Oracle Educational Facility Draft Traffic Impact Analysis Prepared for: David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. December 14, 2015 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Hexagon Office: 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Hexagon Job Number: 15MH07 Phone: 408.971.6100 Document Name: Oracle Education Facility TIA_2015-12-14.docx
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Appendix A Freeway Analysis Requirement Determination Appendix B Traffic Counts Appendix C Level of Service Calculations Appendix D Volume Spreadsheets Appendix E Preliminary Summary of TDM Strategies
List of Tables
Table ES 1 Intersection Levels of Service Summary ............................................................................................... v Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Delay .................................... 6 Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay ............................................... 7 Table 3 Signalized Intersection Significant Impact Criteria – City of Belmont ................................................... 8 Table 4 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ................................................................................................ 16 Table 5 Background Intersection Levels of Service ......................................................................................... 21 Table 6 Project Trip Generation Estimates ...................................................................................................... 25 Table 7 Existing Plus Project Intersections Levels of Service .......................................................................... 31 Table 8 Background Plus Project Intersections Levels of Service ................................................................... 32 Table 9 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ...................................................................... 36 Table 10 Proposed TDM Measures and Estimated C/CAG Trip Credits ........................................................... 42
List of Figures
Figure 1 Project Location and Study Intersections .............................................................................................. 3 Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan ................................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 4 Existing Transit Services ..................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 5 Existing Lane Configurations ............................................................................................................... 17 Figure 6 Existing Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 7 Background Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................... 22 Figure 8 Project Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 9 Project Trip Assignment ...................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 10 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes.................................................................................................. 29 Figure 11 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................... 30 Figure 12 Cumulative Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................ 34 Figure 13 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ 35 Figure 14 Pedestrian Site Access Plan ............................................................................................................... 40
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | i
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed Oracle Educational Facility (project) on the Oracle Headquarters campus in Redwood City, California. The 4.34-acre project site includes a surface parking lot with 74 spaces for the Conference Center event, a parking area with approximately 14 spaces for the Bay Trail users, and undeveloped land. The project would build a two-story 64,000 square-foot building that would house a new Design Tech High School (Design Tech) with a capacity for 550 students and 30 full-time staff. Design Tech is a public high school currently authorized by the San Mateo Union High School District. For the 2015/16 school year, the school leases spaces at the San Mateo County Office of Education Regional Occupation Program at 1800 Rollins Road, Burlingame, California. The school currently has 262 9th and 10th grade students and 23 staff and is adding one grade level per year. Design Tech has a no driving/parking policy for students and would implement the same policy at the project site. The project site would have a 35-space parking lot for staff and visitors. A small number of parking spaces in this lot would be reserved for students participating in internships on a schedule where transit is not an option. The project would include a student drop-off loop with a capacity of 24 vehicles along the back side of the parking lot. Student drop-off and pick-up would be monitored by staff. Oracle, Bridge Park, and Clipper shuttles, which provide connection to the Hillsdale and San Carlos Caltrain Stations and the Millbrae Caltrain/BART Station, would be made available to students and staff. The project would also extend the exiting turn out to the east of the school to accommodate 14 additional parking spaces for trail users.
The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the Cities of Redwood City and Belmont and the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG). The C/CAG administers the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The traffic analysis is based on the AM and PM peak-hour levels of service for ten intersections. The traffic analysis also includes an evaluation of potential impacts to bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities and a review of site access, on-site circulation, drop-off and pick-up operations, and parking.
Project Trip Estimates
Trip generation for the proposed Oracle Educational Facility was estimated based on the existing student residences (zip code data), travel patterns and mode choices observed at the existing Design Tech High School and the proposed numbers of students and staff/teachers at the project site. Peak-hour vehicle trips are anticipated to be generated by vehicles dropping off and picking up students, students with internships that drive to school, and staff and teachers.
Design Tech has a no driving/parking policy for students; therefore, although the school attracts students from the entire Bay Area, about 60% of existing students take Caltrain and BART to school. The project site on the Oracle campus is located near the Belmont Caltrain Station (1.5 miles). Shuttle services between the Oracle campus and the Hillsdale and San Carlos Caltrain Stations and the Millbrae Caltrain/BART Station would be made available to its students and staff. Additionally, Design Tech would continue to implement the no driving/parking policy at the project site. Therefore, it is expected that a similar percentage of students would take Caltrain and BART after the school moves to the project site.
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | i i
Percentages of students that would come to the school by transit, vehicles (driven by parents), and bicycles were estimated based on the residence locations of existing students. Based on the zip code data, the mode choice assumptions for students are summarized below:
Drop-off by cars: 36%;
Transit: 61%;
Bicycle: 3%.
Vehicle trips associated with students that would be driven to school were estimated assuming a vehicle occupancy rate of 1.5 students per vehicle. Consistent with data provided from the existing Design Tech, it was assumed that about 30% of students would participate in after school programs that end at 4:15 PM. Only those students would generate trips during PM peak hour (4 – 5 PM).
In addition to the drop-off trips, students that participate in internships would also generate vehicle trips. Depending on the internship locations and schedule, some of the students may not be able to take transit and would need to drive to school.
About 50% of staff/teachers currently drive to school. The driving percentage for staff is higher than for students because staff/teachers may live closer to school and on-site parking would be provided. The percentage was assumed to be same at the project site. All teachers and staff were assumed to arrive and depart within the AM and PM peak commute periods.
In the AM peak hour, the project is expected to generate a total of 289 new trips, with 162 inbound trips and 127 outbound trips. In the PM peak hour, the project is expected to generate a total of 111 new trips, with 38 inbound trips and 73 outbound trips.
Although Design Tech already has a relatively high percentage of students taking transit, it will implement TDM measures to encourage more students and employees to carpool, take transit, or use active modes of transport to get to and from school. To be conservative, this report assumes the existing mode split will continue with no additional trip reductions from the TDM measures.
Traffic Operations at Study Intersections
Traffic operations at the study intersections were evaluated using TRAFFIX software to determine level of service. The Cities of Redwood City and Belmont level of service methodologies for signalized and unsignalized intersections are both the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method. Traffic impacts were analyzed for the AM (7-9 AM) and PM (4-6 PM) peak periods of commute traffic. The intersection level of service analysis results are presented in Tables ES-1. Based on the Cities of Redwood City and Belmont level of service standards and impact criteria, the project would not generate a significant impact at study intersections under all the project conditions.
Site Access and On-Site Circulation
The site access and circulation review is based on the project site plan prepared by DES Architects + Engineers on October 30, 2015. The site access and circulation were evaluated to determine the adequacy of the site’s driveways with regard to traffic volumes, delays, vehicle queues, geometric design, sight distance, and truck access. The parking lot and drop-off loop would be served by two one-way driveways. Traffic would enter at the east driveway (inbound) and exit through the west driveway (outbound), which would be located directly opposite Oracle Street #1. In general, the site plan shows adequate site access and internal circulation.
Vehicles entering the parking lot and drop-off loop would be restricted to right turns only to avoid delays associated with uncontrolled inbound left-turn movements. At the outbound driveway, vehicles would be permitted to turn left onto eastbound Oracle Parkway or right onto westbound Oracle Parkway. The outbound driveway intersection would operate under all-way stop control. Project traffic entering and exiting the site would not significantly affect intersection operations or cause back-ups on Oracle Parkway. However, the following measure is recommended to facilitate traffic operations during drop-off and pick-up.
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | i i i
Recommendation 1 – Designate staff to control the drop-off/pick-up traffic. Staff should guide entering vehicles at the inbound driveway to prevent blockage of through traffic on Oracle Parkway and prevent drop-off and pick-up outside of the drop-off area.
Although Design Tech staff would monitor drop-off and pick-up operations, Recommendation 1 described above should be implemented to ensure that vehicles do not turn left into the inbound driveway, minimize any vehicle queues that may develop during drop-off/pick-up periods, and manage conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.
Additionally, the proposed TDM strategies are expected to encourage more students to take transit and carpool and reduce the vehicle trips generated by the students thereby reducing the length of queue storage needed for drop-off and pick-up operations.
Potential Impacts on Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Transit
In summary, the project is well served by the existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The project would not result in changes to the existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The project would increase vehicle traffic across the existing bike lanes at project driveways on Oracle Parkway and at the Oracle Parkway/Marine Parkway intersection and would increase usage of the existing bike and pedestrian facilities. However, the existing facilities are adequate to meet the increased demand without any improvements. Therefore, there would be no impacts to these facilities.
Sidewalks would be provided along the project street frontage that connect to the crosswalks at adjacent intersections. A sidewalk also would be provided adjacent to the student drop-off loop that connects to the Bay Trail and the project building. Design Tech would have joint use of the fitness center and conference center in the Oracle Campus. Student access for these facilities would be provided via the sidewalks along the project frontage and the crosswalks at the Oracle Street #1/Oracle Parkway and Oracle Street #2/Oracle Parkway intersections. Both intersections are all-way stop-controlled. At the Oracle Street #1/Oracle Parkway intersection, a crosswalk exists on the east leg, but there is no crosswalk on the south leg for students accessing the fitness center. The following measure is recommended to enhance the safety of students walking to and from the fitness center.
Recommendation 2 – Provide a crosswalk on the south leg of the Oracle Street #1/Oracle Parkway intersection.
Although few students are expected to access the school via the crosswalk at the Oracle Street #1/Oracle Parkway during drop-off and pick-up, implementation of Recommendation 1 would ensure that vehicles obey safe loading practices.
As show on Figure 12, new crosswalks would be provided at the parking lot driveways. However, the crosswalk at the inbound driveway would be set back from the street, which would make it more difficult for vehicles entering the driveway to see pedestrians in the crosswalk. The following measure is recommended to improve the pedestrian safety during crossing.
Recommendation 3 – Move the crosswalk at the inbound driveway closer to the travel lanes on Oracle Parkway.
Bicycle facilities within typical biking distance of the project site are well provided by the Bay Trail, bike lanes on Oracle Parkway and Marine Parkway, and a bike connection between the project site and the Belmont Caltrain Station. The project would also improve the section of Bay Trail behind project site. However, because the bike connection between the project site and the Belmont Caltrain Station via City streets and the Bay Trail is circuitous, the following measure is recommended to direct students and staff to the school.
Recommendation 4 – Work with the City to identify appropriate locations for wayfinding signage along City streets and/or the Bay Trail between the project site and the Belmont Caltrain Station.
Transit in the project vicinity is provided by SamTrans buses, Caltrain/SamTrans shuttles, and Oracle shuttle programs. SamTrans buses run on Marine Parkway with the nearest bus stops located at the east Oracle Parkway/Marine Parkway intersection, about 0.4 miles to the project site. A continuous pedestrian path is available via crosswalks, sidewalks, and the Bay Trail between the school and the nearest bus stops. Caltrain
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | i v
shuttles that run between the Hillsdale and San Carlos Caltrain Stations and the Oracle campus include the Oracle Shuttle, Bridge Park Shuttle, and Clipper Shuttle. These shuttles would be made available to students and staff of the school with a dedicated drop-off area provided in the parking lot. In addition, Oracle offers employee shuttle programs to the Millbrae Caltrain/BART Station, and the Hillsdale and San Carlos Caltrain Stations. The school also proposes to purchase a van to transport students and staff to and from the Belmont Caltrain Station around midday so that they can participate in concurrent college enrollment and internships.
Parking Demand and Supply
The school proposes to provide 59 on-site parking spaces, including 35 spaces in the parking lot and 24 spaces in the student drop-off area. Based on the Redwood City Zoning Ordinance, the project would be required to provide 320 spaces. The required parking includes 275 spaces for 11th and 12th grade students (one required space per student). Because the school has a no driving/parking policy for students in all grades, the parking lot would only be used by staff, visitors, and a small number of students who participate in internships on a schedule where transit is not an option. Based on the mode share of the existing staff, it is expected that about 50% of staff/teachers (about 15 staff) would drive to school. Approximately 20 students in grades 11 and 12 may participate in internships. While most student interns are expected to take transit and/or walk to and from their work site, some student interns may be permitted to drive if their schedule or work location makes transit infeasible. The total parking demand for the staff and student interns who drive is not expected to exceed the parking supply of 35 spaces. Additionally, the school’s TDM strategies are expected to encourage more school staff and students to take transit and carpool and further reduce the parking demand. Therefore, the parking lot is expected to meet the proposed parking demand.
The project would include a bike corral with up to 28 bicycle parking spaces. Based on the Redwood City Zoning Ordinance, the proposed parking supply of 28 spaces fulfills the zoning code requirements of 13 spaces. It is anticipated that about 3% of students would ride bicycles to school, which would be 17 students. The provided bicycle parking spaces would be sufficient to accommodate these students.
The project would remove the existing parking lot at the project site. There are a total of 74 spaces in the parking lot plus 14 stalls on Oracle Parkway for the trail users. According to the City staff, the existing parking lot provides excess parking spaces above that required for the Conference Center. The parking requirement is already satisfied within the exiting parking structures. Therefore, the removal of the excess spaces is not expected to cause an overall parking shortage within the Oracle campus. The project would replace the existing Bay Trail spaces on Oracle Parkway by extending the existing turn out east of the school to accommodate 14 additional parking spaces.
TDM Measures
Design Tech will implement TDM measures for the project to encourage more students and employees to carpool, take transit, or use active modes of transport to get to and from school. The TDM measures are expected to reduce vehicle trips, vehicle queuing during drop-off and pick-up, and parking demand. The project is expected to generate 289 AM peak-hour trips and with the proposed TDM measures, 151 peak-hour trip credits are estimated per C/CAG guidelines. According to C/CAG guidelines, the project is required to reduce the demand for all new peak-hour trips generated by the school. However, many of the TDM measures listed in the C/CAG guidelines are not applicable to the school and the school already has a relatively high percentage of students taking transit. Thus, it is infeasible to mitigate every peak-hour trip generated by the project. It should be noted that while the trips generated by the school would be new to the roadways immediately adjacent to the project site, in a regional context, the Design Tech school trips are merely reassigned trips from other schools in the area where the students would have otherwise attended.
Ora
cle
Edu
catio
nal F
acili
ty–T
raffi
c Im
pact
Ana
lysi
s A
ugus
t 5, 2
015
Pa
ge
| v
Tab
le E
S 1
Inte
rsec
tio
n L
evel
s o
f S
erv
ice
Su
mm
ary
Exi
stin
gP
eak
Avg
.A
vg.
Incr
. In
Incr
. In
Avg
.A
vg.
Incr
. In
Incr
. In
Avg
.A
vg.
Incr
. In
Incr
. In
IDIn
ters
ecti
on
Nam
e (J
uri
sdic
tio
n)
Co
ntr
ol1
Ho
ur
Del
ay2
LO
SD
elay
2L
OS
Avg
. D
el.
Cri
t. V
/CD
elay
2L
OS
Del
ay2
LO
SA
vg.
Del
.C
rit.
V/C
Del
ay2
LO
SD
elay
2L
OS
Avg
. D
el.
Cri
t. V
/C
1E
l Cam
ino
Rea
l and
Ral
ston
Ave
nue*
Sig
nal
AM
43.9
D44
.6D
0.7
0.02
46.7
D47
.6D
0.9
0.02
50.1
D51
.4D
1.3
0.02
(City
of
Bel
mon
t)P
M45
.0D
45.4
D0.
40.
0146
.9D
47.3
D0.
40.
0151
.8D
52.5
D0.
70.
012
Old
Cou
nty
Roa
d an
d R
alst
on A
venu
eS
igna
lA
M37
.4D
37.9
D0.
50.
0239
.2D
40.0
D0.
80.
0241
.2D
42.2
D1.
00.
02(C
ity o
f B
elm
ont)
PM
36.4
D36
.6D
0.2
0.01
37.1
D37
.3D
0.2
0.01
38.5
D38
.8D
0.3
0.01
3U
S 1
01 S
B R
amps
and
Ral
ston
Ave
nue
Sig
nal
AM
12.9
B13
.2B
0.3
0.02
13.1
B13
.4B
0.3
0.02
13.5
B13
.8B
0.3
0.02
(City
of
Bel
mon
t/Cal
tran
s)P
M19
.7B
19.7
B0.
00.
0119
.8B
19.9
B0.
10.
0120
.2C
20.3
C0.
10.
014
US
101
NB
Ram
ps a
nd M
arin
e P
arkw
ayS
igna
lA
M26
.8C
26.9
C0.
10.
0327
.2C
27.3
C0.
10.
0327
.9C
28.1
C0.
20.
03(C
ity o
f B
elm
ont/C
altr
ans)
PM
26.7
C26
.6C
-0.1
0.01
27.6
C27
.5C
-0.1
0.01
28.5
C28
.4C
-0.1
0.01
5O
racl
e P
kwy
(W)/
Sho
rew
ay R
d an
d M
arin
e P
kwy
Sig
nal
AM
13.3
B13
.5B
0.2
0.03
13.4
B13
.6B
0.2
0.03
13.7
B13
.9B
0.2
0.03
(Red
woo
d C
ity)
PM
33.7
C35
.3D
1.6
0.02
33.7
C35
.2D
1.5
0.02
34.6
C36
.1D
1.5
0.02
6Tw
in D
olph
in D
rive
and
Mar
ine
Par
kway
Sig
nal
AM
4.0
A3.
9A
-0.1
0.00
3.9
A3.
8A
-0.1
0.00
3.9
A3.
9A
0.0
0.00
(Red
woo
d C
ity)
PM
10.4
B10
.4B
0.0
0.00
10.4
B10
.4B
0.0
0.00
10.6
B10
.6B
0.0
0.00
7O
racl
e P
arkw
ay (
E)
and
Mar
ine
Par
kway
Sig
nal
AM
7.0
A8.
7A
1.7
0.05
6.9
A8.
7A
1.8
0.05
7.0
A8.
7A
1.7
0.05
(Red
woo
d C
ity)
PM
7.7
A8.
1A
0.4
0.01
7.7
A8.
1A
0.4
0.01
7.8
A8.
2A
0.4
0.01
8O
racl
e S
tree
t #1
and
Ora
cle
Par
kway
AW
SC
AM
9.4
A9.
6A
0.2
0.03
9.4
A9.
6A
0.2
0.03
9.6
A9.
9A
0.3
0.03
(Red
woo
d C
ity)
PM
9.2
A9.
2A
0.0
0.01
9.2
A9.
2A
0.0
0.01
9.4
A9.
4A
0.0
0.01
9O
racl
e S
tree
t #2
and
Ora
cle
Par
kway
AW
SC
AM
8.0
A8.
2A
0.2
-0.0
38.
0A
8.2
A0.
2-0
.03
8.1
A8.
3A
0.2
-0.0
4(R
edw
ood
City
)P
M8.
0A
8.2
A0.
20.
018.
0A
8.2
A0.
20.
018.
1A
8.3
A0.
20.
0110
Ora
cle
Str
eet #
3 an
d O
racl
e P
arkw
ayTW
SC
AM
9.5
A10
.3B
0.8
0.00
9.5
A10
.3B
0.8
0.00
9.7
A10
.5B
0.8
0.00
(Red
woo
d C
ity)
PM
9.4
A9.
6A
0.2
0.01
9.4
A9.
6A
0.2
0.01
9.5
A9.
7A
0.2
0.01
Not
es:
* D
enot
es C
MP
Int
erse
ctio
n1 In
ters
ectio
n co
ntro
l und
er e
xist
ing
cond
ition
s.
- S
igna
l = s
igna
lized
Int
erse
ctio
n
-
AW
SC
= a
ll-w
ay s
top
cont
rolle
d in
ters
ectio
n
-
TW
SC
= o
ne-w
ay o
r tw
o-w
ay (
side
str
eet)
sto
p-co
ntro
lled
inte
rsec
tion
2 O
vera
ll w
eigh
ted
aver
age
cont
rol d
elay
(se
cond
s pe
r ve
hicl
e) is
rep
orte
d fo
r si
gnal
ized
and
WA
SC
inte
rsec
tions
.
Wor
st s
top-
cont
rolle
d ap
proa
ch d
elay
(se
cond
s pe
r ve
hicl
e) is
rep
orte
d fo
r TW
SC
inte
rsec
tions
.
Exi
stin
gE
xist
ing
+P
roje
ctC
um
ula
tive
Cu
mu
lati
ve+
Pro
ject
Bac
kgro
un
dB
ackg
rou
nd
+P
roje
ct
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 1
1. Introduction
This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed Oracle Educational Facility (project) on the Oracle Headquarters campus in Redwood City, California. The 4.34-acre project site includes a surface parking lot with 74 spaces for the Conference Center event, a parking area with approximately 14 spaces for the Bay Trail users, and undeveloped land. The project would construct build a two-story 64,000 square-foot building that would house a new Design Tech High School (Design Tech) with a capacity for 550 students and 30 full-time staff. Design Tech is a public high school currently authorized by the San Mateo Union High School District. For the 2015/16 school year, the school leases spaces at the San Mateo County Office of Education Regional Occupation Program at 1800 Rollins Road, Burlingame, California. The school currently has 262 9th and 10th grade students and 23 staff and is adding one grade level per year. Design Tech has a no driving/parking policy for students and would implement the same policy at the project site. The project site would have a 35-space parking lot for staff and visitors. A small number of parking spaces in this lot would be reserved for students participating in internships on a schedule where transit is not an option. The project would include a student drop-off loop with the capacity of 24 vehicles along the back side of the parking lot. Student drop-off and pick-up would be monitored by staff. Oracle, Bridge Park, and Clipper shuttles, which provide connection to the Hillsdale and San Carlos Caltrain Stations and the Millbrae Caltrain/BART Station, would be made available to students and staff. The project would also extend the exiting turn out to the east of the school to accommodate 14 additional parking spaces for trail users.
The project site location and the surrounding study area are shown on Figure 1. The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2.
Scope of Study
This traffic study was conducted for the purpose of identifying potential traffic impacts related to the project. The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the Cities of Redwood City and Belmont and the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG). The C/CAG administers the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP).
The traffic study analyzed the traffic impacts of the project on ten key intersections in the vicinity of the project site. The study intersections were selected in consultation with Redwood City staff and include those intersections which provide primary access to the project site. The study intersections are listed below and shown on Figure 1. Four of the ten study intersections are located in Belmont; six of the ten study intersections are located in Redwood City (Redwood Shores area). One study intersection is part of the CMP roadway network.
City of Belmont Intersections
1. El Camino Real and Ralston Avenue (CMP intersection)
2. Old County Road and Ralston Avenue
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 2
3. US 101 Southbound Ramps and Ralston Avenue
4. US 101 Northbound Ramps and Marine Parkway
Redwood City Intersections
5. Oracle Parkway (W)/Shoreway Road and Marine Parkway
6. Twin Dolphin Drive and Marine Parkway
7. Oracle Parkway (E) and Marine Parkway
8. Oracle Street #1 and Oracle Parkway (all-way stop controlled)
9. Oracle Street #2 and Oracle Parkway (all-way stop controlled)
10. Oracle Street #3 and Oracle Parkway (two-way stop controlled)
Traffic conditions at the study locations were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. Design Tech currently starts classes at approximately 8:30 AM and dismisses at 3:30 PM with the before-school program starting at 8:00 AM and the after-school program ending at 4:15 PM. The peak hour of school traffic in the morning would coincide with the AM peak hour of commute traffic (generally between 7:00 and 9:00 AM). The peak hour of school traffic in the afternoon would occur before the PM peak hour of commute traffic (typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM). However, trips associated with the after-school program would be added to the PM peak commute hour. These peak commute periods were analyzed because they are the most congested on an average weekday and the impact on the roadway system by traffic from the school would be greatest during these periods.
Per CMP technical guidelines, a freeway segment level of service analysis is required when a project would add trips greater than one percent of a segment’s capacity. Because the proposed project trips represent less than one percent of capacity to all freeway segments in the project vicinity, a freeway analysis for the CMP is not necessary. The determination of freeway analysis requirement is included in Appendix A.
The C/CAG requires new development projected to add 100 or more peak-hour trips to the CMP roadway network to implement transportation demand management (TDM) measures that would reduce project peak-hour trips. In the vicinity of the project site, facilities that are part of the CMP network include US 101 and El Camino Real (SR 82). The project would add more than 100 peak-hour trips to the CMP facilities in the vicinity of the project site and is subject to C/CAG requirement.
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 5
Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing conditions were represented by existing traffic volumes on the existing roadway network. Existing traffic volumes were obtained from recent traffic counts and previous traffic studies.
Scenario 2: Background Conditions. Background conditions reflect future traffic volumes on the existing roadway network. Background traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the projected volumes from approved but not yet constructed developments in the vicinity of the project. Lists of approved but not yet completed developments were provided by the Cities of Redwood City, Belmont, and San Carlos.
Scenario 3: Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing plus project conditions reflect the projected traffic volumes and proposed roadway network with implementation of the project. Existing plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the trips associated with the project. Existing plus project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions in order to determine potential project impacts.
Scenario 4: Background Plus Project Conditions. Background plus project conditions reflect the future traffic volumes and roadway network with implementation of the project. Background plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to background traffic volumes the trips associated with the project. Background plus project conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions in order to determine potential project impacts.
Scenario 5: Cumulative Conditions. Cumulative conditions reflect the projected traffic volumes on the future roadway network with implementation of the project. The cumulative no project (or cumulative baseline) traffic volumes were estimated by applying a compound growth factor of one percent per year to existing traffic volumes and adding traffic from approved projects in the vicinity. The cumulative scenario assumes a horizon year of 2022, 5 years after the school would be fully occupied in 2017. The estimates of trips generated by the project were then added to the cumulative no project traffic volumes to yield cumulative plus project traffic volumes.
Methodology
This section presents the methods used to determine traffic conditions at study intersections and the traffic impacts of the project. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, and the applicable level of service standards and significant impact criteria.
Data Requirements
The data required for the analysis were obtained from new traffic counts, previous studies, field observations, and the Cities of Redwood City, Belmont, and San Carlos. The following data were obtained from these sources:
Existing intersection peak-hour volumes,
Lane geometries,
Signal timing and phasing, and
Trip generation by approved but not yet completed projects.
Intersection Level of Service Methodologies
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays.
This study utilizes TRAFFIX software to determine intersection level of service. The TRAFFIX software is based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology for signalized and unsignalized intersections. This method evaluates intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 6
intersection. This average delay can then be correlated to a level of service. Table 1 presents the level of service definitions for signalized intersections. The level of service definitions for unsignalized intersections is shown in Table 2. Note that for unsignalized intersections under two-way or side-street stop control, the level of service is reported for the worst approach.
Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Delay
This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes of such delay levels.
greater than 80.0F
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
35.1 to 55.0D
This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently.
55.1 to 80.0E
BOperations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average vehicle delay.
10.1 to 20.0
Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though some vehicles may still pass through the intersection without stopping.
20.1 to 35.0C
Level of Service
DescriptionAverage Control Delay Per Vehicle
(sec.)
Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay.
10.0 or lessA
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 7
Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay
Level of Service Standards and Significant Impact Criteria
City of Redwood City
The City of Redwood City General Plan contains the following transportation policy with respect to level of service:
“Program BE-55 / Level of Service Policy Evaluation: Evaluate Redwood City’s current Level of Service (LOS) policies for motor vehicle circulation. The evaluation shall consider the following to ensure efficient traffic flow and balance multi‐modal mobility goals:
Maintaining LOS D or better for motor vehicles in all areas of the city, except the Downtown area as defined by the Downtown Precise Plan. In Downtown, no minimum vehicular LOS standard will be maintained but vehicular LOS will be calculated and alternate LOS standards for other travel modes will be established.”
The study intersections are located outside the Downtown area; thus, the intersections are subject to the City’s LOS D standard.
According to common Redwood City practice, traffic impacts at a study intersection would be considered significant if the project would cause:
Signalized Intersection
1. Operations at a signalized intersection to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS D or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS E or F); or
2. Average delay at a signalized intersection operating at an unacceptable level (LOS E or F) to increase by 5 seconds or more.
Unsignalized Intersection
1. Operations at an unsignalized intersection to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS D or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS E or F); or
2. Delay at an unsignalized intersection operating at an unacceptable level (LOS E or F) to increase by 5 seconds or more; and traffic volumes at the intersection satisfy the Caltrans peak-hour volume signal warrant for traffic signal installation.
A significant impact by the City of Redwood City standards is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that eliminates the project impact.
Level of Service Description Average Delay Per Vehicle (Sec.)
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 8
City of Belmont
The City of Belmont level of service standard for signalized intersections varies according to the existing intersection level of service. According to the City of Belmont Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies, August 2014, the project is said to create a potentially significant impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in the City of Belmont if for either peak hour the project meets the corresponding criteria shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Signalized Intersection Significant Impact Criteria – City of Belmont
CMP Intersection
The intersection of El Camino Real (SR 82) and Ralston Avenue is a CMP intersection. The level of service standard for CMP intersections is LOS E or better. However, since the City of Belmont has a more conservative level of service standard that is based on the existing intersection levels of service, this intersection was analyzed based on the more stringent City of Belmont standards.
Report Organization
This report has a total of six chapters. Chapter 2 describes existing conditions including the existing roadway network, transit service, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Chapter 3 presents the traffic conditions in the study area under background conditions. Chapter 4 presents project conditions including descriptions of the method used to estimate project traffic, its impact on the transportation system, and any recommended mitigation measures. The cumulative conditions with and without the project are presented in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 provides an evaluation of other transportation-related issues, such as site access, on-site circulation, vehicle queuing, and parking, as well as potential project impacts on bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities.
If the base case (without project)
LOS is:Then the corresponding average control delay is:
The project Impact is considered potentially significant if the increase
in delay due to the project is:
And the Volume-to-Capacity ratio
increases by more than:
A 10.0 or less 10.0 seconds 0.02
B 10.1 to 20.0 10.0 seconds 0.02
C 20.1 to 35.0 7.5 seconds 0.02
D 35.1 to 55.0 4.0 seconds 0.01
E 55.1 to 80.0 4.0 seconds 1 0.01
F greater than 80.0 4.0 seconds 1 0.01
Notes:
1. If the addition of project traffic results in a reduction in intersection control delay, then a project impact is considered potentially significant if 35 or more project vehicle trips are added to an intersection operating at LOS E, or 20 or more project vehicle trips are added to an intersection operating at LOS F.
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 9
2. Existing Conditions
This chapter describes the existing conditions for all of the major transportation facilities near the site, including the roadway network, transit service, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Roadway Network
Regional access to the project site is provided via US 101. US 101 is a north/south freeway that extends from north of San Francisco to south of San Jose. In the project vicinity, US 101 has eight mixed-flow lanes. US 101 provides site access via the full interchange at Ralston Avenue.
Local access to the school is provided by El Camino Real, Ralston Avenue, Marine Parkway, Oracle Parkway, and Twin Dolphin Drive. These roadways are described below.
El Camino Real (SR 82) is a six-lane north-south arterial that extends from south of Redwood City north into South San Francisco. El Camino Real intersects Ralston Avenue in the vicinity of the project site.
Ralston Avenue is an east-west arterial that extends from I-280 in the west to US 101 in the east. Ralston Avenue is four lanes wide in the project vicinity. Ralston Avenue becomes Marine Parkway east of US 101 and provides access to the project site via Oracle Parkway.
Marine Parkway is an east-west divided arterial that extends from US 101 in the west and becomes Shearwater Parkway at Salt Court in the east. Marine Parkway is six-to-eight lanes wide and has a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour (mph) in the project vicinity. Marine Parkway provides access to the project site via Oracle Parkway.
Twin Dolphin Drive is a six-lane north-south roadway that extends north from Pico Boulevard to Marine Parkway. Twin Dolphin Drive provides access to the project site via Marine Parkway.
Oracle Parkway is a three-to-five-lane loop that provides direct access to the site location. Oracle Parkway has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. Oracle Parkway intersects with Marine Parkway via a four-way intersection opposite Shoreway Road on the west and a T-intersection on the east.
Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. Bike paths (Class I facilities) are pathways, separate from roadways that are designated for use by bicycles. Often, these pathways also allow pedestrian access. Bike lanes (Class II facilities) are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes (Class III) are existing right-of-ways that accommodate bicycles but are not separate from the existing travel lanes. Routes are typically designated only with signs. The existing bicycle facilities in the project vicinity are shown on Figure 3.
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 1 0
In the Redwood Shores district, the Bay Trail, a Class I multi-use paths run parallel to Oracle Parkway, Marine Parkway, and Twin Dolphin Drive in the project vicinity and along the north shore of the district. Class II bike lanes are provided on both sides of Marine Parkway between Shoreway Road and Salt Court and along both sides of Oracle Parkway. Twin Dolphin Drive is a Class III bike route.
In Belmont, a Class I bike/pedestrian overpass exists over US 101. The overpass begins at the northeast corner of the intersection at Hiller Street and Ralston Avenue, runs along the northern side of Ralston Avenue and US 101 southbound off-ramp, and connects to Marine Parkway via the Bay Trail in the Redwood Shores district. At the Hiller Street terminus of the overpass, the bike path is connected to a short segment of shared pedestrian/bike sidewalk on the west side of Hiller Street extending to Masonic Way. At Masonic Way, there are Class II bike lanes on both sides of the street extending west to Old County Road. Masonic Way leads directly to the Belmont Caltrain Station. Masonic Way ends at Old County Road, but the Belmont Station underpass furthers the bicycle/pedestrian network to El Camino Real. Ralston Avenue is designated as a Class III bike route between El Camino Real and South Road.
Existing bicycle and pedestrian counts were conducted as part of the peak-hour turning movement counts at the study intersections on typical weekdays when schools were in session in May 2015. The traffic count data are included in Appendix B. The bicycle counts show that that bicycle volumes at the study intersections are relatively low. There were few (less than 10) bicycles in each direction during the analyzed AM and PM peak hours. The highest volume occurred during the AM peak hour at the Oracle Parkway/Marine Parkway intersection with 23 bicycles on the southbound approach. The intersection is connected to the Bay Trail and US 101 bike/pedestrian overpass.
Pedestrian Facilities
Roadways providing pedestrian access to the project site include Marine Parkway, Oracle Parkway, and Twin Dolphin Drive. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Marine Parkway and Twin Dolphin Drive. The intersection of Marine Parkway and Oracle Parkway/Shoreway Road has crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads across the north, south, and east legs. The intersection of Marine Parkway and Twin Dolphin Drive has crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads across the south and east legs. The intersection of Marine Parkway and Oracle Parkway has crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads across the north and east legs.
The Bay Trail provides pedestrian access along the outer edge of the Oracle Parkway loop with connections to Marine Parkway at both ends of the loop. No sidewalk is provided on Oracle Parkway, except near the intersections. Along Oracle Parkway there are three unsignalized intersections that provide access to the project site. At the first and third intersections a crosswalk is provided on the west leg. At the second intersection a crosswalk is provided on the east leg. Each intersection intersects with Oracle internal streets that extend from the core of the Oracle Campus. Sidewalks are provided along every internal street.
Hexagon conducted pedestrian counts at the study intersections adjacent to the project site. The traffic count data are included in Appendix B. During both the AM and PM peak hours, pedestrian traffic at the intersection of Oracle Street #2 and Oracle Parkway was relatively high, with 169 and 94 pedestrians, respectively. This intersection lies between the Oracle Conference Center and the existing surface parking lot. At all other intersections adjacent to the project site, pedestrian volumes were relatively low, ranging between 20 and 50 pedestrians during both the AM and PM peak hours.
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 1 2
Transit Services
Existing transit service to the study area is provided by the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), Caltrain, and BART. The transit services are described below and shown on Figure 4.
SamTrans Bus Services
Route 67 provides bus service on school days only on Marine Parkway in the project vicinity with the nearest stop at the east Oracle Parkway/Marine Parkway intersection, about 0.4 mile from the project site. Route 67 also stops at the Belmont Caltrain Station. As of August 9, 2015, Route 67 will travel westbound from Redwood Shores to Ralston Middle School in the AM peak period with three trips that arrive between 7:50 AM and 7:57 AM on all weekdays and four trips eastbound from Ralston Middle School to Redwood Shores in the afternoon between 3:13 PM and 3:25 PM on all weekdays except Wednesday. On Wednesday, because schools end between 12 PM and 1 PM with the half-day programs, Route 67 departs from the middle school between 12:40 PM and 12:52 PM. Due to its limited directional service, this route could be used only by Design Tech students who live within Redwood Shores.
Route 260 provides bus service on Marine Parkway in the project vicinity with the nearest stop at the east Oracle Parkway/Marina Parkway intersection. Route 260 also stops at the Belmont Caltrain Station and the San Carlos Caltrain Station. Route 260 provides bus services with 30-minute headways during the AM and PM peak periods of school traffic.
Route 62 provides bus service on Ralston Avenue in the project vicinity with the nearest stop at the Hiller Street/ Ralston Avenue intersection, which is about one mile walking distance from the project site. Route 62 does not stop at the Belmont Caltrain Station, but stops at the Hillsdale Caltrain Station. During both the AM and PM peak periods of school traffic, Route 62 stops at the intersection of Hiller Street and Ralston Avenue with one-hour headways.
Caltrain Services
Caltrain provides commuter rail service between San Francisco and Gilroy. The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles from the Belmont Caltrain Station, 3.5 miles from the Hillsdale Caltrain Station and 2.5 miles from the San Carlos Caltrain Station. The Belmont Caltrains station located near the El Camino Real/Ralston Avenue intersection provides access to the project site via a bike path (described above). The Belmont Caltrain Station provides commuter rail services during weekdays with a one-hour headway during the morning school peak period, and 30-minute headways during the afternoon school peak period. The Hillsdale and San Carlos Stations provide commuter rail services during weekdays with 30-minute headways in the morning and afternoon school peak periods.
Caltrain/SamTrans provides shuttle service from the Hillsdale and San Carlos Stations to the project vicinity, including Oracle Shuttle, Redwood Shores Twin Dolphin Area Shuttle (Bridge Park), and Redwood Shores Shuttle (Clipper). These shuttle routes are described below and shown on Figure 4.
The Oracle Shuttle runs between the San Carlos and Hillsdale Caltrain Stations and Oracle Parkway. The nearest stop to the project site is at 500 Oracle Parkway approximately 1,300 feet from the site. It provides four shuttles from the San Carlos and Hillsdale Caltrain Stations to Oracle Parkway between 7 AM and 10 AM and five shuttles from Oracle Parkway to the San Carlos and Hillsdale Caltrain Stations between 3 PM and 7 PM.
The Redwood Shores Twin Dolphin Area Shuttle (Bridge Park) runs between the San Carlos Caltrain Station and Oracle Parkway. The nearest stop to the project site is at 300 Oracle Parkway approximately 600 feet from the site. It provides four shuttles from the San Carlos Caltrain Station to Oracle Parkway between 7:00 AM and 9:30 AM and six shuttles from Oracle Parkway to the San Carlos Caltrain Station between 2 PM and 7 PM.
The Redwood Shores Shuttle (Clipper) runs between the San Carlos Caltrain Station and Oracle Parkway. The nearest stop to the project site is at 600 Clipper approximately 2,000 feet from the site. It
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 1 3
provides four shuttles from the San Carlos Caltrain Station to 600 Clipper between 7 AM and 10 AM and four shuttles from shuttles to the San Carlos Caltrain Station between 2 PM and 7 PM.
Additionally. Caltrain provides the free Belmont Hillsdale Shuttle between the Belmont Station and the Hillsdale Station for access to baby bullet rail service at the Hillsdale Station.
BART Services
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) provides commuter rail service between Millbrae, San Francisco, and the East Bay. It connects to Caltrain at the Millbrae Station. The project site is located approximately 9.5 miles south of the Millbrae Caltrain/BART Station. Caltrain/SamTrans provides shuttle service from the Millbrae Caltrain/BART Station to the major employee centers in the vicinity of the station; however, no shuttle services are provided between the station and the Oracle campus. However, Oracle offers employee shuttle programs to the Millbrae Caltrain/BART Station.
Oracle Shuttle Programs
In addition to the Caltrain shuttle services provided at the Caltrain Stations, Oracle offers employee shuttle programs to the Millbrae Caltrain/BART Station, and the Hillsdale and San Carlos Caltrain Stations. The shuttle service will be available to Design Tech students and staff.
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 1 5
Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes
The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were obtained from field observations and are shown on Figure 5.
Existing weekday AM (7:00-9:00 AM) and PM (4:00-6:00 PM) peak hour traffic volumes were obtained from manual turning-movement counts. New traffic counts were conducted at all study intersections on typical weekdays on May 28, 2015 and June 9, 2015 when schools were in session. Because traffic counts are generally not conducted during the summer, the summer 2015 traffic counts were compared to the available count data from fall of 2013 at four study intersections to determine if the new counts were affected by the summer season. The fall 2013 traffic volumes were found to be greater than the summer 2015 traffic volumes at most study intersections. Therefore, with one exception, the 2013 traffic volumes were used for the study. At the US 101 Southbound Ramps/Ralston Avenue intersection, the 2015 PM peak-hour volume is greater than the 2013 volume. Thus, the higher 2015 volume was used.
At remaining six study intersections where recent counts are not available for comparison, traffic volumes from summer 2015 were increased with a seasonal adjustment factor of 3%. The 3% factor was derived from a comparison of fall 2013 traffic volumes to summer 2015 traffic volumes. The existing peak hour traffic volumes used for the study are shown graphically on Figure 6. New 2015 traffic count data are included in Appendix B.
Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the level of service analysis under existing conditions are summarized in Table 4. The results show that all signalized intersections are operating at LOS D or better. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix C.
Observed Traffic Conditions
Traffic conditions in the field were observed in order to identify existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated intersection levels of service. The purpose of this effort was (1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to level of service, and (2) to identify any locations where the level of service analysis does not accurately reflect existing traffic conditions.
Overall, no significant intersection operational deficiencies were observed during the AM or PM peak hours of traffic, and the level of service analysis appears to reflect actual existing traffic conditions at the study intersections. Hexagon observed minor operational issues at the following intersections:
El Camino Real and Ralston Avenue. During AM peak hour, the eastbound traffic frequently queued past Sixth Avenue and required more than two cycles to clear. The southbound left-turn pocket occasionally overflowed, but traffic was able to clear within one cycle. During PM peak hour, the westbound traffic frequently queued past Old County Road and required more than two cycles to clear.
Old County Road and Ralston Avenue. Vehicle queues in the northbound and southbound left-turn lanes on Old County Road occasionally required two cycles to clear during the PM peak hour.
Oracle Street #1 and Oracle Parkway (all-way stop controlled). Vehicle queues in the eastbound through lane on Marine Parkway were lengthy during the AM peak hour.
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 1 6
Table 4 Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Existing Peak Count Avg.
ID Intersection Name (Jurisdiction) Control1
Hour Date Delay2
LOS
1 El Camino Real and Ralston Avenue* Signal AM 12/04/13 43.9 D(City of Belmont) PM 11/06/13 45.0 D
2 Old County Road and Ralston Avenue Signal AM 11/06/13 37.4 D(City of Belmont) PM 11/06/13 36.4 D
3 US 101 SB Ramps and Ralston Avenue Signal AM 12/04/13 12.9 B(City of Belmont/Caltrans) PM 05/28/15 19.7 B
4 US 101 NB Ramps and Marine Parkway Signal AM 12/04/13 26.8 C(City of Belmont/Caltrans) PM 12/04/13 26.7 C
5 Oracle Pkwy (W)/Shoreway Rd and Marine Pkwy Signal AM 05/28/15 13.3 B(Redwood City) PM 05/28/15 33.7 C
6 Twin Dolphin Drive and Marine Parkway Signal AM 05/28/15 4.0 A(Redwood City) PM 05/28/15 10.4 B
7 Oracle Parkway (E) and Marine Parkway Signal AM 05/28/15 7.0 A(Redwood City) PM 05/28/15 7.7 A
8 Oracle Street #1 and Oracle Parkway AWSC AM 06/09/15 9.4 A(Redwood City) PM 06/09/15 9.2 A
9 Oracle Street #2 and Oracle Parkway AWSC AM 06/09/15 8.0 A(Redwood City) PM 06/09/15 8.0 A
10 Oracle Street #3 and Oracle Parkway TWSC AM 06/09/15 9.5 A(Redwood City) PM 06/09/15 9.4 A
Notes:* Denotes CMP Intersection1 Intersection control under existing conditions. - Signal = signalized Intersection
- AWSC = all-way stop controlled intersection - TWSC = one-way or two-way (side street) stop-controlled intersection2 Overall weighted average control delay (seconds per vehicle) is reported for signalized and AWSC intersections.
Worst stop-controlled approach delay (seconds per vehicle) is reported for TWSC intersections.
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 1 9
3. Background Conditions
This chapter presents background traffic conditions without the project. Traffic volumes for background conditions comprise volumes from existing traffic counts plus traffic generated by other approved developments in the vicinity of the site. This chapter describes the procedure used to determine background traffic volumes and the resulting traffic conditions. The background scenario predicts a realistic baseline traffic condition that would occur as approved development gets built and occupied.
Roadway Network
The roadway network under background conditions would be the same as the existing roadway network because there are no planned and funded transportation improvements at the study intersections that would alter the existing intersection lane configurations.
The City of Belmont is undergoing the Ralston Avenue Corridor Study and Transportation Improvements Plan to improve multi-modal use along the corridor. The proposed improvements would not alter the existing intersection lane configurations at study intersections on Ralston Avenue.
Approved Developments
Background traffic volumes were forecast by estimating trip generation for a list of approved but not yet completed projects. Based on the review of development projects in the Cities of Redwood City, Belmont, and San Carlos, the following approved but not-constructed projects were considered under background conditions because they would contribute background trips to the study intersections.
700 Island Parkway, Belmont (Autobahn Motors Expansion) – Reconstruct and expand the existing dealership building from the existing 51,000 s.f. to 57,000 s.f.
576-600 El Camino Real, Belmont – Demolition of three existing commercial and residential buildings and construct 32 residential units and 11,700 s.f. of retail space.
400-490 El Camino Real, Belmont – Demolish 14,000 s.f. of office space and a 2,400-s.f. convenience store and construct 73 residential units and 5,000 s.f. of retail space.
6-8 and 10 Davis Drive, Belmont (Crystal Springs Uplands School) – Demolish two vacant buildings previously used as office and warehouse space and build a middle school campus with 240 students and 43 faculty/staff members.
BRSSD 5 School Expansions, Belmont – Expand five schools in the Belmont-Redwood Shores School District (BRSSD) by a total of 36 new classrooms (788 students) among the five schools.
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 2 0
Transit Village, San Carlos – Redevelop the project site that would house 202 apartment units and 25,800 s.f. of commercial space1.
There are no approved projects in Redwood City that would impact the study intersections.
Intersection Traffic Volumes
Background peak-hour traffic volumes were calculated by adding to existing volumes the estimated traffic from the approved developments. Vehicle trips from the each of the projects were obtained from the project’s traffic impact study (TIA) or environmental impact report (EIR). The estimated trips were assigned to the study intersections according to distributions identified in the development TIAs and EIRs. The trips assigned to the study intersections are tabulated in Appendix D. Background traffic volumes are shown on Figure 7.
Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the level of service analysis under background conditions are summarized in Table 5. The results show that all study intersections would operate at LOS D or better. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix C.
1 The Samtrans TIA analyzed 280 apartment units, 14,326 s.f. of retail space, and 23,797 s.f. of office space. The project was updated to 202 apartment units and 25,800 s.f. of commercial space as of October 2014. The trip generation in the Samtrans TIA was used in this analysis.
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 2 1
Table 5 Background Intersection Levels of Service
Existing Peak Avg. Avg.
ID Intersection Name (Jurisdiction) Control1 Hour Delay2 LOS Delay2 LOS
1 El Camino Real and Ralston Avenue* Signal AM 43.9 D 46.7 D(City of Belmont) PM 45.0 D 46.9 D
2 Old County Road and Ralston Avenue Signal AM 37.4 D 39.2 D(City of Belmont) PM 36.4 D 37.1 D
3 US 101 SB Ramps and Ralston Avenue Signal AM 12.9 B 13.1 B(City of Belmont/Caltrans) PM 19.7 B 19.8 B
4 US 101 NB Ramps and Marine Parkway Signal AM 26.8 C 27.2 C(City of Belmont/Caltrans) PM 26.7 C 27.6 C
5 Oracle Pkwy (W)/Shoreway Rd and Marine Pkwy Signal AM 13.3 B 13.4 B(Redwood City) PM 33.7 C 33.7 C
6 Twin Dolphin Drive and Marine Parkway Signal AM 4.0 A 3.9 A(Redwood City) PM 10.4 B 10.4 B
7 Oracle Parkway (E) and Marine Parkway Signal AM 7.0 A 6.9 A(Redwood City) PM 7.7 A 7.7 A
8 Oracle Street #1 and Oracle Parkway AWSC AM 9.4 A 9.4 A(Redwood City) PM 9.2 A 9.2 A
9 Oracle Street #2 and Oracle Parkway AWSC AM 8.0 A 8.0 A(Redwood City) PM 8.0 A 8.0 A
10 Oracle Street #3 and Oracle Parkway TWSC AM 9.5 A 9.5 A(Redwood City) PM 9.4 A 9.4 A
Notes:* Denotes CMP Intersection1 Intersection control under existing conditions. - Signal = signalized Intersection
- AWSC = all-way stop controlled intersection - TWSC = one-way or two-way (side street) stop-controlled intersection2 Overall weighted average control delay (seconds per vehicle) is reported for signalized and AWSC intersections. Worst stop-controlled approach delay (seconds per vehicle) is reported for TWSC intersections.
Existing Background
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 2 3
4. Project Conditions
This chapter describes the roadway traffic operations under existing plus project conditions and background plus project conditions, the method by which project traffic is estimated, and any impacts caused by the project. Existing plus project traffic conditions could potentially occur if the project were to be occupied prior to the other approved projects in the area. However, it is unlikely that this traffic condition would occur, since some of the other approved projects expected to add traffic to the study area would likely be built and occupied during the time the project is going through the development review process.
Roadway Network
The roadway network under project conditions would be the same as the existing roadway network because there are no planned and funded transportation improvements at the study intersections that would alter the existing intersection lane configurations.
However, implementation of the project would require removing the existing parking lot in the eastern portion of the project site and adding a new parking lot in the western portion of the project site (see Figure 2). As a result, the existing driveways that intersect with the Oracle Street #2/Oracle Parkway and Oracle Street #3/Oracle Parkway intersection would be removed and a new exit-only driveway would be added to the Oracle Street #1/Oracle Parkway intersection. There would be no changes in intersection controls at these three intersections.
Project Trip Estimates
The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using a three-step process: 1) trip generation, 2) trip distribution, and 3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the project site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described below.
Trip Generation
Trip generation for the proposed Oracle Educational Facility was estimated based on the existing student residences (zip code data), travel patterns and mode choices observed at the existing Design Tech High School and the proposed numbers of students and staff/teachers at the project site. Peak-hour vehicle trips are anticipated to be generated by vehicles dropping off and picking up students, students with internships that drive to school, and staff and teachers.
Design Tech has a no driving/parking policy for students; therefore, although the school attracts students from the entire Bay Area, including San Francisco to the north, Half Moon Bay/Montara to the west, Hayward/San Lorenzo
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 2 4
to the east, and Santa Clara to the south, about 60% of existing students take Caltrain and BART to school. The school currently leases space at the San Mateo county Office of Education Regional Occupation Program, which is about 2,500 feet (0.5 miles) east of the Millbrae Caltrain/BART Station. The project site on the Oracle campus is located near the Belmont Caltrain Station (1.5 miles). Shuttle services are available between the Oracle campus and the Hillsdale and San Carlos Caltrain Stations and the Millbrae Caltrain/BART Station and would be made available to its students and staff. Additionally, Design Tech would continue to implement the no driving/parking policy at the project site. Therefore, it is expected that a similar percentage of students would take Caltrain and BART after the school moves to the project site.
The percentage of students that would come to the school by transit, vehicles (driven by parents), and bicycles were estimated based on the residence locations of existing students. Design tech provided resident zip codes for all students enrolled for the 2015/16 school year. Based on the zip code data, 25% of students live in adjacent cities (Belmont, San Carlos, Foster City, Redwood Shores) or do not live near Caltrain and BART stations (Half Moon Bay, Montara). For those 25% of students, 21% were assumed to be driven to school in cars and dropped-off, 1% would take local SamTrans buses or shuttles, and 3% would bike to school. For the remaining 75% of students who live along the Caltrain or BART service corridors, 15% were assumed to be driven by parents and 60% would take trains. The mode choice assumptions for students are summarized below:
Drop-off by cars: 21% + 15% = 36%;
Transit: 60% + 1% = 61%;
Bicycle: 3%.
Vehicle trips associated with students that would be driven to school were estimated assuming a vehicle occupancy rate of 1.5 students per vehicle. Consistent with data provided from the existing Design Tech, it was assumed that about 30% of students would participate in after school programs that end at 4:15 PM. Only those students would generate trips during PM peak hour (4 – 5 PM).
In addition to the drop-off trips, students that participate in internships would also generate vehicle trips. The school estimated that about 20 students would participate in internships. Depending on the internship locations and schedule, some of the students may not be able to take transit and would need to drive to school. The traffic analysis presented in this report assumes that all 20 students would drive to school with trips occurring during AM and PM peak hours. This is a conservative worst-case scenario since many student interns would take transit and/or work to and from their work sites.
About 50% of staff/teachers currently drive to school. The driving percentage for staff is higher than for students because staff/teachers may live closer to school and on-site parking would be provided. The percentage was assumed to be same at the project site. All teachers and staff were assumed to arrive and depart within the AM and PM peak commute periods.
Table 6 summarizes the trip generation estimates for the project. In the AM peak hour, the project is expected to generate a total of 289 new trips, with 162 inbound trips and 127 outbound trips. In the PM peak hour, the project is expected to generate a total of 111 new trips, with 38 inbound trips and 73 outbound trips.
Although Design Tech already has a relatively high percentage of students taking transit, it will implement TDM measures to encourage more students and employees to carpool, take transit, or use active modes of transport to get to and from school. The TDM measures proposed by Design Tech are summarized in Chapter 6 and included in Appendix E. To be conservative, this report assumes the existing mode split will continue with no additional trip reductions from the TDM measures.
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 2 5
Table 6 Project Trip Generation Estimates
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trip distribution pattern for the project was estimated based on the residence zip code data of existing students and the arterials that provide access between project site and the students’ residences. The trip distribution pattern for the project is shown on Figure 8.
The peak-hour trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the project trip distribution pattern. The parking lot would be served by two one-way driveways. Traffic would enter at the east driveway (inbound) and exit through the west driveway (outbound), which would be located directly opposite Oracle Street #1. Vehicles entering the parking lot and drop-off loop would be restricted to right turns only. At the outbound driveway, vehicles would be permitted to turn left onto eastbound Oracle Parkway or right onto westbound Oracle Parkway. Figure 9 shows the assignment of project trips at each study intersection.
Additionally, the project would remove the existing parking lot for the Conference Center event on the project site. The parking lot is across the street from the Oracle Conference Center and is signed for conference center even parking only. Therefore, it is expected that the peak-hour vehicle trips to and from this parking lot are by conference attendees or Oracle visitors. Without the parking lot, these vehicles are expected to park in the
Mode Choice Percentage2In Out Total In Out Total
Student Trips
Students drive to school1 20 20 0 20 20 0 20 20
Driven by parents336% 191 127 127 254 57 38 38 76
Transit (Caltrain, BART, bus, shuttle) 61% 323 97
Bicycle 3% 16 5
Total Students Vehicle Trips 100% 550 147 127 274 179 38 58 96
6. More teachers/staff (50%) were assumed to drive to school since they may live closer and parking would be provided on site.
5. It was assumed that all teachers and staff would arrive and depart within the peak commute periods.
4. It was assumed that about 30% of students would participate in after school programs with trips occurring during PM peak hour (4 PM - 5 PM) .
3. Vehicle occupancy of 1.5 students/vehicle was assumed for peak-hour trips.
PM Peak Hour
1. The school estimated that about 20 students would participate in internships. For the study, it was assumed that all 20 students would drive to school with trips occurring during peak hours.
2. Percentages of mode choices for students were estimated based on the residence zip codes of existing students.25% of students live in adjacent cities (Belmont, San Carlos, Foster City, Redwood Shores) or do not live near Caltain and BART stations (Half Moon Bay, Montara), of which 21% were assumed to be dropped-off by cars, 1% would take local SamTrans buses or shuttles, and 3% would bike to school. 75% of students could take Caltain and BART, of which 15% were assumed to be driven by parents and 60% would take trains.Drop-off by cars: 21% + 15% = 36%; Transit: 60% + 1% = 61%; Bicycle: 3%
AM Peak Hour
Vehicle TripsStudents/ Teachers
Students4/ Teachers
Vehicle Trips
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 2 6
parking garages on Oracle Streets #2 and #3. Therefore, the driveway trips were reassigned to Oracle Streets #2 and #3. Figure 9 reflects the reassignment of existing driveway trips.
Intersection Traffic Volumes
Project impacts were evaluated relative to both (1) existing traffic volumes and (2) background traffic volumes. For the existing plus project scenario, the new trips generated by the project were added to the existing traffic volumes (described in Chapter 2) to derive the existing plus project traffic volumes. Figure 10 shows the intersection turning-movement volumes under existing plus project conditions. For the background plus project scenario, the new trips generated by the project were added to the background traffic volumes (described in Chapter 3) to derive the background plus project traffic volumes. Figure 11 shows the intersection turning-movement volumes under background plus project conditions. Peak-hour intersection volumes for the study intersections are tabulated in Appendix D.
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 3 1
Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the intersection level of service analysis for (1) existing plus project and (2) background plus project conditions are summarized in Tables 7 and 8. It should be noted that, at some study intersections, the average delay under project conditions is shown to be better than under no-project conditions. This occurs because the intersection delay is a weighted average of all intersection movements. When project traffic is added to movements with delays lower than the average intersection delay, the average delay for the entire intersection can decrease. The results of the level of service calculations show that under both existing plus project and background plus project conditions, all study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better). For intersections in Belmont, the increase in average delay and V/C would not exceed the significant impact thresholds listed in Table 3. Therefore, the project’s impact on intersection levels of service would be less than significant.
Table 7 Existing Plus Project Intersections Levels of Service
Peak Avg. Avg. Incr. In Incr. In
ID Intersection Name (Jurisdiction) Control1
Hour Delay2
LOS Delay2
LOS Avg. Del. Crit. V/C
1 El Camino Real and Ralston Avenue* Signal AM 43.9 D 44.6 D 0.7 0.02(City of Belmont) PM 45.0 D 45.4 D 0.4 0.01
2 Old County Road and Ralston Avenue Signal AM 37.4 D 37.9 D 0.5 0.02(City of Belmont) PM 36.4 D 36.6 D 0.2 0.01
3 US 101 SB Ramps and Ralston Avenue Signal AM 12.9 B 13.2 B 0.3 0.02(City of Belmont/Caltrans) PM 19.7 B 19.7 B 0.0 0.01
4 US 101 NB Ramps and Marine Parkway Signal AM 26.8 C 26.9 C 0.1 0.03(City of Belmont/Caltrans) PM 26.7 C 26.6 C -0.1 0.01
5 Oracle Pkwy (W)/Shoreway Rd and Marine Pkwy Signal AM 13.3 B 13.5 B 0.2 0.03(Redwood City) PM 33.7 C 35.3 D 1.6 0.02
6 Twin Dolphin Drive and Marine Parkway Signal AM 4.0 A 3.9 A -0.1 0.00(Redwood City) PM 10.4 B 10.4 B 0.0 0.00
7 Oracle Parkway (E) and Marine Parkway Signal AM 7.0 A 8.7 A 1.7 0.05(Redwood City) PM 7.7 A 8.1 A 0.4 0.01
8 Oracle Street #1 and Oracle Parkway AWSC AM 9.4 A 9.6 A 0.2 0.03(Redwood City) PM 9.2 A 9.2 A 0.0 0.01
9 Oracle Street #2 and Oracle Parkway AWSC AM 8.0 A 8.2 A 0.2 -0.03(Redwood City) PM 8.0 A 8.2 A 0.2 0.01
10 Oracle Street #3 and Oracle Parkway TWSC AM 9.5 A 10.3 B 0.8 0.00(Redwood City) PM 9.4 A 9.6 A 0.2 0.01
Notes:* Denotes CMP Intersection1 Intersection control under existing conditions. - Signal = signalized Intersection
- AWSC = all-way stop controlled intersection
- TWSC = one-way or two-way (side street) stop-controlled intersection2 Overall weighted average control delay (seconds per vehicle) is reported for signalized and AWSC intersections. Worst stop-controlled approach delay (seconds per vehicle) is reported for TWSC intersections.
Existing Existing+Project
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 3 2
Table 8 Background Plus Project Intersections Levels of Service
Peak Avg. Avg. Incr. In Incr. In
ID Intersection Name (Jurisdiction) Control1
Hour Delay2
LOS Delay2
LOS Avg. Del. Crit. V/C
1 El Camino Real and Ralston Avenue* Signal AM 46.7 D 47.6 D 0.9 0.02(City of Belmont) PM 46.9 D 47.3 D 0.4 0.01
2 Old County Road and Ralston Avenue Signal AM 39.2 D 40.0 D 0.8 0.02(City of Belmont) PM 37.1 D 37.3 D 0.2 0.01
3 US 101 SB Ramps and Ralston Avenue Signal AM 13.1 B 13.4 B 0.3 0.02(City of Belmont/Caltrans) PM 19.8 B 19.9 B 0.1 0.01
4 US 101 NB Ramps and Marine Parkway Signal AM 27.2 C 27.3 C 0.1 0.03(City of Belmont/Caltrans) PM 27.6 C 27.5 C -0.1 0.01
5 Oracle Pkwy (W)/Shoreway Rd and Marine Pkwy Signal AM 13.4 B 13.6 B 0.2 0.03(Redwood City) PM 33.7 C 35.2 D 1.5 0.02
6 Twin Dolphin Drive and Marine Parkway Signal AM 3.9 A 3.8 A -0.1 0.00(Redwood City) PM 10.4 B 10.4 B 0.0 0.00
7 Oracle Parkway (E) and Marine Parkway Signal AM 6.9 A 8.7 A 1.8 0.05(Redwood City) PM 7.7 A 8.1 A 0.4 0.01
8 Oracle Street #1 and Oracle Parkway AWSC AM 9.4 A 9.6 A 0.2 0.03(Redwood City) PM 9.2 A 9.2 A 0.0 0.01
9 Oracle Street #2 and Oracle Parkway AWSC AM 8.0 A 8.2 A 0.2 -0.03(Redwood City) PM 8.0 A 8.2 A 0.2 0.01
10 Oracle Street #3 and Oracle Parkway TWSC AM 9.5 A 10.3 B 0.8 0.00(Redwood City) PM 9.4 A 9.6 A 0.2 0.01
Notes:* Denotes CMP Intersection1 Intersection control under existing conditions. - Signal = signalized Intersection
- AWSC = all-way stop controlled intersection
- TWSC = one-way or two-way (side street) stop-controlled intersection2 Overall weighted average control delay (seconds per vehicle) is reported for signalized and AWSC intersections. Worst stop-controlled approach delay (seconds per vehicle) is reported for TWSC intersections.
Background Background+Project
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 3 3
5. Cumulative Conditions
This chapter describes the roadway traffic operations under cumulative conditions and cumulative plus project conditions. For this study, cumulative conditions reflect a horizon year of 2022, which is 5 years after the school would be fully occupied in 2017. Cumulative traffic volumes reflect regional traffic growth in the study area and traffic generated by the approved development projects. Included in this chapter are the procedures used to determine cumulative traffic volumes and a description of the resulting traffic conditions and any impacts caused by the project.
Roadway Network
The roadway network under cumulative conditions would be the same as the existing roadway network because there are no planned and funded transportation improvements at the study intersections that would alter the existing intersection lane configurations.
The roadway network under cumulative plus project conditions would be the same as project conditions described in Chapter 4.
Intersection Traffic Volumes
The cumulative scenarios assume a horizon year of 2022. Cumulative traffic volumes were estimated by first applying a 1% growth factor per year until 2022 to the existing (2015) traffic volumes. With compounding, this yields a factor of 1.072. The growth rate and horizon year were determined by the City of Redwood City. The trips generated by approved projects in the vicinity were then added to obtain cumulative no project traffic volumes. The cumulative no project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 12.
The project trips were then added to the cumulative traffic volumes to yield cumulative plus project traffic volumes. The intersection turning-movement volumes under cumulative plus project conditions are depicted on Figure 13.
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 3 6
Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the level of service analysis under cumulative conditions and cumulative plus project conditions are summarized in Table 9. The results show that under cumulative conditions and cumulative plus project conditions, all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better). For intersections in Belmont, the increase in average delay and V/C would not exceed the significant impact thresholds listed in Table 3.
Table 9 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
CumulativePeak Avg. Avg. Incr. In Incr. In
ID Intersection Name (Jurisdiction) Control1
Hour Delay2
LOS Delay2
LOS Avg. Del. Crit. V/C
1 El Camino Real and Ralston Avenue* Signal AM 50.1 D 51.4 D 1.3 0.02(City of Belmont) PM 51.8 D 52.5 D 0.7 0.01
2 Old County Road and Ralston Avenue Signal AM 41.2 D 42.2 D 1.0 0.02(City of Belmont) PM 38.5 D 38.8 D 0.3 0.01
3 US 101 SB Ramps and Ralston Avenue Signal AM 13.5 B 13.8 B 0.3 0.02(City of Belmont/Caltrans) PM 20.2 C 20.3 C 0.1 0.01
4 US 101 NB Ramps and Marine Parkway Signal AM 27.9 C 28.1 C 0.2 0.03(City of Belmont/Caltrans) PM 28.5 C 28.4 C -0.1 0.01
5 Oracle Pkwy (W)/Shoreway Rd and Marine Pkwy Signal AM 13.7 B 13.9 B 0.2 0.03(Redwood City) PM 34.6 C 36.1 D 1.5 0.02
6 Twin Dolphin Drive and Marine Parkway Signal AM 3.9 A 3.9 A 0.0 0.00(Redwood City) PM 10.6 B 10.6 B 0.0 0.00
7 Oracle Parkway (E) and Marine Parkway Signal AM 7.0 A 8.7 A 1.7 0.05(Redwood City) PM 7.8 A 8.2 A 0.4 0.01
8 Oracle Street #1 and Oracle Parkway AWSC AM 9.6 A 9.9 A 0.3 0.03(Redwood City) PM 9.4 A 9.4 A 0.0 0.01
9 Oracle Street #2 and Oracle Parkway AWSC AM 8.1 A 8.3 A 0.2 -0.04(Redwood City) PM 8.1 A 8.3 A 0.2 0.01
10 Oracle Street #3 and Oracle Parkway TWSC AM 9.7 A 10.5 B 0.8 0.00(Redwood City) PM 9.5 A 9.7 A 0.2 0.01
Notes:* Denotes CMP Intersection1 Intersection control based on existing conditions. - Signal = signalized Intersection - AWSC = all-way stop controlled intersection - TWSC = one-way or two-way (side street) stop-controlled intersection2 Overall weighted average control delay (seconds per vehicle) is reported for signalized and AWSC intersections. Worst stop-controlled approach delay (seconds per vehicle) is reported for TWSC intersections.
Cumulative+Project
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 3 7
6. Other Transportation Issues
This chapter presents an analysis of other transportation issues associated with the project, including:
Site access and on-site circulation
Potential impacts to pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities
Parking Demand and Supply
TDM Measures
Unlike the level of service impact methodology, which is adopted by the City council, the analyses in this chapter are based on professional judgment in accordance with the standards and methods employed by the traffic engineering community.
Site Access and On-Site Circulation
Site access and on-site circulation were evaluated using commonly accepted transportation planning principles. This review is based on the project site plan prepared by DES Architects + Engineers on October 30, 2015 (see Figure 2). The site access and circulation were evaluated to determine the adequacy of the site’s driveways with regard to traffic volumes, delays, vehicle queues, geometric design, sight distance, and truck access. In general, the site plan shows adequate site access and internal circulation.
The project would provide a parking lot for staff/visitor parking and student drop-off. The drop-off loop would run along the back side of the parking lot and would be served by the same driveways. The parking lot and drop-off loop would be served by served by two one-way driveways on Oracle Parkway. Traffic would enter at the east driveway (inbound) and exit through the west driveway (outbound), which would be located directly opposite Oracle Street #1.The inbound driveway would be located approximately 145 feet east of this intersection. The driveways would be 22 feet wide, which meets the minimum driveway width set forth in the City’s zoning code. The one-way drive aisle is 13 feet wide, which is adequate for one-way circulation of vehicular traffic and complies with the minimum width requirement for emergency vehicle access. The parking lot would also include a trash enclosure near the east driveway next to the project building. The 22-foot driveways and drop-off loop would provide an unobstructed approach for collection trucks.
Vehicles entering the parking lot and drop-off loop would be restricted to right turns only to avoid delays associated with uncontrolled inbound left-turn movements. At the outbound driveway, vehicles would be permitted to turn left onto eastbound Oracle Parkway or right onto westbound Oracle Parkway. The outbound driveway intersection would operate under all-way stop control. Project traffic entering and exiting the site would not significantly affect intersection operations or cause back-ups on Oracle Parkway. However, the following measure is recommended to facilitate traffic operations during drop-off and pick-up.
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 3 8
Recommendation 1 – Designate staff to control the drop-off/pick-up traffic. Staff should guide entering vehicles at the inbound driveway to prevent blockage of through traffic on Oracle Parkway and prevent drop-off and pick-up.
Field observations indicated that the vehicle queue for the eastbound through movement at the Oracle Street #1/Oracle Parkway intersection was lengthy during the AM peak hour. The drop-off traffic would not add eastbound traffic to the intersection because it can only make westbound right-turns into the parking lot by traveling to the east Oracle Parkway/Marine Parkway intersection and approaching the school via westbound Oracle Parkway. Although the project would add southbound traffic to the intersection, it would not affect the intersection operation or cause traffic delay on Oracle Parkway. Field observations indicated no operation issues at the three study intersections on Oracle Parkway in the PM peak hour; therefore, vehicles accessing the project site would experience minimal delays.
Sight Distance at Project Driveways
In general, the project driveways should be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and other vehicles traveling on Oracle Parkway. Any landscaping, parking, and signage should be located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers entering and exiting the site.
Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at a driveway, and provides drivers with the ability to exit a driveway or locate sufficient gaps in traffic. Sight distance generally should be provided in accordance with Caltrans design standards. The minimum acceptable sight distance is often considered the Caltrans stopping sight distance. Sight distance requirements vary depending on the roadway speeds. The speed limit on Oracle Parkway is 25 mph. The Caltrans recommended stopping sight distance is 200 feet. This means that a driver must be able to see 200 feet down Oracle Parkway to locate a sufficient gap to turn out of the driveways. There are no roadway curves or landscaping features shown on the site plan that would obstruct the vision of exiting drivers. On-street parking would be prohibited on Oracle Parkway along the project frontage. Therefore, adequate sight distance would be provided at the project driveways.
Access and Circulation for Emergency Vehicles and Trucks
Emergency response vehicles would access the project site from Oracle Parkway. A delivery shuttle/truck drop-off area 40 feet in length would be provided on Oracle Parkway in front of the project building. Collection trucks would assess the trash enclosure located in the parking lot via the parking lot driveways. The parking lot driveways are 22 feet wide with 13-foot one-way drive aisles and 22-foot drop-off loop, which would provide unobstructed access and circulation for collection trucks. Site access and circulation for collection trucks were evaluated with vehicle turning movement templates. SU-30 trucks, representing medium-size trucks would be able to access, circulate, and exit the parking lot.
Drop-Off and Pick-Up
The project would include a student drop-off loop along the back side of the parking lot with the capacity of 24 vehicles (about 550 feet in length). Vehicles would enter from the east driveway (inbound) and exit through the west driveway (outbound). School drop-off and pick-up operations and resulting vehicle queues are estimated based on the queuing estimates for the Rocketship Redwood Academy TIA (March 2015). The Rocketship TIA estimated that 575 feet of queuing space would be needed for 282 AM peak-hour inbound trips generated by parents. Design Tech would generate 127 AM inbound trips associated with students that would be driven to school (Table 6). Thus, it is estimated that 259 feet of queuing space would be needed for drop-off operations in the morning at Design Tech. In the afternoon, it was assumed that about 30% of students would stay for after school programs; therefore, it is estimated that 181 feet of queuing space would be needed for pick-up operations. The estimated queuing length is shorter than the provided queuing length, so the drop-off/pick-up vehicles are not expected to queue onto Oracle Parkway.
Although Design Tech staff would monitor drop-off and pick-up operations, Recommendation 1 described above should be implemented to ensure that vehicles do not turn left into the inbound driveway, minimize any vehicle queues that may develop during drop-off/pick-up periods, and manage conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 3 9
Additionally, the proposed TDM strategies included in Appendix E are expected to encourage more students to take transit and carpool and reduce the vehicle trips generated by the students thereby reducing the length of queue storage needed for drop-off and pick-up operations.
Potential Impacts on Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Transit
Figure 12 shows the pedestrian access routes adjacent to the project site. Sidewalks would be provided along the project street frontage that connect to the crosswalks at adjacent intersections. A sidewalk also would be provided adjacent to the student drop-off loop that connects to the Bay Trail and the project building. Design Tech would have joint use of the fitness center and conference center in the Oracle Campus. Student access for these facilities would be provided via the sidewalks along the project frontage and the crosswalks at the Oracle Street #1/Oracle Parkway and Oracle Street #2/Oracle Parkway intersections. Both intersections are all-way stop-controlled. At the Oracle Street #1/Oracle Parkway intersection, a crosswalk exists on the east leg, but there is no crosswalk on the south leg for students accessing the fitness center. The following measure is recommended to enhance the safety of students walking to and from the fitness center.
Recommendation 2 – Provide a crosswalk on the south leg of the Oracle Street #1/Oracle Parkway intersection.
Although few students are expected to access the school via this crosswalk at the Oracle Street #1/Oracle Parkway during drop-off and pick-up, implementation of Recommendation 1 would ensure that vehicles obey safe loading practices.
As show on Figure 12, new crosswalks would be provided at the parking lot driveways. However, the crosswalk at the inbound driveway would be set back from the street, which would make it more difficult for vehicles entering the driveway to see pedestrians in the crosswalk. The following measure is recommended to improve the pedestrian safety during crossing.
Recommendation 3 – Move the crosswalk at the inbound driveway closer to the travel lanes on Oracle Parkway.
As shown on Figure 3, bicycle facilities within typical biking distance of the project site are well provided by the Bay Trail, bike lanes on Oracle Parkway and Marine Parkway, and a bike connection between the project site and the Belmont Caltrain Station. The project would also improve the section of Bay Trail behind project site. However, because the bike connection between the project site and the Belmont Caltrain Station via City streets and the Bay Trail is circuitous, the following measure is recommended to direct students and staff to the school.
Recommendation 4 – Work with the City to identify appropriate locations for wayfinding signage along City streets and/or the Bay Trail between the project site and the Belmont Caltrain Station.
Transit in the project vicinity is provided by SamTrans buses, Caltrain/SamTrans shuttles, and Oracle shuttle programs. SamTrans buses run on Marine Parkway with the nearest bus stops located at the east Oracle Parkway/Marine Parkway intersection, about 0.4 miles to the project site. A continuous pedestrian path is available via crosswalks, sidewalks, and the Bay Trail between the school and the nearest bus stops. Caltrain shuttles that run between the Hillsdale and San Carlos Caltrain Stations and the Oracle campus include the Oracle Shuttle, Bridge Park Shuttle, and Clipper Shuttle, with the nearest stops at 500 Oracle Parkway (1,300 feet from the site) , 300 Oracle Parkway (600 feet from the site), and 600 Clipper (2,000 feet from the site), respectively. In addition, Oracle offers employee shuttle programs to the Millbrae Caltrain/BART Station, and the Hillsdale and San Carlos Caltrain Stations. These shuttles would be made available to students and staff of the school with a dedicated drop-off area provided in the parking lot. The school also proposes to purchase a van to transport students and staff to and from the Belmont Caltrain Station around midday so that they can participate in concurrent college enrollment and internships.
In summary, the project is well served by the existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The project would not result in changes to the existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The project would increase vehicle traffic across the existing bike lanes at project driveways on Oracle Parkway and at the Oracle Parkway/Marine Parkway intersection and would increase usage of the existing bike and pedestrian facilities. However, the existing facilities are adequate to meet the increased demand without any improvements. Therefore, there would be no impacts to these facilities.
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 4 1
Parking Demand and Supply
Based on the Redwood City Zoning Ordinance (Section 30.5), the required parking for schools enrolling students in the 10th grade or below is one space for each classroom and administrative office plus one space for each 100 square feet (s.f.) in the auditorium. The required parking for schools enrolling students in the 11th grade and above shall provide one space for each student over 16 years in age. The school consists of 8 classrooms for 9th and 10th grade, 275 students in 11th and 12th grade, 15 offices, and 2,200 s.f. of auditorium space. Therefore, the requirement would be 320 on-site parking spaces with 275 spaces for 11th and 12th grade students and 45 spaces for other uses. Based on the site plan shown in Figure 2, the school proposes to provide 59 on-site parking spaces, including 35 spaces in the parking lot and 24 spaces in the student drop-off area.
Because the school has a no driving/parking policy for students in all grades, the parking lot would only be used by staff, visitors and a small number of students who participate in internships on a schedule where transit is not an option. Based on the mode share of the existing staff, it is expected that about 50% of staff/teachers (about 15 staff) would drive to school. Approximately 20 students in grades 11 and 12 may participate in internships. While most student interns are expected to take transit and/or walk to and from their work site, some student interns may be permitted to drive if their schedule or work location makes transit infeasible. Therefore, total parking demand for the 15 staff and some student interns who drive is not expected to exceed the parking supply of 35 spaces. Additionally, the school’s TDM strategies included in Appendix E are expected to encourage more school staff and students to take transit and carpool and further reduce the parking demand. Therefore, the parking lot is expected to meet the future parking demand.
The site plan shows a bike corral located at the southwest corner of the building. The corral would provide parking for up to 28 bicycles. The Zoning Ordinance (Section 30.6) requires one bicycle parking space per 5,000 s.f. of floor area. The gross building area for the project is 64,000 s.f., which would require 13 bicycle parking spaces. Therefore, the proposed bike corral with 28 spaces fulfills the zoning code requirements of 13 spaces. It is anticipated that about 3% of students would ride bicycles to school (discussed in Trip Generation above), which would be 17 students. The provided bicycle parking spaces would be sufficient to accommodate these students.
The project would remove the existing parking lot at the project site. There are a total of 74 spaces in the parking lot plus 14 stalls on Oracle Parkway for the trail users. According to the City staff, the existing parking lot provides excess parking spaces above that required for the Conference Center. The parking requirement is already satisfied within the exiting parking structures. Therefore, the removal the excess spaces is not expected to cause an overall parking shortage within the Oracle campus. The project would replace the existing Bay Trail spaces on Oracle Parkway by extending the existing turn out east of the school to accommodate 14 additional parking spaces.
TDM Measures
Design Tech will implement TDM measures for the project to encourage more students and employees to carpool, take transit, or use active modes of transport to get to and from school. Table 10 lists the TDM measures proposed by Design Tech and the estimated C/CAG trip credits (see Appendix E for a full description of the proposed Design Tech TDM program). The TDM measures are expected to reduce vehicle trips, vehicle queuing during drop-off and pick-up, and parking demand. As shown in Table 6, the project is expected to generate 289 AM peak-hour trips and with the proposed TDM measures, 151 peak-hour trip credits are estimated per C/CAG guidelines. According to C/CAG guidelines, the project is required to reduce the demand for all new peak-hour trips generated by the school. However, many of the TDM measures listed in the C/CAG guidelines are not applicable to the school and the school already has a relatively high percentage of students taking transit (60%). Thus, it is infeasible to mitigate every peak-hour trip generated by the project. It should be noted that while the trips generated by the school would be new to the roadways immediately adjacent to the project site, in a regional context, the Design Tech school trips are merely reassigned trips from other schools in the area where the students would have otherwise attended.
Oracle Educational Facility–Traffic Impact Analysis December 14, 2015
P a g e | 4 2
Table 10 Proposed TDM Measures and Estimated C/CAG Trip Credits
TripProposed TDM Measures Rate Size/Amount Credit
On-site TDM coordinator 1 trip per transit assistant features
On-site coordinator, transportation policy face sheet, web information
3
Secured bicycle parking for students, faculty, and visitors
1 trip per 3 spaces 18 bike rack spaces 6
Shuttle services between Caltrain/BART stations and school
1 trip per peak-hour round trip seat on the shuttle
Assume 5% of students1 28
Ride matching services Assume 2 trips per carpool vehicle
Assume 5% of students2 56
Restricted driving/parking policies - Already implemented under current
conditons3
0
Discounted transit passes 1 trip per subsidy (min $20 per month)
Already implemented under current
conditons3
0
Flexible scheduling 1 trip per student offered the opportunity
Already implemented under current
conditons3
0
Incentives/reward programs with TDM points
1 trip per subsidy (min $20 per month)
Assume 10% of students 56
Special bike and walk to school days
- (accounted under incentives/reward programs)
0
Classroom or grade level competitions
- (accounted under incentives/reward programs)
0
Annual commute survey 3 trips per survey administered twice yearly
Assume the survey will be administered once yearly
2
Total Trip Credit 151
Notes:1. The school already has 60% of students taking transit under the current no driving/parking policy and TDM measures (discounted transit pass and flexible scheduling). It is assumed the shuttle services would encourage additional 5% of students to take transit.2. It is assumed the program would encourage additional 5% of students/parents to carpool, which has been informally implemented by the school.3. The TDM measures have been implemented under current conditions and accounted for the trip generation estimates. Therefore, no additional trips are credited.
Street Name: Oracle Street #1 Oracle Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Jun 2015 << 8 AM - 9 AM Base Vol: 14 0 23 0 0 0 0 284 14 13 31 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 14 0 23 0 0 0 0 284 14 13 31 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 14 0 23 0 0 0 0 284 14 13 31 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 14 0 23 0 0 0 0 284 14 13 31 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 0 23 0 0 0 0 284 14 13 31 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 14 0 23 0 0 0 0 284 14 13 31 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.59 1.41 0.00 Final Sat.: 595 0 740 0 0 0 0 774 910 413 1028 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 xxxx 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.37 0.02 0.03 0.03 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 8.6 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 6.7 8.0 7.7 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 8.6 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 6.7 8.0 7.7 0.0 LOS by Move: A * A * * * * A A A A * ApproachDel: 7.9 xxxxxx 9.8 7.8 Delay Adj: 1.00 xxxxx 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 7.9 xxxxxx 9.8 7.8 LOS by Appr: A * A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10044 Oracle Street #1 & Oracle Parkway ********************************************************************************
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:04 2015 Page 2-30
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 14 0 23 0 0 0 0 284 14 13 31 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 342 Minor Approach Volume: 37 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 835 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:04 2015 Page 2-31
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #10044: Oracle Street #1 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 6/9/2015 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 177 0 30 0 0 0 0 43 3 14 187 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 247 Minor Approach Volume: 207 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 975 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:04 2015 Page 2-33
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing + Proj AM
Intersection #10044: Oracle Street #1 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 118*** 0 9 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Street Name: Oracle Street #1 Oracle Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 14 0 23 0 0 0 0 284 14 13 31 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 14 0 23 0 0 0 0 284 14 13 31 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 9 0 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 14 0 23 9 0 118 0 284 14 13 31 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 14 0 23 9 0 118 0 284 14 13 31 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 0 23 9 0 118 0 284 14 13 31 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 14 0 23 9 0 118 0 284 14 13 31 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.14 0.86 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.59 1.41 0.00 Final Sat.: 571 0 705 89 537 726 0 715 825 377 935 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 xxxx 0.03 0.10 0.00 0.16 xxxx 0.40 0.02 0.03 0.03 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 8.8 0.0 7.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 0.0 10.8 7.0 8.3 8.1 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 8.8 0.0 7.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 0.0 10.8 7.0 8.3 8.1 0.0 LOS by Move: A * A A A A * B A A A * ApproachDel: 8.1 8.2 10.6 8.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 8.1 8.2 10.6 8.2 LOS by Appr: A A B A AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10044 Oracle Street #1 & Oracle Parkway ********************************************************************************
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:04 2015 Page 2-34
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 14 0 23 9 0 118 0 284 14 13 31 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 342 Minor Approach Volume: 127 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 835 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:04 2015 Page 2-35
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing + Proj PM
Intersection #10044: Oracle Street #1 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 68*** 0 5 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Street Name: Oracle Street #1 Oracle Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 177 0 30 0 0 0 0 43 3 14 187 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 177 0 30 0 0 0 0 43 3 14 187 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 5 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 177 0 30 5 0 68 0 43 3 14 187 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 177 0 30 5 0 68 0 43 3 14 187 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 177 0 30 5 0 68 0 43 3 14 187 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 177 0 30 5 0 68 0 43 3 14 187 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.14 0.86 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.14 1.86 0.00 Final Sat.: 614 0 768 87 548 737 0 628 714 90 1214 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.29 xxxx 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.09 xxxx 0.07 0.00 0.15 0.15 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 10.6 0.0 7.4 8.2 8.2 7.8 0.0 8.5 7.5 9.0 8.9 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 10.6 0.0 7.4 8.2 8.2 7.8 0.0 8.5 7.5 9.0 8.9 0.0 LOS by Move: B * A A A A * A A A A * ApproachDel: 10.1 7.8 8.5 8.9 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 10.1 7.8 8.5 8.9 LOS by Appr: B A A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10044 Oracle Street #1 & Oracle Parkway ********************************************************************************
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:04 2015 Page 2-36
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 177 0 30 5 0 68 0 43 3 14 187 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 280 Minor Approach Volume: 201 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 922 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:04 2015 Page 2-37
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing AM
Intersection #10046: Oracle Street #2 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 2*** 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 6/9/2015 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Street Name: Oracle Street #2 Oracle Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Jun 2015 << 8 AM - 9 AM Base Vol: 11 0 2 0 0 2 35 137 132 26 27 11 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 11 0 2 0 0 2 35 137 132 26 27 11 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 11 0 2 0 0 2 35 137 132 26 27 11 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 11 0 2 0 0 2 35 137 132 26 27 11 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 11 0 2 0 0 2 35 137 132 26 27 11 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 11 0 2 0 0 2 35 137 132 26 27 11 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.85 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.20 0.80 1.00 0.81 0.85 0.34 Final Sat.: 608 0 111 0 0 826 156 611 925 564 650 272 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 xxxx 0.02 xxxx xxxx 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.05 0.04 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 7.8 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 7.1 8.7 8.7 7.2 8.1 7.5 7.4 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 7.8 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 7.1 8.7 8.7 7.2 8.1 7.5 7.4 LOS by Move: A * A * * A A A A A A A ApproachDel: 7.8 7.1 8.1 7.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 7.8 7.1 8.1 7.7 LOS by Appr: A A A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10046 Oracle Street #2 & Oracle Parkway ********************************************************************************
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:04 2015 Page 2-38
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 11 0 2 0 0 2 35 137 132 26 27 11 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 368 Minor Approach Volume: 13 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 629 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:04 2015 Page 2-39
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #10046: Oracle Street #2 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 4 0 4*** Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 6/9/2015 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Street Name: Oracle Street #2 Oracle Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Jun 2015 << 4:30 pm - 5:30 pm Base Vol: 100 0 46 4 0 4 0 52 20 13 101 2 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 100 0 46 4 0 4 0 52 20 13 101 2 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 100 0 46 4 0 4 0 52 20 13 101 2 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 100 0 46 4 0 4 0 52 20 13 101 2 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 100 0 46 4 0 4 0 52 20 13 101 2 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 100 0 46 4 0 4 0 52 20 13 101 2 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.68 0.00 0.32 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.75 0.03 Final Sat.: 556 0 256 400 0 400 0 708 820 157 1238 25 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.18 xxxx 0.18 0.01 xxxx 0.01 xxxx 0.07 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 8.2 0.0 8.2 7.3 0.0 7.3 0.0 8.0 7.0 8.1 8.1 8.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 8.2 0.0 8.2 7.3 0.0 7.3 0.0 8.0 7.0 8.1 8.1 8.0 LOS by Move: A * A A * A * A A A A A ApproachDel: 8.2 7.3 7.7 8.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 8.2 7.3 7.7 8.1 LOS by Appr: A A A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10046 Oracle Street #2 & Oracle Parkway ********************************************************************************
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:04 2015 Page 2-40
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 100 0 46 4 0 4 0 52 20 13 101 2 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 188 Minor Approach Volume: 146 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 861 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:04 2015 Page 2-41
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing + Proj AM
Intersection #10046: Oracle Street #2 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 13 0 2 0 0 0 0 146 167 37 189 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 539 Minor Approach Volume: 15 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 498 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:04 2015 Page 2-43
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing + Proj PM
Intersection #10046: Oracle Street #2 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 104 0 50 0 0 0 0 57 20 15 139 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 231 Minor Approach Volume: 154 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 790 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:04 2015 Page 2-45
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing AM
Intersection #10047: Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 2 0 2 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol
Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 6/9/2015 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Street Name: Oracle Street #3 Oracle Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Jun 2015 << 8 AM - 9 AM Base Vol: 11 2 4 2 0 2 1 30 105 49 50 3 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 11 2 4 2 0 2 1 30 105 49 50 3 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 11 2 4 2 0 2 1 30 105 49 50 3 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 11 2 4 2 0 2 1 30 105 49 50 3 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 11 2 4 2 0 2 1 30 105 49 50 3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 183 183 30 237 287 52 53 xxxx xxxxx 135 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 783 715 1050 722 626 1022 1566 xxxx xxxxx 1462 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 761 690 1050 699 605 1022 1566 xxxx xxxxx 1462 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.03 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx 8.4 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.3 xxxx xxxxx 7.5 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * A * * * A * * A * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: 749 xxxx xxxxx xxxx 830 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 9.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 9.4 xxxxx 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * A * A * * * * * ApproachDel: 9.5 9.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: A A * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10047 Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:04 2015 Page 2-46
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 11 2 4 2 0 2 1 30 105 49 50 3 ApproachDel: 9.5 9.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=17] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=259] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=4] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=259] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10047 Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 11 2 4 2 0 2 1 30 105 49 50 3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 238 Minor Approach Volume: 17 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 991 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:04 2015 Page 2-47
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #10047: Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 2 1 1 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol
Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 6/9/2015 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 74 0 52 1 1 2 0 92 13 3 39 0 ApproachDel: 9.4 9.2 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.3] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=126] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=277] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=4] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=277] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10047 Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 74 0 52 1 1 2 0 92 13 3 39 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 147 Minor Approach Volume: 126 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1199 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:04 2015 Page 2-49
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing + Proj AM
Intersection #10047: Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol
Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 13 0 6 0 0 0 0 39 106 52 212 0 ApproachDel: 10.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=19] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=428] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10047 Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 13 0 6 0 0 0 0 39 106 52 212 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 409 Minor Approach Volume: 19 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 759 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:04 2015 Page 2-51
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing + Proj PM
Intersection #10047: Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol
Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 76 0 53 0 0 0 0 97 13 3 77 0 ApproachDel: 9.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.3] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=129] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=319] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10047 Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 76 0 53 0 0 0 0 97 13 3 77 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 190 Minor Approach Volume: 129 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1088 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:58 2015 Page 2-1
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd AM
Intersection #15: El Camino Real & Ralston Avenue * Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol: 78 956 340*** Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 14 0 23 0 0 0 0 284 14 13 31 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 342 Minor Approach Volume: 37 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 835 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:58 2015 Page 2-31
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd PM
Intersection #10044: Oracle Street #1 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 177 0 30 0 0 0 0 43 3 14 187 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 247 Minor Approach Volume: 207 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 975 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:58 2015 Page 2-33
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + Proj AM
Intersection #10044: Oracle Street #1 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 118*** 0 9 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Street Name: Oracle Street #1 Oracle Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 14 0 23 0 0 0 0 284 14 13 31 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 14 0 23 0 0 0 0 284 14 13 31 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 9 0 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 14 0 23 9 0 118 0 284 14 13 31 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 14 0 23 9 0 118 0 284 14 13 31 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 0 23 9 0 118 0 284 14 13 31 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 14 0 23 9 0 118 0 284 14 13 31 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.14 0.86 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.59 1.41 0.00 Final Sat.: 571 0 705 89 537 726 0 715 825 377 935 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 xxxx 0.03 0.10 0.00 0.16 xxxx 0.40 0.02 0.03 0.03 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 8.8 0.0 7.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 0.0 10.8 7.0 8.3 8.1 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 8.8 0.0 7.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 0.0 10.8 7.0 8.3 8.1 0.0 LOS by Move: A * A A A A * B A A A * ApproachDel: 8.1 8.2 10.6 8.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 8.1 8.2 10.6 8.2 LOS by Appr: A A B A AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10044 Oracle Street #1 & Oracle Parkway ********************************************************************************
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:58 2015 Page 2-34
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 14 0 23 9 0 118 0 284 14 13 31 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 342 Minor Approach Volume: 127 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 835 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:58 2015 Page 2-35
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + Proj PM
Intersection #10044: Oracle Street #1 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 68*** 0 5 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Street Name: Oracle Street #1 Oracle Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 177 0 30 0 0 0 0 43 3 14 187 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 177 0 30 0 0 0 0 43 3 14 187 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 5 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 177 0 30 5 0 68 0 43 3 14 187 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 177 0 30 5 0 68 0 43 3 14 187 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 177 0 30 5 0 68 0 43 3 14 187 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 177 0 30 5 0 68 0 43 3 14 187 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.14 0.86 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.14 1.86 0.00 Final Sat.: 614 0 768 87 548 737 0 628 714 90 1214 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.29 xxxx 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.09 xxxx 0.07 0.00 0.15 0.15 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 10.6 0.0 7.4 8.2 8.2 7.8 0.0 8.5 7.5 9.0 8.9 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 10.6 0.0 7.4 8.2 8.2 7.8 0.0 8.5 7.5 9.0 8.9 0.0 LOS by Move: B * A A A A * A A A A * ApproachDel: 10.1 7.8 8.5 8.9 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 10.1 7.8 8.5 8.9 LOS by Appr: B A A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10044 Oracle Street #1 & Oracle Parkway ********************************************************************************
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:58 2015 Page 2-36
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 177 0 30 5 0 68 0 43 3 14 187 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 280 Minor Approach Volume: 201 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 922 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:58 2015 Page 2-37
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd AM
Intersection #10046: Oracle Street #2 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 2*** 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Street Name: Oracle Street #2 Oracle Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 11 0 2 0 0 2 35 137 132 26 27 11 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 11 0 2 0 0 2 35 137 132 26 27 11 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 11 0 2 0 0 2 35 137 132 26 27 11 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 11 0 2 0 0 2 35 137 132 26 27 11 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 11 0 2 0 0 2 35 137 132 26 27 11 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 11 0 2 0 0 2 35 137 132 26 27 11 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.85 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.20 0.80 1.00 0.81 0.85 0.34 Final Sat.: 608 0 111 0 0 826 156 611 925 564 650 272 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 xxxx 0.02 xxxx xxxx 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.05 0.04 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 7.8 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 7.1 8.7 8.7 7.2 8.1 7.5 7.4 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 7.8 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 7.1 8.7 8.7 7.2 8.1 7.5 7.4 LOS by Move: A * A * * A A A A A A A ApproachDel: 7.8 7.1 8.1 7.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 7.8 7.1 8.1 7.7 LOS by Appr: A A A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10046 Oracle Street #2 & Oracle Parkway ********************************************************************************
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:58 2015 Page 2-38
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 11 0 2 0 0 2 35 137 132 26 27 11 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 368 Minor Approach Volume: 13 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 629 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:58 2015 Page 2-39
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd PM
Intersection #10046: Oracle Street #2 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 4 0 4*** Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Street Name: Oracle Street #2 Oracle Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 100 0 46 4 0 4 0 52 20 13 101 2 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 100 0 46 4 0 4 0 52 20 13 101 2 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 100 0 46 4 0 4 0 52 20 13 101 2 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 100 0 46 4 0 4 0 52 20 13 101 2 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 100 0 46 4 0 4 0 52 20 13 101 2 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 100 0 46 4 0 4 0 52 20 13 101 2 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.68 0.00 0.32 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.75 0.03 Final Sat.: 556 0 256 400 0 400 0 708 820 157 1238 25 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.18 xxxx 0.18 0.01 xxxx 0.01 xxxx 0.07 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 8.2 0.0 8.2 7.3 0.0 7.3 0.0 8.0 7.0 8.1 8.1 8.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 8.2 0.0 8.2 7.3 0.0 7.3 0.0 8.0 7.0 8.1 8.1 8.0 LOS by Move: A * A A * A * A A A A A ApproachDel: 8.2 7.3 7.7 8.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 8.2 7.3 7.7 8.1 LOS by Appr: A A A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10046 Oracle Street #2 & Oracle Parkway ********************************************************************************
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:58 2015 Page 2-40
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 100 0 46 4 0 4 0 52 20 13 101 2 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 188 Minor Approach Volume: 146 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 861 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:58 2015 Page 2-41
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + Proj AM
Intersection #10046: Oracle Street #2 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 13 0 2 0 0 0 0 146 167 37 189 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 539 Minor Approach Volume: 15 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 498 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:58 2015 Page 2-43
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + Proj PM
Intersection #10046: Oracle Street #2 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 104 0 50 0 0 0 0 57 20 15 139 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 231 Minor Approach Volume: 154 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 790 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:58 2015 Page 2-45
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd AM
Intersection #10047: Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 2 0 2 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol
Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 11 2 4 2 0 2 1 30 105 49 50 3 ApproachDel: 9.5 9.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=17] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=259] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=4] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=259] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10047 Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 11 2 4 2 0 2 1 30 105 49 50 3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 238 Minor Approach Volume: 17 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 991 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:58 2015 Page 2-47
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd PM
Intersection #10047: Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 2 1 1 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol
Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 74 0 52 1 1 2 0 92 13 3 39 0 ApproachDel: 9.4 9.2 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.3] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=126] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=277] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=4] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=277] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10047 Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 74 0 52 1 1 2 0 92 13 3 39 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 147 Minor Approach Volume: 126 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1199 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:58 2015 Page 2-49
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + Proj AM
Intersection #10047: Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol
Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 13 0 6 0 0 0 0 39 106 52 212 0 ApproachDel: 10.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=19] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=428] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10047 Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 13 0 6 0 0 0 0 39 106 52 212 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 409 Minor Approach Volume: 19 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 759 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:20:58 2015 Page 2-51
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + Proj PM
Intersection #10047: Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol
Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 76 0 53 0 0 0 0 97 13 3 77 0 ApproachDel: 9.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.3] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=129] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=319] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10047 Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 76 0 53 0 0 0 0 97 13 3 77 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 190 Minor Approach Volume: 129 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1088 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:21:52 2015 Page 2-1
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative No Proj AM
Intersection #15: El Camino Real & Ralston Avenue * Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol: 83 1024 362*** Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 15 0 25 0 0 0 0 304 15 14 33 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 366 Minor Approach Volume: 40 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 806 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:21:52 2015 Page 2-31
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative No Proj PM
Intersection #10044: Oracle Street #1 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 190 0 32 0 0 0 0 46 3 15 200 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 264 Minor Approach Volume: 222 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 947 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:21:52 2015 Page 2-33
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Proj AM
Intersection #10044: Oracle Street #1 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 118*** 0 9 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Street Name: Oracle Street #1 Oracle Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 0 25 0 0 0 0 304 15 14 33 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 15 0 25 0 0 0 0 304 15 14 33 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 9 0 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 15 0 25 9 0 118 0 304 15 14 33 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 15 0 25 9 0 118 0 304 15 14 33 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 15 0 25 9 0 118 0 304 15 14 33 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 15 0 25 9 0 118 0 304 15 14 33 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.14 0.86 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.40 0.00 Final Sat.: 563 0 693 87 530 715 0 714 822 378 926 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 xxxx 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.17 xxxx 0.43 0.02 0.04 0.04 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 8.9 0.0 7.7 8.3 8.3 8.3 0.0 11.2 7.0 8.4 8.2 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 8.9 0.0 7.7 8.3 8.3 8.3 0.0 11.2 7.0 8.4 8.2 0.0 LOS by Move: A * A A A A * B A A A * ApproachDel: 8.1 8.3 11.0 8.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 8.1 8.3 11.0 8.2 LOS by Appr: A A B A AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10044 Oracle Street #1 & Oracle Parkway ********************************************************************************
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:21:52 2015 Page 2-34
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 15 0 25 9 0 118 0 304 15 14 33 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 366 Minor Approach Volume: 127 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 806 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:21:52 2015 Page 2-35
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Proj PM
Intersection #10044: Oracle Street #1 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 68*** 0 5 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Street Name: Oracle Street #1 Oracle Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 190 0 32 0 0 0 0 46 3 15 200 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 190 0 32 0 0 0 0 46 3 15 200 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 5 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 190 0 32 5 0 68 0 46 3 15 200 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 190 0 32 5 0 68 0 46 3 15 200 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 190 0 32 5 0 68 0 46 3 15 200 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 190 0 32 5 0 68 0 46 3 15 200 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.14 0.86 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.14 1.86 0.00 Final Sat.: 609 0 758 86 540 724 0 620 703 90 1201 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.31 xxxx 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.09 xxxx 0.07 0.00 0.17 0.17 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 10.9 0.0 7.4 8.2 8.2 7.9 0.0 8.6 7.5 9.1 9.1 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 10.9 0.0 7.4 8.2 8.2 7.9 0.0 8.6 7.5 9.1 9.1 0.0 LOS by Move: B * A A A A * A A A A * ApproachDel: 10.4 7.9 8.6 9.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 10.4 7.9 8.6 9.1 LOS by Appr: B A A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10044 Oracle Street #1 & Oracle Parkway ********************************************************************************
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:21:52 2015 Page 2-36
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 190 0 32 5 0 68 0 46 3 15 200 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 295 Minor Approach Volume: 215 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 899 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:21:52 2015 Page 2-37
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative No Proj AM
Intersection #10046: Oracle Street #2 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 2*** 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Street Name: Oracle Street #2 Oracle Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 12 0 2 0 0 2 38 147 142 28 29 12 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 12 0 2 0 0 2 38 147 142 28 29 12 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 12 0 2 0 0 2 38 147 142 28 29 12 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 12 0 2 0 0 2 38 147 142 28 29 12 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 12 0 2 0 0 2 38 147 142 28 29 12 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 12 0 2 0 0 2 38 147 142 28 29 12 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.86 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.21 0.79 1.00 0.81 0.84 0.35 Final Sat.: 607 0 101 0 0 814 157 608 923 560 645 275 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 xxxx 0.02 xxxx xxxx 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.15 0.05 0.04 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 7.9 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 7.1 8.9 8.9 7.3 8.1 7.6 7.4 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 7.9 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 7.1 8.9 8.9 7.3 8.1 7.6 7.4 LOS by Move: A * A * * A A A A A A A ApproachDel: 7.9 7.1 8.2 7.8 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 7.9 7.1 8.2 7.8 LOS by Appr: A A A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10046 Oracle Street #2 & Oracle Parkway ********************************************************************************
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:21:52 2015 Page 2-38
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 12 0 2 0 0 2 38 147 142 28 29 12 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 396 Minor Approach Volume: 14 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 604 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:21:52 2015 Page 2-39
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative No Proj PM
Intersection #10046: Oracle Street #2 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 4 0 4*** Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Street Name: Oracle Street #2 Oracle Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 107 0 49 4 0 4 0 56 21 14 108 2 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 107 0 49 4 0 4 0 56 21 14 108 2 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 107 0 49 4 0 4 0 56 21 14 108 2 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 107 0 49 4 0 4 0 56 21 14 108 2 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 107 0 49 4 0 4 0 56 21 14 108 2 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 107 0 49 4 0 4 0 56 21 14 108 2 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.69 0.00 0.31 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.23 1.74 0.03 Final Sat.: 552 0 253 394 0 394 0 702 812 157 1228 23 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 xxxx 0.19 0.01 xxxx 0.01 xxxx 0.08 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.09 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 8.3 0.0 8.3 7.4 0.0 7.4 0.0 8.1 7.1 8.2 8.1 8.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 8.3 0.0 8.3 7.4 0.0 7.4 0.0 8.1 7.1 8.2 8.1 8.1 LOS by Move: A * A A * A * A A A A A ApproachDel: 8.3 7.4 7.8 8.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 8.3 7.4 7.8 8.1 LOS by Appr: A A A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10046 Oracle Street #2 & Oracle Parkway ********************************************************************************
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:21:52 2015 Page 2-40
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 107 0 49 4 0 4 0 56 21 14 108 2 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 201 Minor Approach Volume: 156 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 838 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:21:52 2015 Page 2-41
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Proj AM
Intersection #10046: Oracle Street #2 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 14 0 2 0 0 0 0 156 180 40 191 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 567 Minor Approach Volume: 16 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 480 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:21:52 2015 Page 2-43
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Proj PM
Intersection #10046: Oracle Street #2 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 111 0 53 0 0 0 0 61 21 16 146 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 244 Minor Approach Volume: 164 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 771 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:21:52 2015 Page 2-45
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative No Proj AM
Intersection #10047: Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 2 0 2 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol
Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 12 2 4 2 0 2 1 32 113 53 54 3 ApproachDel: 9.7 9.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=18] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=278] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=4] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=278] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10047 Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 12 2 4 2 0 2 1 32 113 53 54 3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 256 Minor Approach Volume: 18 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 960 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:21:52 2015 Page 2-47
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative No Proj PM
Intersection #10047: Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 2 1 1 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol
Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 79 0 56 1 1 2 0 99 14 3 42 0 ApproachDel: 9.5 9.2 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.4] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=135] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=297] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=4] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=297] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10047 Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 79 0 56 1 1 2 0 99 14 3 42 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 158 Minor Approach Volume: 135 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1168 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:21:52 2015 Page 2-49
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Proj AM
Intersection #10047: Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol
Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 14 0 6 0 0 0 0 41 114 56 216 0 ApproachDel: 10.2 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=20] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=447] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10047 Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 14 0 6 0 0 0 0 41 114 56 216 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 427 Minor Approach Volume: 20 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 740 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
COMPARE Wed Dec 09 18:21:52 2015 Page 2-51
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Oracle Education Facility/D-Tech High School TIA Redwood City, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Proj PM
Intersection #10047: Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol
Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 81 0 57 0 0 0 0 104 14 3 80 0 ApproachDel: 9.6 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.4] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=138] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=339] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10047 Oracle Street #3 & Oracle Parkway ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 81 0 57 0 0 0 0 104 14 3 80 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 201 Minor Approach Volume: 138 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1064 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Appendix D
Volume Spreadsheets
Oracle/D-Tech High School
Intersection Number: 1Traffix Node Number: 15Intersection Name: El Camino Real & Ralston AvenuePeak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:Count Date:
kimley-horn.com 6150 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 200, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840
Technical Memorandum
To: Ms. Dawn Jedkins, LEED APSenior AssociateDES Architects + Engineers, Inc.
From: Luke Schwartz, P.E.Mike Mowery, P.E.Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Date: June 8, 2015
RE: Preliminary Summary of TDM Strategies for Oracle Education Facility ProjectRedwood City, California
INTRODUCTION
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn) was retained by DES Architects + Engineers, Inc.(DES) to prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program for the proposed OracleEducation Facility project, to be located within the existing Oracle Headquarters campus in RedwoodCity, California. The Oracle Education Foundation proposes to construct a new campus for DesignTech High School on a currently undeveloped 4.1-acre parcel within Oracle’s Redwood City campus.The Project includes the removal on an existing parking lot and construction of a new two-story,85,000 square-foot building with associated site improvements and landscaping.
Design Tech High School (d.tech) is a California public high school currently authorized by the SanMateo High School District. At present, d.tech leases space on the Mills High School campus inMillbrae for approximately 140 9th grade students. The school plans to add a grade per year and willbe at full capacity, with approximately 550 students in grades 9-12 and 30 full-time employees by thestart of the 2017-2018 academic year. The school currently attracts students from as far as SanFrancisco to the north, Sunnyvale to the south, Berkeley to the east and Half Moon Bay to the west.The wide area from which they draw, coupled with regional traffic congestion during commuteperiods, encourages the use of public transportation and carpooling. Per discussions with d.techrepresentatives, about 50 percent of students use public transportation to travel to the existing schoolsite, which is located about 0.7 miles from the Millbrae BART/Caltrain Station. Several other studentstravel to the school via bicycle and carpools organized by parents. It is expected that families wouldcontinue to utilize these transportation options at the new location, which is located approximately 1.2miles from the Belmont Caltrain Station.
Page 2
kimley-horn.com 6150 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 200, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840
The purpose of this memorandum is to identify an initial set of proposed TDM strategies that could beutilized to meet the trip reduction goals of the City and C/CAG1 and provide alternative transportationoptions for students and employees of the school. The following summarizes an initial approach tothe TDM program proposed to be implemented by d.tech High School. It is assumed that the TDMprogram will be refined over time to adapt to changing transportation needs and to maximize theefficiency of the program. The TDM program will be comprised of three major elements:
l Educationl Program Elementsl Monitoring
PRELIMINARY TDM STRATEGIES
EducationEducation focuses on awareness and communications to reduce drive-alone trips to the school byparents, faculty, and staff. Transportation Policy Materials will be prepared and provided to parents,faculty, and staff on commute options, pick-up and drop-off procedures, on-site circulation, and visitorparking. Materials would include:
l Transportation Demand Management Coordinator: The school should appoint a staff memberto serve as TDM Coordinator, who is responsible for implementing the TDM Plan. The TDMCoordinator’s responsibilities include organizing and distributing transportation informationmaterials, conducting an annual commute survey to summarizing the TDM Plan activities andperformance (see “Monitoring” section below).
l Transportation Policy Fact Sheet: A summary of transportation information and optionsshould be created and updated each semester or school year for new and returning studentsand their parents. The summary should include:
n Summary of school transportation options available to students, faculty and staff.n Reference to other important policies and sources of information.n Provide rules of access for dropping off and picking up students on-site by automobile.
l Web Information: The school’s website should include information regarding transportationoptions and programs supported by the school, as well as links to local transit and shuttleservice providers.
1 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) requires that for projectsthat generate 100 or more peak hour trips, “local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/ortenants will reduce the demand for all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected tobe generated by the development.
Page 3
kimley-horn.com 6150 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 200, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840
Program ElementsThe TDM Program will offer a combination of elements to encourage students, parents, faculty andstaff to avoid driving alone to the school. Recommended program elements include the following:
l Ride Matching Services: Develop and promote the current carpool practices into a formaltransportation “ride-match” program that identifies students residing nearby and how they cancarpool or take transit as a group, or bike and walk together if residing locally. The schoolcould manage this program internally or contract with a recognized vendor providing a web-based portal that assists in these ride-matching services.
l Shuttle Services: Oracle offers shuttle service to a number of nearby transportation hubs,including the Millbrae Caltrain/BART Station and the San Carlos and Hillsdale CaltrainStations. In addition, the Redwood Shores Twin Dolphin Area Shuttle (formerly Bridge ParkArea Shuttle) and Redwood Shores (Clipper) Shuttle offer connections to the San CarlosCaltrain Station. School representatives have stated that all of these shuttles will be availableto students and staff. The proposed campus will include a dedicated shuttle area for shuttlepickup and drop-off.
l Flexible Scheduling: The school has a flexible schedule and is able to set their bell scheduleto accommodate the Caltrain/shuttle schedule or other needs.
l Discounted Transit Passes: Discounted BART tickets are available for students to purchasethrough the school currently. The school should continue this practice and the school TDMCoordinator should serve as facilitator if there is sufficient interest from parents to buy in tothe Caltrain Go Pass program.
l Restricted Driving/Parking Policies: The school has a general no-driving/parking policy forstudents. Students are encouraged to use public transportation, bicycle or carpool fortransportation to school.
l Bicycle Parking: Bicycle parking should be provided for students, parents, faculty and visitors.It is recommended that the school consider a bike storage area for improved security andeasier access. A bike storage room, fenced area, or similar allows cyclists to skip individualbike locks if they wish and rather use the security of a pin pad or common lock on the entry tothe bike storage. This type of area is also usually easier to maintain for staff and lesspotential for students to forget combinations to locks or keys.
l Incentives/Rewards Program: A program to reward participation in trip reduction practicesshould be developed to encourage students, parents, faculty, and staff to participate. Basedon programs at other similar sized schools and student ages, the following programs arerecommended:
n Raffle prizes per quarter/semester for participation based on TDM points gathered bystudents.
n Classroom competitions based on participation in the TDM program based on TDMpoints with a resulting classroom award and recognition.
Page 4
kimley-horn.com 6150 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 200, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840
n Preferred seating at school-wide events based on TDM point gathered by students and/orparents for participation.
n All students who ride in carpools or participate in the TDM program in other ways couldbe rewarded with a gift card to merchants such as iTunes, Amazon, or other selectedvendors. Each day a student participates they will receive a credit of $1. Once theyaccumulate $10 in credit, they will receive a $10 gift card of their choosing at one of themerchants.
l Special bike and walk to school days: Experience with these special days has shown thatexposure to the activity leads to increased knowledge of potential routes and potentialalternatives to private vehicle trips. It is recommended that the school organize at least onespecial commute day during both the Fall and Spring semesters.
l Classroom or grade level competitions: A system that tracks points per day that an alternatemode was used or participation in other “green” programs on campus should be initiated.Faculty can be responsible for a quick inventory each morning on which students participatedeach day or another office staff assigned
The TDM program should be reviewed annually and adjustments made as needed to accommodatechanges in transit service schedules or routing. Adjustments should be completed andcommunicated prior to the start of the next school year if needed to reduce trips to the site.
MonitoringTo ensure compliance with the TDM program, as well as being a good neighbor, d.tech will regularlymonitor commute patterns and TDM program participation and make adjustments to the TDMprogram, if needed. The school is committed to the following:
l Annual Survey of Commute Patterns: The school will perform an annual travel survey toassess the current use of alternative transportation options by students and staff. The surveyshould also poll incoming students/parents (all grades) on planned travel mode, to gauge theneed for necessary measures to accommodate the upcoming school year. Results of thesurvey should be used to identify adjustments that could be made to sustain or increase theuse of transit, carpool/vanpool, bicycling, and walking.
l Annual or Biennial Survey of Trip Generation: If required by the City, traffic counts can beconducted at the school on an annual or biennial (every other year) basis to quantify schooltrip generation and verify the school is operating within the trip targets established by theCity. Traffic counts should be collected in October when the driving demand is typically at itgreatest for the school, and the weather conditions are typically more moderate. Trafficcounts will be administered through a process with Redwood City staff.