Feasibility Study of Acquiring Control of Caltrans Traffic Signals on El Camino Real - Final Report — Sunnyvale City Council, April 5, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

Feasibility Study of Acquiring Control
of Caltrans Traffic Signals
on El Camino Real

FINAL REPORT
JANUARY 12, 2022
Prepared for:

Prepared by:

Attachment 3

Page 1 of 199 ends

i Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 PROJECT AREA ........................................................................................................................ 1 APPROACH................................................................................................................................ 3 CALTRANS REQUIREMENTS AND COORDINATION .............................................................. 4 MEETING WITH CALTRANS ...................................................................................................... 4 CONDITIONS OF OPERATIONS & MAINTAINENCE (O&M) ...................................................... 4 DATA COLLECTION................................................................................................................... 6 COLLECT TRAFFIC COUNTS .................................................................................................... 6 DATA REQUEST FROM AGENCIES .......................................................................................... 7 FIELD REVIEW AND INVENTORY ............................................................................................. 7 DATA ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 8 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 8 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................ 12 COLLISION HISTORY .............................................................................................................. 27 MAINTENANCE HISTORY ....................................................................................................... 29 PUBLIC SERVICE REQUESTS ................................................................................................ 29 CURRENT AND PLANNED PROJECTS ................................................................................... 31 LITIGATION .............................................................................................................................. 32 CORRIDOR AND INTERSECTION UPGRADES ...................................................................... 33 PHASE 1 – REQUIRED UPGRADES AND MODFICATIONS .................................................... 33 PHASE 2 – INTERSECTION FUNCTIONALITY AND ACCESSIBILITY UPGRADES................. 40 PHASE 3 – UPGRADING SIGNALS TO ALL CURRENT STANDARDS .................................... 44 ESTIMATED COSTS ................................................................................................................ 46 Attachment 3

Page 2 of 199 ends

ii Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
Figures
Figure 1: Study Intersections ............................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Caltrans TOS Communications .......................................................................................................... 34 Figure 3: Existing Copper Interconnect .............................................................................................................. 35 Figure 4: Future Communication System ........................................................................................................... 35 Figure 5: Temporary Communication System .................................................................................................... 36 Figure 6: Recommended Intersection Upgrades ............................................................................................... 43 Tables
Table 1: 24-hour Average Daily Traffic Volumes Summary ................................................................................. 8 Table 2: 7-day, 24-hour El Camino Real Corridor Average Classification Count Summary ................................. 9 Table 3: Current Cycle Lengths/Coordination Status ............................................................................................ 9 Table 4 - Intersection Level of Service Definitions .............................................................................................. 10 Table 5: Weekday Delay and LOS ...................................................................................................................... 11 Table 6: Weekend Delay and LOS ...................................................................................................................... 11 Table 7: Collision Summary ............................................................................................................................... 27 Table 8: Collision Rate vs. Expected Rate ......................................................................................................... 28 Table 9: Maintenance Records Summary .......................................................................................................... 29 Table 10: Public Service Requests Summary (By Type) ................................................................................... 30 Table 11: Current and Planned Projects ............................................................................................................ 31 Table 12: Corridor-wide Timing Performance Summary ..................................................................................... 38 Table 13: Weekday Delay and LOS Comparison ............................................................................................... 39 Table 14: Weekend Delay and LOS Comparison ............................................................................................... 40 Table 15: Recommended Intersection Upgrades ................................................................................................ 42 Table 16: Recommended Upgrades to Battery Backup Systems ....................................................................... 44 Table 17: Phase II – Safety and Accessibility Upgrades Cost Estimate per Intersection ................................... 47 Table 18: Long Term Improvements Cost Estimate ............................................................................................ 47

APPENDICES
Appendix A – Caltrans/City Coordination Meeting Minutes Appendix B – Caltrans Terms of Operations & Maintenance Memorandum Appendix C – Volume Figures
Appendix D – Average Daily Traffic Volumes Summaries
Appendix E – Vehicle Classification Summary
Appendix F – Synchro Reports
Appendix G – Field Summaries
Appendix H – Maintenance History
Appendix I – Public Service Requests
Appendix J – Detailed Cost Estimates
Attachment 3

Page 3 of 199 ends

1 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

INTRODUCTION
The City of Sunnyvale is home to a number of large tech companies and is a major city in the heart of the Silic
on Valley. With the increasing number of daily vehicular trips, traffic congestion has become one of t
he top concerns for residents in the City, resulting in numerous complaints from the residents. The City has deployed an Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) on corridors throughout the City including Mathilda Avenue, Sunnyvale-Saratoga Avenue, and Wolfe Road, which have seen improvements to traffic flow. El Camino Real, California Route 82, a major arterial which passes through the City of Sunnyvale, is the second busiest corridor in the City and has received numerous complaints regarding congestion. While the traffic on El Camino Real could benefit from a fully integrated system, the City has no control over the signals since they are operated and maintained by Caltrans. Additionally, there are several major arterials which int
ersect El Camino Real and a couple intersections which are within close proximity to El Camino Real,
but are not currently coordinated to the corridor due to jurisdiction differences.

Kim
ley-Horn was selected through a competitive process by the City to conduct a study to review the relinquis
hment requirements and assess the feasibility for the City to take control of the Caltrans owned and operated traffic signals on El Camino Real. In addition, the study will provide an analysis of the current infrastructure deficiencies and overall conditions of the corridor to identify required upgrades before integration
into the City’s ATMS and one-time and ongoing maintenance and infrastructure upgrades costs for the City to operate and maintain the signals.

PROJECT AREA
There are a total of 14 traffic signals along the El Camino Real corridor that are owned and operated by Caltrans and are included in the project study. The following summarize the project intersections and Figure 1 on the next page illustrates the study area:

1. El Camino Real & Bernardo Avenue

2. El Camino Real & Grape Avenue

3. El Camino Real & Mary Avenue

4. El Camino Real & Hollenbeck Avenue

5. El Camino Real & S Murphy Avenue

6. El Camino Real & Sunnyvale Avenue

7. El Camino Real & Cezanne Drive

8. El Camino Real & S Fair Oaks Avenue

9. El Camino Real & Maria Lane

10. El Camino Real & S Wolfe Road

11. El Camino Real & Poplar Avenue

12. El Camino Real & Henderson Avenue

13. El Camino Real & Helen Avenue (HAWK)

14. Sunnyvale Avenue & Old San Francisco Road
El Camino Real, within the project limits, is an east/west 6-lane major arterial which connects the cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara. Most of the corridor contains on-street parking and a raised median. Bike lanes exist between Sunnyvale Avenue and Fair Oaks Avenue and the posted speed limit for the entire corridor is 35 miles per hour. The land uses along the corridor within the project vicinity are primarily commercial and high-density residential developments. There are a few schools within close proximity of the corridor, such as Cumberland Elementary School and Peterson Middle School, as well as several Senior Living Centers on the westerly end of the corridor. The City of Sunnyvale City Hall, City Library, Fire Station, and Police Station are located in the middle of the corridor at South Mathilda Avenue.

There is a moderate pedestrian and bicycle activity observed throughout the corridor, especially during weekday AM, Midday, and PM peak hours. The major traffic generators along the corridor are SR 85 on the westerly end and Lawrence Expressway on the easterly end. Within the City of Sunnyvale limits, the heaviest arterials that cross El Camino Real are Mathilda Avenue, Wolfe Road, Fair Oaks Avenue, and Mary Avenue.

Attachment 3

Page 4 of 199 ends

j
85 82
El Camino RealEl Camino Real
Old San Francisco RdOld San Francisco Rd
Reed AveReed Ave
E. Fremont AveE. Fremont Ave
Maria LnMaria Ln
El Camino RealEl Camino Real
S. Mathilda AveS. Mathilda Ave
S .Mary AveS .Mary Ave
Grape AveGrape Ave
S. Bernardo AveS. Bernardo Ave
S. Fairoaks AveS. Fairoaks Ave
S. Murphy AveS. Murphy AveS. Sunnyvale AveS. Sunnyvale Ave Lawrence ExpyLawrence Expy
S. Wolfe RdS. Wolfe Rd
Poplar AvePoplar Ave
Henderson AveHenderson Ave
Helen AveHelen Ave
Hollenbeck AveHollenbeck Ave
Sunnyvale Sunnyvale
Saratoga RdSaratoga Rd
3 4
X
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
1 2
82 LEGEND
1 El Camino Real & Bernardo Ave.
2 El Camino Real & Grape Ave.
3 El Camino Real & Mary Ave.
4 El Camino Real & Hollenbeck Ave.
5 El Camino Real & Murphy Ave.
6 El Camino Real & Sunnyvale Ave.
7 El Camino Real & Sunnyvale Ave. /
Old Francisco Rd.
8 El Camino Real & Cezanne Dr.
9 El Camino Real & Fair Oaks Ave.
10 El Camino Real & Maria Ln.
11 El Camino Real & Wolfe Rd.
12 El Camino Real & Poplar Ave.
13 El Camino Real & Henderson Ave.
14 El Camino Real & Helen Ave.

X El Camino Real & Mathilda Ave.
(Already delegated to City)
FIGURE 1: Project Area Map
Attachment 3

Page 5 of 199 ends

3 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
It should be noted that El Camino Real/Wolfe Road intersection is connected to the City-owned traffic signal at Wolfe Road/Fremont Avenue using special software to provide coordination between the intersection all day, every day. Additionally, although Sunnyvale Avenue and Old San Francisco Road is not on El Camino Real, it is connected to El Camino Real and Sunnyvale Avenue intersection and therefore was included in this study.

APPROACH
This report summarizes an assessment of the existing infrastructure, the research conducted to review the existing conditions, and the estimated costs for the City to take control of the traffic signals and for potential future improvements. Our approach to conduct the study consisted of the following steps:

1. Coordinate with the City and Caltrans to understand the requirements and procedures of acquisition/delegation from both agencies

2. Collect all available existing conditions data from City and Caltrans

3. Performed existing field review of the existing infrastructure

4. Evaluate resources and costs needed to maintain/upgrade existing Caltrans traffic signals.

5. Review existing City’s budgeting process and apply to El Camino Real traffic signals.

6. Evaluate existing traffic signal performance along El Camino Real and provide potential improvements to signal timing.

7. Develop project report outlining existing infrastructure and steps to be performed in order to acquire operations and maintenance of the Caltrans traffic signals.

Attachment 3

Page 6 of 199 ends

4 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022

CALTRANS REQUIREMENTS AND COORDINATION
The primary goal of the project is to determine what is required for the City to take control of the traffic operations along El Camino Real, to enable the City to address traffic operations concerns along the route and along connecting roadways to El Camino Real. There are two primary methods for an agency to take control of the traffic operations along a State-owned route, Relinquishment or Delegation, with each of them defined as follows:

Relinquishment – the statutory conveyance of all rights, title, interests, liability, and maintenance responsibilities of a State highway, or portion thereof, to another government entity1 Delegation of Operations and Maintenance (O&M) – Delegation can be defined as an agency (City) entering an agreement with Caltrans to take “control” and be responsible for the traffic operations and maintenance of the facilities that are still owned by the State.

With relinquishment, the City would take full ownership of the roadway, along with all the infrastructure (traffic signals, street lighting, etc.) along the route. Relinquishment can be a long legal process that requires California Transportation Commission (CTC) approval with specific guidelines and requirements for relinquishment outlined in the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual Chapter 25 – Relinquishments.

With delegation, the roadway and facilities are still owned by the State, but the City would now be responsible for the maintenance of the specific facilities (traffic signals) as defined in the agreement, and also would be able to control the traffic operations (make timing changes) along the corridor. The City would also be able to install City owned equipment at the State-owned intersections. The agreement between the City and Caltrans would outline the responsibilities of both parties and the requirements for the City to continue to have O&M of the state-owned traffic signals. 1 Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual, Chapter 25, February 13, 2018

MEETING WITH CALTRANS
An initial coordination meeting was held with Caltrans to discuss the overall project goals and to understand the options and requirements for the City of Sunnyvale to take control of the traffic signals on El Camino Real. The meeting was held at the Caltrans District 4 office on Tuesday, February 4th, 2020 and included staff from various Caltrans operating groups, City of Sunnyvale staff, and Kimley-Horn staff. A copy of the meeting minutes from the initial coordination meeting is included inAppendix A.

CONDITIONS OF OPERATIONS & MAINTAINENCE (O&M)
Subsequent to the initial coordination meeting, Caltrans provided a written response to the City indicating that while they did not support full relinquishment of the intersections to the City of Sunnyvale, they were willing to discuss and come to an agreement for the delegation of operations and maintenance (O&M) of the traffic signals on El Camino Real. In the letter, Caltrans outlined the following specific terms that would be required for delegation of O&M on the corridor:

1. Coordination between traffic signals must be applied at the El Camino Real and Wolfe Road Intersection because of its close proximity to the Wolfe Road and Fremont Avenue Intersection.

2. An unmodified Caltrans standard Model 332 cabinet shall be used at all times. Traffic signal components installed and operated by the City of Sunnyvale including, but not limited to controllers, Attachment 3

Page 7 of 199 ends

5 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
detectors, and software modules shall be capable of interfacing with existing Caltrans systems to support interoperability and regional operations.

3. Any modifications to the traffic signal and associated infrastructure shall be approved by Caltrans through Caltrans encroachment permit process.

4. The City of Sunnyvale agrees to implement an adaptive strategy and signal performance measures (SPM) system along El Camino Real in cooperation with other local jurisdictions in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties within six to 12 months after an O&M Agreement is in place.

5. The City of Sunnyvale will submit initial timing parameters and coordination strategy and any subsequent changes to the appropriate Caltrans Signal Operations Branch prior to implementation.

The City of Sunnyvale will, upon request, furnish detailed traffic engineering, signal timing and maintenance records. City of Sunnyvale shall submit, upon request, a detailed narrative or report of the day to day performance of the Caltrans-owned traffic signals and the implemented adaptive operational strategy.

6. In the event that the O&M at the intersections become unacceptable, or Caltrans may otherwise require control of the signal system, Caltrans will notify the City of Sunnyvale, install Caltrans standard controllers, and resume O&M of the traffic signals.

7. The City of Sunnyvale agrees to provide Caltrans a method for remote monitoring and management of all Caltrans owned traffic signals from Caltrans' Transportation Management Center (TMC) in Oakland, CA. If required for Caltrans' regional and corridor traffic management needs, Caltrans may also require the City of Sunnyvale to accept Caltrans Standard hardware and software in traffic signal cabinets, City Hall or other city facilities.

8. The City of Sunnyvale agrees to support transit and emergency vehicle operations by enabling priority and pre-emption capabilities at all Caltrans owned signals. In addition, the City and Caltrans will also consider future improvements to enhance service for pedestrian and bicycle traffic at intersections, if necessary.

9. The City of Sunnyvale agrees to support Caltrans' efforts to develop, test and implement advanced transportation technologies in partnership with Caltrans HQ's Division of Research, Innovation and System Information, and other partner public agencies or private enterprises.

10. The City of Sunnyvale agrees to indemnify and save harmless the State and all officers and employees thereof from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description, brought for, or on account of, injuries to or death of any person or damage of property resulting from the programming and operation of the controllers by the City of Sunnyvale or its contractors or its agents. The duty of the City of Sunnyvale to indemnify and save harmless includes the duties to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the Civil Code.

A copy of the Caltrans memorandum with further details on O&M requirements is included in theAppendix B.

Attachment 3

Page 8 of 199 ends

6 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022

DATA COLLECTION
Data collection was conducted to understand the current traffic conditions and operations, to gather information from the agencies regarding various items such as past issues, costs, and programmed projects along the corridor, and to inventory the existing traffic signal and intersection infrastructure to assist with identifying necessary upgrades and costs associated with the City taking over delegation of O&M for the El Camino traffic signals. The data collection consisted of the following steps which are summarized further in the subsequent sections:
· Collect Traffic Counts
· Data Request form Agencies
· Field Review and Inventory

COLLECT TRAFFIC COUNTS
To understand existing traffic conditions on El Camino Real, Kimley-Horn collected turning movement counts at each project intersection as well as hose counts at specific locations along the corridor, vehicle classification counts, and speed counts. Weekday turning movement counts, including vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle counts, were collected at the fourteen (14) intersections as shown in Figure 1.

Turning movement counts were collected at the project intersections for eight (8) hours during the following times:
· AM Peak 7:00 AM to 10:00 AM
· Midday Peak 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM
· PM Peak 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM
In addition, weekend turning movement counts, including vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle counts, were collected at the project intersection for four (4) hours during the following times:
· Weekend AM Peak 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM
· Weekend Midday Peak 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM
Kimley-Horn collected weekday turning movement counts on Thursday, November 14, 2019, while weekend turning movement counts were collected on Saturday, November 16, 2019. The turning movement counts were collected using video cameras and then reduced in the office.

To understand daily and weekday traffic volumes along the corridor, 24-hour tube counts were collected for seven days at the following three (3) locations:
· El Camino Real between S Mary Avenue and Hollenbeck Avenue · El Camino Real between Sunnyvale Avenue and Cezanne Drive · El Camino Real between Poplar Avenue and Henderson Avenue 24-hour tube counts were for seven (7) days between Friday, November 15, 2019 and Thursday, November 21, 2019.

A summary of the turning movement counts and hose counts is presented in the Data Analysis and Summary section. Raw count summary sheets will be sent separately to the City.

Attachment 3

Page 9 of 199 ends

7 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022

DATA REQUEST FROM AGENCIES
Kimley-Horn requested and obtained, as noted, the following information from Caltrans:
· As-Builts at existing traffic signals – Received
· Existing traffic signal timing sheets – Received
· Yearly maintenance cost per intersection – Not available o Electricity Cost
o Accident repair work cost
o Maintenance Frequency
· Current and future planned projects at each intersection – Not available · Approved or planned grant funding opportunities – Not available · Any planned capital improvement projects – Not available · Pending/Ongoing Litigations – Not available
· History of public complaints – Not available
Additionally, Kimley-Horn requested and obtained, as noted, the following information from the City of Sunnyvale:
· Collision History for the Past 5 Years within 250 feet of intersection – Received · Complaints received from Citizens – Received
· Nearby development projects that are in progress or planned – Received · Typical Annual Intersection Electricity Costs – Received · Preventative maintenance Activities and costs on typical signals in the City – Received · Any other information available to the City about Caltrans Signals – Received · Capital improvement projects to replace LED luminaires and UPS Batteries/Inverters - Received · Underground Utility Service Alert (USA) Markouts Expenditures – Received · Yearly expenditures due to various repairs and collisions - Received

FIELD REVIEW AND INVENTORY
Kimley-Horn conducted a field review at the project intersections on March 3rd, 4th, and 17th of 2021 with a Caltrans representative joining at several of the locations. The intent of the field review was to assess and document the existing signal infrastructure at each intersection. A more detailed description of the existing infrastructure is discussed in the Data Analysis and Summary section and inAppendix G.

Attachment 3

Page 10 of 199 ends

8 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022

DATA ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY
Data collected and obtained from the agencies was reduced and analyzed to assist with identifying the potential upgrades and to estimate costs associated with City being Delegated O&M. The following data is summarized in the subsequent sections:
· Existing Traffic Conditions
o Traffic Volumes
o Existing Signal Operations
o Intersection Level of Service and Delay
· Existing Infrastructure
· Collision History
· Maintenance History
· Public Service Requests
· Current and Planned Projects

EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Traffic Volumes
Weekday and weekend vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle turning movement counts were summarized and illustrated in the Figures in Appendix C . Raw turning movement data received will be transmitted separately to the City. Additionally, Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes for each location was calculated and presented inTable 1 and vehicle classification data is presented inTable 2. Summaries of tube counts showing daily and weekly trends and the vehicle classification data are included in theAppendix D and E.

Table 1: 24-hour Average Daily Traffic Volumes Summary Locations Period EB/NB
Average
WB/SB
Average Total
El Camino Real
(between Poplar Avenue and
Henderson Avenue)
Weekday (M-F) 16,027 17,521 33,548
Weekend (S-S) 14,645 14,895 29,539
El Camino Real
(between Mary Avenue
Hollenbeck Avenue)
Weekday (M-F) 16,238 16,296 32,535
Weekend (S-S) 14,081 14,692 28,772
El Camino Real
(between Sunnyvale Avenue
and Cezanne Drive)
Weekday (M-F) 15,748 16,296 32,044
Weekend (S-S) 14,081 14,692 28,772
Attachment 3

Page 11 of 199 ends

9 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
Table 2: 7-day, 24-hour El Camino Real Corridor Average Classification Count Summary Location Period Northbound
Average
Southbound
Average Total Percentage
Of Total (%)
Cars
Weekday (M-F) 15,006 15,890 30,896 98.0%
Weekend (S-S) 11,533 12,164 23,697 98.4%
Heavy Vehicles
Weekday (M-F) 316 326 642 2.0%
Weekend (S-S) 224 152 377 1.6%
Total
Weekday (M-F) 15,321 16,216 31,538 -
Weekend (S-S) 11,757 12,316 24,073 -
Existing Signal Operations
A majority of the project intersections currently operate in signal coordination by time-of-day during all weekday and weekend peak periods. The traffic signals at El Camino Real/S. Wolfe Road and Wolfe Road/Fremont Avenue operate free all day, every day, although operate with a special software that connects those two intersections together to operate “coordination” between the two intersections. The cycle lengths that are currently operating at the traffic signals during various times of the day, or whether the intersection is operating free, are summarized inTable 3.

Table 3: Current Cycle Lengths/Coordination Status
Intersection
Weekday Weekend
AM Midday PM
Off-
Peak
(AM)
Peak
(PM)
El Camino Real and Bernardo Avenue 140 140 150 Free Free El Camino Real and Grape Avenue 140 140 150 Free Free
El Camino Real and Mary Avenue 140 140 150 Free Free
El Camino Real and Hollenbeck Avenue 140 140 150 Free Free El Camino Real and S Murphy Avenue 70 70 75 70 70
El Camino Real and Sunnyvale Avenue 140 140 150 140 140 El Camino Real and Cezanne Drive 140 140 150 140 140
El Camino Real and S Fair Oaks Avenue 140 140 150 140 140 El Camino Real and Maria Lane 110 115 125 115 115
El Camino Real and S Wolfe Road Free Free Free Free Free El Camino Real and Poplar Avenue 130 130 130 130 130
El Camino Real and Henderson Avenue 130 130 130 130 130 El Camino Real and Helen Avenue (HAWK) Free Free Free Free Free Sunnyvale Avenue and Old San Francisco Road Free Free 75 70 70 Attachment 3

Page 12 of 199 ends

13 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
El Camino Real / Bernardo Avenue Intersection
The El Camino Real and Bernardo Avenue traffic signal is located on the westmost end of the corridor and the surrounding land uses are primarily commercial. The traffic signal infrastructure shows that the signal is in good condition, with all approaches having poles with mast arms on the far end and dedicated near side poles with signal heads. Based on the available as-builts, the poles were erected in 2004, and therefore most of the signal infrastructure is up to date.

Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Heads and Pedestrian Infrastructure All traffic signal heads are primarily 12” with only one 8” signal head. All pedestrian heads are countdown and push buttons are APS (Accessible Pedestrian Signals) and ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant.

Pull Boxes and Conduits
Pull boxes at the intersection are either #6 or #5, have plenty of space for the most part, and are free of dirt and debris. All the conduits are 3” and larger with duct seals on each conduit and wires neatly packed.

Traffic Signal Cabinet
The traffic signal operates with 8-phase
configuration and has no special signal timing.

The traffic signal controller is housed in a
Safetran Brand Type 332L traffic signal
cabinet, manufactured by SafeTran, and is
ATC 2070 with Caltrans TSCP software.

There is plenty of space available at the front
and in the back of the cabinet, with a battery
backup system cabinet attached to the side of
the Type 332 signal cabinet. The
communication to the controller is provided via
cellular modem, however, there is a signal
interconnect cable (SIC) connected to the
back of the cabinet and is running towards the
Grape Avenue intersection. The operational
status of the SIC cable has not been determined. There is a GPS puck on top of the cabinet with an antenna connected to the controller and an Emtrac antenna inside the card slot for TSP/EVP.

Attachment 3

Page 13 of 199 ends

10 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
Intersection Level of Service and Delay
To understand the existing traffic conditions along the corridor and Level of Service (LOS) at each intersection, traffic models were developed in the Synchro 10 software, using the traffic data collected, for the following five peak periods:
· Weekday AM Peak
· Weekday Midday Peak
· Weekday PM Peak
· Weekend Off-Peak (AM)
· Weekend Peak (Midday)
Peak hour turning movement volumes including pedestrian, bicycle, and pedestrian counts collected during the data collection were used as the basis for the Synchro model. Additional inputs including lane geometries, parking data, and heavy vehicle information were gathered during field work and used for development of the models. Existing phasing, timing parameters, and timing plans in use during each peak period were coded in the models and models were reviewed and calibrated to achieve a reasonable match between the model and observed conditions in field.

The analysis of the traffic operations at the intersections was based on the concept of Level of Service (LOS). The LOS of an intersection is a qualitative measure used to describe operational conditions. LOS ranges from A (best), which represents minimal delay, to F (worst), which represents heavy delay and a facility that is operating at or near its functional capacity. Levels of service were determined using methods defined in theHighway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (HCM) and Synchro analysis software. Table 4 relates the operational characteristics associated with each LOS category for signalized intersections. Results of each intersection’s LOS and delay are presented in Tables 5 and 6 for the weekday and weekend peak periods, respectively. Synchro reports are provided in theAppendix F.

Table 4 - Intersection Level of Service Definitions
Level of
Service Description
Signalized
(Avg. control delay per
vehicle sec/veh.)
A Free flow with no delays. Users are virtually unaffected by others in the traffic stream [ 10
B Stable traffic. Traffic flows smoothly with few delays. $ 10 – 20 C Stable flow but the operation of individual users becomes affected by other vehicles. Modest delays. $ 20 – 35
D
Approaching unstable flow. Operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by other vehicles. Delays may be more than one cycle during peak hours.
$ 35 – 55
E Unstable flow with operating conditions at or near the capacity level. Long delays and vehicle queuing. $ 55 – 80 F
Forced or breakdown flow that causes reduced capacity.

Stop and go traffic conditions. Excessive long delays and vehicle queuing.
$ 80
Attachment 3

Page 14 of 199 ends

11 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
Table 5: Weekday Delay and LOS
Intersection
AM Peak Midday Peak PM Peak
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
El Camino Real and Bernardo Avenue 47.6 D 41.2 D 47.0 D El Camino Real and Grape Avenue 10.4 B 12.2 B 10.5 B
El Camino Real and Mary Avenue 55.1 E 34.7 C 50.7 D
El Camino Real and Hollenbeck Avenue 41.9 D 34.1 C 34.2 C El Camino Real and S Murphy Avenue 4.7 A 2.9 A 2.4 A
El Camino Real and Sunnyvale Avenue 27.0 C 39.7 D 47.6 D El Camino Real and Cezanne Drive 18.2 B 22.9 C 30.3 C
El Camino Real and S Fair Oaks Avenue 46.1 D 42.6 D 50.4 D El Camino Real and Maria Lane 18.0 B 20.8 C 22.1 C
El Camino Real and S Wolfe Road 61.1 E 29.8 C 50.5 D
El Camino Real and Poplar Avenue 24.6 C 13.2 B 17.2 B
El Camino Real and Henderson Avenue 23.3 C 26.3 C 24.3 C Sunnyvale Ave. and Old San Francisco Rd. 5.2 A 4.6 A 6.6 A Table 6: Weekend Delay and LOS
Intersection
Weekend Peak Weekend Off-Peak
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
El Camino Real and Bernardo Avenue 45.1 D 58.6 E
El Camino Real and Grape Avenue 15.1 B 20.7 C
El Camino Real and Mary Avenue 31.1 C 40.2 D
El Camino Real and Hollenbeck Avenue 31.6 C 37.2 D
El Camino Real and S Murphy Avenue 2.8 A 3.6 A
El Camino Real and Sunnyvale Avenue 41.5 D 46.2 D
El Camino Real and Cezanne Drive 24.3 C 25.4 C
El Camino Real and S Fair Oaks Avenue 42.7 D 50.2 D
El Camino Real and Maria Lane 18.7 B 22.0 C
El Camino Real and S Wolfe Road 29.3 C 38.0 D
El Camino Real and Poplar Avenue 17.2 B 21.1 C
El Camino Real and Henderson Avenue 25.7 C 27.1 C
Sunnyvale Avenue and Old San Francisco Road 5.4 A 5.8 A Attachment 3

Page 15 of 199 ends

12 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022

EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE
During the field review, Kimley-Horn gathered and documented information on the existing electrical equipment above ground including signal equipment and poles, pull boxes, visible conduit, and cabinet equipment. Existing pedestrian infrastructure including pedestrian curb ramps, path of travel, and pedestrian signal head and push button equipment was also reviewed. The following section summarizes the key field findings at each intersection and a detailed inventory summary at each intersection is located in Appendix G.

Attachment 3

Page 16 of 199 ends

14 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
El Camino Real / Grape Avenue Intersection
The El Camino Real and Grape Avenue traffic signal located on the westerly end of the corridor and the surrounding land uses are primarily commercial.

The traffic signal infrastructure appears to be older and in fair condition based on the field observations and the poles were erected in approximately 1984.

Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Heads and Pedestrian Infrastructure The traffic signal heads are primarily 8” with a few 12”. All pedestrian heads are not countdown and the intersection does not currently utilize Accessible Pedestrian Signals for pedestrian crossings
Pull Boxes and Conduits
Pull boxes at the intersection are either #6 or #5, fairly old, and full of wires and dirt.

Conduits appeared to be galvanized rigid steel, primarily 2”, with a few 1.5”. Conduit conditions were unable to be confirmed at every location due to the amount of wires present in the pull box.

There does not appear to be much space
available in cabinet and there is no battery
backup system. The communication to the
controller is provided via cellular modem,
however, there are SICs connected to the back
of the cabinet that are running towards the
Bernardo Avenue and Mary Avenue
intersections. The operational status of the
SIC cable has not been determined. There is a GPS puck on top of the cabinet with antenna connected to the controller and an Emtrac antenna inside the card slot for TSP/EVP.

Attachment 3

Page 17 of 199 ends

15 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
El Camino Real / Mary Avenue Intersection
The El Camino Real and Mary Avenue traffic signal is located on the westerly end of the corridor and the surrounding land uses are primarily commercial. The traffic signal infrastructure appears to be in good condition, with all approaches having poles with mast arms on the far end and dedicated near side poles with signal heads. Based on the available as-builts, the poles were erected in 1991 and the poles with mast arms are designed for wind speeds of 70 mph.

Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Heads and Pedestrian Infrastructure All traffic signal heads are primarily 12” with a couple 8”. All pedestrian heads are not countdown and the intersection does not currently utilize Accessible Pedestrian Signals for pedestrian crossings.

Pull Boxes and Conduits
Pull boxes at the intersection are either #5 or #6, many are filled with old wire, and a number of the pull boxes are damaged. Conduits are 3” and 2” and duct seal is present at some of the conduits.

Traffic Signal Cabinet
The traffic signal operates with 8-phase configuration
and does not have any special signal timing. The
traffic signal controller is housed in a Safetran Brand Type 332L traffic signal cabinet, manufactured by
SafeTran, and is ATC 2070 with Caltrans TSCP
software. There is plenty of space available at the
front and in the back of the cabinet, with Battery
Backup cabinet attached to the side of the Type 332
signal cabinet. The communication to the controller is provided via cellular modem, however, there is a SIC
connected to the back of the cabinet that is running
towards the Grape Avenue intersection. The
operational status of the SIC cable has not been
determined. There is a GPS puck on top of the
cabinet with antenna connected to the controller and an Emtrac antenna inside the card slot for TSP/EVP.

Attachment 3

Page 18 of 199 ends

16 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
El Camino Real / Hollenbeck Avenue-Pastoria Avenue Intersection The El Camino Real and Hollenbeck Avenue-Pastoria Avenue traffic signal located in the mid-west part of the corridor and the surrounding land uses are primarily commercial. The traffic signal infrastructure shows that the signal is in good condition, with all approaches having poles with mast arms on the far end and dedicated near side poles with signal heads. Based on the field review, the poles with mast arms are designed for wind speeds of 70 mph.

Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Heads and Pedestrian Infrastructure The traffic signal heads sizes for this intersection are a mixture of 12” and 8”.

All pedestrian heads are not countdown and the intersection does not currently utilize Accessible Pedestrian Signals for pedestrian crossings.

Pull Boxes and Conduits
Pull boxes at the intersection are either #6 or #5, fairly old, and full of wires and dirt. Conduits appeared to be primarily 2” with a few 1.5”. Conduit conditions were unable to be confirmed at every location due to the amount of wires present in the pull box.

Traffic Signal Cabinet
The traffic signal operates with 8-phase
configuration and does not have any special signal
timing. The traffic signal controller is housed in a
Safetran Brand Type 332L traffic signal cabinet,
manufactured by SafeTran, and is ATC 2070 with
Caltrans TSCP software. There is not a lot of
space available in the cabinet, due to presence of
the backup battery system within the Type 332
signal cabinet. The communication to the
controller is provided via cellular modem, however,
there is a SIC connected to the back of the cabinet
that is running towards the Mathilda Avenue
intersection. The operational status of the SIC
cable has not been determined. There is a GPS
puck on top of the cabinet with antenna connected to the controller and an Emtrac antenna inside the card slot.

Attachment 3

Page 19 of 199 ends

17 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
El Camino Real / Murphy Avenue Intersection
The El Camino Real and Murphy Avenue traffic signal located in the mid-west part of the corridor and the surrounding land uses are commercial and residential. The traffic signal has a protected southbound left turn from El Camino Real onto Murphy Avenue with the southbound through approach remaining free and unsignalized, and the side street yielding to northbound through traffic. The traffic signal infrastructure shows that the signal is in fair condition, with all signalized approaches having poles with mast arms on the far end and dedicated near side poles with signal heads. Based on the available as-builts, the poles were erected in approximately 1974.

Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Heads and Pedestrian Infrastructure The traffic signal heads sizes for this intersection are a mixture of 12” and 8”. All pedestrian heads are not countdown and the intersection does not currently utilize Accessible Pedestrian Signals for pedestrian crossings.

Pull Boxes and Conduits
A lot of the pull boxes are either #6 or #5 and are filled with old wires. The conduits sizes range between 2” and 3” and are rigid in material. The signal wires are frayed and thin and are not neatly bundled within the pull boxes.

Traffic Signal Cabinet
The traffic signal operates with 2-phase configuration
and does not have any special signal timing. The traffic signal controller is housed in a Safetran Brand Type
332L traffic signal cabinet, manufactured by SafeTran,
and is ATC 2070 with Caltrans TSCP software. There
is not a lot of space available in the cabinet due to the presence of the battery backup system within the Type
332 signal cabinet. The communication to the
controller is provided via cellular modem, however,
there is a signal interconnect cable (SIC) connected to the back of the cabinet that is running towards the
Sunnyvale Avenue intersection. The operational
status of the SIC cable has not been determined.

There is a GPS puck on top of the cabinet with antenna
connected to the controller and an Emtrac antenna inside the card slot for TSP/EVP.

Attachment 3

Page 20 of 199 ends

18 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
El Camino Real / Sunnyvale Avenue-Sunnyvale Saratoga Road Intersection The El Camino Real and Sunnyvale Avenue-Sunnyvale Saratoga Road traffic signal located in the middle part of the corridor within the City limits and the surrounding land uses are primarily commercial. The traffic signal infrastructure shows that the signal is in a very good condition, with all approaches having poles with mast arms on the far end and dedicated near side poles with signal heads. Based on the available as-builts, the poles were erected in 2012, and therefore most of the signal infrastructure is up to date.

Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Heads and Pedestrian Infrastructure All traffic signal heads are 12” in size. All pedestrian signal heads are countdown and the intersection utilizes Accessible Pedestrian Signals for all pedestrian crossings.

Pull Boxes and Conduits
Most of the pull boxes are either #6 or #5, have plenty of space available and are free of dirt and debris. The conduits appear to be primarily 2” and 3” with duct seals on each conduit and wires neatly packed.

Traffic Signal Cabinet
The traffic signal operates with 8-phase configuration and does not have any special signal timing. The traffic signal controller is housed in a Safetran Brand Type 332L traffic signal cabinet, manufactured by SafeTran, and is ATC 2070 with Caltrans TSCP software. There is plenty of space
available at the front and in the back of the cabinet, with Battery Backup cabinet attached to the side of the Type 332 signal cabinet. The communication to the controller is
provided via cellular modem, however, there are multiple SICs connected to the back of the cabinet and are running towards the Murphy Avenue, Old San Francisco, and
Cezanne Drive intersections. The operational status of the SIC cables has not been determined. There is a GPS puck on top of the cabinet with antenna connected to the
controller. There is an Emtrac antenna on the cabinet, but no TSP/EVP card is present inside the card slot in the cabinet.

Attachment 3

Page 21 of 199 ends

19 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
El Camino Real / Cezanne Drive Intersection
The El Camino Real and Cezanne Drive traffic signal located in the middle part of the corridor within the City limits and the surrounding land uses are primarily commercial. The traffic signal infrastructure shows that the signal is in fair condition, with all signalized approaches having poles with mast arms on the far end and dedicated near side poles with signal heads. Based on the available as-builts, the poles were erected in the 1977, and from the field review, it appears the poles with mast arms are designed for wind speeds of 70 mph.

Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Heads and Pedestrian Infrastructure The traffic signal heads sizes for this intersection are a mixture of 12” and 8” in size.

All pedestrian heads are not countdown and the intersection does not currently utilize Accessible Pedestrian Signals for pedestrian crossings.

Traffic Signal Cabinet
The traffic signal operates with 6-phase
configuration and does not have any special signal
timing. The traffic signal controller is housed in a
Safetran Brand Type 332L traffic signal cabinet,
manufactured by SafeTran, and is ATC 2070 with
Caltrans TSCP software. There is space available
at the front and in the back of the cabinet, with a
battery backup system cabinet attached to the side
of the Type 332 signal cabinet. The communication
to the controller is provided via cellular modem,
however, there are multiple SICs connected to the
back of the cabinet that are running towards the
Sunnyvale Avenue and Fair Oaks Avenue
intersections. The operational status of the SIC
cables has not been determined. There is a GPS puck on top of the cabinet with antenna connected to the controller and an Emtrac antenna inside the card slot for TSP/EVP.

Attachment 3

Page 22 of 199 ends

20 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
El Camino Real / Fair Oaks Avenue-Remington Drive Intersection The El Camino Real and Fair Oaks Avenue-Remington Drive traffic signal located in the mid-east part of the corridor within the City limits and is surrounded primarily by the commercial developments. The traffic signal infrastructure shows that the signal is in good condition, with all approaches having poles with mast arms on the far end and dedicated near side poles with signal heads. Based on the available as-builts, some of the poles were erected in the 1985 and from the field review, it appears some poles are designed for wind speeds of 70 mph.

Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Heads and Pedestrian Infrastructure The traffic signal heads sizes for this intersection are a mixture of 12” and 8” in size.

All pedestrian heads are not countdown and the intersection does currently utilize Accessible Pedestrian Signals for pedestrian crossings.

Pull Boxes and Conduits
A lot of the pull boxes are either #6 or #5 and do not have a lot of space. The conduits sizes range between 2” and 3” and are rigid and PVC in material. The signal wires are in good condition and are bundled and placed into the pull boxes.

Traffic Signal Cabinet
The traffic signal operates with 8-phase configuration and does not have any special signal timing. The traffic signal controller is housed in a Safetran Brand Type 332L traffic signal cabinet, manufactured by SafeTran, and is ATC
2070 with Caltrans TSCP software. There is plenty of
space available at the front and in the back of the cabinet, with Battery Backup cabinet attached to the side of the Type 332 signal cabinet. The communication to the
controller is provided via cellular modem, however, there are two SIC cables connected to the cabinet, one from Iris Avenue (owned and operated by City of Sunnyvale) and
one from Cezanne Drive intersection. There is a GPS puck on top of the cabinet with antenna connected to the
controller. There is an Emtrac antenna on the cabinet but no TSP/EVP card is present inside the card slot in the
cabinet.

Attachment 3

Page 23 of 199 ends

21 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
El Camino Real / Maria Lane Intersection
The El Camino Real and Maria Lane traffic signal located in the mid-east part of the corridor within the City limits and the surrounding land uses are commercial and residential. The traffic signal infrastructure shows that the signal is in good condition, with all approaches having poles with mast arms on the far end and dedicated near side poles with signal heads. Based on the available as-builts, most of the poles were erected in 2016, and therefore most of the signal infrastructure is up to date. One pole is designed for a wind speed of 70 mph and would need to be updated to meet the current standards.

Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Heads and Pedestrian Infrastructure All traffic signal heads are 12” in size. None of the pedestrian signal heads are countdown and the intersection uses Accessible Pedestrian Signals for pedestrian crossings.

Pull Boxes and Conduits
A lot of the pull boxes are either #6 or #5 and have plenty of space available and are free of dirt and debris. All the conduits are 3” and larger with duct seals on each conduit. The signal wires are in good condition and are bundled and placed into the pull boxes.

Traffic Signal Cabinet
The traffic signal operates with 6-phase configuration
and does not have any special signal timing. The
traffic signal controller is housed in the Safetran Brand Type 332L traffic signal cabinet, manufactured by
SafeTran, and is ATC 2070 with Caltrans TSCP
software. There is plenty of space available at the
front and in the back of the cabinet, with Battery
Backup cabinet attached to the side of the Type 332
signal cabinet. The communication to the controller is
provided via cellular modem. There is a GPS puck on
top of the cabinet with antenna connected to the
controller. There is an Emtrac antenna on the cabinet
but no TSP/EVP card is present inside the card slot in
the cabinet.

Attachment 3

Page 24 of 199 ends

22 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
El Camino Real / Wolfe Road Intersection
The El Camino Real and Wolfe Road traffic signal located in the mid-east part of the corridor and is surrounded primarily by the commercial developments. The traffic signal infrastructure shows that the signal is in very good condition, with all approaches having poles with mast arms on the far end and dedicated near side poles with signal heads. Based on the available as-builts, the poles were erected in the 2019, and therefore most of the signal infrastructure is up to date.

Pull Boxes and Conduits
A lot of the pull boxes are either #6 or #5 and have plenty of space available and are free of dirt and debris. The conduits sizes range between 2” and 3” and are rigid and PVC material. The signal wires are in good condition and are bundled and placed into the pull boxes.

Traffic Signal Cabinet
The traffic signal operates with 8-phase configuration and does not have any special signal timing. The traffic signal controller is housed in a Safetran Brand Type 332L traffic signal cabinet, manufactured by McCain, and is Model 170E with Q7 software. There is plenty of space available at the front and in the back of the cabinet, with a battery backup cabinet system attached to the side of the Type 332 signal cabinet. The communication to the controller is provided via cellular modem, however, there is one SIC connected to the back of the cabinet that is running towards the Wolfe Road /Fremont Avenue intersection. There is no GPS puck on top of the cabinet and no visible Emtrac antenna on the traffic cabinet for TSP/EVP either.

Attachment 3

Page 25 of 199 ends

23 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
El Camino Real / Poplar Avenue Intersection
The El Camino Real and Poplar Avenue traffic signal located on the eastern end of the corridor and the surrounding land uses are primarily commercial.

The traffic signal infrastructure shows that the signal is in good condition, with all approaches having poles with mast arms on the far end and dedicated near side poles with signal heads. Based on the available as-builts, the poles were erected in the end of 1998, and would need to be updated to meet current standards.

Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Heads and Pedestrian Infrastructure The traffic signal heads sizes for this intersection are a mixture of 12” and 8” in size.

All pedestrian heads are countdown and the intersection does not currently utilize Accessible Pedestrian Signals for pedestrian crossings.

Pull Boxes and Conduits
A lot of the pull boxes are either #6 or #5 and does not have a lot of space. The conduits sizes range between 2” and 3” and are rigid in material. The signal wires are frayed and thin and are not neatly bundled and within the pull boxes.

Traffic Signal Cabinet
The traffic signal operates with 5-phase
configuration and does not have any special signal
timing. The traffic signal controller is housed in a
Safetran Brand Type 332L traffic signal cabinet,
manufactured by SafeTran, and is ATC 2070 with
Caltrans TSCP software. There is plenty of space
available at the front and in the back of the cabinet,
with Battery Backup cabinet attached to the side of
the Type 332 signal cabinet. The communication
to the controller is provided via cellular modem.

There is a GPS puck on top of the cabinet with
antenna connected to the controller and an Emtrak
antenna inside the card slot for TSP/EVP.

Attachment 3

Page 26 of 199 ends

24 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
El Camino Real / Henderson Avenue Intersection
The El Camino Real and Henderson Avenue traffic signal located on the easterly end of the corridor and the surrounding land uses are primarily commercials. The traffic signal infrastructure shows that the signal is in very good condition, with all approaches having poles with mast arms on the far end and dedicated near side poles with signal heads. Based on the available as-builts, the poles were erected in the mid 2004, and therefore most of the signal infrastructure is up to date.

Pull Boxes and Conduits
A lot of the pull boxes are either #6 or #5 and have plenty of space available and are free of dirt and debris. All the conduits are 2” and 3” with duct seals on each conduit and wires neatly bundled and packed.

Traffic Signal Cabinet
The traffic signal operates with 6-phase configuration
with leading pedestrian intervals across El Camino
Real. The traffic signal controller is housed in a
Safetran Brand Type 332L traffic signal cabinet,
manufactured by SafeTran, and is ATC 2070 with
Caltrans TSCP software. There is plenty of space
available at the front and in the back of the cabinet,
with Battery Backup cabinet attached to the side of
the Type 332 signal cabinet. The communication to
the controller is provided via cellular modem. There
is a GPS puck on top of the cabinet with antenna
connected to the controller and an Emtrac antenna
inside the card slot for TSP/EVP.

Attachment 3

Page 27 of 199 ends

25 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
El Camino Real / Helen Avenue (HAWK) Intersection
The El Camino Real and Helen Avenue HAWK traffic signal located in the easterly end of the corridor and is surrounded primarily by the commercial developments. The traffic signal infrastructure shows that the signal is in very good condition, with all approaches having poles with mast arms on the far end and dedicated near side poles with signal heads. Based on the available as-builts, the poles were erected in 2018, and therefore most of the signal infrastructure is up to date.

Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Heads and Pedestrian Infrastructure All traffic signal heads are 12” HAWK signal heads. All pedestrian heads are countdown and intersection utilizes Accessible Pedestrian Signals for the pedestrian crossing across El Camino Real.

Traffic Signal Cabinet
The traffic signal operates as a HAWK signal configuration.

The traffic signal controller is housed in the Safetran Brand Type 332L traffic signal cabinet, manufactured by SafeTran, and is ATC 2070 with Caltrans TSCP software. There is plenty of space available at the front and in the back of the cabinet, with Battery Backup cabinet attached to the side of the Type 332 signal cabinet. The communication to the controller is provided via cellular modem. There is a GPS puck on top of the cabinet with antenna connected to the controller. There is an Emtrac antenna on the cabinet but no TSP/EVP card is present inside the card slot in the cabinet.

Attachment 3

Page 28 of 199 ends

26 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
Sunnyvale Avenue / Old San Francisco Road Intersection
The Sunnyvale Avenue and Old San Francisco Road traffic signal located just east of El Camino Real and the surrounding land uses are primarily commercial. The traffic signal infrastructure shows that the signal is in a good condition, with all approaches having poles with mast arms on the far end and dedicated near side poles with signal heads. Based on the available as- builts, the poles were erected in 2012, and therefore most of the signal infrastructure is up to date.

Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Heads and Pedestrian Infrastructure All traffic signal heads are 12” in size. All pedestrian signal heads are countdown and the intersection does not use Accessible Pedestrian Signals for pedestrian crossing.

Pull Boxes and Conduits
A lot of the pull boxes are either #6 or #5, have plenty of space, and are free of dirt and debris. The conduit sizes range from 2” to 3” with duct seals on each conduit and wires neatly packed.

The communication to the controller is provided via cellular modem however, there is one SIC connected to the back
of the cabinet that is running towards the Sunnyvale
Avenue and El Camino Real intersection. There is a GPS
puck on top of the cabinet with antenna connected to the controller and an Emtrac antenna inside the card slot for TSP/EVP.

Attachment 3

Page 29 of 199 ends

27 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022

COLLISION HISTORY
Collision history was provided by the City of Sunnyvale for collisions occurring at each intersection for the five (5) years between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020. Collision data was summarized by collision type and is presented in Table 7. In addition, to understand if the number of collisions at each intersection is below or above what would be expected at a similar type of intersection, the intersection collision rate was calculated at each intersection and compared to the statewide average. The calculated collision rate, in Million Entering Vehicles (MEV), at each intersection as compared to the expected rate is presented in Table 8.

Table 7: Collision Summary
Intersection Total
Collisions
Collision Type
Rear-
End
Broad-
side
Side-
swipe
Hit
Object
Head-
on
Veh-
Ped
Unstated/
Others
El Camino Real/
Bernardo Avenue 42 18 8 9 0 1 5 1
El Camino Real/
Grape Avenue 16 9 4 0 2 1 0 0
El Camino Real/
Mary Avenue 24 11 4 4 3 0 0 2
El Camino Real/
Hollenbeck Avenue-Pastoria Avenue 39 13 14 7 1 0 2 2
El Camino Real/
Murphy Avenue 13 5 5 0 2 1 0 0
El Camino Real/
Sunnyvale Avenue 40 10 8 12 3 3 2 2
El Camino Real/
Cezanne Drive 16 4 3 1 2 1 4 1
El Camino Real/
Fair Oaks Avenue 59 24 14 10 2 2 4 3
El Camino Real/
Maria Lane 19 9 1 2 3 0 3 1
El Camino Real/
Wolfe Road 57 17 16 16 1 3 4 1
El Camino Real/
Poplar Avenue 23 11 4 1 2 1 4 0
El Camino Real/
Henderson Avenue 36 20 6 4 4 1 1 2
El Camino Real/
Helen Avenue (HAWK) 14 1 5 3 2 0 3 2
Sunnyvale Avenue/
Old San Francisco Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 398 152 92 69 27 14 32 12
Percentage 38% 23% 17% 7% 4% 8% 3%
Note: Collisions inside the study limits occurring between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020.

The highest prevailing factors for the collisions were identified as rear-end collisions. Rear-end collisions are anticipated to occur on major corridors with signalized intersections. Adjustments in the signal coordination to improve progression, and adjustments to the splits to accommodate current conditions, Attachment 3

Page 30 of 199 ends

28 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
could help reduce some collisions. Other typical signal timing adjustments or improvements for various collision types and various collision patterns that may help reduce collisions are as follows:
· Rear-end: Adjust offsets or provide progression to reduce the platoon arriving during the amber and red intervals, adjust signal timing to reduce congestion, adjust amber interval time, and/or modify extension times to avoid vehicles in the dilemma zone. · Right-angle/Broadside: Adjust amber phase, provide all-red clearance phases, install signal actuation, retime signals, provide protected phases, and/or adjust offsets or provide progression to reduce the platoon arriving during the amber and red intervals. · Sideswipe: Install/improve pavement marking and signing, remove on-street parking, and/or widen lanes.
· Head-On: Provide protected left turn phasing, install/improve intersection signing, centerline, median striping or median island.

Table 8: Collision Rate vs. Expected Rate
Intersection
Total
Collisions
in 5-years
PM Peak
Hour
Entering
Volume
(Veh/hr)
Collision
Rate
(#/MEV)
Expected
Rate
(#/MEV)
Higher
than
Expected
Rate?
El Camino Real and Bernardo Avenue 42 4050 0.49 0.24 Yes El Camino Real and Grape Avenue 16 2979 0.26 0.24 Yes
El Camino Real and Mary Avenue 24 4354 0.26 0.24 Yes
El Camino Real and Hollenbeck Avenue 39 3806 0.49 0.24 Yes El Camino Real and S Murphy Avenue 13 2848 0.22 0.24 No El Camino Real and Sunnyvale Avenue 40 3830 0.50 0.24 Yes El Camino Real and Cezanne Drive 16 3074 0.25 0.24 Yes
El Camino Real and S Fair Oaks Avenue 59 4432 0.63 0.24 Yes El Camino Real and Maria Lane 19 2807 0.32 0.24 Yes
El Camino Real and S Wolfe Road 57 5282 0.51 0.24 Yes
El Camino Real and Poplar Avenue 23 3270 0.34 0.24 Yes
El Camino Real and Henderson Avenue 36 3489 0.49 0.24 Yes El Camino Real and Helen Avenue (HAWK) 14 3044 0.22 0.24 No Sunnyvale Ave. and Old San Francisco Rd. 0 1272 0.00 0.24 No Notes:
1) PM Peak volume estimated to be 8.7% of daily volumes based upon ADT counts 2) MEV = Million Entering Vehicles
3) Expected rate from 2016 Collisions Data on California State Highways As shown in Table 8, the collision rates at most intersections are higher than the expected rate at similar intersections within California. If the City moves forward with obtaining the delegation of El Camino Real intersections, it is recommended that the City performs a more detailed study to better understand the potential causes of the higher than expected rates and to identify any mitigation measures that would help reduce potential collisions.

Attachment 3

Page 31 of 199 ends

29 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022

MAINTENANCE HISTORY
Kimley-Horn reviewed existing available electrical repair records at each of the traffic signals. The repair records were obtained from each traffic signal cabinet. Some cabinets did not contain copies of the records so Kimley-Horn requested the records from Caltrans. Table 9 shows a quick summary of maintenance records received to date, date ranges, and number of repairs made. A detailed summary of records is presented in Appendix H.

Most of the repairs shown in the tables indicate problems with detector loops or pedestrian actuators. There are a couple instances of signal on flash, due to either PG&E power loss, police intervention, or a problem with an old 170 controller. In 2019, Caltrans replaced all the 170 controllers with 2070 controllers, and since then the maintenance records do not indicate as many failures.

Table 9: Maintenance Records Summary
Int. No. Intersection Date Ranges # of Repairs
1 El Camino Real and Bernardo Avenue 2018 - 2020 2
2 El Camino Real and Grape Avenue 2014 - 2018 10
3 El Camino Real and Mary Avenue 2018 - 2020 7
4 El Camino Real and Hollenbeck Avenue 2019 - 2021 4
5 El Camino Real and S Murphy Avenue 2019 - 2020 1
6 El Camino Real and Sunnyvale Avenue 2015 - 2020 6
7 El Camino Real and Cezanne Drive 2020 2
8 El Camino Real and S Fair Oaks Avenue 2017-2020 8
9 El Camino Real and Maria Lane 2017-2020 3
10 El Camino Real and S Wolfe Road N/A N/A
11 El Camino Real and Poplar Avenue N/A N/A
12 El Camino Real and Henderson Avenue 2016-2020 5
13 El Camino Real and Helen Avenue (HAWK) N/A N/A
14 Sunnyvale Avenue and Old San Francisco Road 2014-2015 0

PUBLIC SERVICE REQUESTS
Kimley-Horn reviewed the service requests provided by the City of Sunnyvale for the past 4 years, between July of 2017 and April of 2021. All requests were sorted for relevance to project signals, categorized, and totals are tabulated in Table 10 below. A detailed list of the requests is included in Appendix I. Kimley- Horn categorized the requests in the following fashion:
· Pedestrian Signals – malfunctioning pedestrian push button, pedestrian signal head, or pedestrian timing.
· Bicycle Detectors – problem with detecting bicycles at the intersection · Traffic Signals – malfunctioning traffic signal, knocked down poles and posts, and signal timing issues.
· Intersection Upgrades – requests to reconfigure the intersection for safety purposes. · Street Light Outage – malfunctioning streetlight which is located directly at the intersection or in the general vicinity.

Attachment 3

Page 32 of 199 ends

30 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
· Signs – request to install, remove, or relocate signs. · Other – issues with pavement on pedestrian walkway or potholes on vehicular roadway.

Table 10: Public Service Requests Summary (By Type)
Intersection Total
Requests
Maintenance Type
Pedestrian
Signals
Bicycle
Detectors
Traffic
Signals
Intersection
Upgrades
Street
Light
Outage
Signs Other
El Camino Real/
Bernardo Avenue 6 1 5
El Camino Real/
Grape Avenue 10 4 3 1 2
El Camino Real/
Mary Avenue 6 3 2 1
El Camino Real/
Hollenbeck Avenue-
Pastoria Avenue
28 4 6 9 9
El Camino Real/
Murphy Avenue 5 1 1 3
El Camino Real/
Sunnyvale Avenue 4 1 1 1 1
El Camino Real/
Cezanne Drive 7 1 1 5
El Camino Real/
Fair Oaks Avenue 10 2 1 1 4 2
El Camino Real/
Maria Lane 2 2
El Camino Real/
Wolfe Road 13 8 2 3
El Camino Real/
Poplar Avenue 12 7 3 1 1
El Camino Real/
Henderson Avenue 4 3 1
El Camino Real/
Helen Avenue
(HAWK)
6 3 1 2
Sunnyvale Ave/
Old San Francisco Rd. N/A
Total 113 24 8 31 5 33 6 6
Percentage 21% 7% 27% 4% 29% 5% 5%
Based on the review, the most request are related to malfunctioning streetlights. Streetlights on El Camino Real are already owned and maintained by the City of Sunnyvale, and therefore are not relevant to the O&M delegation of Caltrans traffic signals. The second highest request is for issues related to traffic signals.

For the most part, these issues included traffic signal timing and burned out LEDs on traffic signals. Another highest percentage of request is malfunctioning pedestrian detectors, such as push buttons. At a few instances the requests mentioned pedestrian signal heads not working.

Kimley-Horn contacted Caltrans for any public service request that they may receive on their end, however, Caltrans replied that they do not keep track of the requests, and that most of them are answered within an hour with field visit to address the problem within 36 hours.

Attachment 3

Page 33 of 199 ends

31 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022

CURRENT AND PLANNED PROJECTS
Developer Projects
The City of Sunnyvale provided a list of the current construction projects that have been approved or that is currently pending approval by City Council that are occurring along the El Camino Real corridor. The projects that are in development are mainly residential and commercial, but some projects may allow for traffic signal infrastructure development. Kimley-Horn reviewed Conditions of Approval (COA) of the provided projects on El Camino Real to understand future improvements at the project intersections. The following table provides a summary of findings for each project.

Table 11: Current and Planned Projects
Planning
Permit File # Address Short Description of Improvements 2020-7294 1213 W El Camino Real N/A *
2018-7798 1100 and 1124 W. El
Camino Real N/A *
2019-7502 755 S. Bernardo Avenue Childcare center. No specific intersection improvements on El Camino are listed.
2019-7404 928 W. El Camino Real Construction of Auto Repair Shop. No specific intersection improvements on El Camino are listed.
2019-7248 898 W. El Camino Real New Toyota dealership building. No specific intersection improvements on El Camino are listed.
2015-7756 803 W. El Camino Real
Residential development. Currently in construction.

Improvements include traffic signal modification on the north- west corner.
2014-7659 590 W. El Camino Real
Hotel development. Site located between Mathilda and
Hollenbeck. Traffic signal upgrades at El Camino Real/Hollenbeck and/or El Camino Real/Mathilda Ave may be required dependent upon Caltrans review
2020-7112 444 Old San Francisco Road N/A *
2019-7418 655 S. Fair Oaks Avenue High density residential development. No specific intersection improvement on El Camino Real.
2017-7248 838 Azure Street Lod density residential development. No specific intersection improvements on El Camino are listed.
2017-7157 840 E. El Camino Real Commercial Building. Project under construction. No specific intersection improvements on El Camino are listed.
2014-7373 871 and 895 E. Fremont
Avenue
Medium density residential development. Improvements at the traffic signal include traffic signal poles, loop detectors, conduits, conductors, etc., due to shifting of sidewalk and widening of El Camino Real and Wolfe Road intersection.
2019-7142 925 S. Wolfe Road Medium density residential. No specific intersection improvements on El Camino are listed.
2016-7293 1008 E. El Camino Real New apartment complex. Project currently in construction. No specific intersection improvements on El Camino are listed. 2018-7866 1005 West El Camino Real Equipment enclosure construction. No specific intersection improvements on El Camino are listed.
* Project COA has not been provided yet.

Attachment 3

Page 34 of 199 ends

32 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
Capital Improvement Projects
There are only two projects that has been identified as part of the Caltrans Capital Improvement Projects.

The first project includes replacement of all pedestrian push buttons with Accessible Pedestrian Systems (APS) push buttons. The project is currently in the design stage, with no set construction timeline. The second project is in the planning stage is related to traffic operations improvements. Caltrans is working on implementing Adaptive Traffic Signal Control (ATSC) on El Camino Real with estimated completion of that work in late 2021 or early 2022. No specific funding opportunities are identified at this time to fund these improvements.

LITIGATION
No ligation information was obtained at the time of this report completion.

Attachment 3

Page 35 of 199 ends

33 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022

CORRIDOR AND INTERSECTION UPGRADES
Based upon the requirements outlined by Caltrans, current infrastructure conditions, traffic data and information provided by the agencies, and current standards, Kimley-Horn identified required upgrades for the City to take over O&M of the traffic signals and potential future upgrades to the traffic signal system/intersections to enhance both safety and to bring the intersections to the current City standards.

The required and recommended future upgrades were separated into three phases as summarized below and outlined in the subsequent sections:
· Phase 1 - Upgrades that are necessary for the City to control the traffic signals, including establishing communication between the signals and to the City’s Traffic Operations Center (TOC) and other improvements as conditioned by Caltrans for Delegating O&M to the City. · Phase 2 – Potential future upgrades to vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure to enhance safety.
· Phase 3 – Potential future upgrades that are recommended but do not need to occur immediately, such as upgrades to the traffic signal infrastructure where the traffic equipment has reached or is reaching its end-of-life and standardizing the equipment with the City of Sunnyvale standard equipment.

PHASE 1 – REQUIRED UPGRADES AND MODFICATIONS
The first phase of traffic signal upgrades for the City is to establish communications from City’s ATMS to the traffic signals along El Camino Real to allow operational control of the intersection and also to implement the necessary requirements by Caltrans for the signals to be delegated to the City for an O&M rights, which would be classified as required operational upgrades and modifications. Caltrans is requiring that the existing Model 332 cabinet shall always be unmodified and remain in use, and shall maintain remote access to all traffic signal components installed and operated by the City from their TOC in Oakland, CA. Caltrans also wants the City to continue to support existing and proposed emergency and transit vehicle operations, and implement an adaptive strategy and signal performance measures (SPM) system along El Camino Real in cooperation with other local jurisdictions within six to twelve months after the new O&M Agreement is in place.

Establishing Communication
If Caltrans agrees to delegate the El Camino traffic signals to the City, one of the requirements is for Caltrans to maintain the ability to monitor the traffic signals they own and take control if they deem it necessary. The City will have to decide what type of communication should be established between existing traffic signals and how to provide access to Caltrans through City’s existing ATMS. Note, currently, all signals communicate via wireless cell modems to existing Caltrans TOC as shown inFigure 2 below.

Attachment 3

Page 36 of 199 ends

34 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
Figure 2: Caltrans TOS Communications
The City currently utilizes Intelight's MAXVIEW ATMS central system at their Traffic Operations Center (TOC) at City Hall to monitor and control all City-owned traffic signals. For the City to continue utilizing their existing ATMS and establish communication with the traffic signals along El Camino Real, the City will have to install new Type 2070 traffic signal controllers with Intelight’s MAXTIME controller software at all Caltrans owned intersections as well as the traffic signal at Wolfe Road/Fremont Avenue, which currently uses Caltrans controller and software and is interconnected with El Camino Real.

If Caltrans elects for their existing traffic controllers to remain, the City may have to implement a new central traffic management system at the City's TOC that will provide the functionality to communicate with the Caltrans' existing TSCP controller firmware and with City's MAXTIME controller firmware. Caltrans will require the City provide remote access to the City’s ATMS, so Caltrans can continue to monitor their traffic signals from their TOC.

For the City to begin monitoring and operating the traffic signals along El Camino Real, the City will need to establish communication from their TOC to the traffic signals. Currently, each project intersection has a Sierra Wireless Cellular modem installed, which provides Caltrans the ability to communicate with each intersection, as shown in Figure 2, except for the El Camino Real and Wolfe Road traffic signal since the intersection currently operates with a Type 170E traffic controller and does not have Ethernet communication capabilities. In addition to the Cellular devices installed, Caltrans have terminated SIC copper in the traffic signal cabinet along El Camino Real from Bernardo Avenue to Mary Avenue, Hollenbeck Avenue-Pastoria Avenue to Mathilda Avenue, and from Murphy Avenue to Fair Oaks Avenue.

The locations of existing interconnect cable are shown by Figure 3. During the field review, Kimley-Horn has not tested the functionality of existing copper interconnect, and Caltrans representative was not aware if existing SIC is operational or not.

Attachment 3

Page 37 of 199 ends

35 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
Figure 3: Existing Copper Interconnect
According to Caltrans, if the City decides to take O&M responsibilities of the Caltrans traffic signals, the City would have to surrender wireless cell modems to Caltrans, and establish their own communication between the signals and the City TOC. The ideal system would be to interconnect the traffic signal via fiber optics connection bring the communication back to the City’s TOC and establish communication with Caltrans via dedicate virtual private network (VPN) or wireless cell connection. Figure 4 below illustrates the concept.

Figure 4: Future Communication System
Attachment 3

Page 38 of 199 ends

36 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
To install above referenced interconnect system will take time and significant amount of money. The City is currently working on fiber optic master plan, to expand fiber communication throughout the City, and if O&M from Caltrans is granted, the City should add El Camino Real to their fiber master plan.

Meanwhile, to satisfy O&M requirements provided by Caltrans to keep signals interconnected and signals to be controlled by Adaptive Traffic Control, a temporary connection can be implemented. As illustrated on Figure 3, Caltrans currently has several intersections interconnected via copper interconnect. The City would need to place a microwave communication antennas at each signal in a group and bring the signal back to the City’s TOC. The City is currently using existing wireless interconnect at various locations throughout the City, which could be utilized to connect El Camino Real. Based on existing knowledge Kimley-Horn has about existing City’s communication system, Figure 5 shows an exhibit of proposed locations where microwave communication systems can be placed. Such installation would require approval from Caltrans via encroachment permit.

Figure 5: Temporary Communication System
Implementing an Adaptive Strategy and Signal Performance Measures (SPM) System According to Caltrans O&M requirements, the City of Sunnyvale needs to implement an adaptive strategy and signal performance measures (SPM) system along El Camino Real in cooperation with other jurisdictions in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties within six (6) to twelve (12) months after an O&M agreement is in place. The City of Sunnyvale currently has capabilities of doing SPM with the MAXVIEW central system which the City has on their signal server. At the same time, to fully utilize all the capabilities of the SPM module, and implement Adaptive Traffic Signal control, as also required by Caltrans, the City needs to make sure that the following parameters are met:

Attachment 3

Page 39 of 199 ends

37 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
Install Advanced Transportation Controller (ATC)
o Type 2070 Traffic Controllers with ATC capabilities or 1C CPU · Provide Ethernet Communication to City’s TOC
o Fiber Optic Interconnect, Copper Interconnect, Cellular, and or Wireless Interconnect is also acceptable
· Provide Lane-by-Lane Vehicle Detection
o Stop Bar Lane-by-Lane Detection required for all approaches o Advance detection required for the approaches on the main road (El Camino Real) While ATC controllers and communication are standard for any Adaptive and SPM software system, the lane-by-lane detection varies slightly from system to system. Typically, an adaptive system and a SPM system require lane-by-lane detection for both behind stop bar and advance detection to generate an accurate assessment of the number of vehicles traveling through each intersection. In addition to the behind stop bar detection, some SPM systems require in-front lane-by-lane stop bar detection as well to generate specific SPM data reports.

Based on the field review conducted by Kimley-Horn, the current vehicle detector orientation for each traffic signal for this study does not meet the minimum standards for either an Adaptive Signal Control setup or even an SPM system setup. Throughout the corridor there are numerous lanes that are tied to the same detector channel, there certain intersections that have no stop bar detection installed on El Camino Real, and there some inductive loop detectors that are failing and or faulting due to everyday operation. It is recommended that the City upgrades the vehicle detection along the corridor. In accordance with the City’s equipment master plan, the City is planning to install Iteris Vantage Next with Vantage Vector video/microwave detection device for all new traffic signals, which would be the ideal device for an Adaptive and SPM systems.

If Caltrans delegates control of the signals to the City but would not allow for their current traffic signal controllers with TSCP firmware to be replaced for the preferred City controller firmware type, this will restrict the number of available detector channels that can be used for each traffic location. The current 332 cabinet setup only provides a maximum 28 channels of detection, and with some cabinet modifications the available number of detector channels may be expanded to forty (40), which is also the maximum number of detector channels that can be programmed in the TSCP controller firmware. Based on the number of detectors needed for each intersection, the TSCP firmware will be suitable for an Adaptive system, but SPM system might be limited on which reports it can produce due to the limit of detector channels available.

Traffic Signal Timing Development and Recommendations
The City of Sunnyvale anticipates updating the signal timing along El Camino Real in order to reduce travel time and delay, along with improve LOS. Based on field observations and traffic data collected in November 2019, a review was conducted of the signal timing along El Camino Real within City limits to improve existing operations. A signal timing review was completed for the weekday AM, midday and PM peak periods and weekend Peak and Off-Peak periods.

As noted in the Data Collection section of this report, Kimley-Horn developed an existing Synchro model for all peak periods based on the traffic data collected and the most recent timing sheets provided by Caltrans and the City. Once the existing conditions models were prepared, Kimley-Horn completed a signal timing optimization analysis to review existing cycle lengths, phase sequence, splits, and offsets to determine if timing changes could improve operations on the corridor.

Attachment 3

Page 40 of 199 ends

38 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
Based on our review, three (3) signal groupings were established as follows for the timing optimization:
· Zone 1: El Camino Real between Bernardo Avenue and Hollenbeck Avenue-Pastoria Avenue · Zone 2: El Camino Real between Murphy Avenue and Maria Lane and Sunnyvale Avenue and Old San Francisco intersection
· Zone 3: El Camino Real between Poplar Avenue and Henderson The El Camino Real and Wolfe Road intersection was not included in any signal grouping, since it was determined it was best for the existing signal timing to remain and to continue to remain in coordination with the Wolfe Road and Fremont Avenue intersection. Once the signal groups were prepared, signal timing was optimized in each of the above zones using the Synchro signal timing model optimization tools.

Once the optimized timing was prepared, corridor-wide performance measures of the optimized signal timings were compared to the performance measures of the existing timing to review and evaluate the timing. The performance measures reviewed and summarized as follows:
· Total corridor delay (hr) – The estimated total delay, in hours, for all vehicles traveling within the corridor during the peak hour.
· Total stops (#) – The total number of estimated stops for all vehicles traveling within the corridor during the peak hour.
· Total Travel Time (hr) – The estimated total travel time, in hours, for all vehicles traversing the corridor during the peak hour.

Table 12 provides a summary of the corridor-wide performance measures for each time period, along with the estimated percent improvement with the optimized timing.

Table 12: Corridor-wide Timing Performance Summary
Time
Period Timing Plan
Delay Stops Travel Time
Total
(hr)
Avg
(sec/veh)
%
Difference
Total
(#)
Avg
(#/veh)
%
Difference
Total
(hr)
%
Difference
AM Peak
Existing 430 38 25881 0.63 666
Optimized 405 35 -5.8% 24939 0.61 -3.6% 641 -3.8%
Midday
Peak
Existing 316 30 22375 0.59 539
Optimized 277 27 -12.3% 19639 0.52 -12.2% 501 -7.1%
PM Peak
Existing 547 38 33214 0.65 856
Optimized 504 35 -7.9% 31265 0.61 -5.9% 813 -5.0%
Weekend
Peak
Existing 310 31 33214 0.63 521
Optimized 255 26 -17.7% 31265 0.55 -12.4% 466 -10.6
Weekend
Off-Peak
Existing 464 36 31682 0.68 744
Optimized 387 30 -16.6% 27695 0.59 -12.6% 667 -10.3%
In addition, average delay and Level of Service (LOS) for each intersection during each time period was calculated for the optimized condition and compared to the existing condition. Table 13 summarizes the average intersection delay for the weekday peak periods and Table 14 summarizes the average intersection delay for the weekend peak periods.

Attachment 3

Page 41 of 199 ends

39 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
Table 13: Weekday Delay and LOS Comparison
Intersection
AM Peak Midday Peak PM Peak
Existing Optimized Existing Optimized Existing Optimized Delay
(sec/
veh)
LOS
Delay
(sec/
veh)
LOS
Delay
(sec/
veh)
LOS
Delay
(sec/
veh)
LOS
Delay
(sec/
veh)
LOS
Delay
(sec/
veh)
LOS
El Camino Real and
Bernardo Avenue 47.6 D 41.2 A 41.2 D 38.1 D 47.0 D 50.6 D El Camino Real and
Grape Avenue 10.4 B 9.0 A 12.2 B 12.8 B 10.5 B 10.7 B
El Camino Real and
Mary Avenue 55.1 E 50.7 D 34.7 C 30.2 C 50.7 D 45.7 D
El Camino Real and
Hollenbeck Avenue 41.9 D 38.8 D 34.1 C 25.9 C 34.2 C 35.1 D El Camino Real and S
Murphy Avenue 4.7 A 3.6 A 2.9 A 2.0 A 2.4 A 1.7 A
El Camino Real and
Sunnyvale Avenue 27.0 C 27.5 C 39.7 D 37.3 D 47.6 D 43.6 D El Camino Real and
Cezanne Drive 18.2 B 14.1 B 22.9 C 14.9 B 30.3 C 16.4 B El Camino Real and S
Fair Oaks Avenue 46.1 D 44.7 D 42.6 D 41.9 D 50.4 D 46.8 D El Camino Real and
Maria Lane 18.0 B 12.3 B 20.8 C 18.1 B 22.1 C 13.9 B
El Camino Real and S
Wolfe Road 61.1 E 57.0 E 29.8 C 29.0 C 50.5 D 49.1 D
El Camino Real and
Poplar Avenue 24.6 C 22.7 C 13.2 B 12.8 B 17.2 B 18.0 B El Camino Real and
Henderson Avenue 23.3 C 21.2 C 26.3 C 24.8 C 24.3 C 24.8 C Sunnyvale Ave. and
Old San Francisco Rd. 5.2 A 2.3 A 4.6 A 2.5 A 6.6 A 3.0 A Attachment 3

Page 42 of 199 ends

40 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
Table 14: Weekend Delay and LOS Comparison
Intersection
Weekend Peak Weekend Off-Peak
Existing Optimized Existing Optimized
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
El Camino Real and Bernardo Avenue 45.1 D 33.5 C 58.6 E 49.8 D El Camino Real and Grape Avenue 15.1 B 14.6 B 20.7 C 17.8 B El Camino Real and Mary Avenue 31.1 C 27.4 C 40.2 D 31.5 C El Camino Real and Hollenbeck Avenue 31.6 C 29.2 C 37.2 D 34.2 C El Camino Real and S Murphy Avenue 2.8 A 2.7 A 3.6 A 3.6 A El Camino Real and Sunnyvale Avenue 41.5 D 36.4 D 46.2 D 41.3 D El Camino Real and Cezanne Drive 24.3 C 14.7 B 25.4 C 15.5 B El Camino Real and S Fair Oaks Avenue 42.7 D 38.2 D 50.2 D 43.9 D El Camino Real and Maria Lane 18.7 B 15.0 B 22.0 C 18.3 B El Camino Real and S Wolfe Road 29.3 C 28.9 C 38.0 D 37.2 D El Camino Real and Poplar Avenue 17.2 B 16.8 B 21.1 C 21.1 C El Camino Real and Henderson Avenue 25.7 C 25.2 C 27.1 C 26.8 C Sunnyvale Ave. and Old San Francisco Rd. 5.4 A 2.3 A 5.8 A 2.9 A PHASE 2 – INTERSECTION FUNCTIONALITY AND ACCESSIBILITY

UPGRADES
During the corridor evaluation, Kimley-Horn noted multiple accessibility and functionality improvements along the corridor that will be required to be upgraded to meet the American with Disability Act (ADA) requirement and City of Sunnyvale standards. While these upgrades are not critical for an O&M delegation, and will not impact intersection and corridor operations, they are not less important and would need to be addressed in the future. Such upgrades include:
· Installation of Countdown Pedestrian Signal Heads and Accessible Pedestrian Signals Pedestrian Detectors – the project is currently in the design by Caltrans · Installation of bicycle specific detection
· Installation of protected left turn phases on side street approaches · Compliance with California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and ADA for horizontal and vertical location of pedestrian detectors · Installation of ADA compliant curb ramps
· Replacement of 8” Vehicle Signal Heads to 12” vehicle signal heads · Installation of traffic signal standards with mast arm mounted signal heads Pedestrian ADA Compliance
Curb Ramps
Federal Highway Administration (FHA) references the ADA requirements for implementing an accessible pedestrian signal as a means to communicate to the public at the intersection. In the sidewalk/street Attachment 3

Page 43 of 199 ends

41 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
crossing environment, this would include accessible pedestrian signals, marking and signage. Kimley-Horn surveyed each location to see if the intersection’s pedestrian curb ramps, pedestrian signal heads, and pedestrian push button detection meet ADA requirements.

The pedestrian curb ramps require a smooth transition from the sidewalk to the street, and with a warning boundary between the pedestrian walkway and the street. The warning boundary includes a marked contrast in both feel and appearance within the pedestrian walking, also known as a tactile warning surface.

Kimley-Horn conducted a review of curb ramps, and Table 15 on the next page indicates locations where such upgrades are necessary.

Accessible Pedestrian Signals and Countdown Pedestrian Signal Heads The U.S. Access Board as well as CA MUTCD recommends implementation of an Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) at each traffic signal location where such don’t exist. Additionally, to further enhance pedestrian safety, the countdown pedestrian signal heads are required to be installed at all new intersections and are preferred to be at all existing intersections in accordance to CA MUTCD. While there are a few project intersections that lack both of these features, Caltrans is currently working on a project to install these devices at all the intersections that currently don’t have them. Therefore, Kimley-Horn did not include these in the recommended upgrades list.

Traffic Signal Upgrades
Vehicle Signal Heads
CA MUTCD requires all new traffic signal heads to be 12” inches in diameter. It is a common practice by many agencies to retrofit existing signal heads from 8” to 12” inches, and City of Sunnyvale has the same approach. Kimley-Horn conducted a review of existing traffic signals for the presence of old 8-inch vehicular signal heads, and intersections that require an upgrade are listed inTable 15.

Bicycle Specific Detection
CA MUTCD requires a bicycle detection for all new or retrofitted signalized intersections regardless of whether there is an existing bike lane or bike path present. The detection can be in the form of stop bar in ground loops tuned to detect bicycles, a bicycle specific push button, or a detector must be placed on recall.

Kimley-Horn has conducted a review of existing As-Built drawings to determine if bicycle detection is present and whether new bicycle specific detection is required. The results of the review are listed inTable

15. Installation of Protected Left Turn Phases
A protected left turn phase ensures that a vehicle in a left turn lane is able to make a left turn without conflicting with any other movement, such as through movement or pedestrian crosswalk. Currently there are multiple intersections that operate with permissive left turn signal operation. In a permissive signal operation a left turn bound vehicles have to yield to an opposing through or right turning vehicle before making a turn. In addition, if a permissive phase has a pedestrian crosswalk phase associated with it, then a vehicle must also yield to the crossing pedestrian. In order to modify a traffic signal to provide protected left turns, a traffic signal pole or a signal head needs to be replaced, as well as traffic signal needs to be re- phased to allow for a standard 8 phase operation. On El Camino Real within the project limits all of the traffic signals operate with protected left turn phase on the major street, while only 9 of the intersections have a protected left turn phases on the side streets. Kimley-Horn has included the other intersections on the list to be modified as shown in Table 15 and depicted by Figure 6 on page 43.

Attachment 3

Page 44 of 199 ends

42 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
Table 15: Recommended Intersection Upgrades
Intersections
Improvements
ADA Curb
Ramps
Bicycle
Detection
Protected
Left Turns
12" Vehicle
Signal
Heads
El Camino Real and Bernardo Avenue X X
El Camino Real and Grape Avenue X X X X
El Camino Real and Mary Avenue X X X
El Camino Real and Hollenbeck Avenue X X X
El Camino Real and S Murphy Avenue X X X
El Camino Real and Sunnyvale Avenue X
El Camino Real and Cezanne Drive X X X X
El Camino Real and S Fair Oaks Avenue X X X
El Camino Real and Maria Lane X X
El Camino Real and S Wolfe Road X
El Camino Real and PoplarAvenue X X X X
El Camino Real and Henderson Avenue X X
El Camino Real and Helen Avenue (HAWK) X
Sunnyvale Avenue and Old San Francisco Road X
Battery Backup Systems
Kimley-Horn reviewed the intersections for the presence of Battery Backup System. Typically, during the power loss, a battery backup system is able to keep the intersection in operation between 30 minutes and 1 hour, depending on number of batteries, or keep the signal on flashing red for multiple days. It is an important safety feature in case power is lost and vehicles and pedestrians need to traverse through the intersections. Based on the field review, not all intersections have the system present. The following intersections are missing the battery backup system:
· Sunnyvale Avenue at Old San Francisco Road
· El Camino Real at Grape Avenue
o Battery Backup cabinet attached to side of traffic signal 332 cabinet, but with no batteries Furthermore, it appeared that not all battery backup inverters were actively monitoring for power status of the traffic signal. As a near term improvement, it is recommended to ensure that all existing battery backup units are active and monitoring the status of power and replace batteries where they have been classified as end-of-life or failed.

The City of Sunnyvale has standardized the battery backup system type and brand that it is using throughout the City, and therefore all of the traffic signals through the City would need to receive and upgraded system. Table 16, on page 44, shows the list of intersection and type of BBS upgrades that is required for each intersection.

Attachment 3

Page 45 of 199 ends

X El Camino Real & Mathilda Ave.
(Already delegated to City)
FIGURE 6: Recommended Intersection Improvements
Key Improvements:
12” Vehicle Signal Heads Bicycle Detection Protected Left Turns ADA Curb Ramps Attachment 3

Page 46 of 199 ends

44 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
Table 16: Recommended Upgrades to Battery Backup Systems Intersections
Improvements
BBS Cabinet Batteries Inverter
El Camino Real and Bernardo Avenue X X
El Camino Real and Grape Avenue X X
El Camino Real and Mary Avenue X X
El Camino Real and Hollenbeck Avenue X X X
El Camino Real and S Murphy Avenue X X X
El Camino Real and Sunnyvale Avenue X X
El Camino Real and Cezanne Drive X X
El Camino Real and S Fair Oaks Avenue X X
El Camino Real and Maria Lane X X
El Camino Real and S Wolfe Road X X
El Camino Real and Poplar Avenue X X
El Camino Real and Henderson Avenue X X
El Camino Real and Helen Avenue(HAWK) X X
Sunnyvale Avenue and Old San Francisco
Road X X X
PHASE 3 – UPGRADING SIGNALS TO ALL CURRENT STANDARDS
Every agency is very particular about the traffic signal equipment that they use in their City. Standardizing equipment helps reduce the cost of maintenance and training of staff. The City of Sunnyvale is no different.

The City has an on-call maintenance contractor that performs all service requests and maintenance. At the same time, for minor service requests, or when the maintenance contractor is not available, City staff also goes out in the field to perform work on their signals. This makes it even more important to have a standardized equipment at each traffic signal to address the service requests in the timely manner and to have spare parts to replace equipment as necessary. Additionally, not any less important is to make sure most of the traffic signal equipment is up to date and compliant with the latest requirements and standards.

There are certain intersections along El Camino Real that are found to have outdated signal poles, signal heads, pull boxes have shown wear and tear, the traffic signal wires are old, frayed and are not neatly coiled within the pull boxes, and/or the conduits are found to be rigid in material. Critical upgrades include but not limited to the following:
· Replace existing conduits with 3" polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or high-density polyethylene (HDPE) conduits throughout the traffic signal infrastructure
· Upgrade all traffic signal pull boxes to #6 and some very busy ones to #6 with extension (#6E) · Upgrade the "Home Run" traffic signal pull box next to the traffic signal’s 332 Cabinet to a N40 or N48
· Upgrade all traffic signal poles to latest Caltrans Standard Attachment 3

Page 47 of 199 ends

45 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
After conducting a review of all project intersections, Kimley-Horn was able to conclude which intersections equipment that have reached or past the original end-of-life and have suffered wear and tear to its overall traffic infrastructure. It is recommended that the following traffic signal receive these critical upgrades:
· El Camino Real at Grape Avenue
· El Camino Real at Mary Avenue
· El Camino Real at Murphy Avenue
· El Camino Real at Cezanne Drive
· El Camino Real at Fair Oaks Avenue
· El Camino Real at Poplar Avenue
These upgrades will ensure the longevity of the traffic signal and decrease the likelihood of the intersection of producing a traffic signal failure by either a signal wire splitting, pull boxes breaking and exposing signal wire, and any other materials failing based on length of use.

Attachment 3

Page 48 of 199 ends

46 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022

ESTIMATED COSTS
There are two types of costs included in the O&M takeover of the Caltrans signals: operation and maintenance and upgrades. Maintenance costs include replacement of malfunctioning equipment, responses to public requests, and electricity costs. Improvement costs include major upgrades to traffic signal equipment, establishing communications, and various safety upgrades.

For this report, costs have been summarized into four categories:
· Maintenance and Operations
· Phase I – Required Upgrades and Modifications
· Phase II – Safety and Accessibility Upgrades
· Phase III – Long Term Improvements
The following summarizes the cost assumptions made with each cost category and an estimated cost for each set of improvements at each intersection. An itemized breakdown of each cost by intersection is included in the Appendix J.

Maintenance and Operations
The Maintenance and Operations costs include the cost of annual and quarterly maintenance that City’s on-call maintenance contractor performs, electricity cost for the intersections, annual Underground Service Alert (USA) markouts, and extraordinary expenses for repairs. The City of Sunnyvale provided Kimley- Horn average maintenance cost for all of their 135 intersections, the average electricity costs for several years, the average USA Markouts Costs for the past five years, and the extraordinary expenses related to collision repairs and other modifications and maintenance. Based on this information, Kimley-Horn developed additional yearly costs that will be incurred when taking ownership and responsibility of the El Camino real signal. The additional total estimated yearly cost for maintenance and operations of the El Camino traffic signals is calculated to be $95,200 per year.

Phase I Costs
Phase I costs, as described in previous section, include all required upgrades and modifications to the traffic signals for the city to receive O&M from Caltrans. The overall cost of the improvements including traffic control, mobilization, engineering, construction administration, individual traffic signal improvements, and wireless interconnect, is estimated to be$1,540,000. A more detailed cost breakdown is presented in the Appendix J. Phase I improvements are required for an O&M takeover and therefore can’t be split between various intersections.

Phase II Costs
Phase II costs, as described in previous section, include various traffic signal and accessibility upgrades.

The overall cost of the improvements including traffic control, mobilization, engineering, construction administration, individual traffic signal improvements, is estimated to be$3,010,000. A more detailed cost breakdown is presented in the appendix. Table 17 presents a breakdown per intersection. The costs for most of these improvements are included in the City’s yearly Capital Improvements Project (CIP) budget.

The only cost that has been removed from the CIP is the cost to upgrade ADA pedestrian curb ramps.

Because these improvements are not required, they can be implemented on an intersection-by-intersection basis or when funding becomes available.

Attachment 3

Page 49 of 199 ends

47 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
Table 17: Phase II – Safety and Accessibility Upgrades Cost Estimate per Intersection Int. No. Intersection Cost
1 El Camino Real and Bernardo Avenue $8,500
2 El Camino Real and Grape Avenue $276,500
3 El Camino Real and Mary Avenue $44,500
4 El Camino Real and Hollenbeck Avenue $66,500
5 El Camino Real and S Murphy Avenue $34,500
6 El Camino Real and Sunnyvale Avenue $4,500
7 El Camino Real and Cezanne Drive $312,500
8 El Camino Real and S Fair Oaks Avenue $92,500
9 El Camino Real and Maria Lane $204,500
10 El Camino Real and S Wolfe Road $4,500
11 El Camino Real and Poplar Avenue $304,500
12 El Camino Real and Henderson Avenue $204,500
13 El Camino Real and Helen Avenue (HAWK) $4,500
14 Sunnyvale Avenue and Old San Francisco Road $10,500
Phase III Costs
The City of Sunnyvale keeps a running list of infrastructure upgrades costs which are used in the yearly CIP budget plan. The long term terms improvements and costs described in paragraphs above fall within the CIP budget plan, and therefore Phase III will include only the cost to upgrade traffic signal communications along El Camino Real. The total cost to upgrade existing traffic signal communication is estimated to be $4,541,000. A more detailed cost breakdown is presented in the Appendix J. Table 18 presents a breakdown per intersection.

Yearly Infrastructure Capital Improvements Costs
The CIP budget plan costs include controllers, software, and cabinet upgrades, traffic signal poles and underground infrastructures, battery backup batteries and inverters, and light emitting diode (LED) traffic signal, and pedestrian signal indication replacement. The following list includes the Funded Projects and description as listed in the Volume II – Projects Budget, of the City of Sunnyvale Adopted Budget documentation.

Project Number Project Name
820180 Traffic Signal Controller Replacement
820190 Traffic Signal Hardware and Wiring
820200 Traffic Signal Light Emitting Diode (LED) Array Replacement 825740 Battery Backup System for Traffic Signals Maintenance Kimley-Horn has reviewed the process that City uses to estimate time and cost of infrastructure upgrades and revised the master upgrades list provided by the City to include El Camino Real project traffic signals.

The City’s master upgrades list includes the categories listed above, estimated life of the infrastructure, year the equipment was installed, and projected years when equipment needs to be replaced. All of the equipment listed for replacement also included the Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III intersection upgrades as listed in previous paragraphs. Phase I intersection upgrades are essential, and therefore included in the Attachment 3

Page 50 of 199 ends

48 Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real– Final Report January 2022
first year of obtaining a possession of the traffic signals and not included in the CIP costs. Phase II upgrades are necessary but can be scheduled based on the necessity and the equipment lifetime as listed in the City’s master list. The items listed in Phase II improvements are spread out throughout City’s CIP budget list. The only item that is listed separately is upgrades to existing curb ramps, which is typically not included in CIP costs. Phase III upgrades that directly relate to the traffic signal improvements are included in the CIP costs under Traffic Signal Hardware and Wiring.

Kimley-Horn prepared an expenditure and Capital Improvement Costs list which includes all improvements listed in the previous paragraphs, which include Phase I through Phase III, as well as yearly operating costs, and Capital Improvement costs. The list is included inAppendix J.

Attachment 3

Page 51 of 199 ends

Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real – Final Report January 2022

Page 52 of 199 ends

Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real – Final Report January 2022
Appendix A
Caltrans/City Coordination Meeting Minutes
Attachment 3

Page 53 of 199 ends

Meeting Minutes
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2020
Time: 10:00 AM to 11:30 PM
Location: Caltrans District 4 Office, RM 10-320
111 Grand Avenue, Oakland, CA 94612
City of Sunnyvale
Feasibility Study of Acquiring Control of Caltrans Signals on El Camino Real Caltrans Coordination Meeting
Meeting Minutes
I. Introductions
Attendees present at the meeting were the following:
· Srilatha Raavi, Caltrans
· Fariba Zohoury, Caltrans
· Dai Tien, Caltrans
· Waddah Al-Zireeni, Caltrans
· Dennis Ng, City of Sunnyvale
· Carmen Talavera, City of Sunnyvale
· Brian Sowers, Kimley-Horn
· Nikita Petrov, Kimley-Horn
II. Project Summary
· Brian Sowers, Kimley-Horn, described the project and objectives of the City. Brian also mentioned the previous study conducted by the VTA to review relinquishment of the signals along the entire length of El Camino Real. The project was instigated by the City Council, who is seeking to have better control of the operations and also potential improvements along the corridor (such as bike/ped improvements). In short, the City of Sunnyvale is seeking delegation of the operations and maintenance from Caltrans of the traffic signals on El Camino Real between Bernardo Avenue and Henderson Avenue. · Caltrans project manager noted that they had a prior internal meeting with the various operating groups to discuss the option of delegation of the El Camino Real signals to the City of Sunnyvale. During that meeting, Einar Acuna (Signal Operations) noted that delegation is not desired by Caltrans, at least within a small section of the corridor within a single jurisdiction. Caltrans wants to maintain the ability to control general operations and also handle emergencies along the full stretch of the corridor, rather than break the corridor between various jurisdictions. Caltrans wants consistency in takeover, and not just small sections takeover between various Cities along the route. · Caltrans then asked the question, why the City is even performing the study without asking Caltrans. Kimley-Horn replied, that the study has not been started yet, and having this meeting with Caltrans is the first step in the process. · Caltrans asked for further clarification on the reason for the City to take over the corridor.

Dennis Ng, City of Sunnyvale, noted that City Council requested a study to be performed in Attachment 3

Page 54 of 199 ends

Meeting Minutes
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2020
Time: 10:00 AM to 11:30 PM
Location: Caltrans District 4 Office, RM 10-320
111 Grand Avenue, Oakland, CA 94612
order to quickly and efficiently respond to complaints from the citizens as well as improve pedestrian and bicycle circulations.
· Caltrans mentioned that they are currently working on various projects to update El Camino’s infrastructure, and if City has any plans, Caltrans would be happy to look at them and discuss. · City noted that they want to ensure Caltrans doesn’t focus improvements on just vehicular traffic, but also focuses on improving all modes. City is also currently working on the El Camino Corridor Improvement Plans and will share with Caltrans when complete. The specific plan includes installation of buffered bike lanes and removal of parking. · Waddah Al-Zireeni joined the meeting. He learned the objective of the meeting and mentioned that if the City wants full relinquishment of the traffic signals, including roadway, then Caltrans may be open to that. Dennis will check with the director and respond to Caltrans on this note.

III. Other Items
· The City noted that there are other signals within Sunnyvale that delegation of operations and maintenance is desired. These include the ramp signals located at the following interchanges:
a. Fremont Avenue/ SR 85 Ramps
b. Fair Oaks Avenue / US 101 Ramps
c. Homestead Road / SR 85 Ramps
· These locations are in the middle of other City signals and the City would like to have consistent operational strategies along these corridors. · Caltrans will review these locations and further discuss with City at a later time. It was noted that Caltrans currently has a maintenance agreement with the City for the Mathilda Road / SR-237 interchange signals and there may be the ability to amend the agreement to add other locations listed. The City will initiate a formal request to Caltrans after the meeting for further discussion.

Attachment 3

Page 55 of 199 ends

Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real – Final Report January 2022
Appendix B
Caltrans Terms of Operations & Maintenance Memorandum
Attachment 3

Page 56 of 199 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAV IN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 4
P.O. BOX 23660, MS- lA
OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
PHONE (510) 286-6345
FAX (510) 286-6301
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
@
Making Conservation
a California Woy of Ute.

November 23, 2020
Mr. Chip Taylor,
Director of Public Works
City of Sunnyvale
456 West Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3707
Dear Mr. Taylor:

Thank you for your patience while we reviewed your recent request for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to consider delegating responsibilities for Operations and Maintenance (O&M) of traffic signals and one Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) at 14 intersections in Sunnyvale, Santa Clara County. The locations for which traffic signal O&M delegation was requested consist of intersections along State Route 82 (SR 82 or El Camino Real) between Helen and Bernardo A venues, and along Fremont A venue at or in the vicinity of State Route 85 on- and off-ramps. Our staff would be pleased to meet with you and review appropriate terms for delega ting O&M responsibilities for certain Caltrans signals.

We appreciate and value your proposal. Given the unpredictable and potentially adverse safety and operations impacts on mainline SR 85, freeway ramp intersections at SR 85/Fremont A venue and nearby traffic signals will not be considered for delegation. However, intersections on El Camino Real, a conventional State highway, can be considered for delegation in order to promote our cooperative effort to quickly respond to emergencies and to address community concerns. It should further be noted that the existing understandings and highway maintenance agreement(s) currently in effect between the City of Sunnyvale and Caltrans will need to be amended to reflect the City's requested delegation with additional terms, including:
l. The City of Sunnyvale shall assume O&M responsibilities for the signals at all Caltrans-owned intersections on El Camino Real within the City of "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Attachment 3

Page 57 of 199 ends

Mr. Chip Taylor
November 23, 2020

Page 2 ends

Sunnyvale, consisting of 13 traffic signals and one Pede strian Hybrid Beacon signal:
1) El Camino Real (SR 82) & Helen Avenue (PHB)
2) El Camino Real (SR 82) & Henderson A venue
3) El Camino Real (SR 82) & Poplar A venue
4) El Camino Real (SR 82) & S. Wolfe Road
5) El Camino Real (SR 82) & Maria Lane
6) El Camino Real (SR 82) & S. Fair Oaks Avenue/E. Remington Drive 7) El Camino Real (SR 82) & Cezanne Drive
8) El Camino Real (SR 82) & Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road /S. Sunnyvale Avenue and S. Sunnyvale Avenue & Old San Francisco Roa d 9) El Camino Real (SR 82) & S. Murphy Avenue
10) El Camino Real (SR 82) & S. Mathilda Avenue (O&M By City already) 11) El Camino Real (SR 82) & Hollenbeck Avenue/S. Pastoria Avenue 12) El Camino Real (SR 82) & S. Mary Avenue
13) El Camino Real (SR 82) & Grape Avenue/Driveway
14) El Camino Real (SR 82) & S. Bernardo Avenue

2. Coordination between traffic signals must be applied at the El Camino Real and Wolfe Roa d intersect ion because of its close proximity to the Wolfe Roa d and Fremont Avenue intersect ion.

3. An unmodified Caltrans standard Model 332 cab inet shall be used at all times. Traffic signal components installed and operated by the City of Sunnyvale including, but not limited to controllers, detect ors, and software modules shall be capab le of interfacing with existing Caltrans systems to support interoperability and regional operations.

4. Any modifications to the traffic signal and associated infrastructure shall be approved by Caltrans through Caltrans encroachment permit process.

5. The City of Sunnyvale agrees to implement an adaptive strategy and signal performance measures (SPM) system along El Camino Real in "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Attachment 3

Page 58 of 199 ends

Mr. Chip Taylor
November 23, 2020

Page 3 ends

coop eration with other local jurisdictions in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties within six to 12 months after an O&M Agreement is in place.

6. The City of Sunnyvale will submit initial timing parameters and coordination strategy and any subsequent changes to the appropriate Caltrans Signal Operations Branch prior to implementation. The City of Sunnyvale will, upo n request, furnish detailed traffic engineering, signal timing and maintenance records. City of Sunnyvale shall submit, upon request, a detailed narrative or repo rt of the day to day performance of the Caltrans-owned traffic signals and the implemented adaptive operational strategy.

7. In the event that the O&M at the intersect ions become unaccep table, or Caltrans may otherwise require control of the signal system, Caltrans will notify the City of Sunnyvale, install Caltrans standard controllers, and resume O&M of the traffic signals.

8. The City of Sunnyvale agrees to provide Caltrans a method for remote monitoring and manage ment of all Caltrans owned traffic signals from Caltrans' Transportation Management Center (TMC) in Oakland, CA. If required for Caltrans' regional and corridor traffic manage ment needs, Caltrans may also require the City of Sunnyvale to accep t Caltrans Standard hardware and software in traffic signal cabinets, City Hall or other city facilities.

9. The City of Sunnyvale agrees to support transit and emergency vehicle operations by enabling priority and pre-emption capabilities at all Caltrans owned signals. In addition, the City and Caltrans will also consider future improvements to enhance service for pedestrian and bicycle traffic at intersections, if necessary.

10. The City of Sunnyvale agrees to supp ort Caltrans' efforts to dev elop , test and implement advanced transportation technolog ies in partnership with "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Attachment 3

Page 59 of 199 ends

Mr. Chip Taylor
Novembe r 23, 2020
Pag e 4
Caltrans HQ's Division of Research, Innovation and System Information, and other partner public agencies or private enterprises. 1 1. The City of Sunnyvale agrees to indemnify and save harmless the State and a ll officers and employees thereof from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and d escription, brought for, or on acc ount of, injuries to or dea th of any person or damage of property resulting from the programming and operation of the controllers by the City of Sunnyvale or its contractors or its agents. The duty of the City of Sunnyvale to indemnify and save harmless includes the duties to defend as set forth in Sect ion 2778 of the Civil Cod e.

12. The delegation of O&M of the signals to the City of Sunnyvale may only comm ence when the Agreement described below is executed completely by both par ties.

Mr. Einar Acuna, Branch Chief/Signal Operations, is available to review with the City staff the above and any related technical details. He can be reached at (510) 715-9592 or email at [email protected]. Upo n your concurrence, our staff will initiate internal steps necessary to complete an amendment to our existing Maintenance agreement for O&M at these intersections.

I app reciate and value your partnership for enhancing traffic safety and mob ility on Bay Area highways. If you have any questions, please contact Mr.

Sean Nozzari, Deputy District Direct or, Traffic Operations, at (510) 286-6345 or email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
A 2»

DINA EL-TAWANSY
Acting District Director
c: Mr. Kent Steffens, City Manager
Mr. Dennis Ng, Manage r, Transportation and Traffic
"Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Attachment 3

Page 60 of 199 ends

Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real – Final Report January 2022
Appendix C
Volume Figures
Attachment 3

Page 61 of 199 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12 13
14 Mathilda AvenuePastoria Avenue
Bernardo Avenue
El Camino Real
Hollenbeck Avenue
Mary Avenue
Grape Avenue
Sunnyvale Avenue
Sunnyvale Saratoga Road
Murphy Avenue
CezanneDrive
Fair Oaks Avenue
Wolfe Road
El Camino Real
Poplar AvenueHenderson AvenueHelen Avenue

EX,S7,1G (2019) ,17ERSEC7,O1 WEE.DAY 78R1,1G MO9EME17 9OL8MES N

NOT TO SCALE
LEGE1D
AM(M,D)[PM]
PEA. HO8R 9OL8ME
XX(YY)[ZZ]
EX,S7,1G S78DY AREA
,17ERSEC7,O1SX
65(144)[145]
1261(892)[866]
76(74)[103]
76(65)[197]
438(1007)[1363]
168(265)[367]
69(58)[115]
165(86)[278]
400(221)[213]
77(54)[80]
191(96)[143]
241(141)[160]
1 El Camino Real
Bernardo Avenue
52(95)[80]
1366(976)[900]
23(75)[98]
13(35)[24]
647(1006)[1573]
37(130)[116]
22(66)[86]
1(5)[6]
10(45)[32]
53(35)[37]
8(4)[13]
32(14)[14]
2 El Camino RealGrape Avenue
165(216)[258]
610(833)[1168]
58(91)[170]
270(170)[108]
1160(841)[924]
87(121)[158]
100(161)[192]
321(163)[721]
141(182)[148]
76(86)[81]
738(188)[235]
187(114)[93]
3 El Camino Real
Mary Avenue
122(190)[301]
1221(820)[846]
56(65)[74]
76(83)[180]
570(946)[1296]
70(121)[101]
53(67)[78]
211(143)[394]
110(65)[92]
255(170)[143]
338(112)[180]
207(118)[121]
4 El Camino Real
Pastoria Avenue
Hollenbeck Avenue
1417(1065)[1010]
40(46)[56]
53(106)[69]
558(1025)[1642]
39(60)[88]
43(46)[71]
21(37)[37]
5 El Camino Real
Murphy Avenue
79(123)[128]
1352(849)[834]
144(84)[99]
32(88)[100]
421(851)[1407]
132(173)[215]
51(117)[233]
146(142)[203]
51(73)[98]
44(118)[96]
330(253)[263]
64(184)[164]
6 El Camino RealSunnyvale Avenue
26(30)[53]
1366(854)[810]
26(30)[53]
9(29)[44]
465(920)[1572]
37(82)[96]
39(120)[136]
54(34)[71]
225(143)[155]
38(36)[54]
73(21)[45]
16(18)[3]
7 El Camino RealCezanne Drive
140(181)[151]
1141(613)[658]
119(127)[159]
68(120)[157]
374(662)[1261]
158(258)[223]
116(114)[146]
462(344)[677]
142(176)[154]
103(147)[222]
662(357)[499]
92(122)[125]
8 El Camino RealFair Oaks Avenue
Remington Drive
34(60)[53]
1193(668)[741]
60(64)[73]
4(24)[14]
532(783)[1545]
43(70)[96]
42(60)[108]
14(26)[23]
93(86)[67]
6(43)[40]
5(17)[17]
8(43)[30]
9 El Camino Real
Maria Lane
Driveway
344(265)[394]
946(580)[554]
263(133)[101]
235(302)[430]
279(569)[1241]
50(71)[49]
53(103)[204]
594(432)[1202]
49(65)[49]
17(57)[195]
1320(409)[544]
297(200)[319]
10 El Camino Real
Wolfe Road
122(52)[71]
1340(841)[877]
45(23)[41]
21(19)[29]
487(925)[1936]
75(92)[116]
42(35)[41]
91(9)[26]
78(40)[53]
66(15)[28]
54(8)[28]
52(12)[24]
11 El Camino Real
Poplar Avenue
147(238)[249]
1423(738)[766]
89(72)[139]
7(25)[35]
548(911](1794]
36(88)[112]
100(86)[96]
55(18)[52]
84(49)[71]
43(56)[78]
52(10)[26]
43(56)[78]
12 El Camino Real
Henderson Avenue
XX(XX)[XX]
XX(XX)[XX]
XX(XX)[XX]
XX(XX)[XX]
XX(XX)[XX]
XX(XX)[XX]
13 El Camino Real
Helen Avenue
11(31)[44]
130(110)[111]
33(57)[105]
233(304)[503]
12(27)[29]
224(215)[215]
367(326)[338]
14 Old San Francisco Road
Sunnyvale Avenue
Note:

1. El Camino Real and Helen Avenue
intersection was not in scope when traffic
counts were collected.

Attachment 3

Page 62 of 199 ends

EX,S7,1G B,CYCLE 78R1,1G MO9EME17 9OL8MES WEE.DAY PEA. HO8RS N

NOT TO SCALE
LEGE1D
AM(M,D)[PM]
PEA. HO8R 9OL8ME
XX(YY)[ZZ]
EX,S7,1G S78DY AREA
,17ERSEC7,O1SX
1(2)[2]
1(0)[0]
4(0)[0}
3(0[1]
1(0)[0]
1(0[0]
4(3)[1]
1 El Camino Real
Bernardo Avenue
1(0)[0]
1(1)[0]
1(0)[0]
0(1)[0]
1(1)[0]
2(0)[1]
1(1)[2]
2 El Camino RealGrape Avenue
0(0)[1]
0(1)[0]
0(1)[0]
13(0)[10]
1(0)[2]
8(4)[3]
3 El Camino Real
Mary Avenue
0(0)[1]
0(0)[1]
1(1)[0]
1(0)[0]
6(4)[6]
4(0)[1]
1(0)[0]
19(1)[2]
4 El Camino Real
Pastoria Avenue
Hollenbeck Avenue
4(3)[5]
2(0)[0]
1(1)[2] 0(1)[1]
5 El Camino Real
Murphy Avenue
0(2)[0]
6(1)[0]
2(1)[1]
0(0)[6]
3(2)[11]
3(3)[5]
0(1)[0]
19(6)[4]
6 El Camino RealSunnyvale Avenue
2(3)[0]
0(1)[0]
3(5)[9]
0(1)[0]
1(1)[5]
1(1)[0]
2(1)[2]
0(1)[0]
7 El Camino RealCezanne Drive
8(0)[1]
0(0)[1]
3(3)[0]
0(1)[1]
10(7)[10]
3(0)[0]
8(2)[4]
2(1)[0]
8 El Camino RealFair Oaks Avenue
Remington Drive
0(1)[0]
1(5)[3]
3(0)[2]
0(1)[0]
9 El Camino Real
Maria Lane
Driveway
0(5)[2]
1(1)[0]
4(0)[0]
0(0)[1]
0(0)[4]
0(2)[0]
3(0)[3]
0(2)[0]
10 El Camino RealWolfe Road
1(1)[1]
1(1)[4]
1(0)[0]
32(0)[1]
1(0)[0]
2(0)[2]
11 El Camino Real
Poplar Avenue
0(2)[3]
2(0)[0]
4(3)[4]
1(1)[0]
3(5)[1]
6(0)[2]
12 El Camino Real
Henderson Avenue
XX(XX)[XX]
XX(XX)[XX]
XX(XX)[XX]
XX(XX)[XX]
XX(XX)[XX]
XX(XX)[XX]
13 El Camino Real
Helen Avenue
11(2)[0]
0(0)[1]
1(1)[6]
3(4)[21]
0(1)[0]
30(6)[3]
14 Old San Francisco Road
Sunnyvale Avenue
Note:

1. El Camino Real and Helen Avenue
intersection was not in scope when traffic
counts were collected.

Attachment 3

Page 63 of 199 ends

EX,S7,1G PEDES7R,A1 78R1,1G MO9EME17 9OL8MES WEE.DAY PEA. HO8RS N

NOT TO SCALE
14(21)[38]
39(32)[35] 5(5)[10]
6(5)[4]
2 32(53)[14]
4(3)[10]
3 13(5)[28]
14(16)[4]
4 7(9)[9]
23(23)[20]
5 3(6)[9]
15(23)[19]
6 9(20)[24]
14(34)[20]
7 12(16)[18]
14(34)[33]
8 9 7(3)[10]
3(4)[1]
10 20(16)[31]
12(5)[20]
11 16(13)[13]
7(14)[15]
12 14(8)[4]
8(12)[19]
13 XX(XX)[XX]
XX(XX)[XX]
14 1(3)[1]
7(13)[11] 16(18)[27]
0(1)[0]
El Camino
Real Bernardo
Avenue
Sunnyvale
Avenue
Murphy
Avenue
Cezanne
Drive
Old San
Francisco Road
Grape
Avenue
Mary
Avenue
Pastoria
Avenue
Fair Oaks
Avenue
Maria Lane
Wolfe Road
Poplar
Avenue
Henderson
Avenue
Helen
Avenue
Sunnyvale
Avenue
1 30(18)[49]
18(38)[27]
LEGE1D
AM(M,D)[PM]
PEA. HO8R 9OL8ME
XX(YY)[ZZ]
EX,S7,1G S78DY AREA
,17ERSEC7,O1S
S7R,PED CROSSWAL.

X
Hollenbeck
Avenue
Sunnyvale
Saratoga Road
Remington
Drive
8(2)[3] 12(15)[12]El Camino
Real 14(10)[11] 8(1)[3]El Camino
Real 58(24)[14] 8(11)[12]El Camino
Real 0(0)[0] 0(1)[0]El Camino
Real 13(27)[22] 19(38)[35]El Camino
Real 8(17)[19] 12(18)[13]El Camino
Real
XX(XX)[XX] XX(XX)[XX]El Camino
Real13(7)[10] 69(21)[28]El Camino
Real17(4)[6] 6(5)[4]El Camino
Real17(12)[30] 10(7)[19]El Camino
Real6(22)[11] 1(4)[7]El Camino
Real22(33)[58] 35(36)[27]El Camino
Real
Notes:

1. Pedestrian volumes shown are for the
automobile PM peak hour and not the
pedestrian PM peak hour.

2. El Camino Real and Helen Avenue
intersection was not in scope when traffic
counts were collected.

Attachment 3

Page 64 of 199 ends

EX,S7,1G (2019) ,17ERSEC7,O1 WEE.E1D 78R1,1G MO9EME17 9OL8MESNOT TO SCALE LEGE1D

AM(M,D)
PEA. HO8R 9OL8ME
XX(YY)
EX,S7,1G S78DY AREA
,17ERSEC7,O1SX
120(155)
872(1157)
65(107)
79(98)
817(1157)
241(359)
75(115)
92(98)
307(320)
70(80)
(72)127
169(185)
1 El Camino Real
Bernardo Avenue
85(108)
923(1157)
93(106)
40(49)
823(1159)
128(194)
79(116)
10(9)
52(58)
34(47)
13(11)
23(26)
2 El Camino RealGrape Avenue
107(163)
822(1119)
85(152)
82(134)
732(1061)
134(242)
121(175)
159(188)
193(195)
72(105)
158(170)
122(119)
3 El Camino Real
Mary Avenue
193(280)
769(1079)
60(47)
64(113)
774(1074)
74(118)
65(77)
123(198)
59(72)
134(174)
132(137)
83(120)
4 El Camino Real
Pastoria Avenue
Hollenbeck Avenue
981(1361)
82(79)
77(124)
953(1231)
67(110) 70(123)
37(42)
5 El Camino Real
Murphy Avenue
129(152)
828(1142)
98(136)
83(109)
742(1076)
118(153)
122(214)
178(179)
90(80)
91(134)
258(300)
153(224)
6 El Camino RealSunnyvale Avenue
43(66)
831(1155)
45(41)
26(32)
852(1220)
76(118)
97(120)
42(41)
139(182)
55(35)
30(34)
25(22)
7 El Camino RealCezanne Drive
178(230)
704(867)
115(191)
147(190)
630(897)
208(285)
121(143)
336(397)
185(223)
193(225)
310(439)
119(184)
8 El Camino RealFair Oaks Avenue
Remington Drive
41(68)
785(996)
63(127)
23(41)
712(1120)
67(117)
74(132)
28(18)
73(103)
28(39)
15(27)
14(28)
9 El Camino Real
Maria Lane
Driveway
269(344)
627(791)
141(194)
250(389)
475(850)
62(91)
91(127)
415(497)
74(91)
53(84)
327(478)
231(298)
10 El Camino Real
Wolfe Road
57(104)
879(1078)
25(34)
19(35)
793(1203)
128(141)
41(51)
12(14)
80(66)
25(36)
7(12)
29(44)
11 El Camino Real
Poplar Avenue
283(365)
818(1052)
70(98)
15(40)
755(1099)
63(97)
98(105)
26(14)
54(62)
72(109)
23(13)
54(79)
12 El Camino Real
Henderson Avenue
XX(XX)
XX(XX)
XX(XX)
XX(XX)
XX(XX)
XX(XX)
13 El Camino Real
Helen Avenue
116(125)
25(34)
82(98)
363(441)
26(28)
120(161)
346(418)
14 Old San Francisco Road
Sunnyvale Avenue
Note:

1. El Camino Real and Helen Avenue
intersection was not in scope when traffic
counts were collected.

Attachment 3

Page 65 of 199 ends

EX,S7,1G B,CYCLE 78R1,1G MO9EME17 9OL8MES WEE.E1D PEA. HO8RS N

NOT TO SCALE
LEGE1D

AM(M,D)
PEA. HO8R 9OL8ME
XX(YY)
EX,S7,1G S78DY AREA
,17ERSEC7,O1SX
1(1)
0(1)
1(1)
0(1) 4(0)
2(5)
2(1)
1 El Camino Real
Bernardo Avenue
1(0)
1(4)
1(0)
0(1)
1(0)
1(1)
2 El Camino RealGrape Avenue
5(0)
2(3) 2(2)
2(1)
3(0)
1(7)
2(0)
3 El Camino Real
Mary Avenue
0(2)
1(1)
5(4)
0(1)
8(3)
3(2)
0(3)
0(7)
4 El Camino Real
Pastoria Avenue
Hollenbeck Avenue
2(4)
1(0)
0(1)
1(1)
0(1)
5 El Camino Real
Murphy Avenue
1(3)
2(0)
1(0)
3(3)
1(0) 6(5)
2(0)
3(13)
6 El Camino RealSunnyvale Avenue
1(3) 1(1)
0(2)
2(0)
7 El Camino RealCezanne Drive
0(1) 6(1)
4(0)
0(1)
2(1)
8 El Camino RealFair Oaks Avenue
Remington Drive
4(1)
1(5)
9 El Camino Real
Maria Lane
Driveway
0(2)
1(0)
10(2)
0(1)
1(1)
10 El Camino Real
Wolfe Road
1(0)
3(2)
1(5)
1(0)
0(5)
11 El Camino Real
Poplar Avenue
1(2)
1(6)
0(1)
2(0)
1(1)
1(0)
12 El Camino Real
Henderson Avenue
XX(XX)
XX(XX)
XX(XX)
XX(XX)
XX(XX)
XX(XX)
13 El Camino Real
Helen Avenue
6(6)
1(2)
6(9)
2(2)
5(7)
14 Old San Francisco Road
Sunnyvale Avenue
Note:

1. El Camino Real and Helen Avenue
intersection was not in scope when traffic
counts were collected.

Attachment 3

Page 66 of 199 ends

EX,S7,1G PEDES7R,A1 78R1,1G MO9EME17 9OL8MES WEE.E1D PEA. HO8RS N

NOT TO SCALE
28(42)
35(41) 9(5)
14(14)
2 54(65)
13(8)
3 23(15)
7(18)
4 18(6)
19(42)
5 26(11)
32(31)
6 39(34)
19(25)
7 10(9)
10(40)
8 9 10(4)
4(3)
10 30(22)
10(11)
11 27(17)
6(18)
12 9(14)
4(20)
13 XX(XX)
XX(XX)
14 2(1)
25(24) 28(27)
0(0)
El Camino
Real Bernardo
Avenue
Sunnyvale
Avenue
Murphy
Avenue
Cezanne
Drive
Old San
Francisco Road
Grape
Avenue
Mary
Avenue
Pastoria
Avenue
Fair Oaks
Avenue
Maria Lane
Wolfe Road
Poplar
Avenue
Henderson
Avenue
Helen
Avenue
Sunnyvale
Avenue
1 27(45)
38(42)
LEGE1D

AM(M,D)
PEA. HO8R 9OL8ME
XX(YY)
EX,S7,1G S78DY AREA
,17ERSEC7,O1S
S7R,PED CROSSWAL.

X
Notes:

1. Pedestrian volumes shown are for the
automobile PM peak hour and not the
pedestrian PM peak hour.

2. El Camino Real and Helen Avenue
intersection was not in scope when traffic
counts were collected.

Hollenbeck
Avenue
Sunnyvale
Saratoga Road
Remington
Drive
5(7) 13(12)El Camino
Real 5(8) 9(3)El Camino
Real 33(22) 28(21)El Camino
Real 1(0) 0(0)El Camino
Real 22(37) 37(35)El Camino
Real 10(12) 18(18)El Camino
Real
XX(XX) XX(XX)El Camino
Real9(25) 14(29)El Camino
Real5(5) 10(13)El Camino
Real16(14) El Camino
Real14(11) 7(3)El Camino
Real45(34) 50(66)El Camino
Real 7(16)
Attachment 3

Page 67 of 199 ends

Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real – Final Report January 2022
Appendix D
Average Daily Traffic Volumes Summaries
Attachment 3

Page 68 of 199 ends

Corridor: El Camino Real 7-day, 24-hour Mechanical Tube Traffic Counts Location: between S Mary Avenue & Hollenbeck Avenue
Date:

NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB Total NB SB Total 0:00 49 77 74 71 1 0 97 142 105 121 40 50 91 101 132 233 1:00 44 35 37 31 33 18 82 93 57 85 36 30 66 70 89 159
2:00 19 30 21 31 25 31 44 70 39 69 25 27 52 42 70 111
3:00 26 22 17 31 40 28 35 40 30 26 32 22 55 33 33 66
4:00 48 29 33 55 49 25 31 33 34 29 51 29 80 33 31 64
5:00 133 67 62 131 125 85 78 49 73 34 130 71 201 76 42 117 6:00 358 163 154 385 386 189 145 112 99 76 376 169 545 122 94 216 7:00 1103 323 314 1100 988 359 288 241 215 148 1064 332 1396 252 195 446 8:00 1496 538 538 1504 1340 606 536 498 331 302 1447 561 2007 434 400 834 9:00 1370 619 599 1411 1196 711 859 722 553 548 1326 643 1969 706 635 1341 10:00 957 748 709 1009 972 780 1026 999 719 765 979 746 1725 873 882 1755 11:00 930 933 950 1093 1036 1124 1308 1317 989 954 1020 1002 2022 1149 1136 2284 12:00 960 1081 1161 1163 1067 1248 1379 1493 1104 1264 1063 1163 2227 1242 1379 2620 13:00 937 1015 990 1126 1097 1188 1355 1449 1153 1226 1053 1064 2118 1254 1338 2592 14:00 870 1010 995 1010 932 1138 1250 1293 1108 1130 937 1048 1985 1179 1212 2391 15:00 973 1323 1287 1020 1021 1543 1251 1330 1030 1100 1005 1384 2389 1141 1215 2356 16:00 857 1574 1597 1051 1081 1729 1149 1230 943 1027 996 1633 2630 1046 1129 2175 17:00 912 1715 1681 1176 1098 1785 1149 1116 1034 1135 1062 1727 2789 1092 1126 2217 18:00 870 1507 1513 1139 1076 1550 988 1075 881 995 1028 1523 2552 935 1035 1970 19:00 701 1077 1132 944 998 1202 855 880 730 760 881 1137 2018 793 820 1613 20:00 577 728 743 766 856 931 725 738 550 626 733 801 1534 638 682 1320 21:00 414 494 515 490 571 687 525 561 398 418 492 565 1057 462 490 951 22:00 213 306 332 307 389 498 296 438 219 245 303 379 682 258 342 599 23:00 108 136 161 175 194 269 199 235 117 146 159 189 348 158 191 349 Total 14,925 15,550 0 15,615 0 0 17,219 0 16,571 17,724 15,650 16,154 12,511 13,229 16,238 16,296 32,535 14,081 14,692 28,772 El Camino Real Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real Wednesday Thursday
Time
Monday Tuesday WeekendWeekdayFriday
11/15/19
Saturday Sunday
Attachment 3

Page 69 of 199 ends

0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
ADT (#)
Time (15-minute interval)
El Camino Real Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume - Directional Distribution November 2019
El Camino Real
(Between S Mary Avenue & Hollenbeck Avenue)
Southbound
Northbound
Attachment 3

Page 70 of 199 ends

0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0:00
4:00
8:00
12:00
16:00
20:00
Traffic Volume (#)
Time (1-hour interval)
El Camino Real Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real Two Directional Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume
November 2019
El Camino Real
(Between S Mary Avenue & Hollenbeck Avenue)
Weekday Total
Weekend Total
Attachment 3

Page 71 of 199 ends

0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0:00
4:00
8:00
12:00
16:00
20:00
Traffic Volume (#)
Time (1-hour interval)
El Camino Real Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume - Directional Distribution November 2019
El Camino Real
(Between S Mary Avenue & Hollenbeck Avenue)
Weekday Northbound
Weekday Southbound
Weekend Northbound
Weekend Southbound
Attachment 3

Page 72 of 199 ends

0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0:00
4:00
8:00
12:00
16:00
20:00
Traffic Volume (#)
Time (1-hour interval)
El Camino Real Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real Two Directional Average Weekend Traffic Volume
November 2019
El Camino Real
(Between S Mary Avenue & Hollenbeck Avenue)
Saturday
Sunday
Attachment 3

Page 73 of 199 ends

Corridor: El Camino Real 7-day, 24-hour Mechanical Tube Traffic Counts Location: between Sunnyvale Avenue & Cezanne Drive
Date:

NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB Total NB SB Total 0:00 49 77 74 1 0 97 142 105 121 25 50 75 101 132 233
1:00 44 35 37 33 18 82 93 57 85 39 30 69 70 89 159
2:00 19 30 21 25 31 44 70 39 69 22 27 49 42 70 111
3:00 26 22 17 40 28 35 40 30 26 33 22 55 33 33 66
4:00 48 29 33 49 25 31 33 34 29 49 29 78 33 31 64
5:00 133 67 62 125 85 78 49 73 34 129 71 200 76 42 117
6:00 358 163 154 386 189 145 112 99 76 372 169 541 122 94 216 7:00 1103 323 314 988 359 288 241 215 148 1046 332 1378 252 195 446 8:00 1496 538 538 1340 606 536 498 331 302 1418 561 1979 434 400 834 9:00 1370 619 599 1196 711 859 722 553 548 1283 643 1926 706 635 1341 10:00 957 748 709 972 780 1026 999 719 765 965 746 1710 873 882 1755 11:00 930 933 950 1036 1124 1308 1317 989 954 983 1002 1985 1149 1136 2284 12:00 960 1081 1161 1067 1248 1379 1493 1104 1264 1014 1163 2177 1242 1379 2620 13:00 937 1015 990 1097 1188 1355 1449 1153 1226 1017 1064 2081 1254 1338 2592 14:00 870 1010 995 932 1138 1250 1293 1108 1130 901 1048 1949 1179 1212 2391 15:00 973 1323 1287 1021 1543 1251 1330 1030 1100 997 1384 2381 1141 1215 2356 16:00 857 1574 1597 1081 1729 1149 1230 943 1027 969 1633 2602 1046 1129 2175 17:00 912 1715 1681 1098 1785 1149 1116 1034 1135 1005 1727 2732 1092 1126 2217 18:00 870 1507 1513 1076 1550 988 1075 881 995 973 1523 2496 935 1035 1970 19:00 701 1077 1132 998 1202 855 880 730 760 850 1137 1987 793 820 1613 20:00 577 728 743 856 931 725 738 550 626 717 801 1517 638 682 1320 21:00 414 494 515 571 687 525 561 398 418 493 565 1058 462 490 951 22:00 213 306 332 389 498 296 438 219 245 301 379 680 258 342 599 23:00 108 136 161 194 269 199 235 117 146 151 189 340 158 191 349 Total 14,925 15,550 0 15,615 0 0 0 0 16,571 17,724 15,650 16,154 12,511 13,229 15,748 16,296 32,044 14,081 14,692 28,772 El Camino Real Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real Wednesday Thursday
Time
Monday Tuesday WeekendWeekdayFriday
11/15/19
Saturday Sunday
Attachment 3

Page 74 of 199 ends

0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
ADT (#)
Time (15-minute interval)
El Camino Real Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume - Directional Distribution November 2019
El Camino Real
(Between Sunnyvale Avenue & Cezanne Drive)
Southbound
Northbound
Attachment 3

Page 75 of 199 ends

0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0:00
4:00
8:00
12:00
16:00
20:00
Traffic Volume (#)
Time (1-hour interval)
El Camino Real Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real Two Directional Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume
November 2019
El Camino Real
(Between Sunnyvale Avenue & Cezanne Drive)
Weekday Total
Weekend Total
Attachment 3

Page 76 of 199 ends

0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0:00
4:00
8:00
12:00
16:00
20:00
Traffic Volume (#)
Time (1-hour interval)
El Camino Real Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume - Directional Distribution November 2019
El Camino Real
(Between Sunnyvale Avenue & Cezanne Drive)
Weekday Northbound
Weekday Southbound
Weekend Northbound
Weekend Southbound
Attachment 3

Page 77 of 199 ends

0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0:00
4:00
8:00
12:00
16:00
20:00
Traffic Volume (#)
Time (1-hour interval)
El Camino Real Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real Two Directional Average Weekend Traffic Volume
November 2019
El Camino Real
(Between Sunnyvale Avenue & Cezanne Drive)
Saturday
Sunday
Attachment 3

Page 78 of 199 ends

Corridor: El Camino Real 7-day, 24-hour Mechanical Tube Traffic Counts Location: between Poplar Avenue & Henderson Avenue
Date:

NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB Total NB SB Total 0:00 83 98 78 109 76 104 76 106 34 77 137 203 139 157 69 99 168 138 180 318 1:00 61 59 40 50 33 38 46 60 53 49 110 101 85 105 47 51 98 98 103 201 2:00 29 32 28 25 26 28 36 45 37 36 69 69 51 87 31 33 64 60 78 138 3:00 38 15 35 23 37 24 33 19 35 19 35 39 36 25 36 20 56 36 32 68 4:00 68 33 61 32 67 25 62 39 62 36 48 32 43 28 64 33 97 46 30 76 5:00 195 100 202 113 204 100 191 120 201 102 97 71 80 45 199 107 306 89 58 147 6:00 491 172 521 188 541 178 494 198 515 186 222 136 140 101 512 184 697 181 119 300 7:00 1435 461 1531 450 1616 471 1565 511 1088 499 394 240 261 164 1447 478 1925 328 202 530 8:00 1973 616 1602 654 1629 631 1656 636 922 395 640 441 390 273 1556 586 2143 515 357 872 9:00 1347 670 1274 637 1497 636 1337 616 909 397 879 735 656 535 1273 591 1864 768 635 1403 10:00 921 728 937 739 894 808 888 743 681 801 1028 918 829 744 864 764 1628 929 831 1760 11:00 847 876 879 975 862 972 860 943 726 980 1232 1268 999 1032 835 949 1784 1116 1150 2266 12:00 848 960 943 1053 929 1028 995 1089 684 1108 1257 1355 1066 1167 880 1048 1927 1162 1261 2423 13:00 903 1048 861 987 1067 1083 932 1052 782 1135 1306 1066 1147 1274 909 1061 1970 1227 1170 2397 14:00 989 1084 953 1052 967 1067 988 1100 820 1191 1231 1281 1091 1123 943 1099 2042 1161 1202 2363 15:00 957 1258 899 1394 924 1432 905 1527 1035 1533 1193 1334 1055 1151 944 1429 2373 1124 1243 2367 16:00 902 1700 670 1814 865 1907 1024 1873 1045 1819 1143 1215 973 1086 901 1823 2724 1058 1151 2209 17:00 921 1927 784 1950 1018 1997 1013 1994 1135 1917 1086 1226 1116 1137 974 1957 2931 1101 1182 2283 18:00 636 1691 932 1752 980 1862 969 1850 1105 1691 992 1118 906 1030 924 1769 2694 949 1074 2023 19:00 574 1109 846 1291 893 1291 943 1252 1055 1320 920 960 792 802 862 1253 2115 856 881 1737 20:00 492 735 731 890 730 902 798 890 887 908 750 822 636 679 728 865 1593 693 751 1444 21:00 420 560 465 635 465 591 536 676 646 728 543 628 444 493 506 638 1144 494 561 1054 22:00 274 363 317 442 344 379 351 446 448 588 395 491 283 319 347 444 790 339 405 744 23:00 154 213 141 226 156 210 157 216 267 336 216 282 148 201 175 240 415 182 242 424 Total 15,558 16,508 15,730 17,481 16,820 17,764 16,855 18,001 15,172 17,851 15,923 16,031 13,366 13,758 16,027 17,521 33,548 14,645 14,895 29,539 El Camino Real Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real Wednesday Thursday
Time
Monday Tuesday WeekendWeekdayFriday
11/15/19
Saturday Sunday
Attachment 3

Page 79 of 199 ends

0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
ADT (#)
Time (15-minute interval)
El Camino Real Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume - Directional Distribution November 2019
El Camino Real
(Between Poplar Avenue & Henderson Avenue)
Southbound
Northbound
Attachment 3

Page 80 of 199 ends

0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0:00
4:00
8:00
12:00
16:00
20:00
Traffic Volume (#)
Time (1-hour interval)
El Camino Real Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real Two Directional Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume
November 2019
El Camino Real
(Between Poplar Avenue & Henderson Avenue)
Weekday Total
Weekend Total
Attachment 3

Page 81 of 199 ends

0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0:00
4:00
8:00
12:00
16:00
20:00
Traffic Volume (#)
Time (1-hour interval)
El Camino Real Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume - Directional Distribution November 2019
El Camino Real
(Between Poplar Avenue & Henderson Avenue)
Weekday Northbound
Weekday Southbound
Weekend Northbound
Weekend Southbound
Attachment 3

Page 82 of 199 ends

0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0:00
4:00
8:00
12:00
16:00
20:00
Traffic Volume (#)
Time (1-hour interval)
El Camino Real Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real Two Directional Average Weekend Traffic Volume
November 2019
El Camino Real
(Between Poplar Avenue & Henderson Avenue)
Saturday
Sunday
Attachment 3

Page 83 of 199 ends

Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real – Final Report January 2022
Appendix E
Vehicle Classification Summary
Attachment 3

Page 84 of 199 ends

Bikes Pasngr Long Total
Vehicles
Day 1 Total Monday 54 13420 1342 14815 71 142 13 1 26 10 0 0 0 0 262 15076.5 1.7% 98.3% Day 2 Total Tuesday 38 13852 1526 15416 90 157 17 0 30 19 1 0 0 0 314 15730 2.0% 98.0% Day 3 Total Wednesday 34 14870 1616 16520 91 151 18 0 27 13 0 0 0 0 300 16820 1.8% 98.2% Day 4 Total Thursday 43 14894 1593 16530 89 172 23 4 26 11 0 0 0 0 325 16855 1.9% 98.1% Day 5 Total Friday 35 10495 1217 11747 78 87 63 6 52 8 0 4 0 80 378 12125.67 3.1% 96.9% Day 6 Total Saturday 48 9667 959 10674 38 77 42 3 30 3 1 1 0 65 261 10934.67 2.4% 97.6% Day 7 Total Sunday 31 11601 759 12391 34 94 34 0 20 2 1 1 0 0 187 12578.67 1.5% 98.5% Average Weekday: 41 13506 1459 15006 84 142 27 2 32 12 0 0 0 0 316 15321 2.1% 97.9% Average Weekend: 40 10634 859 11533 36 86 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 224 11757 1.9% 98.1% Total Average: 80 24140 2318 26538 120 227 27 2 57 12 0 0 0 0 540 27078 2.0% 98.0% Bikes Pasngr Long Total
Vehicles
Day 1 Total Monday 37 12595 3158 15790 104 137 12 3 34 14 1 2 0 0 306 16096 1.9% 98.1% Day 2 Total Tuesday 43 14421 1875 16338 98 154 15 1 29 16 1 1 0 0 315 16653.67 1.9% 98.1% Day 3 Total Wednesday 48 15553 1616 17216 97 148 15 2 30 20 1 3 1 0 315 17530.5 1.8% 98.2% Day 4 Total Thursday 34 14744 2629 17406 115 145 14 5 27 17 2 1 0 0 325 17730.5 1.8% 98.2% Day 5 Total Friday 40 9218 3443 12700 103 120 8 6 23 12 0 1 1 97 371 13071.33 2.8% 97.2% Day 6 Total Saturday 33 9608 1705 11346 48 75 1 6 14 6 1 0 0 69 220 11566.33 1.9% 98.1% Day 7 Total Sunday 35 11403 1544 12982 36 95 3 0 13 6 1 0 0 0 154 13136 1.2% 98.8% Average Weekday: 40 13306 2544 15890 103 141 13 3 29 16 1 2 0 19 326 16216 2.0% 98.0% Average Weekend: 34 10506 1624 12164 42 85 2 3 14 6 1 0 0 35 152 12316 1.2% 98.8% Total Average: 74 23811 4168 28054 145 226 15 6 42 22 2 2 0 54 479 28533 1.7% 98.3% >6 Axle
Multi
Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real
Vehicle Classificaton Count on El Camino Real between S Mary Avenue & Hollenbeck Avenue Northbound
Begin Time Day of the
Week
Cars & 2 Axle
Buses 2 Axle
6 Tire
3 Axle
Single
>3 Axle
Single
Begin Time Day of the
Week
Cars & 2 Axle
Buses 2 Axle
6 Tire
Southbound
Total
Heavy
Vehicles
Overall
Total Trucks % Cars %<3 Axle
Double
5 Axle
Double
>5 Axle
Double
<6 Axle
Multi
6 Axle
Multi
Cars %3 Axle
Single
>3 Axle
Single
<3 Axle
Double
5 Axle
Double
>5 Axle
Double
<6 Axle
Multi
6 Axle
Multi
>6 Axle
Multi
Total
Heavy
Vehicles
Overall
Total Trucks %
Attachment 3

Page 85 of 199 ends

Feasibility of Acquiring Control on El Camino Real – Final Report January 2022
Appendix F
Synchro Summaries
Attachment 3

Page 86 of 199 ends

142: Bernardo Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 168 438 76 65 1261 76 241 191 77 69 165 400 Future Volume (vph) 168 438 76 65 1261 76 241 191 77 69 165 400 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.7 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 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 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.89
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4956 1770 5026 3433 1863 1550 1770 3042 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 4956 1770 5026 3433 1863 1550 1770 3042 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.63 0.63 0.63 Adj. Flow (vph) 177 461 80 72 1401 84 371 294 118 110 262 635 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 82 0 242 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 177 525 0 72 1481 0 371 294 36 110 655 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 14 5 39
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 2 5 4
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 18.6 50.2 13.8 45.4 18.6 42.2 42.2 15.3 38.9 Effective Green, g (s) 18.6 50.2 13.8 45.4 18.6 42.2 42.2 15.3 38.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.36 0.10 0.32 0.13 0.30 0.30 0.11 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.7 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 5.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 235 1777 174 1629 456 561 467 193 845 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.11 0.04 c0.29 c0.11 c0.16 0.06 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.30 0.41 0.91 0.81 0.52 0.08 0.57 0.95dr Uniform Delay, d1 58.5 32.2 59.3 45.3 59.0 40.6 35.0 59.2 46.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.2 0.4 1.8 8.5 10.9 1.2 0.1 4.2 4.6 Delay (s) 71.7 32.6 50.3 43.4 69.9 41.7 35.1 63.4 51.1
Level of Service E C D D E D D E D
Approach Delay (s) 42.3 43.7 54.1 52.5
Approach LOS D D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 47.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 87 of 199 ends

160: E Remington Dr/S Fair Oaks Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 158 374 68 140 1141 119 92 662 103 116 462 142 Future Volume (vph) 158 374 68 140 1141 119 92 662 103 116 462 142 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 5.1 3.7 5.1 5.1 3.7 5.1 3.7 5.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4939 1770 5085 1496 1770 3443 1770 3378 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 4939 1770 5085 1496 1770 3443 1770 3378 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 178 420 76 152 1240 129 99 712 111 129 513 158 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 18 0 0 0 84 0 9 0 0 21 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 178 478 0 152 1240 45 99 814 0 129 650 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 18 30 22 35 35 22
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 8 10 13
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 17.3 47.2 19.3 49.2 49.2 15.3 40.4 15.5 40.6 Effective Green, g (s) 17.3 47.2 19.3 49.2 49.2 15.3 40.4 15.5 40.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.34 0.14 0.35 0.35 0.11 0.29 0.11 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 5.1 3.7 5.1 5.1 3.7 5.1 3.7 5.1
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.5 2.0 4.5 4.5 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 218 1665 244 1787 525 193 993 195 979 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.10 0.09 c0.24 0.06 c0.24 c0.07 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.29 0.62 0.69 0.09 0.51 0.82 0.66 0.66
Uniform Delay, d1 59.8 34.1 56.9 38.9 30.4 58.8 46.4 59.7 43.7 Progression Factor 0.90 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 19.4 0.4 3.5 2.2 0.3 1.0 5.4 6.4 1.7 Delay (s) 73.0 31.8 60.5 41.2 30.7 59.8 51.8 66.1 45.4
Level of Service E C E D C E D E D
Approach Delay (s) 42.7 42.2 52.6 48.7
Approach LOS D D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 46.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 88 of 199 ends

171: Grape Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 37 647 13 52 1366 23 32 8 53 22 1 10 Future Volume (vph) 37 647 13 52 1366 23 32 8 53 22 1 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5068 1770 5061 1778 1538 1755 1547 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.77 1.00 0.75 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5068 1770 5061 1422 1538 1388 1547 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.75 0.75 0.75 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 667 13 56 1469 25 55 14 91 29 1 13
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 77 0 0 11
Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 679 0 56 1493 0 0 69 14 0 30 2 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 32 8 12 12 8
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 2 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.6 96.2 9.7 96.3 21.8 21.8 21.8 21.8 Effective Green, g (s) 9.6 96.2 9.7 96.3 21.8 21.8 21.8 21.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.69 0.07 0.69 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 121 3482 122 3481 221 239 216 240
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.13 c0.03 c0.30
v/s Ratio Perm c0.05 0.01 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.31 0.20 0.46 0.43 0.31 0.06 0.14 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 62.1 7.9 62.6 9.7 52.4 50.4 51.0 50.0 Progression Factor 1.11 0.69 1.06 0.35 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0
Delay (s) 69.2 5.6 66.5 3.5 52.7 50.4 51.1 50.0
Level of Service E A E A D D D D
Approach Delay (s) 8.9 5.8 51.4 50.8
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 89 of 199 ends

260: Hollenbeck Ave/S Pastoria Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 70 570 57 122 1221 56 207 338 255 53 211 110 Future Volume (vph) 70 570 57 122 1221 56 207 338 255 53 211 110 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.2 3.7 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4982 3433 5047 1770 3244 1770 3539 1538 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 4982 3433 5047 1770 3244 1770 3539 1538 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.60 0.60 0.60 Adj. Flow (vph) 76 620 62 127 1272 58 252 412 311 88 352 183 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 3 0 0 99 0 0 0 137
Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 674 0 127 1327 0 252 624 0 88 352 46 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 58 8 23 7
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 13 11
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.9 50.2 18.1 57.4 20.3 42.1 13.1 34.9 34.9 Effective Green, g (s) 10.9 50.2 18.1 57.4 20.3 42.1 13.1 34.9 34.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.36 0.13 0.41 0.15 0.30 0.09 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.2 3.7 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 137 1786 443 2069 256 975 165 882 383 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.14 0.04 c0.26 c0.14 c0.19 0.05 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.55 0.38 0.29 0.64 0.98 0.64 0.53 0.40 0.12
Uniform Delay, d1 62.2 33.3 55.1 33.1 59.7 42.4 60.5 43.8 40.7 Progression Factor 1.16 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.4 0.5 0.1 1.5 51.4 1.0 1.7 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 75.7 19.4 55.2 34.6 111.1 43.4 62.2 43.9 40.7 Level of Service E B E C F D E D D
Approach Delay (s) 25.0 36.4 60.9 45.6
Approach LOS C D E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 41.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 90 of 199 ends

320: S Wolfe Rd & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 50 279 235 344 946 263 297 1320 17 53 594 49 Future Volume (vph) 50 279 235 344 946 263 297 1320 17 53 594 49 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 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 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1538 3433 5085 1513 3433 3539 1546 1770 5085 1541 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5085 1538 3433 5085 1513 3433 3539 1546 1770 5085 1541 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adj. Flow (vph) 57 321 270 382 1051 292 367 1630 21 62 691 57 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 210 0 0 200 0 0 12 0 0 45
Lane Group Flow (vph) 57 321 60 382 1051 92 367 1630 9 62 691 12 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 20 10 17
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 6 4
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.3 27.8 27.8 18.0 39.0 39.0 36.5 50.7 50.7 11.2 26.4 26.4 Effective Green, g (s) 7.3 27.8 27.8 18.0 39.0 39.0 36.5 50.7 50.7 11.2 26.4 26.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.31 0.31 0.29 0.41 0.41 0.09 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 104 1138 344 497 1596 475 1008 1444 631 159 1080 327 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.06 c0.11 c0.21 0.11 c0.46 0.04 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.55 0.28 0.18 0.77 0.66 0.19 0.36 1.13 0.01 0.39 0.64 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 56.8 39.9 38.9 51.1 36.8 31.1 34.7 36.8 21.9 53.3 44.6 38.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 0.2 0.3 6.3 1.1 0.3 0.1 67.4 0.0 0.6 0.9 0.0 Delay (s) 60.0 40.1 39.3 57.4 37.9 31.4 34.8 104.1 21.9 53.9 45.5 38.8 Level of Service E D D E D C C F C D D D
Approach Delay (s) 41.5 41.2 90.6 45.7
Approach LOS D D F D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 61.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 124.2 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 91 of 199 ends

471: Cezanne Dr & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 37 465 9 26 1366 58 16 73 38 39 54 225 Future Volume (vph) 37 465 9 26 1366 58 16 73 38 39 54 225 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5067 1770 5045 1758 1755 1863 1543 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 0.39 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5067 1770 5045 1692 713 1863 1543 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.80 0.80 0.80 Adj. Flow (vph) 41 517 10 29 1501 64 28 126 66 49 68 281 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 13 0 0 0 158
Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 526 0 29 1563 0 0 207 0 49 68 123 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 12 12 14 14 12
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 2 3 2
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.4 90.1 7.2 85.9 27.8 27.8 27.8 27.8 Effective Green, g (s) 11.4 90.1 7.2 85.9 27.8 27.8 27.8 27.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.64 0.05 0.61 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time (s) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 144 3260 91 3095 335 141 369 306
v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.10 0.02 c0.31 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm c0.12 0.07 0.08
v/c Ratio 0.28 0.16 0.32 0.50 0.62 0.35 0.18 0.40
Uniform Delay, d1 60.5 9.9 64.0 15.1 51.3 48.3 46.7 48.9 Progression Factor 0.84 0.60 1.22 0.47 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.5 2.4 0.5 0.1 0.3
Delay (s) 51.3 6.1 78.8 7.5 53.6 48.8 46.8 49.2
Level of Service D A E A D D D D
Approach Delay (s) 9.4 8.8 53.6 48.7
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 92 of 199 ends

600: El Camino Real & Maria Ln Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 43 532 4 34 1193 60 8 5 6 42 14 93 Future Volume (vph) 43 532 4 34 1193 60 8 5 6 42 14 93
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.1 5.4 5.1 5.4 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 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 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5078 1770 5040 1799 1563 1794 1555 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.78 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5078 1770 5040 1602 1563 1460 1555 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 611 5 37 1311 66 12 7 9 45 15 100
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 8 0 0 85
Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 616 0 37 1374 0 0 19 1 0 60 15 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 7 6 1 1 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.9 71.2 7.2 57.5 17.1 17.1 16.5 16.5 Effective Green, g (s) 20.9 71.2 7.2 57.5 17.1 17.1 16.5 16.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.65 0.07 0.52 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 5.1 5.4 5.1 5.4 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 336 3286 115 2634 249 242 219 233
v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.12 0.02 c0.27
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 c0.04 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.19 0.32 0.52 0.08 0.01 0.27 0.06
Uniform Delay, d1 37.1 7.8 49.1 17.2 39.7 39.3 41.4 40.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
Delay (s) 37.2 7.9 49.7 18.0 39.7 39.3 41.7 40.2
Level of Service D A D B D D D D
Approach Delay (s) 10.1 18.8 39.6 40.7
Approach LOS B B D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 93 of 199 ends

690: S Mary Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 165 510 58 87 1160 270 187 738 76 100 321 141 Future Volume (vph) 165 510 58 87 1160 270 187 738 76 100 321 141 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.6 3.7 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4993 1770 4914 1770 3481 1770 3343 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 4993 1770 4914 1770 3481 1770 3343 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.70 0.70 0.70 Adj. Flow (vph) 172 531 60 96 1275 297 253 997 103 143 459 201 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 27 0 0 5 0 0 36 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 172 582 0 96 1545 0 253 1095 0 143 624 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 14 13 8 14
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 8 10
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.3 48.2 13.9 42.8 21.2 47.0 14.5 40.3 Effective Green, g (s) 19.3 48.2 13.9 42.8 21.2 47.0 14.5 40.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.34 0.10 0.31 0.15 0.34 0.10 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.6 3.7 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 244 1719 175 1502 268 1168 183 962
v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.12 0.05 c0.31 c0.14 c0.31 0.08 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.34 0.55 1.03 0.94 0.94 0.78 0.65
Uniform Delay, d1 57.6 34.1 60.1 48.6 58.8 45.1 61.2 43.7 Progression Factor 0.65 0.57 0.75 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.8 0.5 2.6 27.9 39.7 13.7 19.2 1.5 Delay (s) 46.1 19.8 47.4 62.0 98.5 58.8 80.4 45.2
Level of Service D B D E F E F D
Approach Delay (s) 25.8 61.2 66.2 51.4
Approach LOS C E E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 55.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 94 of 199 ends

700: S Sunnyvale Ave & Old San Francisco Rd Existing Timing HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 130 367 224 33 233
Future Volume (vph) 0 130 367 224 33 233
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.6 3.7 3.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.86 0.94 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1611 3276 1770 3539
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1611 3276 1770 3539
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.68 0.68 0.94 0.94 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 191 390 238 38 271
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 153 96 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 38 532 0 38 271
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 16
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 11 30
Turn Type Over NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 3 4 3 3 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.2 24.4 8.2 40.9
Effective Green, g (s) 8.2 24.4 8.2 36.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.60 0.20 0.89
Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.6 3.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 6.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 322 1954 354 3140
v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.16 0.02 0.08
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.12 0.27 0.11 0.09
Uniform Delay, d1 13.4 4.0 13.4 0.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0
Delay (s) 13.6 4.2 13.5 0.3
Level of Service B A B A
Approach Delay (s) 13.6 4.2 1.9
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 5.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.23
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 40.9 Sum of lost time (s) 8.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 95 of 199 ends

762: Sunnyvale Saratoga Rd/S Sunnyvale Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 132 421 32 79 1352 144 64 330 44 51 146 51 Future Volume (vph) 132 421 32 79 1352 144 64 330 44 51 146 51 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.1 3.7 4.1
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5021 1770 4998 1770 3456 3433 3373 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5021 1770 4998 1770 3456 3433 3373 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.80 Adj. Flow (vph) 153 490 37 89 1519 162 70 359 48 64 182 64 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 27 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 153 523 0 89 1674 0 70 398 0 64 220 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 14 9 19 13
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 6 19 6
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.4 70.1 13.1 70.8 10.6 30.5 10.4 30.3 Effective Green, g (s) 12.4 70.1 13.1 70.8 10.6 30.5 10.4 30.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.50 0.09 0.51 0.08 0.22 0.07 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.1 3.7 4.1
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 304 2514 165 2527 134 752 255 730
v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.10 c0.05 c0.33 c0.04 c0.12 0.02 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.21 0.54 0.66 0.52 0.53 0.25 0.30
Uniform Delay, d1 60.9 19.5 60.6 25.7 62.3 48.4 61.1 46.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.29 0.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.2 1.5 1.2 1.7 0.7 0.2 0.2
Delay (s) 61.3 19.7 79.5 12.3 64.0 49.1 61.3 46.2
Level of Service E B E B E D E D
Approach Delay (s) 29.0 15.7 51.3 49.3
Approach LOS C B D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 96 of 199 ends

822: El Camino Real & S Murphy Ave Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 11
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 53 558 1417 40 0 43
Future Volume (vph) 53 558 1417 40 0 43
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.4 4.4 4.4 3.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.86 0.91 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 6408 5085 1541 1611
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 6408 5085 1541 1611
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 62 656 1610 45 0 48
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 8 0 41
Lane Group Flow (vph) 62 656 1610 37 0 7
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 4 6
Permitted Phases 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.3 70.0 51.6 51.6 10.3
Effective Green, g (s) 10.3 66.3 51.6 51.6 10.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.95 0.74 0.74 0.15
Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.4 4.4 3.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 260 6069 3748 1135 237
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.10 c0.32
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.24 0.11 0.43 0.03 0.03
Uniform Delay, d1 26.4 0.1 3.5 2.5 25.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.40 0.68 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Delay (s) 26.6 0.1 5.2 1.7 25.6
Level of Service C A A A C
Approach Delay (s) 2.4 5.1 25.6
Approach LOS A A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 4.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 97 of 199 ends

832: Henderson Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 7 548 36 147 1423 89 43 52 79 100 55 84 Future Volume (vph) 7 548 36 147 1423 89 43 52 79 100 55 84 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 6.4 4.2 6.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5025 1770 5025 1814 1453 1747 1540 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.60 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5025 1770 5025 1295 1453 1077 1540 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.83 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph) 8 609 40 167 1617 101 75 91 139 120 66 101 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 86 0 0 74
Lane Group Flow (vph) 8 644 0 167 1714 0 0 166 53 0 186 27 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 14 13 69 69 13
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 2 6 4
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.8 63.6 16.7 76.5 34.9 34.9 34.9 34.9 Effective Green, g (s) 3.8 63.6 16.7 76.5 34.9 34.9 34.9 34.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.49 0.13 0.59 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 6.4 4.2 6.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 51 2458 227 2957 347 390 289 413
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.13 c0.09 c0.34
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.04 c0.17 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.26 0.74 0.58 0.48 0.14 0.64 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 61.5 19.5 54.5 16.7 39.9 36.1 42.1 35.4 Progression Factor 0.80 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.3 10.2 0.8 0.4 0.1 3.7 0.0
Delay (s) 49.7 12.1 64.7 17.5 40.3 36.2 45.7 35.4
Level of Service D B E B D D D D
Approach Delay (s) 12.6 21.7 38.4 42.1
Approach LOS B C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 98 of 199 ends

892: Poplar Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 75 487 21 122 1340 45 52 54 66 42 91 78 Future Volume (vph) 75 487 21 122 1340 45 52 54 66 42 91 78 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 6.4 5.0 6.4 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5045 1770 5051 1810 1551 1831 1496 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.68 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5045 1770 5051 1021 1551 1263 1496 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.64 0.64 0.64 Adj. Flow (vph) 88 573 25 131 1441 48 100 104 127 66 142 122 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 57 0 0 53
Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 595 0 131 1487 0 0 204 70 0 208 69 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 16 13 6 6 13
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 3 33
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4 4 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.2 68.2 14.5 70.5 30.9 30.9 30.9 30.9 Effective Green, g (s) 12.2 68.2 14.5 70.5 30.9 30.9 30.9 30.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.52 0.11 0.54 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.4 5.0 6.4 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 166 2646 197 2739 242 368 300 355
v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.12 c0.07 c0.29
v/s Ratio Perm c0.20 0.05 0.16 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.22 0.66 0.54 0.84 0.19 0.69 0.19
Uniform Delay, d1 56.2 16.7 55.4 19.3 47.2 39.6 45.2 39.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.39 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.2 5.5 0.7 21.7 0.1 5.5 0.1
Delay (s) 57.8 16.9 82.3 8.4 69.0 39.6 50.7 39.7
Level of Service E B F A E D D D
Approach Delay (s) 22.1 14.4 57.7 46.6
Approach LOS C B E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 99 of 199 ends

142: Bernardo Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis MID Peak
Kimley Horn Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 265 1007 65 144 892 74 141 96 54 58 86 221 Future Volume (vph) 265 1007 65 144 892 74 141 96 54 58 86 221 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.7 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.89
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5034 1770 4999 3433 1863 1552 1770 3057 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5034 1770 4999 3433 1863 1552 1770 3057 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph) 294 1119 72 153 949 79 168 114 64 70 104 266 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 46 0 198 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 294 1186 0 153 1022 0 168 114 18 70 172 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 21 5 32
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 3
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 28.7 45.1 25.3 41.7 15.3 39.6 39.6 11.5 35.8 Effective Green, g (s) 28.7 45.1 25.3 41.7 15.3 39.6 39.6 11.5 35.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.32 0.18 0.30 0.11 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.7 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 5.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 362 1621 319 1488 375 526 438 145 781 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 c0.24 0.09 c0.20 c0.05 0.06 c0.04 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.73 0.48 0.69 0.45 0.22 0.04 0.48 0.22
Uniform Delay, d1 53.1 42.1 51.4 43.4 58.4 38.4 36.4 61.4 41.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.61 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.3 3.0 1.3 2.5 1.0 0.3 0.1 3.0 0.2 Delay (s) 66.4 45.0 32.5 26.8 59.4 38.6 36.5 64.4 41.3
Level of Service E D C C E D D E D
Approach Delay (s) 49.3 27.5 48.3 44.9
Approach LOS D C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 41.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 100 of 199 ends

160: E Remington Dr/S Fair Oaks Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis MID Peak
Kimley Horn Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 258 662 120 181 613 127 122 357 147 114 344 176 Future Volume (vph) 258 662 120 181 613 127 122 357 147 114 344 176 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 5.1 3.7 5.1 5.1 3.7 5.1 3.7 5.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 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 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4917 1770 5085 1528 1770 3336 1770 3301 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 4917 1770 5085 1528 1770 3336 1770 3301 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 274 704 128 189 639 132 140 410 169 118 355 181 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 17 0 0 0 92 0 34 0 0 49 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 274 815 0 189 639 40 140 545 0 118 487 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 38 18 36 33
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 2 7
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 25.7 49.7 18.8 42.8 42.8 16.5 37.9 16.0 37.4 Effective Green, g (s) 25.7 49.7 18.8 42.8 42.8 16.5 37.9 16.0 37.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.36 0.13 0.31 0.31 0.12 0.27 0.11 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 5.1 3.7 5.1 5.1 3.7 5.1 3.7 5.1
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.5 2.0 4.5 4.5 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 324 1745 237 1554 467 208 903 202 881 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.17 0.11 0.13 c0.08 c0.16 0.07 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.47 0.80 0.41 0.09 0.67 0.60 0.58 0.55
Uniform Delay, d1 55.2 34.9 58.8 38.6 34.7 59.2 44.5 58.8 44.1 Progression Factor 0.88 0.59 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 16.7 0.9 15.8 0.8 0.4 6.6 1.1 2.8 0.8 Delay (s) 65.4 21.3 74.6 39.4 35.0 65.7 45.7 61.6 44.9
Level of Service E C E D D E D E D
Approach Delay (s) 32.2 45.7 49.6 47.9
Approach LOS C D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 101 of 199 ends

171: Grape Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis MID Peak
Kimley Horn Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 130 1006 35 95 976 75 14 4 35 66 5 45 Future Volume (vph) 130 1006 35 95 976 75 14 4 35 66 5 45 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5055 1770 4959 1791 1534 1751 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.82 1.00 0.73 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5055 1770 4959 1529 1534 1334 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 137 1059 37 98 1006 77 16 5 40 78 6 53
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 34 0 0 45
Lane Group Flow (vph) 137 1094 0 98 1079 0 0 21 6 0 84 8 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 53 2 15 15 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.7 92.4 13.5 90.2 21.8 21.8 21.8 21.8 Effective Green, g (s) 15.7 92.4 13.5 90.2 21.8 21.8 21.8 21.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.66 0.10 0.64 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 198 3336 170 3195 238 238 207 242
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.22 0.06 c0.22
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 c0.06 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.33 0.58 0.34 0.09 0.03 0.41 0.03
Uniform Delay, d1 59.8 10.3 60.5 11.3 50.6 50.1 53.3 50.2 Progression Factor 1.08 0.12 1.15 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.1 0.2 2.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0
Delay (s) 70.5 1.4 72.3 3.0 50.7 50.1 53.7 50.2
Level of Service E A E A D D D D
Approach Delay (s) 9.1 8.7 50.3 52.4
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 102 of 199 ends

260: Hollenbeck Ave/S Pastoria Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis MID Peak
Kimley Horn Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 121 946 83 190 820 65 118 112 170 67 143 65 Future Volume (vph) 121 946 83 190 820 65 118 112 170 67 143 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.2 3.7 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 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 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5009 3433 5021 1770 3170 1770 3539 1517 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5009 3433 5021 1770 3170 1770 3539 1517 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.80 0.80 0.80 Adj. Flow (vph) 132 1028 90 209 901 71 137 130 198 84 179 81 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 5 0 0 155 0 0 0 68
Lane Group Flow (vph) 132 1112 0 209 967 0 137 173 0 84 179 13 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 23 9 11 24
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 4
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 59.8 20.4 64.2 20.1 30.4 12.9 23.2 23.2 Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 59.8 20.4 64.2 20.1 30.4 12.9 23.2 23.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.43 0.15 0.46 0.14 0.22 0.09 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.2 3.7 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 202 2139 500 2302 254 688 163 586 251 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.22 0.06 c0.19 c0.08 0.05 c0.05 c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.52 0.42 0.42 0.54 0.25 0.52 0.31 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 59.3 29.5 54.4 25.4 55.7 45.4 60.6 51.3 49.2 Progression Factor 1.06 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.2 0.8 0.2 0.6 1.1 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.0 Delay (s) 69.0 21.0 54.6 26.0 56.8 45.4 61.7 51.4 49.2
Level of Service E C D C E D E D D
Approach Delay (s) 26.1 31.0 48.8 53.4
Approach LOS C C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 103 of 199 ends

320: S Wolfe Rd & El Camino Real/Poplar Ave Existing Timing HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis MID Peak
Kimley Horn Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 71 569 302 265 580 133 200 409 57 103 432 65 Future Volume (vph) 71 569 302 265 580 133 200 409 57 103 432 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 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 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1558 3433 5085 1534 3433 3539 1556 1770 5085 1549 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5085 1558 3433 5085 1534 3433 3539 1556 1770 5085 1549 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 79 632 336 285 624 143 215 440 61 106 445 67 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 248 0 0 96 0 0 46 0 0 50
Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 632 88 285 624 47 215 440 15 106 445 17 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 16 7 12
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 2
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.1 24.8 24.8 14.0 31.2 31.2 17.0 23.4 23.4 16.1 23.5 23.5 Effective Green, g (s) 8.1 24.8 24.8 14.0 31.2 31.2 17.0 23.4 23.4 16.1 23.5 23.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.15 0.33 0.33 0.18 0.25 0.25 0.17 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 151 1330 407 506 1673 504 615 873 384 300 1260 383 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.12 c0.08 0.12 0.06 c0.12 0.06 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.48 0.22 0.56 0.37 0.09 0.35 0.50 0.04 0.35 0.35 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 41.5 29.5 27.4 37.6 24.3 22.0 34.1 30.7 27.2 34.8 29.4 27.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 Delay (s) 43.0 29.9 27.8 38.4 24.5 22.1 34.2 30.9 27.2 35.0 29.4 27.1 Level of Service D C C D C C C C C D C C
Approach Delay (s) 30.2 28.0 31.6 30.2
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 94.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 104 of 199 ends

471: Cezanne Dr & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis MID Peak
Kimley Horn Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 29 920 82 30 854 39 18 21 36 120 34 143 Future Volume (vph) 29 920 82 30 854 39 18 21 36 120 34 143 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4986 1770 5041 1697 1770 1863 1534 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.67 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 4986 1770 5041 1608 1242 1863 1534 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 32 1000 89 31 871 40 21 25 42 129 37 154 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 27 0 0 0 119
Lane Group Flow (vph) 32 1084 0 31 909 0 0 61 0 129 37 35 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 34 16 18 17
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 3 1 3
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.2 84.6 8.9 86.3 31.6 31.6 31.6 31.6 Effective Green, g (s) 7.2 84.6 8.9 86.3 31.6 31.6 31.6 31.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.60 0.06 0.62 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 91 3012 112 3107 362 280 420 346
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.22 0.02 c0.18 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.10 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.35 0.36 0.28 0.29 0.17 0.46 0.09 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 64.1 14.0 62.5 12.6 43.6 46.8 42.8 42.9 Progression Factor 0.65 1.70 0.71 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0
Delay (s) 42.5 24.1 44.9 10.3 43.7 47.3 42.9 43.0
Level of Service D C D B D D D D
Approach Delay (s) 24.6 11.5 43.7 44.7
Approach LOS C B D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 105 of 199 ends

600: El Camino Real & Maria Ln Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis MID Peak
Kimley Horn Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 70 783 24 60 668 64 43 17 43 60 26 86 Future Volume (vph) 70 783 24 60 668 64 43 17 43 60 26 86 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.1 5.4 5.1 5.4 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5057 1770 5005 1773 1556 1795 1529 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.76 1.00 0.76 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5057 1770 5005 1393 1556 1403 1529 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.77 0.77 0.77 Adj. Flow (vph) 74 833 26 65 726 70 52 20 52 78 34 112
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 41 0 0 88
Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 857 0 65 789 0 0 72 11 0 112 24 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 3 22 4 4 22
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.8 58.4 16.7 65.3 25.4 25.4 24.8 24.8 Effective Green, g (s) 9.8 58.4 16.7 65.3 25.4 25.4 24.8 24.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.51 0.15 0.57 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 5.1 5.4 5.1 5.4 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 150 2568 257 2841 307 343 302 329
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.17 0.04 c0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.01 c0.08 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.33 0.25 0.28 0.23 0.03 0.37 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 50.2 16.8 43.6 12.8 36.8 35.2 38.4 35.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0
Delay (s) 51.2 17.1 43.8 13.0 37.0 35.2 38.7 36.0
Level of Service D B D B D D D D
Approach Delay (s) 19.8 15.3 36.2 37.4
Approach LOS B B D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 115.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 106 of 199 ends

690: S Mary Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis MID Peak
Kimley Horn Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 216 833 91 121 841 170 114 188 86 161 163 182 Future Volume (vph) 216 833 91 121 841 170 114 188 86 161 163 182 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.6 3.7 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4994 1770 4941 1770 3354 1770 3221 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 4994 1770 4941 1770 3354 1770 3221 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adj. Flow (vph) 223 859 94 130 904 183 133 219 100 187 190 212 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 18 0 0 45 0 0 167 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 223 946 0 130 1069 0 133 274 0 187 235 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 16 5 1 10
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 4
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 25.3 64.4 16.0 55.1 15.9 24.2 19.0 27.3 Effective Green, g (s) 25.3 64.4 16.0 55.1 15.9 24.2 19.0 27.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.46 0.11 0.39 0.11 0.17 0.14 0.20 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.6 3.7 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 319 2297 202 1944 201 579 240 628
v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.19 c0.07 c0.22 0.08 c0.08 c0.11 c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.41 0.64 0.55 0.66 0.47 0.78 0.37
Uniform Delay, d1 53.8 25.2 59.3 32.9 59.5 52.2 58.5 48.9 Progression Factor 0.78 0.92 0.63 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.3 0.5 6.5 1.1 7.9 0.6 14.7 0.4
Delay (s) 48.3 23.8 43.8 19.0 67.4 52.8 73.2 49.3
Level of Service D C D B E D E D
Approach Delay (s) 28.5 21.7 57.1 56.9
Approach LOS C C E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 107 of 199 ends

700: S Sunnyvale Ave & Old San Francisco Rd Existing Timing HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis MID Peak
Kimley Horn Page 9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 110 326 215 57 304
Future Volume (vph) 0 110 326 215 57 304
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.6 3.7 3.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.86 0.94 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1611 3281 1770 3539
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1611 3281 1770 3539
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.87 0.87 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 124 375 247 60 320
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 99 99 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 25 523 0 60 320
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 18
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 6
Turn Type Over NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 3 4 3 3 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.2 24.6 8.2 41.1
Effective Green, g (s) 8.2 24.6 8.2 36.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.60 0.20 0.89
Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.6 3.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 6.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 321 1963 353 3142
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.16 c0.03 0.09
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.08 0.27 0.17 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 13.4 3.9 13.6 0.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0
Delay (s) 13.5 4.1 13.9 0.3
Level of Service B A B A
Approach Delay (s) 13.5 4.1 2.4
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 4.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.24
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 41.1 Sum of lost time (s) 8.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 108 of 199 ends

762: Sunnyvale Saratoga Rd/S Sunnyvale Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis MID Peak
Kimley Horn Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 173 851 88 123 849 84 184 253 118 117 142 73 Future Volume (vph) 173 851 88 123 849 84 184 253 118 117 142 73 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.1 3.7 4.1
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 4986 1770 4996 1770 3294 3433 3306 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 4986 1770 4996 1770 3294 3433 3306 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 192 946 98 128 884 88 207 284 133 130 158 81 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 7 0 0 47 0 0 49 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 192 1036 0 128 965 0 207 370 0 130 190 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 34 20 38 27
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 6 19 6
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.1 53.4 18.3 58.6 19.2 30.1 22.3 33.2 Effective Green, g (s) 13.1 53.4 18.3 58.6 19.2 30.1 22.3 33.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.38 0.13 0.42 0.14 0.22 0.16 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.1 3.7 4.1
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 321 1901 231 2091 242 708 546 783
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.21 c0.07 0.19 c0.12 c0.11 0.04 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.54 0.55 0.46 0.86 0.52 0.24 0.24
Uniform Delay, d1 60.9 33.8 57.0 29.3 59.0 48.6 51.4 43.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 1.1 1.6 0.7 23.6 0.7 0.1 0.2
Delay (s) 62.9 34.9 52.8 22.9 82.6 49.3 51.5 43.4
Level of Service E C D C F D D D
Approach Delay (s) 39.3 26.3 60.3 46.2
Approach LOS D C E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 39.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 109 of 199 ends

822: El Camino Real & S Murphy Ave Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis MID Peak
Kimley Horn Page 11
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 106 1025 1065 46 0 46
Future Volume (vph) 106 1025 1065 46 0 46
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.4 4.4 4.4 3.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.86 0.91 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 6408 5085 1534 1611
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 6408 5085 1534 1611
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.72 0.72
Adj. Flow (vph) 112 1079 1170 51 0 64
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 13 0 54
Lane Group Flow (vph) 112 1079 1170 38 0 10
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 4 6
Permitted Phases 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.8 70.0 51.1 51.1 10.8
Effective Green, g (s) 10.8 66.3 51.1 51.1 10.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.95 0.73 0.73 0.15
Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.4 4.4 3.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 273 6069 3712 1119 248
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.17 c0.23
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.18 0.32 0.03 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 26.7 0.1 3.3 2.6 25.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.51 0.71 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Delay (s) 27.1 0.1 1.9 1.9 25.2
Level of Service C A A A C
Approach Delay (s) 2.7 1.9 25.2
Approach LOS A A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 2.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.33
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 110 of 199 ends

832: Henderson Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis MID Peak
Kimley Horn Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 88 911 25 238 738 72 56 10 85 86 18 49 Future Volume (vph) 88 911 25 238 738 72 56 10 85 86 18 49 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 6.4 4.2 6.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5058 1770 5000 1779 1533 1762 1552 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.65 1.00 0.70 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5058 1770 5000 1206 1533 1291 1552 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.72 0.72 0.72 Adj. Flow (vph) 96 990 27 251 777 76 65 12 99 119 25 68 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 76 0 0 52
Lane Group Flow (vph) 96 1015 0 251 846 0 0 77 23 0 144 16 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 8 7 21 21 7
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 2 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 18.8 62.8 22.7 66.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 Effective Green, g (s) 18.8 62.8 22.7 66.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.48 0.17 0.51 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 6.4 4.2 6.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 255 2443 309 2565 275 350 294 354
v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.20 c0.14 0.17
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.01 c0.11 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.42 0.81 0.33 0.28 0.06 0.49 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 50.3 21.7 51.6 18.6 41.3 39.3 43.6 39.1 Progression Factor 0.82 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.5 14.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0
Delay (s) 41.5 15.5 65.8 18.9 41.5 39.3 44.0 39.1
Level of Service D B E B D D D D
Approach Delay (s) 17.8 29.6 40.3 42.5
Approach LOS B C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 111 of 199 ends

892: Poplar Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis MID Peak
Kimley Horn Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 92 925 19 52 841 23 12 8 15 35 9 40 Future Volume (vph) 92 925 19 52 841 23 12 8 15 35 9 40 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 6.4 5.0 6.4 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 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 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5065 1770 5058 1804 1557 1785 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.75 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5065 1770 5058 1549 1557 1398 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 99 995 20 55 885 24 15 10 19 42 11 48
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 17 0 0 42
Lane Group Flow (vph) 99 1014 0 55 908 0 0 25 2 0 53 6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 14 13 4 5 5 4
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4 4 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.7 89.6 9.0 85.9 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Effective Green, g (s) 12.7 89.6 9.0 85.9 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.69 0.07 0.66 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.4 5.0 6.4 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 172 3490 122 3342 178 179 161 179
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.20 0.03 0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 c0.04 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.58 0.29 0.45 0.27 0.14 0.01 0.33 0.03
Uniform Delay, d1 56.1 7.8 58.1 9.1 51.7 50.9 52.9 51.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.39 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0
Delay (s) 59.0 8.1 81.8 3.6 51.8 50.9 53.3 51.1
Level of Service E A F A D D D D
Approach Delay (s) 12.6 8.1 51.5 52.2
Approach LOS B A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.33
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 112 of 199 ends

142: Bernardo Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 367 1363 197 145 886 103 160 143 80 115 278 213 Future Volume (vph) 367 1363 197 145 886 103 160 143 80 115 278 213 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.7 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 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 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4978 1770 4944 3433 1863 1545 1770 3236 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 4978 1770 4944 3433 1863 1545 1770 3236 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.81 0.81 0.81 Adj. Flow (vph) 395 1466 212 158 963 112 176 157 88 142 343 263 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0 0 9 0 0 0 67 0 98 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 395 1666 0 158 1066 0 176 157 21 142 508 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 38 10 35
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 36.5 59.5 20.3 43.3 14.4 36.0 36.0 15.7 37.3 Effective Green, g (s) 36.5 59.5 20.3 43.3 14.4 36.0 36.0 15.7 37.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.40 0.14 0.29 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.7 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 5.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 430 1974 239 1427 329 447 370 185 804 v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 c0.33 0.09 c0.22 0.05 0.08 c0.08 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.92 0.84 0.66 0.75 0.53 0.35 0.06 0.77 0.63
Uniform Delay, d1 55.3 41.0 61.6 48.4 64.6 47.3 43.9 65.4 50.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.59 0.49 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 24.7 4.6 6.8 3.5 1.9 0.7 0.1 17.7 1.7 Delay (s) 80.0 45.7 43.3 27.0 66.5 48.0 44.0 83.1 51.9
Level of Service E D D C E D D F D
Approach Delay (s) 52.2 29.1 54.9 57.9
Approach LOS D C D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 47.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.0% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 113 of 199 ends

160: E Remington Dr/S Fair Oaks Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 223 1261 157 151 658 159 125 499 222 146 677 154 Future Volume (vph) 223 1261 157 151 658 159 125 499 222 146 677 154 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 5.1 3.7 5.1 5.1 3.7 5.1 3.7 5.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.99 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 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4972 1770 5085 1456 1770 3330 1770 3387 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 4972 1770 5085 1456 1770 3330 1770 3387 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 232 1314 164 161 700 169 139 554 247 157 728 166 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 0 112 0 34 0 0 13 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 232 1468 0 161 700 57 139 767 0 157 881 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 27 49 58 27 27 58
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 2 4 10
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 23.1 57.5 16.2 50.6 50.6 16.5 42.2 16.5 42.2 Effective Green, g (s) 23.1 57.5 16.2 50.6 50.6 16.5 42.2 16.5 42.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.38 0.11 0.34 0.34 0.11 0.28 0.11 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 5.1 3.7 5.1 5.1 3.7 5.1 3.7 5.1
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.5 2.0 4.5 4.5 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 272 1905 191 1715 491 194 936 194 952 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.30 0.09 0.14 0.08 0.23 c0.09 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.77 0.84 0.41 0.12 0.72 0.82 0.81 0.93
Uniform Delay, d1 61.8 40.5 65.7 38.2 34.3 64.5 50.3 65.2 52.4 Progression Factor 1.41 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 18.9 2.7 26.3 0.7 0.5 10.0 5.7 20.4 14.3 Delay (s) 106.2 25.4 91.9 38.9 34.8 74.5 56.0 85.6 66.7 Level of Service F C F D C E E F E
Approach Delay (s) 36.3 46.5 58.8 69.5
Approach LOS D D E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 50.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 114 of 199 ends

171: Grape Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 116 1573 24 80 900 98 14 13 37 86 6 32 Future Volume (vph) 116 1573 24 80 900 98 14 13 37 86 6 32 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5070 1770 4975 1813 1534 1755 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.72 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5070 1770 4975 1603 1534 1322 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 125 1691 26 87 978 107 15 14 39 95 7 35 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 33 0 0 30
Lane Group Flow (vph) 125 1716 0 87 1079 0 0 29 6 0 102 5 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 14 3 12 12 3
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.6 102.0 13.3 99.7 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 Effective Green, g (s) 15.6 102.0 13.3 99.7 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.68 0.09 0.66 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 184 3447 156 3306 239 229 197 232
v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.34 0.05 0.22
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 c0.08 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.50 0.56 0.33 0.12 0.03 0.52 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 64.8 11.6 65.5 10.8 55.3 54.5 58.8 54.5 Progression Factor 1.04 0.23 1.02 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.1 0.3 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.0
Delay (s) 72.6 3.0 68.5 1.6 55.4 54.5 59.8 54.5
Level of Service E A E A E D E D
Approach Delay (s) 7.8 6.6 54.9 58.4
Approach LOS A A D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 115 of 199 ends

260: Hollenbeck Ave/S Pastoria Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 101 1296 180 301 846 74 121 180 143 78 394 92 Future Volume (vph) 101 1296 180 301 846 74 121 180 143 78 394 92 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.2 3.7 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 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 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4971 3433 5014 1770 3262 1770 3539 1527 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 4971 3433 5014 1770 3262 1770 3539 1527 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 115 1473 205 354 995 87 127 189 151 84 424 99 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 5 0 0 108 0 0 0 81
Lane Group Flow (vph) 115 1668 0 354 1077 0 127 232 0 84 424 18 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 9 12 14
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 7
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.5 69.7 20.3 74.5 15.5 30.3 13.2 28.0 28.0 Effective Green, g (s) 15.5 69.7 20.3 74.5 15.5 30.3 13.2 28.0 28.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.46 0.14 0.50 0.10 0.20 0.09 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.2 3.7 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 182 2309 464 2490 182 658 155 660 285 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.34 c0.10 0.21 c0.07 0.07 0.05 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.63 0.72 0.76 0.43 0.70 0.35 0.54 0.64 0.06
Uniform Delay, d1 64.5 32.4 62.5 24.2 65.0 51.4 65.5 56.4 50.2 Progression Factor 1.21 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.3 1.4 6.6 0.5 9.0 0.1 2.1 1.6 0.0 Delay (s) 82.5 14.4 69.1 24.7 74.0 51.5 67.6 58.0 50.3
Level of Service F B E C E D E E D
Approach Delay (s) 18.8 35.7 57.7 58.1
Approach LOS B D E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 116 of 199 ends

320: S Wolfe Rd & El Camino Real/Poplar Ave Existing Timing HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 49 1241 430 394 554 101 319 544 195 204 1202 49 Future Volume (vph) 49 1241 430 394 554 101 319 544 195 204 1202 49 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 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 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1525 3433 5085 1485 3433 3539 1527 1770 5085 1512 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5085 1525 3433 5085 1485 3433 3539 1527 1770 5085 1512 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 51 1293 448 424 596 109 354 604 217 210 1239 51 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 277 0 0 61 0 0 155 0 0 38
Lane Group Flow (vph) 51 1293 171 424 596 48 354 604 62 210 1239 13 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 31 30 19 19 30
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 4
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.7 47.4 47.4 22.5 62.7 62.7 20.6 34.9 34.9 22.2 37.5 37.5 Effective Green, g (s) 7.7 47.4 47.4 22.5 62.7 62.7 20.6 34.9 34.9 22.2 37.5 37.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.33 0.33 0.16 0.44 0.44 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.15 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 94 1679 503 538 2221 648 492 860 371 273 1328 395 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.25 c0.12 0.12 0.10 c0.17 0.12 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.77 0.34 0.79 0.27 0.07 0.72 0.70 0.17 0.77 0.93 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 66.2 43.2 36.3 58.2 25.8 23.5 58.7 49.6 42.8 58.2 51.8 39.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.4 2.4 0.6 7.0 0.1 0.1 4.2 2.1 0.1 11.1 11.8 0.0 Delay (s) 69.6 45.5 36.8 65.2 25.9 23.6 62.9 51.7 42.9 69.3 63.6 39.5 Level of Service E D D E C C E D D E E D
Approach Delay (s) 44.0 40.4 53.4 63.6
Approach LOS D D D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 50.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 143.5 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 117 of 199 ends

471: Cezanne Dr & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 96 1572 44 53 810 35 3 45 54 136 71 155 Future Volume (vph) 96 1572 44 53 810 35 3 45 54 136 71 155 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5056 1770 5044 1682 1723 1863 1531 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.56 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5056 1770 5044 1674 1014 1863 1531 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.83 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph) 99 1621 45 58 880 38 4 56 68 164 86 187 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 31 0 0 0 145
Lane Group Flow (vph) 99 1664 0 58 916 0 0 97 0 164 86 42 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 19 13 18 33 33 18
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 3 1 3
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.0 91.4 10.3 87.7 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 Effective Green, g (s) 14.0 91.4 10.3 87.7 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.61 0.07 0.58 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 165 3080 121 2949 372 225 414 340
v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.33 c0.03 0.18 0.05
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.16 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.54 0.48 0.31 0.26 0.73 0.21 0.12
Uniform Delay, d1 65.3 17.1 67.3 15.8 48.1 54.1 47.5 46.6 Progression Factor 0.54 1.84 0.84 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.7 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.1 9.6 0.1 0.1
Delay (s) 37.7 31.9 57.1 11.4 48.2 63.7 47.6 46.6
Level of Service D C E B D E D D
Approach Delay (s) 32.2 14.1 48.2 53.2
Approach LOS C B D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 30.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 118 of 199 ends

600: El Camino Real & Maria Ln Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 96 1545 14 53 741 73 30 17 40 108 23 67 Future Volume (vph) 96 1545 14 53 741 73 30 17 40 108 23 67 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.1 5.4 5.1 5.4 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5077 1770 4996 1794 1552 1778 1545 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.73 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5077 1770 4996 1394 1552 1343 1545 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph) 103 1661 15 61 852 84 36 20 48 130 28 81 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 39 0 0 66
Lane Group Flow (vph) 103 1676 0 61 930 0 0 56 9 0 158 15 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 10 11 7 7 11
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 3
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.3 69.7 17.5 73.9 23.3 23.3 22.7 22.7 Effective Green, g (s) 13.3 69.7 17.5 73.9 23.3 23.3 22.7 22.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.56 0.14 0.59 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 5.1 5.4 5.1 5.4 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 188 2830 247 2953 259 289 243 280
v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.33 0.03 c0.19
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.01 c0.12 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.55 0.59 0.25 0.31 0.22 0.03 0.65 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 53.0 18.3 47.9 12.8 43.1 41.6 47.5 42.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 4.7 0.0
Delay (s) 54.7 19.2 48.1 13.1 43.3 41.6 52.1 42.3
Level of Service D B D B D D D D
Approach Delay (s) 21.2 15.3 42.5 48.8
Approach LOS C B D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 125.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 119 of 199 ends

690: S Mary Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 258 1168 170 158 924 108 93 235 81 192 821 146 Future Volume (vph) 258 1168 170 158 924 108 93 235 81 192 821 146 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.6 3.7 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4977 1770 4979 1770 3388 1770 3443 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 4977 1770 4979 1770 3388 1770 3443 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 274 1243 181 176 1027 120 104 264 91 211 902 160 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0 0 9 0 0 23 0 0 9 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 274 1412 0 176 1138 0 104 332 0 211 1053 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 28 3 11
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 3 12
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 24.3 49.2 18.5 43.4 14.8 44.0 21.9 51.1 Effective Green, g (s) 24.3 49.2 18.5 43.4 14.8 44.0 21.9 51.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.33 0.12 0.29 0.10 0.29 0.15 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.6 3.7 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 286 1632 218 1440 174 993 258 1172
v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.28 0.10 c0.23 0.06 0.10 c0.12 c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.96 0.87 0.81 0.79 0.60 0.33 0.82 0.90
Uniform Delay, d1 62.3 47.3 64.0 49.1 64.7 41.5 62.1 47.0 Progression Factor 0.78 0.74 0.74 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 38.7 5.8 18.2 4.2 5.4 0.2 17.9 9.3 Delay (s) 87.4 40.7 65.4 42.7 70.2 41.7 80.0 56.3
Level of Service F D E D E D F E
Approach Delay (s) 48.2 45.7 48.2 60.2
Approach LOS D D D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 50.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 120 of 199 ends

700: S Sunnyvale Ave & Old San Francisco Rd Existing Timing HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 111 338 215 105 503
Future Volume (vph) 0 111 338 215 105 503
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.6 3.7 3.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.86 0.94 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1611 3262 1770 3539
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1611 3262 1770 3539
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 128 367 234 108 519
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 107 64 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 21 537 0 108 519
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 27
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3
Turn Type Over NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 3 4 3 3 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.1 54.6 12.1 75.0
Effective Green, g (s) 12.1 54.6 12.1 70.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.73 0.16 0.94
Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.6 3.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 6.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 259 2374 285 3321
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.16 c0.06 0.15
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.08 0.23 0.38 0.16
Uniform Delay, d1 26.7 3.3 28.1 0.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.07 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.0
Delay (s) 26.9 3.8 28.9 0.2
Level of Service C A C A
Approach Delay (s) 26.9 3.8 5.1
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 6.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.25
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 121 of 199 ends

762: Sunnyvale Saratoga Rd/S Sunnyvale Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 215 1407 100 128 834 99 164 263 96 223 203 98 Future Volume (vph) 215 1407 100 128 834 99 164 263 96 223 203 98 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.1 3.7 4.1
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5021 1770 4978 1770 3348 3433 3302 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5021 1770 4978 1770 3348 3433 3302 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adj. Flow (vph) 231 1513 108 135 878 104 180 289 105 259 236 114 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 9 0 0 26 0 0 41 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 231 1616 0 135 973 0 180 368 0 259 309 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 24 35 22
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 4 22
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.7 64.7 18.3 68.3 17.7 34.4 16.7 33.4 Effective Green, g (s) 14.7 64.7 18.3 68.3 17.7 34.4 16.7 33.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.43 0.12 0.46 0.12 0.23 0.11 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.1 3.7 4.1
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 336 2165 215 2266 208 767 382 735
v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.32 c0.08 0.20 c0.10 c0.11 c0.08 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.75 0.63 0.43 0.87 0.48 0.68 0.42
Uniform Delay, d1 65.4 35.8 62.6 27.7 65.0 50.0 64.1 50.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.22 1.35 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.5 2.3 4.0 0.6 28.3 0.5 3.7 0.4
Delay (s) 69.9 38.1 80.4 37.8 93.3 50.5 67.8 50.4
Level of Service E D F D F D E D
Approach Delay (s) 42.1 42.9 63.9 57.8
Approach LOS D D E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 47.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 122 of 199 ends

822: El Camino Real & S Murphy Ave Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 11
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 69 1642 1010 56 0 71
Future Volume (vph) 69 1642 1010 56 0 71
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.4 4.4 4.4 3.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.86 0.91 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 6408 5085 1524 1611
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 6408 5085 1524 1611
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.94 0.94 0.81 0.81
Adj. Flow (vph) 79 1887 1074 60 0 88
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 15 0 71
Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 1887 1074 45 0 17
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 4 6
Permitted Phases 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.6 75.0 52.3 52.3 14.6
Effective Green, g (s) 14.6 71.3 52.3 52.3 14.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.95 0.70 0.70 0.19
Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.4 4.4 3.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 344 6091 3545 1062 313
v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.29 0.21
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.23 0.31 0.30 0.04 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 25.5 0.1 4.4 3.5 24.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.55 1.27 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0
Delay (s) 25.6 0.1 2.6 4.6 24.6
Level of Service C A A A C
Approach Delay (s) 1.2 2.7 24.6
Approach LOS A A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 2.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.33
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 123 of 199 ends

832: Henderson Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 112 1794 35 249 766 139 78 26 71 96 52 71 Future Volume (vph) 112 1794 35 249 766 139 78 26 71 96 52 71 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 6.4 4.2 6.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5064 1770 4945 1786 1519 1778 1542 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.56 1.00 0.66 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5064 1770 4945 1046 1519 1217 1542 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 114 1831 36 268 824 149 89 30 81 109 59 81 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 16 0 0 0 62 0 0 62
Lane Group Flow (vph) 114 1866 0 268 957 0 0 119 19 0 168 19 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 19 4 10 28 28 10
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 3 2 5
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 18.8 59.9 25.3 66.4 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.8 59.9 25.3 66.4 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.46 0.19 0.51 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 6.4 4.2 6.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 255 2333 344 2525 241 350 280 355
v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.37 c0.15 0.19
v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.01 c0.14 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.45 0.80 0.78 0.38 0.49 0.05 0.60 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 50.8 29.9 49.7 19.3 43.4 38.9 44.6 38.9 Progression Factor 0.62 0.48 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 2.3 9.7 0.4 0.6 0.0 2.3 0.0
Delay (s) 31.7 16.7 59.4 19.7 44.0 39.0 46.9 39.0
Level of Service C B E B D D D D
Approach Delay (s) 17.6 28.3 42.0 44.3
Approach LOS B C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 124 of 199 ends

892: Poplar Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak
Kimley Horn Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 29 1936 116 71 877 41 24 28 28 41 26 53 Future Volume (vph) 29 1936 116 71 877 41 24 28 28 41 26 53 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 6.4 5.0 6.4 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5026 1770 5040 1816 1554 1803 1553 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.79 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5026 1770 5040 1573 1554 1466 1553 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.81 0.81 Adj. Flow (vph) 31 2038 122 76 943 44 30 35 35 51 32 65 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 29 0 0 54
Lane Group Flow (vph) 31 2157 0 76 985 0 0 65 6 0 83 11 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 13 6 4 4 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 1 2 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4 4 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.6 81.2 9.6 84.2 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.8 Effective Green, g (s) 6.6 81.2 9.6 84.2 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.62 0.07 0.65 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.4 5.0 6.4 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 89 3139 130 3264 275 272 257 272
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.43 c0.04 c0.20
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.00 c0.06 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.35 0.69 0.58 0.30 0.24 0.02 0.32 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 59.6 16.0 58.3 10.0 46.1 44.4 46.9 44.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.30 0.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 1.2 4.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0
Delay (s) 60.5 17.3 80.1 3.6 46.3 44.4 47.1 44.5
Level of Service E B F A D D D D
Approach Delay (s) 17.9 9.1 45.6 46.0
Approach LOS B A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 125 of 199 ends

142: Bernardo Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekend Peak Kimley Horn Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 241 817 79 120 872 65 169 72 70 75 92 307 Future Volume (vph) 241 817 79 120 872 65 169 72 70 75 92 307 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.7 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 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 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.88
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5005 1770 5003 3433 1863 1547 1770 3009 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5005 1770 5003 3433 1863 1547 1770 3009 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 259 878 85 126 918 68 194 83 80 81 99 330 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 5 0 0 0 59 0 244 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 259 957 0 126 981 0 194 83 21 81 185 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 14 28 9 35
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 2 6
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 25.7 40.3 25.2 39.8 15.9 35.4 35.4 15.5 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 25.7 40.3 25.2 39.8 15.9 35.4 35.4 15.5 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.30 0.19 0.30 0.12 0.26 0.26 0.11 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.7 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 5.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 337 1495 330 1476 404 488 405 203 780 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.19 0.07 c0.20 c0.06 0.04 0.05 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.77 0.64 0.38 0.66 0.48 0.17 0.05 0.40 0.24
Uniform Delay, d1 51.8 41.0 48.0 41.7 55.6 38.4 37.2 55.4 39.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.4 1.4 0.9 1.5 1.1 0.2 0.1 1.5 0.2 Delay (s) 62.2 42.4 48.9 43.2 56.7 38.6 37.3 56.9 39.6
Level of Service E D D D E D D E D
Approach Delay (s) 46.6 43.9 48.1 42.3
Approach LOS D D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 45.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 134.9 Sum of lost time (s) 18.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 126 of 199 ends

160: E Remington Dr/S Fair Oaks Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekend Peak Kimley Horn Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 208 630 147 178 704 115 119 310 193 121 336 185 Future Volume (vph) 208 630 147 178 704 115 119 310 193 121 336 185 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 5.1 3.7 5.1 5.1 3.7 5.1 3.7 5.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 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 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4881 1770 5085 1509 1770 3256 1770 3271 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 4881 1770 5085 1509 1770 3256 1770 3271 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow (vph) 234 708 165 198 782 128 135 352 219 139 386 213 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 25 0 0 0 86 0 72 0 0 57 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 234 848 0 198 782 42 135 499 0 139 542 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 38 27 45 50 50 45
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 10
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 22.1 48.7 19.1 45.7 45.7 16.3 37.9 16.7 38.3 Effective Green, g (s) 22.1 48.7 19.1 45.7 45.7 16.3 37.9 16.7 38.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.35 0.14 0.33 0.33 0.12 0.27 0.12 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 5.1 3.7 5.1 5.1 3.7 5.1 3.7 5.1
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.5 2.0 4.5 4.5 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 279 1697 241 1659 492 206 881 211 894 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.17 0.11 0.15 0.08 0.15 c0.08 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.50 0.82 0.47 0.08 0.66 0.57 0.66 0.61
Uniform Delay, d1 57.2 36.0 58.8 37.5 32.7 59.2 44.0 58.9 44.3 Progression Factor 1.36 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 18.0 1.0 18.8 1.0 0.3 5.6 0.8 5.6 1.2 Delay (s) 96.1 15.6 77.6 38.5 33.0 64.8 44.8 64.5 45.5
Level of Service F B E D C E D E D
Approach Delay (s) 32.6 44.9 48.6 49.0
Approach LOS C D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 127 of 199 ends

171: Grape Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekend Peak Kimley Horn Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 128 823 40 85 923 93 23 13 34 79 10 52 Future Volume (vph) 128 823 40 85 923 93 23 13 34 79 10 52 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5041 1770 4964 1802 1550 1772 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.82 1.00 0.72 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5041 1770 4964 1522 1550 1336 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adj. Flow (vph) 147 946 46 90 982 99 26 15 39 92 12 60
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 9 0 0 0 32 0 0 49
Lane Group Flow (vph) 147 989 0 90 1072 0 0 41 7 0 104 11 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 13 54 5 13 13 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 1 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.7 34.8 9.4 29.5 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 Effective Green, g (s) 14.7 34.8 9.4 29.5 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.50 0.14 0.43 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 375 2531 240 2113 281 286 246 287
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.20 0.05 c0.22
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.00 c0.08 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.51 0.15 0.03 0.42 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 23.5 10.7 27.3 14.6 23.7 23.1 25.0 23.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0
Delay (s) 23.7 10.8 27.6 14.8 23.8 23.2 25.4 23.2
Level of Service C B C B C C C C
Approach Delay (s) 12.5 15.8 23.5 24.6
Approach LOS B B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.3 Sum of lost time (s) 12.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 128 of 199 ends

260: Hollenbeck Ave/S Pastoria Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekend Peak Kimley Horn Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 74 774 64 193 769 60 83 132 134 65 123 59 Future Volume (vph) 74 774 64 193 769 60 83 132 134 65 123 59 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.2 3.7 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5015 3433 5020 1770 3213 1770 3539 1511 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5015 3433 5020 1770 3213 1770 3539 1511 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 82 860 71 210 836 65 90 143 146 74 140 67 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 5 0 0 96 0 0 0 49
Lane Group Flow (vph) 82 925 0 210 896 0 90 193 0 74 140 18 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 19 18 28 33
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 1 11
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.4 31.0 15.3 35.9 13.2 31.8 9.5 28.1 28.1 Effective Green, g (s) 10.4 31.0 15.3 35.9 13.2 31.8 9.5 28.1 28.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.30 0.15 0.34 0.13 0.31 0.09 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.2 3.7 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 176 1493 504 1731 224 981 161 955 407 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.18 0.06 c0.18 0.05 c0.06 c0.04 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.62 0.42 0.52 0.40 0.20 0.46 0.15 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 44.2 31.5 40.3 27.2 41.8 26.7 44.9 28.9 28.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 45.6 32.4 40.5 27.5 42.2 26.7 45.6 28.9 28.1
Level of Service D C D C D C D C C
Approach Delay (s) 33.4 30.0 30.4 33.1
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 104.1 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 129 of 199 ends

320: S Wolfe Rd & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekend Peak Kimley Horn Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 62 475 250 269 627 141 231 327 53 91 415 74 Future Volume (vph) 62 475 250 269 627 141 231 327 53 91 415 74 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 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 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1537 3433 5085 1513 3433 3539 1555 1770 5085 1548 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5085 1537 3433 5085 1513 3433 3539 1555 1770 5085 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow (vph) 66 505 266 283 660 148 272 385 62 105 477 85 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 202 0 0 101 0 0 46 0 0 63
Lane Group Flow (vph) 66 505 64 283 660 47 272 385 16 105 477 22 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 30 7 16
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 1 1
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.7 22.2 22.2 14.3 29.3 29.3 17.3 23.6 23.6 16.2 23.5 23.5 Effective Green, g (s) 7.7 22.2 22.2 14.3 29.3 29.3 17.3 23.6 23.6 16.2 23.5 23.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.24 0.24 0.15 0.32 0.32 0.19 0.25 0.25 0.17 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 146 1216 367 529 1605 477 639 900 395 308 1287 392 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.10 c0.08 c0.13 0.08 c0.11 0.06 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.45 0.42 0.17 0.53 0.41 0.10 0.43 0.43 0.04 0.34 0.37 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 40.5 29.8 28.0 36.2 25.0 22.4 33.4 29.0 26.1 33.6 28.6 26.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 Delay (s) 41.4 30.1 28.3 36.7 25.2 22.5 33.5 29.1 26.1 33.9 28.6 26.3 Level of Service D C C D C C C C C C C C
Approach Delay (s) 30.4 27.8 30.5 29.1
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 92.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 130 of 199 ends

471: Cezanne Dr & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekend Peak Kimley Horn Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 76 852 26 43 831 45 25 30 55 97 42 139 Future Volume (vph) 76 852 26 43 831 45 25 30 55 97 42 139 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5056 1770 5036 1687 1746 1863 1548 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.93 0.58 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5056 1770 5036 1585 1070 1863 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adj. Flow (vph) 84 936 29 51 978 53 30 36 66 113 49 162 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 30 0 0 0 126
Lane Group Flow (vph) 84 963 0 51 1028 0 0 102 0 113 49 36 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 18 18 10
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 2 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.9 82.1 11.9 81.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 Effective Green, g (s) 12.9 82.1 11.9 81.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.59 0.09 0.58 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 163 2964 150 2917 352 237 413 343
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.19 0.03 c0.20 0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.11 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.29 0.48 0.12 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 60.6 14.8 60.3 15.6 45.3 47.4 43.5 43.4 Progression Factor 0.71 1.74 0.76 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0
Delay (s) 43.8 26.0 46.0 10.8 45.4 47.9 43.5 43.4
Level of Service D C D B D D D D
Approach Delay (s) 27.4 12.5 45.4 45.0
Approach LOS C B D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 131 of 199 ends

600: El Camino Real & Maria Ln Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekend Peak Kimley Horn Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 67 712 23 41 785 63 14 15 28 74 28 73 Future Volume (vph) 67 712 23 41 785 63 14 15 28 74 28 73 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.1 5.4 5.1 5.4 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5056 1770 5012 1808 1553 1803 1542 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.79 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5056 1770 5012 1571 1553 1475 1542 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.95 0.50 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 72 766 25 45 863 69 22 23 43 78 56 77
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 35 0 0 63
Lane Group Flow (vph) 72 789 0 45 927 0 0 45 8 0 134 14 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 10 14 7 7 14
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 4
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.8 62.1 16.7 69.0 21.7 21.7 21.1 21.1 Effective Green, g (s) 9.8 62.1 16.7 69.0 21.7 21.7 21.1 21.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.54 0.15 0.60 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 5.1 5.4 5.1 5.4 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 150 2730 257 3007 296 293 270 282
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.16 0.03 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 c0.09 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.48 0.29 0.18 0.31 0.15 0.03 0.50 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 50.2 14.4 43.1 11.3 39.0 38.0 42.2 38.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0
Delay (s) 51.1 14.7 43.2 11.6 39.1 38.1 42.7 38.7
Level of Service D B D B D D D D
Approach Delay (s) 17.7 13.0 38.6 41.2
Approach LOS B B D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 115.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 132 of 199 ends

690: S Mary Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekend Peak Kimley Horn Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 134 732 82 107 822 85 122 158 72 121 159 193 Future Volume (vph) 134 732 82 107 822 85 122 158 72 121 159 193 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.6 3.7 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4997 1770 4999 1770 3348 1770 3214 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 4997 1770 4999 1770 3348 1770 3214 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 147 804 90 118 903 93 137 178 81 130 171 208 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 33 0 0 140 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 147 887 0 118 989 0 137 226 0 130 239 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 23 9 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 5 3
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.3 30.6 15.0 29.3 15.8 17.6 15.6 17.4 Effective Green, g (s) 16.3 30.6 15.0 29.3 15.8 17.6 15.6 17.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.32 0.16 0.31 0.17 0.18 0.16 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.6 3.7 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 303 1606 278 1538 293 618 290 587
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.18 0.07 c0.20 c0.08 0.07 0.07 c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.55 0.42 0.64 0.47 0.37 0.45 0.41
Uniform Delay, d1 35.7 26.6 36.2 28.4 35.9 33.9 35.9 34.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.4 1.0 0.9 1.2 0.4 1.1 0.5
Delay (s) 36.9 27.1 37.2 29.4 37.1 34.3 37.0 34.8
Level of Service D C D C D C D C
Approach Delay (s) 28.4 30.2 35.3 35.4
Approach LOS C C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 95.2 Sum of lost time (s) 16.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 133 of 199 ends

700: S Sunnyvale Ave & Old San Francisco Rd Existing Timing HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekend Peak Kimley Horn Page 9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 116 346 120 82 471
Future Volume (vph) 0 116 346 120 82 471
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.6 3.7 3.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.86 0.96 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1611 3354 1770 3539
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1611 3354 1770 3539
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 132 389 135 85 491
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 111 37 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 21 487 0 85 491
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 28
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7
Turn Type Over NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 3 4 3 3 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.0 50.7 11.0 70.0
Effective Green, g (s) 11.0 50.7 11.0 65.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.72 0.16 0.93
Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.6 3.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 6.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 253 2429 278 3306
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.15 c0.05 0.14
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.08 0.20 0.31 0.15
Uniform Delay, d1 25.2 3.1 26.1 0.2
Progression Factor 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.0
Delay (s) 25.3 1.7 26.7 0.2
Level of Service C A C A
Approach Delay (s) 25.3 1.7 4.1
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 5.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.22
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 134 of 199 ends

762: Sunnyvale Saratoga Rd/S Sunnyvale Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekend Peak Kimley Horn Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 118 742 83 129 828 98 153 258 91 122 178 122 Future Volume (vph) 118 742 83 129 828 98 153 258 91 122 178 122 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.1 3.7 4.1
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.94
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 4989 1770 4967 1770 3353 3433 3265 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 4989 1770 4967 1770 3353 3433 3265 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 131 824 92 148 952 113 196 331 117 130 189 130 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 29 0 0 93 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 131 907 0 148 1056 0 196 419 0 130 226 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 19 39 37 22
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 3 3 8
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.1 54.1 18.3 60.3 18.6 34.6 17.1 33.1 Effective Green, g (s) 12.1 54.1 18.3 60.3 18.6 34.6 17.1 33.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.39 0.13 0.43 0.13 0.25 0.12 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.1 3.7 4.1
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 296 1927 231 2139 235 828 419 771
v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.18 c0.08 c0.21 c0.11 c0.13 0.04 c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.44 0.47 0.64 0.49 0.83 0.51 0.31 0.29
Uniform Delay, d1 60.7 32.2 57.7 28.8 59.2 45.4 56.1 43.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.07 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.8 4.3 0.8 20.9 0.5 0.2 0.2
Delay (s) 61.1 33.0 65.9 31.4 80.1 45.8 56.2 44.1
Level of Service E C E C F D E D
Approach Delay (s) 36.6 35.7 56.3 47.6
Approach LOS D D E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 41.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 135 of 199 ends

822: El Camino Real & S Murphy Ave Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekend Peak Kimley Horn Page 11
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 67 953 981 82 0 70
Future Volume (vph) 67 953 981 82 0 70
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.4 4.4 4.4 3.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.86 0.91 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 6408 5085 1485 1611
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 6408 5085 1485 1611
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.73 0.73
Adj. Flow (vph) 73 1036 1033 86 0 96
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 23 0 82
Lane Group Flow (vph) 73 1036 1033 63 0 14
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 26
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 4 6
Permitted Phases 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.5 70.0 51.4 51.4 10.5
Effective Green, g (s) 10.5 66.3 51.4 51.4 10.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.95 0.73 0.73 0.15
Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.4 4.4 3.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 265 6069 3733 1090 241
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.16 c0.20
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.28 0.17 0.28 0.06 0.06
Uniform Delay, d1 26.4 0.1 3.1 2.6 25.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.58 0.26 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0
Delay (s) 26.6 0.1 2.0 0.8 25.6
Level of Service C A A A C
Approach Delay (s) 1.9 1.9 25.6
Approach LOS A A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 2.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.28
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 136 of 199 ends

832: Henderson Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekend Peak Kimley Horn Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 63 755 15 283 818 70 54 23 72 98 26 54 Future Volume (vph) 63 755 15 283 818 70 54 23 72 98 26 54 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 6.4 4.2 6.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5068 1770 5009 1791 1541 1775 1545 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.67 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5068 1770 5009 1138 1541 1244 1545 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.80 Adj. Flow (vph) 68 812 16 322 930 80 64 27 85 122 32 68 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 68 0 0 54
Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 827 0 322 1005 0 0 91 17 0 156 14 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 9 9 14 14 9
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 1 3
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.6 59.6 29.7 72.7 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 Effective Green, g (s) 16.6 59.6 29.7 72.7 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.46 0.23 0.56 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 6.4 4.2 6.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 226 2323 404 2801 226 307 247 307
v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.16 c0.18 0.20
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01 c0.13 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.36 0.80 0.36 0.40 0.06 0.63 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 51.4 22.8 47.3 15.8 45.3 42.1 47.7 42.0 Progression Factor 0.74 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.4 9.8 0.4 0.4 0.0 3.8 0.0
Delay (s) 38.3 14.1 57.1 16.2 45.7 42.2 51.5 42.1
Level of Service D B E B D D D D
Approach Delay (s) 15.9 26.1 44.0 48.6
Approach LOS B C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 137 of 199 ends

892: Poplar Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekend Peak Kimley Horn Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 128 793 19 57 879 25 29 7 25 41 12 80 Future Volume (vph) 128 793 19 57 879 25 29 7 25 41 12 80 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 6.4 5.0 6.4 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5064 1770 5052 1784 1547 1781 1557 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.77 1.00 0.77 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5064 1770 5052 1426 1547 1421 1557 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 136 844 20 61 945 27 34 8 29 47 14 91
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 24 0 0 75
Lane Group Flow (vph) 136 863 0 61 970 0 0 42 5 0 61 16 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 27 5 10 10 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 3 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4 4 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.9 81.7 9.1 75.9 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.8 Effective Green, g (s) 14.9 81.7 9.1 75.9 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.63 0.07 0.58 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.4 5.0 6.4 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 202 3182 123 2949 250 271 249 273
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.17 0.03 c0.19
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.00 c0.04 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.27 0.50 0.33 0.17 0.02 0.24 0.06
Uniform Delay, d1 55.2 10.8 58.2 13.9 45.5 44.3 46.2 44.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.54 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.8 0.2 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0
Delay (s) 62.0 11.0 90.8 5.3 45.7 44.4 46.4 44.7
Level of Service E B F A D D D D
Approach Delay (s) 18.0 10.3 45.1 45.4
Approach LOS B B D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 138 of 199 ends

142: Bernardo Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekend Off-Peak Kimley Horn Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 359 1157 98 155 1157 107 185 127 80 115 98 320 Future Volume (vph) 359 1157 98 155 1157 107 185 127 80 115 98 320 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.7 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.89
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5013 1770 4964 3433 1863 1554 1770 2985 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5013 1770 4964 3433 1863 1554 1770 2985 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow (vph) 378 1218 103 176 1315 122 213 146 92 132 113 368 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 72 0 283 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 378 1316 0 176 1431 0 213 146 20 132 198 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 14 42 5 41
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 2 1 5
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 33.5 49.3 34.7 50.5 16.2 33.7 33.7 18.1 35.6 Effective Green, g (s) 33.5 49.3 34.7 50.5 16.2 33.7 33.7 18.1 35.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.32 0.22 0.33 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.7 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 5.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 384 1601 398 1624 360 406 339 207 688 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.26 0.10 c0.29 0.06 c0.08 c0.07 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.98 0.82 0.44 0.88 0.59 0.36 0.06 0.64 0.29
Uniform Delay, d1 60.1 48.4 51.5 49.1 65.9 51.1 47.7 65.0 48.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 41.5 4.1 0.9 6.4 2.8 0.7 0.1 6.6 0.3 Delay (s) 101.7 52.5 52.4 55.5 68.6 51.9 47.8 71.6 49.2 Level of Service F D D E E D D E D
Approach Delay (s) 63.4 55.2 59.0 54.0
Approach LOS E E E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 58.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 154.3 Sum of lost time (s) 18.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.5% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 139 of 199 ends

160: E Remington Dr/S Fair Oaks Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekend Off-Peak Kimley Horn Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 285 897 190 230 894 191 184 439 225 143 397 223 Future Volume (vph) 285 897 190 230 894 191 184 439 225 143 397 223 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 5.1 3.7 5.1 5.1 3.7 5.1 3.7 5.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.97 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 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4891 1770 5085 1473 1770 3271 1770 3290 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 4891 1770 5085 1473 1770 3271 1770 3290 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 297 934 198 247 961 205 211 505 259 159 441 248 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 23 0 0 0 148 0 48 0 0 59 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 297 1109 0 247 961 57 211 716 0 159 630 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 42 45 34 66 66 34
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 26.4 42.7 22.8 39.1 39.1 18.5 39.6 17.3 38.4 Effective Green, g (s) 26.4 42.7 22.8 39.1 39.1 18.5 39.6 17.3 38.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.31 0.16 0.28 0.28 0.13 0.28 0.12 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 5.1 3.7 5.1 5.1 3.7 5.1 3.7 5.1
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.5 2.0 4.5 4.5 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 333 1491 288 1420 411 233 925 218 902 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 c0.23 0.14 0.19 c0.12 c0.22 0.09 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.89 0.74 0.86 0.68 0.14 0.91 0.77 0.73 0.70
Uniform Delay, d1 55.4 43.7 57.0 44.8 37.8 59.9 46.1 59.1 45.6 Progression Factor 1.40 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 22.6 3.2 20.8 2.6 0.7 33.8 4.1 9.9 2.4 Delay (s) 99.9 26.2 77.8 47.4 38.5 93.7 50.2 69.0 48.0
Level of Service F C E D D F D E D
Approach Delay (s) 41.5 51.5 59.6 51.9
Approach LOS D D E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 50.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 103.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 140 of 199 ends

171: Grape Ave & El Camino Real Existing Timing
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekend Off-Peak Kimley Horn Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 194 1159 49 108 1157 106 26 11 47 116 9 58 Future Volume (vph) 194 1159 49 108 1157 106 26 11 47 116 9 58 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5047 1770 4953 1795 1550 1766 1554 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.78 1.00 0.71 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5047 1770 4953 1443 1550 1307 1554 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.73 0.73 0.73 Adj. Flow (vph) 204 1220 52 126 1345 123 32 14 58 159 12 79 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 8 0 0 0 46 0 0 39
Lane Group Flow (vph) 204 1269 0 126 1460 0 0 46 12 0 171 40 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 65 7 12 12 7
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.9 44.0 14.0 41.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 Effective Green, g (s) 16.9 44.0 14.0 41.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.49 0.16 0.46 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 4.9 3.7 4.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 334 2483 277 2277 308 331 279 332
v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 c0.25 0.07 c0.29
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 c0.13 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.61 0.51 0.45 0.64 0.15 0.04 0.61 0.12
Uniform Delay, d1 33.2 15.4 34.2 18.5 28.6 27.9 31.8 28.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.0 2.8 0.1
Delay (s) 35.6 15.6 34.7 19.2 28.6 27.9 34.6 28.4
Level of Service D B C B C C C C
Approach Delay (s) 18.4 20.4 28.2 32.7
Approach LOS B C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 89.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment 3

Page 141 of 199 ends

Sunnyvale City CouncilApril 5, 2022

Sunnyvale City Council
April 5, 2022