 3083 1618 1372 1711 3503 0 1725 3441 1535 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 110 229 0 332 181 0 174 42 0 219 681 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1372 1441 1221 1541 1618 1372 1711 1706 0 1725 1721 1535 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.1 8.0 0.0 11.1 11.6 0.0 10.5 1.0 0.0 10.7 14.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.1 8.0 0.0 11.1 11.6 0.0 10.5 1.0 0.0 10.7 14.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 155 326 488 256 204 836 522 1503 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.70 0.68 0.71 0.85 0.05 0.42 0.45
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 289 606 611 321 293 836 522 1503
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) 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.87 0.87 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.69 0.69 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.9 44.9 0.0 47.1 47.4 0.0 45.3 30.3 0.0 29.3 20.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 1.0 0.0 1.9 4.5 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 2.9 0.0 4.7 5.4 0.0 5.0 0.4 0.0 4.3 5.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.0 45.8 0.0 49.1 51.9 0.0 56.2 30.3 0.0 29.4 21.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D E C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 339 A 513 A 216 A 900 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 46.2 50.0 51.2 23.4
Approach LOS D D D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.5 50.8 16.5 36.7 30.6 21.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.9 * 4.9 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 26.0 22.1 19.1 * 25 20.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.5 16.6 10.1 12.7 3.0 13.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 3.4 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
8: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd. 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 102 331 368 29 160 19 330 481 352 24 123 197 Future Volume (veh/h) 102 331 368 29 160 19 330 481 352 24 123 197 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 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 1722 1722 1722 1574 1574 1574 1811 1811 1811 1663 1663 1663 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 110 356 116 31 172 16 355 517 0 26 132 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 12 12 12 22 22 22 6 6 6 16 16 16
Cap, veh/h 227 419 347 85 220 20 1380 1419 183 192 150
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.43 0.43 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 1640 1722 1426 1499 1411 131 3346 3532 0 1584 1663 1300 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 110 356 116 31 0 188 355 517 0 26 132 24 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1640 1722 1426 1499 0 1543 1673 1721 0 1584 1663 1300 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.9 21.5 8.1 2.1 0.0 12.3 7.2 10.7 0.0 1.6 8.0 1.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.9 21.5 8.1 2.1 0.0 12.3 7.2 10.7 0.0 1.6 8.0 1.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 227 419 347 85 0 240 1380 1419 183 192 150 V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.85 0.33 0.36 0.00 0.78 0.26 0.36 0.14 0.69 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 206 426 353 144 0 363 1423 1463 353 371 290 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.89 0.89 0.89 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.5 48.0 40.3 47.7 0.0 42.6 20.3 21.3 0.0 41.8 44.6 41.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 13.2 0.4 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 46.5 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 3.0 18.4 3.0 0.8 0.0 4.9 2.8 4.4 0.0 0.6 3.4 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.4 107.6 40.6 48.7 0.0 45.6 20.6 21.9 0.0 41.9 46.2 42.0 LnGrp LOS D F D D A D C C D D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 582 219 872 A 182
Approach Delay, s/veh 82.9 46.0 21.4 45.1
Approach LOS F D C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 28.8 49.3 17.8 20.9 17.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 * 4.6 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.1 26.0 27.4 11.4 * 25 23.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 23.5 12.7 8.9 14.3 10.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.6 2.9 0.0 0.4 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.9
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 855 19 691 12 10 15 206 228 17 25 440 118 Future Volume (vph) 855 19 691 12 10 15 206 228 17 25 440 118 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 4.1 4.1 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1633 1641 2707 1697 1482 1656 3277 1626 3252 1455 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1633 1641 2707 1697 1482 1656 3277 1626 3252 1455 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 900 20 727 13 11 16 217 240 18 26 463 124 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 515 0 0 15 0 4 0 0 0 93
Lane Group Flow (vph) 459 461 212 0 24 1 217 254 0 26 463 31 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 11% 11% 11% Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 3 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.9 20.9 20.9 3.8 3.8 14.3 29.4 2.7 17.8 17.8 Effective Green, g (s) 20.9 20.9 20.9 3.8 3.8 14.3 29.4 2.7 17.8 17.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.41 0.04 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 4.1 4.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 476 479 790 90 78 330 1345 61 808 361 v/s Ratio Prot c0.28 0.28 c0.01 c0.13 0.08 0.02 c0.14
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.00 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.96 0.96 0.27 0.27 0.01 0.66 0.19 0.43 0.57 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 25.0 25.0 19.5 32.6 32.1 26.4 13.5 33.7 23.6 20.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 32.0 31.5 0.2 1.6 0.1 4.7 0.1 4.7 1.0 0.1 Delay (s) 57.0 56.4 19.7 34.2 32.2 31.1 13.5 38.4 24.6 20.8 Level of Service E E B C C C B D C C
Approach Delay (s) 40.3 33.4 21.6 24.4
Approach LOS D C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.6 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
14: 280 SB Ramps/Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 53 745 294 50 280 200 28 15 169 367 315 21 Future Volume (veh/h) 53 745 294 50 280 200 28 15 169 367 315 21 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 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 58 819 313 55 308 91 31 16 0 403 346 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 90 629 240 88 911 768 54 28 453 442 28
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.49 0.49 0.05 0.49 0.49 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1287 492 1781 1870 1577 1194 616 1585 1781 1739 111 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 0 1132 55 308 91 47 0 0 403 0 368 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1779 1781 1870 1577 1811 0 1585 1781 0 1850 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 0.0 45.0 2.8 9.3 2.9 2.3 0.0 0.0 20.1 0.0 17.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 0.0 45.0 2.8 9.3 2.9 2.3 0.0 0.0 20.1 0.0 17.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.66 1.00 1.00 0.06
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 90 0 869 88 911 768 82 0 453 0 470 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.00 1.30 0.63 0.34 0.12 0.57 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 387 0 869 387 913 770 432 0 541 0 562 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.9 0.0 23.6 43.0 14.5 12.9 43.1 0.0 0.0 33.1 0.0 32.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.9 0.0 144.8 2.7 0.3 0.1 2.3 0.0 0.0 13.5 0.0 4.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.0 52.3 1.3 3.7 1.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 8.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.8 0.0 168.3 45.7 14.8 13.0 45.4 0.0 0.0 46.6 0.0 36.8 LnGrp LOS D A F D B B D A D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1190 454 47 A 771
Approach Delay, s/veh 162.4 18.2 45.4 41.9
Approach LOS F B D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.1 49.4 26.9 8.0 49.5 7.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 45.0 28.0 20.0 45.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 11.3 22.1 4.8 47.0 4.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 95.8
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
15: 280 NB Ramps/Driveway & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020
Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 1081 188 108 385 2 134 5 245 0 3 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 3 1081 188 108 385 2 134 5 245 0 3 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 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 3 1188 167 119 423 2 157 0 20 0 3 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 4 1624 695 325 680 3 351 0 156 0 9 3
Arrive On Green 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 Sat Flow, veh/h 9 3638 1557 1781 3720 18 3563 0 1585 0 1342 447 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 639 552 167 119 213 212 157 0 20 0 0 4 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1870 1777 1557 1781 1870 1867 1781 0 1585 0 0 1790 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.4 14.3 3.8 3.3 6.0 6.0 2.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.4 14.3 3.8 3.3 6.0 6.0 2.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.25
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 835 793 695 325 342 341 351 0 156 0 0 12 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.70 0.24 0.37 0.62 0.62 0.45 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1341 1274 1117 1122 1178 1176 1496 0 665 0 0 626 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 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.3 12.7 9.8 20.5 21.5 21.5 24.3 0.0 23.5 0.0 0.0 28.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.8 0.1 0.5 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 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 5.6 4.5 1.0 1.3 2.4 2.4 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.4 13.5 9.9 21.0 22.9 22.9 24.6 0.0 23.7 0.0 0.0 34.7 LnGrp LOS B B A C C C C A C A A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1358 544 177 4
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.5 22.5 24.5 34.7
Approach LOS B C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.5 9.1 29.6 3.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 3.5 4.1 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 24.0 41.0 20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.0 4.4 18.4 2.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.1 0.3 6.9 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
17: Cherry Avenue & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020
Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT NBU NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 953 333 2 84 380 4 123 159
Future Volume (veh/h) 953 333 2 84 380 4 123 159
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 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 993 242 88 396 128 26
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 2048 888 123 2635 296 136
Arrive On Green 0.58 0.58 0.07 0.74 0.09 0.09
Sat Flow, veh/h 3647 1542 1781 3647 3456 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 993 242 88 396 128 26
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1542 1781 1777 1728 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.6 1.6 2.5 1.7 1.8 0.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.6 1.6 2.5 1.7 1.8 0.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2048 888 123 2635 296 136
V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.27 0.71 0.15 0.43 0.19
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 4164 1806 1198 6826 2456 1127
HCM Platoon Ratio 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
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.5 0.8 23.7 2.0 22.6 22.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.2 2.9 0.0 1.0 0.7
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 0.8 1.0 0.1 0.7 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.7 1.1 26.6 2.0 23.6 22.8
LnGrp LOS A A C A C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1235 484 154
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.6 6.5 23.5
Approach LOS A A C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.6 35.0 43.6 8.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 5.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 * 61 100.0 37.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 10.6 3.7 3.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 15.2 4.0 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.3
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
18: Huntington Avenue/Huntington Ave & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 89 457 51 0 321 0 0 184 8 87 130 129 Future Volume (vph) 89 457 51 0 321 0 0 184 8 87 130 129 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 10 10 12 10 12 10 12 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.93
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3153 3209 1796 1719 3133
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3153 3209 1796 1719 3133
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 97 497 55 0 349 0 0 200 9 95 141 140
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 87 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 97 548 0 0 349 0 0 207 0 95 194 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 15 10 10 20
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 5
Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 2% 5% 2% 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 13 10 9 14 11 16 15 12
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.0 33.5 22.8 14.1 7.0 24.8
Effective Green, g (s) 7.0 34.5 23.8 14.1 7.0 24.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.53 0.36 0.21 0.11 0.38
Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 183 1655 1162 385 183 1182
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.17 0.11 c0.12 c0.06 0.06
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.33 0.30 0.54 0.52 0.16
Uniform Delay, d1 27.8 9.0 15.0 22.9 27.8 13.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 0.1 0.1 1.5 1.0 0.1
Delay (s) 29.3 9.1 6.7 24.4 28.8 13.6
Level of Service C A A C C B
Approach Delay (s) 12.1 6.7 24.4 17.5
Approach LOS B A C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.7 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
19: San Mateo Avenue & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021
Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 140 413 0 68 306 120 5 115 134 0 27 72 Future Volume (vph) 140 413 0 68 306 120 5 115 134 0 27 72 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 2.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 0.89
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1687 3374 1687 3201 1772 1473 1563
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1687 3374 1687 3201 1764 1473 1563
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 154 454 0 75 336 132 5 126 147 0 30 79
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 92 0 48 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 154 454 0 75 436 0 0 131 55 0 61 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 5 10 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 5
Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% 2% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 2% 7% 7%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 8 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.2 23.3 6.5 17.6 24.8 24.8 24.8 Effective Green, g (s) 12.2 23.3 6.5 18.6 25.8 24.8 25.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.35 0.10 0.28 0.39 0.38 0.39
Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 313 1196 166 906 692 556 613
v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.13 0.04 c0.14 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm c0.07 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.38 0.45 0.48 0.19 0.10 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 24.0 15.8 27.9 19.5 13.1 13.2 12.6
Progression Factor 0.88 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1
Delay (s) 21.6 12.1 28.6 19.9 13.2 13.3 12.7
Level of Service C B C B B B B
Approach Delay (s) 14.5 21.1 13.3 12.7
Approach LOS B C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.7 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 870 360 209 399 0 0 0 0 338 347 171 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 870 360 209 399 0 0 0 0 338 347 171 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 0 1885 1885 1885 1885 0 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 916 0 220 420 0 237 531 59
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 0 2173 822 2556 0 326 686 291
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.47 1.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5316 1598 3483 3676 0 1795 3770 1598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 916 0 220 420 0 237 531 59
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1716 1598 1742 1791 0 1795 1885 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 11.3 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 11.2 12.1 2.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 11.3 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 11.2 12.1 2.8 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2173 822 2556 0 326 686 291
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.42 0.27 0.16 0.00 0.73 0.77 0.20
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2173 822 2556 0 531 1114 472
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 18.3 0.0 19.1 0.0 0.0 34.7 35.1 31.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.7 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 4.8 5.4 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 18.9 0.0 19.1 0.1 0.0 35.9 35.8 31.4 LnGrp LOS A B B A A D D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 916 A 640 827
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.9 6.7 35.5
Approach LOS B A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.2 43.0 20.8 69.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.4 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 * 38 26.6 54.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 13.3 14.1 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 8.9 2.3 4.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 6th AWSC
21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.3
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 20 19 143 0 65 5 0 209 143 150 183 Future Vol, veh/h 20 20 19 143 0 65 5 0 209 143 150 183 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 22 22 21 155 0 71 5 0 227 155 163 199
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 2
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 3 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 3 1 1
HCM Control Delay 10.7 14.4 13.1 10.5

HCM LOS B B B B

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3
Vol Left, % 0% 0% 34% 69% 100% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 100% 42% 34% 0% 0% 100% 100%
Vol Right, % 0% 58% 32% 31% 0% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 110 248 59 208 150 92 92
LT Vol 0 0 20 143 150 0 0
Through Vol 110 105 20 0 0 92 92
RT Vol 0 143 19 65 0 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 119 269 64 226 163 99 99
Geometry Grp 8 8 7 7 7 7 7
Degree of Util (X) 0.216 0.457 0.124 0.423 0.303 0.17 0.121 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.533 6.121 6.943 6.739 6.68 6.171 4.374 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 548 586 514 534 536 580 814
Service Time 4.296 3.884 4.719 4.499 4.439 3.93 2.132
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.217 0.459 0.125 0.423 0.304 0.171 0.122 HCM Control Delay 11.1 14 10.7 14.4 12.3 10.2 7.7
HCM Lane LOS B B B B B B A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.8 2.4 0.4 2.1 1.3 0.6 0.4
HCM 6th AWSC
21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
Intersection LOS
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4
Mvmt Flow 0
Number of Lanes 0
Approach
Opposing Approach
Opposing Lanes
Conflicting Approach Left
Conflicting Lanes Left
Conflicting Approach Right
Conflicting Lanes Right
HCM Control Delay

HCM LOS

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 460 318 5 150 382 0 0 0 0 2 242
Future Volume (vph) 0 460 318 5 150 382 0 0 0 0 2 242
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 3135 1535 3226 1603
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (perm) 3135 1535 3226 1603
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 479 331 5 156 398 0 0 0 0 2 252
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 136 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 674 0 0 145 414 0 0 0 0 0 128
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10
Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7%
Turn Type NA Split Split NA Split Split
Protected Phases 5 6 6 6 4 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.2 20.3 20.3 10.7
Effective Green, g (s) 20.2 20.3 20.3 10.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.16
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 963 474 996 261
v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.09 c0.13 c0.08
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.31 0.42 0.49
Uniform Delay, d1 20.1 17.3 18.0 25.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 0.4 0.3 1.5
Delay (s) 22.4 17.7 18.3 26.5
Level of Service C B B C
Approach Delay (s) 22.4 18.1 0.0
Approach LOS C B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.7 Sum of lost time (s) 14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 154
Future Volume (vph) 2 154
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1608 1509
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1608 1509
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 2 160
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 85
Lane Group Flow (vph) 128 75
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7%
Turn Type NA custom
Protected Phases 4 5
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.7 30.9
Effective Green, g (s) 10.7 30.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.47
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 261 709
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.11
Uniform Delay, d1 25.0 9.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 0.1
Delay (s) 26.5 9.8
Level of Service C A
Approach Delay (s) 20.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
23: US 101 NB Off Ramp/US 101 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Ave/San Bruno Avenue 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 213 508 0 0 218 116 263 0 286 72 0 52 Future Volume (vph) 213 508 0 0 218 116 263 0 286 72 0 52 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3242 1759 3343 1468 1671 1472 1671 1495 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3242 1759 3343 1468 1671 1472 1671 1495 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adj. Flow (vph) 248 591 0 0 253 135 306 0 333 84 0 60
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 0 209 0 0 55
Lane Group Flow (vph) 248 591 0 0 253 32 0 306 124 84 0 5 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 5 5 10 5 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10
Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Prot
Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 7 7
Permitted Phases 6 8 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.6 31.4 15.3 15.3 16.1 16.1 5.8 5.8 Effective Green, g (s) 11.6 31.4 15.3 15.3 16.1 16.1 5.8 5.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.48 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.09 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 580 852 789 346 415 365 149 133
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.34 0.08 c0.05 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.18 0.08
v/c Ratio 0.43 0.69 0.32 0.09 0.74 0.34 0.56 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 23.6 13.0 20.5 19.3 22.4 20.0 28.3 27.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 2.0 0.1 0.0 5.8 0.2 2.9 0.0
Delay (s) 24.2 15.0 20.5 19.4 28.2 20.2 31.2 27.0
Level of Service C B C B C C C C
Approach Delay (s) 17.7 20.1 24.0 29.4
Approach LOS B C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 64.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
24: Cherry Avenue & San Bruno Avenue W 01/03/2022
Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 368 973 63 24 541 98 140 103 38 124 68 89 Future Volume (veh/h) 368 973 63 24 541 98 140 103 38 124 68 89 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.99 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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1930 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 383 1014 62 25 564 87 146 107 40 129 71 93 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333333333
Cap, veh/h 373 1612 99 79 984 151 198 355 133 256 127 795 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3373 206 1767 3055 470 1205 1277 477 683 458 1618 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 383 530 546 25 325 326 146 0 147 200 0 93 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1817 1767 1763 1762 1205 0 1754 1141 0 1618 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.0 25.3 25.3 1.2 13.8 13.9 8.8 0.0 5.9 10.2 0.0 2.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.0 25.3 25.3 1.2 13.8 13.9 25.0 0.0 5.9 16.2 0.0 2.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.27 0.64 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 373 842 868 79 568 568 198 0 487 383 0 795 V/C Ratio(X) 1.03 0.63 0.63 0.32 0.57 0.57 0.74 0.00 0.30 0.52 0.00 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 373 842 868 98 568 568 198 0 487 383 0 795 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.93 0.00 0.93 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.9 30.4 30.5 41.7 25.3 25.4 41.4 0.0 25.6 30.8 0.0 12.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 49.4 3.0 2.9 0.7 3.4 3.4 11.8 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 14.0 12.4 12.8 0.5 6.0 6.1 3.9 0.0 2.5 3.9 0.0 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 91.3 33.4 33.3 42.4 28.7 28.8 53.2 0.0 25.7 31.4 0.0 12.5 LnGrp LOS F CCDCCDACCAB
Approach Vol, veh/h 1459 676 293 293
Approach Delay, s/veh 48.6 29.2 39.4 25.4
Approach LOS DCDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 38.0 29.0 13.0 48.0 29.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 9.0 4.0 9.0 * 5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 29.0 25.0 5.0 * 43 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.0 15.9 18.2 3.2 27.3 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.4 0.6 0.0 8.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
25: El Camino Real & 380 WB On-Ramp/380 WB Off-Ramp 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 500 0 706 0 829 321 0 2190 246 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 500 0 706 0 829 321 0 2190 246 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 2760 5036 1474 5036 1521
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 2760 5036 1474 5036 1521
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 515 0 728 0 855 331 0 2258 254
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 135 0 0 64
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 515 0 628 0 855 196 0 2258 190 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 15 15 15
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Turn Type Prot custom NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 5 6 2
Permitted Phases 6 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 21.3 39.9 71.1 71.1 89.7 89.7
Effective Green, g (s) 21.3 36.3 71.1 71.1 89.7 89.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.30 0.59 0.59 0.75 0.75
Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 603 834 2983 873 3764 1136
v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.23 0.17 c0.45
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.12
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.75 0.29 0.22 0.60 0.17
Uniform Delay, d1 47.8 37.8 12.0 11.5 6.9 4.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.53 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 10.9 3.5 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.3
Delay (s) 58.8 41.3 9.3 6.6 7.6 4.7
Level of Service E D A A A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 48.5 8.5 7.4
Approach LOS A D A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
26: El Camino Real & 380 EB Off-Ramp/380 EB On-Ramp 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report