Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2017-046jmf 6/23/17 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-046 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING ADDENDUM NOS. 1 AND 2 TO THE REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SANTA ANA -GARDEN GROVE FIXED GUIDEWAY PROJECT, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "OC STREETCAR" BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. On January 20, 2015, by Resolution No. 2015-004, and following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council certified the Revised Environmental Assessment/Final Environmental Impact Report ("REA/FEIR") for the Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project, otherwise known as the "OC Streetcar" Project'). The City Council also approved the Project. The Project will provide a new east -west transit line in Orange County between the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center and the Harbor Boulevard/Westminster Avenue intersection in the City of Garden Grove. B. The REA/FEIR was prepared at the direction and under the supervision of the City of Santa Ana as the local lead agency for the Project. The Orange County Transportation Authority ("OCTA") is a responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). OCTA subsequently adopted the REA/FEIR. C. CEQA requires that if there are minor technical changes or additions to a project, and no new or substantially more severe significant effects result, an Addendum to an approved EIR must be prepared. D. The approved Project was based on conceptual level of engineering. Subsequent to Project approval, OCTA has taken the lead in advancing the design and implementation of the Project. E. To address minor design modifications to the Project resulting from engineering refinements encompassed in the 30% and 60% engineering design phases, OCTA has prepared two Addenda to the REA/FEIR, dated June 2016 and February 2017, and attached as Exhibits A and B, respectively. OCTA has previously approved both. Resolution No. 2017-046 Page 1 of 4 F. On July 5, 2017, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15164, the City Council considered for approval these Addenda to the REA/FEIR. Section 2. The City Council previously approved and adopted the REA/FEIR for the Project. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, two Addenda to the REA/FEIR were prepared for this Project. Based upon the studies, the City Council determines that there are no new significant impacts or any increases in the severity of the impacts previously identified in the original REA/FEIR. The City Council hereby approves the First Addendum and the Second Addendum to the REA/FEIR, attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively, and incorporated as though fully set forth herein. Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution. ADOPTED this 5th day of Jam, 2017. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By: John M. Funk Assistant City Attorney AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: NOT PRESENT: Resolution No. 2016-046 Page 2 of 4 Councilmembers Benavides, Martinez, Pulido, Sarmiento, Solorio, Villegas (6) Councilmembers None (0) Councilmembers None (0) Councilmembers Tinaiero (1) jmf 6/23/17 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2017-046 to be the original Resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on July 5, 2017. Date: Maria D. Huizar Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2017-046 Page 3 of 4 See LaserFiche Resolution No. 2017-046 For Exhibits 1 and 2 Resolution No. 2016-046 Page 4 of 4 4:ii:1kr_I Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Orange County, California SCH No. 2010051060 Prepared For. Orange County Transportation Authority 550 S. Main Street Orange, CA 92868 www.octa.net Prepared By. HDR Engineering, Inc. 3230 EI Camino Real, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 June 2016 SA GGFixedGuidowavAddendumFinal6-29-16.docx 117 076.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum INTRODUCTION This Environmental re-evaluation and Addendum to the Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project (Project) Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to address design modifications to the Project resulting from the completion of preliminary engineering (30%) design. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that if there are minor technical changes or additions to a project and no new or substantially more severe significant effects result, an Addendum to an approved EIR must be prepared. This Addendum describes design modifications that Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is proposing for the Project and summarizes the findings and conclusions of the evaluation of how these changes affect the previous environmental analysis contained in the EIR. Section 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that "the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is only required when: 1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions ofthe previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity ofpreviously identified significant effects, 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement ofnew significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity ofpreviously identified significant effects, or 3) New information ofsubstantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any ofthe following: A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; 8) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the projectproponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. If major revisions of the EIR are not necessary and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred, CEQA mandates that an addendum be prepared. 2. BACKGROUND The Project is a proposed as an approximately 4 -route mile modern streetcar line that will connect the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC) to Downtown Santa Ana and a new transportation hub located near the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue in Garden Grove. 1 I age 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum Construction and operation of the Project (the adopted Locally Preferred Alternative, or "LPA") was approved by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), dated March 10, 2015 based on the findings of the Revised Environmental Assessment (EA) (January 2015), pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The City of Santa Ana certified the EIR (State Clearinghouse #2010051060) in January 2015, which was subsequently adopted by OCTA. OCTA is a CEQA "Responsible Agency' as defined by CEQA Guideline 15381. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15381, "Responsible Agency" means "a public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which a Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration." The approved Project was based on a conceptual level of engineering. Subsequent to Project approval in 2015, OCTA has taken the lead in advancing the design and implementation of the Project. As part of this engineering design phase, OCTA is proposing some modifications to the Project as it was defined and analyzed in the EIR. The modifications comprise of physical and operational improvements, and are partly derived from value engineering and risk workshops conducted in 2015, as well as design coordination with OCTA's partner cities and stakeholders. The modifications are not anticipated to result in changes to the maintenance plan for the Project. 3. DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN MODIFICATIONS The following describes the proposed modifications that are the basis of evaluation in this Addendum. Additionally, Table 3.1 provides a listing of design updates, comparing the description of Project features in the EIR to the revised description of Project features resulting from the modifications. The corresponding figures for each modification are referenced on the table and attached to this Addendum. Figure 1 provides an overview of the current Project features. Figures 2 to 12 provide graphics focused on specific changes in Project features for added clarity. 2 I age 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum Table 3.1. Project Description Comparison of Approved Project (2015 EIR) and Modifications (30% Design Revisions — May 2016) 3 1 P age 1170726.1 Project Description Update Approved Projectin ID 2015 EIR 30% Design — May 2016 Figure Double -track bridge across the Santa Ana River, north of 1 Single-track bridge across the Santa Ana River the existing historic bridge. 1southoftheexistinghistoricbridge. The double -track bridge is the same distance away from the historic bridge as the single-track bridge. 2 Track positioned in the center of the former Track shifted to the northern side of the PE ROW, no 2PacificElectricRight -of -Way (PE ROW). private property is required. At -gradeade Santa Ana River Trail crossing on the Provision of a Santa Ana River Trail undercrossing at the 3 West Bank. West Bank by including an extra span on the Santa Ana 3 River bridge 4 SROWtcar Maximum Speed of 35 mph in PE Streetcar Maximum Speed of 45 mph in PE ROW 1 5 Willowick Station Stop within PE ROW. No Willowick Station Stop within the PE ROW. 4&5 Side platforms at Harbor Blvd., Fairview St. Center platforms at Harbor Blvd., Fairview St., and Raitt staggered, farside), and Raitt St., farside Bristol St., nearside Bristol St. westbound, nearside Ross St. 6 St. eastbound, farside Ross St. westbound, westbound, stops at Sycamore (farside westbound, 5 stops at Broadway and Main. farside eastbound), No private property is required for the platforms. Double crossover west of Maintenance and Single crossovers on both sides of the MSF, revised MSF 7 Storage Facility (MSF), turnout and tail track track layout, single crossovers on both ends of downtown 6beyondSantaAnaRegionalTransportationcouplet, double -crossover prior to SARTC platform. Center (SARTC) platform. Traffic signal priority at all traffic signals along the route 8 No consideration for traffic signal priority for the except for Main St., Broadway, and Bristol St. The TSP 1 streetcar. extends a green phase or shortens an opposing green phase by as much as 20 seconds, 9 Ted -Arch Bridge at Westminster Avenue Concrete Box Girder Bridge at Westminster Avenue 7 lSantaAnaBlvd. from Flower St. to Raitt St. Santa Ana Blvd from Flower St. to Raitt maintained a four -lane street (two lanes in St. with a raised 4 -ft median and re -stuped as a two-lane 10 each direction with streetcar in the outside street (one lane in each direction) with left and U-turns 8 lanes). allowed only at signalized intersections and striped bike lanes. No private property is required. Santa Ana Blvd. from French St. to Flower St. Santa Ana Blvd. from French St. to Flower St. with two - 11 with three -lanes westbound. lanes westbound and a protected bike lane on the north 9 side of the street. No private property is required. Elimination of two TPSS to result in a total of four TPSS Six traction power substations (TPSS) located at for the Project, with the following revised locations. No the following locations: private property is required: 1) At Harbor Blvd., 1) On south side of Westminster Ave in the PE 2) At Susan St. (outside PE ROW), ROW, 3) On east side of Santa Ana River 2) At the Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF) 12 outside of PE ROW), site, 10 4) At Pacific Ave., 3) On north side of Santa Ava Blvd east of Parton 5) In a parking structure at 5th and Main, St.; and and 4) On north side of Santa Ana Blvd and N. 6) On south side of Santa Ana Blvd at Garfield St. Garfield St. Locations 1 and 2 are within the ROW previously cleared. Locations 3 and 4 are identified on the updated APE. 3 1 P age 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum The Project footprint and Area of Potential Effect (APE) for Cultural Resources study were also updated to encompass the modifications as well as the anticipated revised construction limits of the Project. Physicaiimprovemen[s: The modifications would result in the following physical improvements: Concrete Box Girder bridge at Westminster Avenue, Construction of a double track bridge across the Santa Ana River (SAR) north of a historic bridge location, Adding a bridge span on the west bank of the SAR, behind an existing levee to accommodate an undercrossing for the SAR Trail and Bikeway (and Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) maintenance road. Implementing a slight raise to the bridge (approximately one foot) to keep the pathway higher than the water surface elevation in the river to allow for positive drainage to the river, Repositioning the double track alignment within the PE ROW, No Willowick Station Stop. This station stop is associated with future development. At this time there is no development that is accessible to this station stop, Repositioning of side platforms to center platforms at Harbor Boulevard, Fairview Street (both west side), and Raiff Street in the PE ROW segment of the Project alignment, Repositioning westbound platform at Ross Street from farside to nearside, and platforms at Broadway and Main consolidated and moved to farside Sycamore Street, Placement of single crossovers on both sides of the Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF) with a revised layout for the MSF, added crossovers on both sides of downtown couplet, and replaced the tail track beyond the SARTC platform with a double -crossover before the SARTC platform, Restriping Santa Ana Boulevard from Flower Street to Raiff Street from a four -lane to a two-lane street with a raised 4 -ft median, Restriping westbound Santa Ana Boulevard from French Street to Flower Street from three -lanes to two - lanes and a protected bike lane on the north side of the street, Relocation of the traction power substations (TPSS) to the PE ROW and publically owned properties and reducing the number of TPSS from six to four, Re-evaluation of the scope of drainage improvements to mitigate additional surface storm water drainage needs generated by the Project, or change in drainage patterns caused solely by the Project, Changing from single contact wire in the PE ROW to a two -wire catenary to enhance operations at higher speed, and 4 I age 1170726.1 Project Description Update Approved Projectin ID 2015 EIR 30% Design - May 2016 Figure Modification of scope of drainage improvements to rely less on connections to storm drain network and use Appendix P to the EIR, the Drainage Technical surface conveyance in streets to maintain existing 13 Report, indicate storm drain improvements on drainage patterns to the maximum extent practicable 11 many streets outside the project alignment. while addressing surface storm water drainage needs generated by the Project, or change in drainage patterns caused solely by the Project. 14 Single contact wire in PE ROW. Two -wire catenary in the PE ROW. 12 Underground fiber optics cable (communications) from 15 No provision for underground fiber optics cable SARTC to OCTA Garden Grove Bus Annex north of PE 1 ROW, approximately 1500 feet west of Harbor Blvd The Project footprint and Area of Potential Effect (APE) for Cultural Resources study were also updated to encompass the modifications as well as the anticipated revised construction limits of the Project. Physicaiimprovemen[s: The modifications would result in the following physical improvements: Concrete Box Girder bridge at Westminster Avenue, Construction of a double track bridge across the Santa Ana River (SAR) north of a historic bridge location, Adding a bridge span on the west bank of the SAR, behind an existing levee to accommodate an undercrossing for the SAR Trail and Bikeway (and Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) maintenance road. Implementing a slight raise to the bridge (approximately one foot) to keep the pathway higher than the water surface elevation in the river to allow for positive drainage to the river, Repositioning the double track alignment within the PE ROW, No Willowick Station Stop. This station stop is associated with future development. At this time there is no development that is accessible to this station stop, Repositioning of side platforms to center platforms at Harbor Boulevard, Fairview Street (both west side), and Raiff Street in the PE ROW segment of the Project alignment, Repositioning westbound platform at Ross Street from farside to nearside, and platforms at Broadway and Main consolidated and moved to farside Sycamore Street, Placement of single crossovers on both sides of the Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF) with a revised layout for the MSF, added crossovers on both sides of downtown couplet, and replaced the tail track beyond the SARTC platform with a double -crossover before the SARTC platform, Restriping Santa Ana Boulevard from Flower Street to Raiff Street from a four -lane to a two-lane street with a raised 4 -ft median, Restriping westbound Santa Ana Boulevard from French Street to Flower Street from three -lanes to two - lanes and a protected bike lane on the north side of the street, Relocation of the traction power substations (TPSS) to the PE ROW and publically owned properties and reducing the number of TPSS from six to four, Re-evaluation of the scope of drainage improvements to mitigate additional surface storm water drainage needs generated by the Project, or change in drainage patterns caused solely by the Project, Changing from single contact wire in the PE ROW to a two -wire catenary to enhance operations at higher speed, and 4 I age 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum Consideration of underground fiber optic lines from SARTC to the OCTA Garden Grove Bus Annex north of the PE ROW, about 1500 feet west of Harbor Blvd. Operational Improvements: Two changes to the Project's operations are proposed as part of the modifications: Increasing the maximum speed within the PE ROW from 35 miles per hour (mph) to 45 mph. The increased speed reduces travel time, providing operational cost and ridership benefits, and, Implementation of traffic signal priority at all traffic signals along the route except for Main Street, Broadway, and Bristol Street. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF DESIGN MODIFICATIONS To evaluate whether the proposed design modifications would result in a new significant impact, increase in the seventy of an impact, or require new mitigation measures, OCTA undertook environmental review and where needed, conducted a technical analysis of each Project feature update. The following technical reports were prepared as part of this analysis and are included as attachments to this Addendum: Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) Supplement (HDR, 2016) (Appendix A) Cultural Resources Update Technical Memorandum (HDR, 2016) (Appendix B) Traffic Study Addendum v2 (IBI Group, 2016) (Appendix C) Supplemental Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis (HDR, 2016) (Appendix D) The technical analysis was coordinated with the 30% design work that was progressing on the Project. In some cases, specific design modifications were refined based upon analysis undertaken in the 30% design work. The CEQA Guidelines require that a brief explanation be provided to support the findings that no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is needed for further discretionary approval. A summary of findings from the re-evaluation of each of the environmental issue areas that were analyzed in the Project EIR are described below. Effects Determined Not Adverse The Project EIR identified the following environmental resource areas that would not be impacted by the proposed Project: coastal zones, wetlands and navigable waterways, ecologically sensitive areas, and endangered and/or threatened plant and animal species. The proposed design modifications would not significantly impact these resources as these resources are not present within, or in proximity to, the limits of disturbance associated with implementation of the design modifications. No additional impacts would occur to these environmental resources and the conclusions that the project would not result in a significant impact to these resources as identified in the EIR remain accurate. Land Use and Zoning The potential land use and zoning impacts (including agricultural and forestry resources) associated with the construction and operation of the Project were evaluated in the EIR. Since the certification of the EIR, there have been no changes to the land use or zoning environment, and the fundamental characteristics of the Project as evaluated in the EIR have not changed. The EIR concluded that impacts related to land use and zoning and agricultural and forestry resources were determined to be less than significant. No mitigation measures were required. The proposed design modifications would not change the fundamental characteristics of the Project. The proposed Project design modifications would not expand or increase the development footprint in such a manner as to create a 5 I age 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum land use or zoning impact, and there are no agricultural or forestry resources located within the construction footprint. Both the construction and operations of the Project would be similar to the Project as evaluated in the EIR. No additional land use and zoning impact would occur and the conclusions that the Project would not result in a significant land use and zoning impact as identified in the EIR remain accurate. Land Acquisition and Displacements This environmental resource issue area is only applicable to the analysis pursuant to NEPA, and no further analysis is warranted in this CEQA Addendum. In addition, no additional displacements are anticipated by the design changes. Section 0 Resources This environmental resource issue area is only applicable to the analysis pursuant to NEPA, and no further analysis is warranted in this CEQA Addendum. Communitv Effects and Environmental Justice This section of the EIR includes an evaluation of potential impacts associated with fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities. The EIR determined that impacts to fire and police protection would be less than significant, and that there would be no impact to schools, parks or other public facilities. The design changes do not involve any modifications to the characteristics of the project that would affect any of these facilities. Both the construction and operations of the Project would be similar to the Project as evaluated in the EIR. No additional community effects impact would occur and the conclusions that the Project would not result in a significant community effects impact as identified in the EIR remain accurate. Visual Quality The potential visual quality impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project were evaluated in the EIR. The EIR determined that the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to visual quality including scenic vistas, scenic resources, or aesthetic features, or substantially degrade the existing visual quality or character of the area. Since the certification of the EIR, there have been no changes to the aesthetic environment of the proposed Project as evaluated in the EIR. However, as described under "Description of Design Modifications" the design modifications that have been determined to potentially affect visual resources, and therefore determined to require further evaluation are located at: (1) the Westminster Avenue Bridge, (2) the Santa Ana River Bridge, and (3) realignment of the track and change from one to two -wire catenary in the PE ROW. An additional change would occur within a portion of the Project as a result of the repositioning of the TPSS's. The visual impact of two wire catenary within the PE ROW is considered to be less than significant in the context of the prior analysis and presence of overhead wires in adjacent areas, therefore, no supplemental visual analysis was performed for this change. In order to address the potential visual quality impacts associated with the design modifications to the Westminster Avenue Bridge, the Santa Ana River Bridge, the realignment of track and change from one to two -wire catenary in the PE ROW, as well as the repositioning of TPSSs, a supplemental visual impact analysis was prepared (see Visual Impact Assessment Supplement, Appendix A). The purpose of the analysis was to identify any changes to visual effects that were previously disclosed in the EIR. The supplemental visual impact analysis concludes that no new significant visual impacts and no increase in the seventy of an impact would result as compared to the originally approved Project as evaluated in the EIR. No additional visual quality impact would occur and the conclusions that the Project would not result in a significant visual quality as identified in the EIR remain accurate. 6 I age 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum Cultural Resources A supplemental cultural resources technical analysis was prepared to identify whether any of the proposed design modifications within the Project would affect the previous findings regarding cultural resources (both historic and archaeological) within the previously -approved APE, and the revised APE (see Cultural Resources Update Technical Memorandum, Appendix B). As identified in the EIR, the proposed Project was not expected to have a significant impact on historical resources including historic architecture) or archaeological resources. However, given the sensitivity of the area for archaeological resources, archaeological monitoring would be conducted for earth -disturbing activities that could encounter previously undisturbed soils perthe Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted as part of the EIR. The proposed design modifications would expand the previously -identified APE associated with cultural resources. The 2015 EIR APE was originally created to take into consideration both archaeology and architectural resources, encompassing the maximum footprint for construction, ground -disturbance and grading, and generally extended one parcel past the limits of the above -ground Project improvements, and/or direct impacts for the TPSS sites, gated crossings, tree removal areas, maintenance facilities, transit structures, raised medians, staging areas, property acquisitions, and ROW impacts. The APE also included previously recorded cultural resources located adjacent to the above -ground Project improvements and direct impact areas. In addition, the APE included parcels adjacent to the proposed Project footprint as part of the architectural history field surveys for properties that may be potentially indirectly affected by visual, audible, or atmospheric intrusions, shadow effects, vibrations from construction activities, or change in access or use. These areas of the APE would not be physically demolished, destroyed, relocated/removed, materially altered, or impacted from neglect or deterioration as a result of the Project. As part of the supplemental cultural resources analysis (Appendix B), the original Project APE was compared to the design modifications, and a revised and expanded APE was developed to address the modifications. The revised APE encompasses the original 2015 APE and was expanded in areas to accommodate design modifications identified in Table 1, primarily to include the relocation of TPSS, areas of ground disturbance due to utility relocations and storm drain improvements, adjustments to platforms, station stops, and rail lines, and the location of the bridge over the Santa Ana River. The APE maps include the locations of historic properties. In keeping with the previous methodology, both direct and indirect effects were taken into account when revising the APE and include areas where the streetcar and its Project components will be visible and/or where there may be effects due to audible or atmospheric impacts or vibration impacts from construction. Additionally, an updated records search was conducted with the South Central Coastal Information Center to ensure that all recently recorded cultural resources in the expanded APE were taken into account in the supplemental cultural resources study. Based on the results of the records search, there are no newly identified historic properties located within the expanded 2016 APE as compared to the 2015 APE. A reconnaissance -level field survey was conducted in May 2016 to photograph and document the expanded areas of the revised APE. As noted in the 2014 survey and evaluation, there are several historic properties located with the 2015 APE. The proposed modifications and the expanded APE include the historic properties identified in Table 2 of the supplemental cultural resources analysis (Appendix B). There are no known archaeological or paleontological resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) located within the original or expanded APE. The expanded APE does not include any known archaeological or paleontological resources eligible for or listed in the NRHP. Ground disturbance would not be more than five feet beneath the existing surface in most areas. The deepest excavations would be 12-20 feet deep (likely a 36 -inch diameter boring) to accommodate OCS pole foundations, depending on soil conditions which will be determined through a geotechnical investigation. Although the APE has already been subject to extensive disruption from previous development and may contain artificial fill 7 I age 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum materials, the APE has the possibility of containing intact, undisturbed cultural deposits below the level of previous disturbance. As such, important archaeological resources may exist within the APE. The potential exists that construction activities associated with ground disturbance may unearth undocumented archaeological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR 1 of the EIR MMRP would ensure that measures are taken to minimize potential effects to archaeological resources. Therefore, no adverse effects would occur to archaeological resources as a result of the design modifications, and no change to the previously -adopted Mitigation Measure CR 1 would be required. The proposed utility and storm drain modifications, the repositioning of double -track and platforms, placing single crossovers, restriping Santa Ana Boulevard, and repositioning of platforms would occur almost entirely within the street and PE ROW, which have been previously disturbed with pavement, utility lines and a previous rail line. Within the street ROW, construction would require a depth of approximately 18 inches below ground surface of excavation for placement of foundation material and laying track. Additional depth of excavation may be required for utility relocations and foundation construction for the TPSSs at a depth of five feet or less, but this would not likely encounter previously undisturbed soil. These areas are all located in previously disturbed areas with underground infrastructure along the street ROW, and the potential for the accidental discovery of archeological resources is low. The construction and operation of the proposed Project would not disrupt the essential form or integrity of the historic properties in the expanded APE. Further, the design modifications would not result in visual, audible, or atmospheric intrusions beyond those noted in the 2014 cultural resources evaluation. Based on the expanded 2016 APE, the sensitivity of the area for archaeological resources and the recommendation for archaeological monitoring to be conducted for earth -disturbing activities that could encounter previously undisturbed soils is unchanged, and should remain consistent with the EIR. The updated analysis confirms that there are no changes to the previous conclusions regarding cultural resources as a result of the engineering refinements and that a less than significant impact would result from the Project modifications within the revised/expanded APE for the Project modifications. No additional cultural resource impact would occur and the conclusions and mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure CR 1) identified in the EIR remain accurate and applicable to the proposed Project modifications. Geolop, Soils, and Seismicity The potential geology, soils, and seismicity impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project were evaluated in the EIR. Since the certification of the EIR, there have been no changes to the geological, soils or seismic environment or changes to the characteristics of the proposed Project as evaluated in the EIR that would affect these resources. The EIR concluded that impacts related to geologic and seismic hazards were less than significant and that no mitigation measures are required. No additional geology, soils, and seismicity impact would occur and the conclusions regarding no significant impacts identified in the EIR remain accurate. BSP age 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum Hazardous Materials The potential hazardous materials impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project was evaluated in the EIR. Since the certification of the EIR, there have been no changes to the hazardous materials environment or changes to the characteristics of the proposed project as evaluated in the EIR that would affect hazardous materials. As previously identified in the EIR, the Project would require limited acquisition or property which could have the potential to contain hazardous materials. Three properties identified as potentially hazardous sites would be acquired as part of Operations & Maintenance (0&M) Facility Site B (which is the currently proposed location for the 0&M facility). As described in the EIR, a detailed Phase I Environmental Site Assessment would be required to ascertain if employees working at the 0&M Facility would be exposed to toxic levels of hazardous materials. The EIR recommended implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ1 to reduce this potential impact to a level less than significant. Because the proposed design modifications do not involve a change with respect to the location of the proposed 0&M Facility Site B, the conclusions regarding hazardous materials would remain the same. The EIR indicates that operation of the streetcar along the Project alignment would not involve the use of hazardous materials. As stated previously, no change to streetcar maintenance activities is proposed as part of the design modifications, therefore, no new significant impact or the increase in the severity of a significant impact would result. The conclusions that the potential hazardous materials impact would be reduced to a level of less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ1 as identified in the EIR remain accurate. Traffic and Parking The potential traffic and parking related impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Project were evaluated in the EIR. Since the certification of the EIR, there have been some changes to the transportation network within the Project area. Also, as described under "Description of Design Modifications," some of the design modifications were determined to have the potential to impact traffic, and further analysis was warranted. In order to address the potential traffic impacts associated with the design modifications, an addendum to the previously -prepared traffic study, which was provided as Appendix I to the EIR was prepared (see OC Streetcar Santa Ana -Garden Grove Project Traffic Study Addendum provided in Appendix C). The purpose of the analysis was to identify any changes to traffic impacts that were previously disclosed in the EIR, due to several design modifications with the advancement of engineering since the Project (and conceptual design) was approved in 2015. The five design modifications addressed in the addendum to the traffic analysis consists of Reclassification of Santa Ana Boulevard Relocation of Santa Ana Boulevard Stations Fairview Street Grade Crossing Analysis Traffic Signal Priority for the Streetcar Street Design Concept for Santa Ana Boulevard The supplemental traffic analysis was prepared in accordance with City of Santa Ana requirements and the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) (OCTA 2015) requirements. Reclassification of Santa Ana Boulevard. Santa Ana Boulevard between Raiff Street and Shelton Street would be reclassified from a four -lane undivided roadway to a two-lane roadway (divided with a center left turn lane or raised median with left -turn pockets). Table 3-1 of the supplemental traffic analysis (see Appendix C), provides the 9 1 P age 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum intersection Level of Service (LOS) Summary for the Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification. As shown, the Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification would not cause any of the affected intersections to deteriorate to unacceptable LOS all intersections operate at LOS D or better). Table 3-2 of the supplemental traffic analysis shows the results of the roadway segment LOS analysis at the seven affected roadway segments. As shown in Table 3-2, the Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification would not cause any of the affected roadway segments to deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS (all seven roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B). Santa Ana Boulevard Stations. Table 3-3 of the supplemental traffic analysis (see Appendix C), provides the results of the intersection LOS analysis at the intersection of Santa Ana Boulevard/Ross Street. As shown in Table 3-3, the Santa Ana Boulevard station relocation would not cause the affected intersection to deteriorate to unacceptable LOS (the intersection of forecast to operate at acceptable LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours). Fairview Street Grade Crossing Analysis. Table 34 shows the results of the intersection VISSIM analysis at the intersections of Fairview Street and Civic Center Drive and Fairview Street and 5r^ Street. As shown in Table 3-4, the Fairview Street grade crossing would not cause the affected intersections to deteriorate to unacceptable LOS. Tables 3-5 and 3-6 show the AM and PM Peak Hour intersection queuing summary associated with the Fairview Street Grade Crossing. As shown in Tables 3-5 and 3-6, the addition of the at -grade crossing at Fairview Street between Civic Center Drive and 59, Street would reduce, on average, both the average and maximum queue lengths. Traffic Signal Priority for the Streetcar. Table 3-7 summarizes the delay and corresponding LOS for 2035 Streetcar Conditions, with and without the transit signal priority adjustments, and using Highway Capacity Manual HCM) Methodology. As shown on Table 3-7, overall intersection delay would change with implementation of Traffic Signal Priority, with minor decreases in delay at some locations, and minor increases in delay at other locations. However, in no instance would the minor increase in delay result in a new significant impact, or increase in the severity of an impact. All intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS. Table 3-8 summarizes the delay and corresponding LOS for 2035 Streetcar Conditions, with and without the transit signal priority adjustments, and using Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Methodology. As shown in Table 3-8, the application of Traffic Signal Priority to all of the affected intersections would not result in any deterioration of LOS from acceptable to unacceptable. Street Design Concept for Santa Ana Boulevard. Table 3-9 summarizes the LOS for study area intersections with implementation of the Santa Ana Boulevard Street Design Concepts, but without the implementation of the Traffic Signal Priority as discussed above. Table 3-9 shows an impact at the intersection of Santa Ana Boulevard/Raiff Street, where the LOS would deteriorate from acceptable LOS D to unacceptable LOS E in the PM peak hour. However, implementation of the design modifications includes implementing Traffic Signal Priority. Therefore, the new street design concept with the inclusion of Traffic Signal Priority was evaluated, and is summarized in Table 3- 10. As shown in Table 3-10, the application of Traffic Signal Priority to all the affected intersections would not result in any deterioration of LOS from acceptable to unacceptable. Based on this supplemental traffic impact analysis of design modifications, no new significant traffic impacts and no increase in the severity of an impact would result as compared to the originally approved Project as evaluated in the EIR. No additional traffic impacts would occur and the conclusion that the Project would result in a less than significant traffic impact as identified in the EIR remain accurate. Noise and Vibration A Supplemental Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis was prepared to address the potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed design modifications (see Appendix D). The findings of the supplemental noise and vibration analysis of proposed design modifications conclude that the recommendations have been incorporated into the Project in the form of design features that are consistent with previously -adopted Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-3 in the EIR. Incorporation of these design features would attenuate noise and vibration levels at the few locations potentially affected by the design modifications along the 101P age 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum Project alignment, such that no new significant impacts and no increase in the severity of an impact would result as compared to the originally approved Project and as evaluated in the EIR. The proposed modifications that have been determined to have the potential to affect noise and vibration levels and were studied in detail in the Supplemental Noise and Vibration Analysis (Appendix D) include physical improvements and operational modifications. Physical Improvements: Alignment Shift. Repositioning the double track alignment within the PE ROW is proposed. This modification would shift the railroad centerline within the PE ROW to the north. Changes to Special Trackwork. Placement of single crossovers on both sides of the maintenance and storage facility (MSF), changed layout for MSF, added crossovers on both sides of downtown couplet, and replacement of the tail track beyond the SAR Transit Center (SARTC) platform with a double -crossover before the SARTC platform is proposed. Operational Modifications: Increase in Speed. Increasing the maximum speed within the PE ROW from 35 miles per hour (mph) to 45 mph, and Traffic Signal Priority. Implementation of traffic signal priority at all traffic signals along the route except for Main Street, Broadway, and Bristol Street is proposed. Noise Analysis of Increased Speed and Alignment Shift As described in Appendix D, the impacts associated with the increase in speed combined with the alignment shift are the same as those for the original Project with the exception of at receivers R1 (located within NSA 1), R4 (located within NSA 2), R7 (located within NSA 3), and R8 (located within NSA 4). With the proposed modifications, receivers R1 and R4 would be exposed to moderate noise impacts. At receiver R7 the noise level would worsen from a moderate impact to a severe impact without mitigation as compared to the original Project. At receiver R8 the noise level improved, as it would be reduced from a severe impact under the original Project, to a moderate impact under the currently modified Project. The February 2012 noise and vibration technical report provided as an appendix to the EIR, recommended the following measures to reduce the severe impacts: 1) wayside noise barriers, 2) horn sounding exemption at grade crossings, and, 3) special trackwork devices. The currently proposed Project plans call for the use of flange bearing frogs at all crossovers. Therefore, no further measures are required for the special trackwork. The 2012 noise analysis evaluation provided in the EIR identified the need for noise barriers for receptor locations R10, R12, R13, and R14. Due to the change in train speed, elevation, and the shift in centerline an additional wayside noise barrier would be required to reduce the noise level in the vicinity of receptor R7 (located in NSA 3). Noise levels at receivers R7 and R14 would be reduced to moderate after the implementation of the proposed design feature, which is consistent with the previously -adopted Mitigation Measure N-3. If a horn sounding exemption is established and approved at each crossing, the required use of warning horns would be exempted and horns would not be sounded except in an emergency situation. Based on the supplemental noise and vibration analysis, noise levels at receivers R10 and R13 would be reduced to a moderate impact after the implementation of the proposed mitigation measure. This measure was previously identified in the EIR, and the supplemental analysis demonstrates that the proposed modification does not change the previously -adopted mitigation measure. 111P age 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum As disclosed in the EIR, all severely impacted receivers would be reduced to moderate or no impact after the implementation of proposed mitigation. Eliminating the horn sounding at receptors R10 and R13 would reduce the noise impact from severe to moderate. Therefore, no barriers are recommended at those locations. Streetcar Vibration Analysis The proposed Project modifications would affect the vibration level results as presented in the February 2012 Noise and Vibration Technical Report provided as an appendix to the EIR. Beginning at Harbor Boulevard and ending at Raiff Street the proposed modifications would implement the following changes to the previously approved Project. The proposed modification would increase the average train speed within the PE ROW from 35 to 45 mph The proposed modification would shift the railroad alignment within the PE ROW to the north. Impact of Proposed Design Modifications Table L of the Supplemental Noise and Vibration Analysis lists the vibration levels calculated for the proposed alignment. This table reflects the change in vibration levels associated with the increase in speed and the change in centerline location. There are only Land Use Category 2 and Land Use Category 3 noise receptors located within the vicinity of the project modifications. Land Use Category 2 includes residences and buildings where people normally sleep. Land Use Category 3 includes institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. The impact threshold for Land Use Category 2 is 72 VdB and for Land Use Category 3 is 75 VdB. As shown, the vibration levels are below the impact threshold at all receptor locations. Therefore, no minimization design features are required. Construction Vibration Analysis Construction of the proposed Project may require pile driving and has the potential to result in temporary vibration impacts to structures and humans. The potential use of pile driving is associated with the Project as evaluated in the EIR. However, the design modifications specifically do not trigger the need for the use of pile driving. The 2012 Noise and Vibration Technical Report (URS) determined that residences located within 100 feet of the Westminster Avenue overpass or the Santa Ana River Bridge would be exposed to vibration levels exceeding those listed in Table M of the Supplemental Noise and Vibration Analysis, therefore the design modifications do not increase the seventy of vibration impacts nor introduce new vibration impacts not previously analyzed. The residences located adjacent to the Santa Ana River Bridge would be exposed to vibration levels of up to 0.32 PPV, exceeding the 0.2 PPV threshold for standard residential construction. The Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge would be exposed to vibration levels of up to 0.23 PPV, exceeding the 0.12 PPV threshold for historic structures. However, these levels are based on the use of impact pile drivers. Section 3.16.2.3 of the EIR included the following best management practices (BMPs) for bridge construction vibration: Noise and Vibration Control Plan will be developed and implemented prior to construction that will include the following best management practices to minimize exposure to high levels of noise and vibration and ensure compliance with construction noise and vibration criteria listed in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance document. This includes ensuring that vibration levels at historic structures do not exceed 0.12 inches per second peak particle velocity. Where pile -driving operations are required, vibratory pile driving or pre -drilled pile insertion techniques shall be used whenever possible, rather than impact pile driving. Although perceptible at the residences these vibration levels would not exceed FTA's vibration damage criteria. The 2012 Noise and Vibration Technical Report (URS) determined the following distances for potential for vibration impacts due to the use of a piece of equipment such as a vibratory roller during construction: Building damage to residential structure — 26 Feet Building damage to institutional structure — 15 Feet 121P age 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum Human annoyance to residential land use — 145 Feet Human annoyance to institutional land use — 115 Feet Any structures within the distances identified above would be considered impacted due to use of construction equipment such as a vibratory roller. The proposed modified alignment would reduce the minimum distance to a residential structure to 37 feet. While this distance is within the annoyance area it is outside of the potential damage area. Traction Power Substation Noise Analysis The noise sources on TPSS units are the transformer hum and noise from cooling systems. The wall mounted HVAC units are the primary noise source on the proposed TPSS units. TPSS units 1 and 4 are located in residential areas. Table N of the Supplemental Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis (see Appendix D) shows the predicted noise level at the TPSS sites. This table also lists the FTA noise impact criteria, in which a noise level above the specified dBA would be considered an impact. For TPSS unit 1, a noise level exceeding 54 dBA would be considered an impact. For TPSS unit 4, a noise level exceeding 59 dBA would be considered an impact. As shown in Table N, noise levels would be 42 dBA at TPSS unit 1 and 46 dBA at TPSS unit 4. These noise levels are less than the specified thresholds of 54 dBA (unit 1) and 59 dBA (unit 4), therefore, there would be no impact associated with the TPSS units. However, it is recommended that the following measures be implemented to ensure that the impact is below a level of significance: Orient the TPSS unit so that the HVAC units, the primary source of noise, are pointing away from the nearest residence. At the residential locations, the TPSS units will be designed so as not to exceed a maximum noise level of 45 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the unit or at the setback line of the nearest building, whichever is closer. The potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project were evaluated in the EIR. Since the certification of the EIR, there have been some design modifications that have the potential to change the noise and vibration characteristics of the proposed Project as evaluated in the EIR. These design modifications have been evaluated as summarized above. Based on this supplemental evaluation, it has been determined that the proposed design modifications would not result in a new impact, increase in the seventy of an impact, or require the implementation of a new mitigation measure as evaluated in the EIR. No additional noise or vibration impact would occur and the conclusions and mitigation measures identified in the EIR remain accurate and applicable to the proposed Project. Air Quality The potential air quality and greenhouse gas emissions (global climate change) impacts associated with both the construction and operation of the proposed Project were evaluated in the EIR. There have been no changes to the air quality environment as evaluated in the EIR. The proposed miner design modifications would change some of proposed improvements within the corridor, however, the general Project constructions characteristics as described in EIR would not be altered in such a manner as to result in an increase in the daily construction emissions, and no new mitigation measures would be required. In terms of short-term, construction -related air quality impacts, as described in the EIR (and applicable to the Project with the proposed design modifications), construction activities would be completed in a segment by segment basis to minimize the disruption to local residents and businesses in the Study Area. As concluded in the EIR, there would be no exceedances of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regional significance thresholds as a result of daily construction emissions. This conclusion would still apply with implementation of the proposed Project modifications as the construction parameters and characteristics would be the same, no new significant short-term air 131P age 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum quality impact, increase in the severity of an impact, or new mitigation measure would be required associated with implementation of the proposed design modifications. In terms of long-term, operational air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts, with the exception of an increased maximum speed in the PE ROW and the implementation of traffic signal priority, no changes to the operational characteristics are proposed that would affect the previous conclusions of "less than significant impact" for operational air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts. The Traffic Study Addendum v2 (provided in Appendix C), indicates that all roadway segments and intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS with the implementation of the traffic signal priority. Therefore, the conclusion that long-term impacts associated with localized CO concentrations (due to poor intersection LOS) would be less than significant would remain. No additional air quality or greenhouse gas emissions impacts would occur and the conclusions identified in the EIR remain accurate. Energy Resources The EIR identified a less than significant impact to Energy Resources as a result of the Project. This is attributed to the reduction of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) that is anticipated with the operation of the streetcar. The proposed design modifications would not affect the anticipated ridership for the Project, therefore, there would be no new impact, or increase in the severity of an impact related to Energy Resources and the conclusions identified in the EIR remain accurate. Water Qualitv. Hvdroloqv, and Floodolains The potential water quality, hydrology, and floodplains impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project were evaluated in the EIR. The EIR determined that impacts to these resources would be less than significant related to water quality, water discharge, stormwater runoff and as related to alteration of drainage patterns. As described previously, some of the proposed design modifications involve changes to the proposed drainage improvements. Appendix P (Drainage Technical Report) of the EIR, described storm drain improvements on many streets outside the Project alignment. However, modification of scope of drainage improvements is proposed in order to rely less on connections to the existing storm drain network and, instead, use surface conveyance in streets to maintain existing drainage patterns to the maximum extent practicable while addressing surface storm water drainage needs generated by the Project, or change in drainage patterns caused solely by the Project. The proposed design modifications to the drainage plan for the Project would not result in the increase in a new impact related to hydrology, increase in the seventy of an impact related to hydrology, or require new mitigation measures in order to address drainage and/or hydrology impacts. The EIR identifies that the Project would be required to comply with BMPs to address pollutants of concern and hydrologic conditions of concern associated with the Project's stormwater runoff. With implementation of the BMPs, the Project would result in less than significant impacts to water quality, water discharge, and stormwater runoff. The implementation of BMPs would be applicable to the design modifications. Further, design modifications such as changing the single track bridge to a double track bridge over the Santa Ana River would not increase impervious surfaces, as the underlying channel is concrete lined. Therefore, the construction and operation of the Project would be the same as evaluated in the EIR. No additional water quality, hydrology, or floodplains impact would occur and the conclusions that impacts to these environmental resource areas are less than significant as identified in the EIR remain accurate. Safety and Security This environmental resource issue area is only applicable to the analysis pursuant to the NEPA, and no further analysis is warranted in this CEQA Addendum. 141P age 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum Construction The potential construction impacts associated with the proposed Project construction were evaluated in the EIR. This chapter of the EIR evaluated potential construction impacts related to visual quality, energy resources, traffic, circulation, parking, hazardous materials, air quality, noise and vibration, and land use. Since the certification of the EIR, there have been no changes to the construction characteristics of the proposed Project as evaluated in the EIR. Proposed construction activities would remain the same as previously evaluated with respect to these environmental resource areas. The proposed design modifications would not change the previous conclusions regarding construction impacts. No additional impacts would occur to these environmental resources and the conclusions that the Project would not result in a significant impact to these resources as identified in the EIR remain accurate. Other Considerations The EIR addressed several environmental issue areas within Chapter 3.17 Other Considerations. These included: Biological Resources, Utilities and Service Systems (Wastewater Treatment and Facilities, Stormwater Drainage Facilities, Water Supply, and Solid Waste Disposal and Compliance Regulations), Parklands and Recreational Facilities, Growth Inducing Impacts, Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes, and Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts Biological Resources. The proposed design modifications would not significantly impact biological resources as these resources are not present within, or in proximity to, the limits of disturbance associated with implementation of the design modifications. No additional impacts would occur to this environmental resource and the conclusions that the Project would not result in a significant impact to this resource as identified in the EIR remain accurate. Utilities and Service Systems. The proposed design modifications would result in less than significant impacts to wastewater treatment facilities, stormwater drainage facilities, water supply, and solid waste disposal. As with the Project described in the EIR, implementation of the design modifications would not generate wastewater from activity along the alignment or at stations. Wastewater would be generated by the 0&M Facility, but no change to the 0&M Facility is proposed, and as identified in the EIR, the 0&M Facility would not put added strain on existing wastewater treatment capacity. Project modifications are proposed related to drainage improvements as described previously under "Water Quality, Hydrology and Floodplains." No change to the previous conclusion of less than significant impact would occur. The design modifications would not change the water use associated with operation and maintenance of the Project, such as vehicle washing and worker hygiene. No change to the previous conclusion of less than significant impact would occur. Solid waste receptacles would be placed at stations, and solid waste would be generated at the 0&M Facility. However, no changes to these aspects of the Project are proposed with the design modifications, therefore, no change to the previous conclusion of less than significant impact would occur. Parklands and Recreational Facilities. The proposed design modifications would not significantly impact parklands and recreational facilities. No additional impacts would occur to these environmental resources and the conclusions that the project would not result in a significant impact to these resources as identified in the EIR remain accurate. 151P age 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum Findings from Environmental Re-evaluation 1). Substantial changes are not proposed for the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity ofpreviously identifiedeffects. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project was undertaken, that would require major revisions to the Project EIR. Since certification of the Project EIR in January 2015, there have been no major updates to the CEQA Guidelines or adoption of new legislation requiring additional environmental analysis. Therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to the EIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures are incorporated herein by reference. 2). Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, that would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As described in the preceding text for each environmental issue area, no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the proposed Project design modifications would be undertaken that would suggest that its adoption and implementation would result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of the previously identified significant effects not previously discussed in the certified Project EIR would occur. Therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to the EIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures presented in the Project EIR are incorporated herein by reference and would be implemented in compliance with the adopted MMRP for the Project. 3). No new information has been provided, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete that would indicate that the proposed project would result in one or more signiricant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, significant effects would be substantially more severe, mitigation measures or altematives previously found to be infeasible would in fact be feasible, or mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. There is nothing in the proposed Project design modifications that would suggest that its adoption and implementation would result in any new significant environmental effects or the increase in the severity of an environmental effect not previously discussed in the Project EIR. Therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to the EIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures presented in the Project EIR are incorporated herein by reference and would be implemented in compliance with the adopted MMRP for the Project. 6. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings and information contained in the previously -certified Project EIR, the analysis above, the CEQA statute and State CEQA Guidelines, including Sections 15164 and 15162, the proposed design modifications will not result in any new, increased, or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Project EIR. No changes or additions to the Project EIR analyses are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures. Therefore, a Supplemental EIR is not required. This Addendum to the EIR is the appropriate environmental documentation for the proposed modifications to the Project. 161P age 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum Figures and Appendices are not included with this Addendum, but can be made available upon request. List of Figures Figure 1 Overview of Design Modifications Figure 2 Design Update ID # 1 — Santa Ana River Bridge Figure 3 Design Update ID # 3 — New SAR Trail and Bikeway Undercrossing on West Side of SAR Figure 4 Design Update ID # 5 — Delete Willowick Station Stop Figure 5 Design Update ID # 5 & # 6 — Revised Station Locations Figure 6 Design Update ID # 7 — Revised Crossover Locations Figure 7 Design Update ID # 9 —Westminster Avenue Bridge Type Figure 8 Design Update ID # 10 Santa Ana Blvd from Flower to Raiff Figure 9 Design Update ID # 11 Santa Ana Blvd from French to Flower Figure 10 Design Update ID # 12— Traction Power Substation Locations Figure 11 Design Update ID # 13 Street Drainage Figure 12 Design Update ID # 14 Two -Wire OCS in PE ROW List of Appendices: Appendix Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) Supplement (HDR, 2016) Appendix B Cultural Resources Update Technical Memorandum (HDR, 2016) Appendix C Traffic Study Addendum v2 (IBI Group, 2016) Appendix D Supplemental Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis (HDR, 2016) 171P age 1170726.1 Ln N go 5 nv.navoea 1S SSOH 15 OmoO N OwFr 1S'301SIH9 W Q Q1 0mUN M ri e IAIJroi M aDz to C OQN OUN«o 113O 15111tltl 30 arae HIMWH Lr) El ri N C O C O00 r-1 N r-1 r-1 L IMM C O co p UcoOUJ L J ; IVW -L is -A Auk zII, VJ.HVE col LL f - Ia m _ a m V I L N Cs 1 o Ic V Q Nm I q I0 C m n I f - I a m I V L3aI mu a L Q 6 w p e a S 4 yy! yid Ya ry i w p a1 A u0a • 6$ • dCc mGm T SZ. yup Z c -N Ls S 0V] p seenuu n is eawueon s • ,. is wnsee • • tnji sww SsM$ • - • isnnw ode4s°$ ssaw • • is sloe • • m m wv • 16 9Mnv 33 • i3 uwsec • i3W1.9ttl • S 3 UA,a 0 M Sea3 n Ll ma W Q J U W Ll na I n7F TpuS;' i {. Ilyt T 4-0 L 0 E 0 L M W Q co I CD TOM 0 CL 00 cm E 01 1 f. 1 ;,7 P i 0 ] P Lm _ A LL c L y w A r tx TOM I TOM T 0 Q I !` CL 3 VONVU9 ri 3 V ONVU9 LJ CmPU 5P 1S NNW 1S AVM VOHB isssod is d Moll 15 tl3 WLLHOW 1S HON3tl3 • • PUS¢ UOnOLUtyiE E3 I ° o U n + CUvU wU U w N m z F ii o = o c0 15 tl3 WLLHOW 1S HON3tl3 • • PUS¢ UOnOLUtyiE E3 I ° o U n + CUvU wU U w N m z F ii F K- , APPENDIX A OC STREETCAR SANTA ANA / GARDEN GROVE PROJECT Visual Impact Analysis Re-evaluation Technical Memo Prepared by HDR For. Orange County Transportation Authority 7/14/2016 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project J Visual Irrpact Analysis Re-evaluationTechnical Memo Memo Dab: Thursday, July 14, 2016 Project Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project To: Mary Shavalier/Program Manager, OCTA From Clint Meyer/Senior Environmental Planner,HDR Subject: Visual Impact Analysis Reevaluation prepared in support of Minor Design Modifications for the Santa Ana/Garden Grme Fixed Guideway Project HDRperformedasupplemental Visual impact analysis on the preliminary engineering (30% design) for the Orange County Transportation Authoritys (OCTA) Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project (Project). The purpose of this analysiswas to identify any changes to visual effects that were pre viouslydisclosed in the adopted Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) (2015), due to several design modifications with the advancement of engineering since the Project(and conceptual design) was approved in 2015. Project Background Construction and operations of the Project (the adopted Locally Preferred Alternative, or "LPA') defined at a conceptual engineering level, was approved by the FTA in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), dated March 10, 2015 pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The approval of the project was based on findings of the Revised Environmental Assessment (EA) (January 2015). The City of Santa Ana, the Lead Agency under the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse #2010051060) in January 2015. OCTA subsequently adopted the Final EIR as a Responsible Agencyunder CEQA. The project has since advanced with the completion of the 30% design in May2016. OCTAas the lead in design and implementation of the Project, is proposing minordesign modifications to the LPA as defined in the Revised EA/Final EIR as approved by FTA and OCTA. The modifications comprise of physical and operational improvements, and are partlyderived from value engineering and riskworkshops conducted in 2015, as well as design coordination with the Cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove. The modifications are not anticipated to result in changes to the maintenance plan for the Project. Minor Design Modifications The minordesign modifications that have been determined to potentiallyaffectvisual resources and require further evaluation in this memo are described below: AConcrete BoxGirder bridge instead of Tied -Arch bridge at Westminster Avenue; A double track bridge insteaclofa single track bridge across the SantaAna River (SAR). The position ofthe bridge would be north instead ofsouth ofthe existing historic bridge location; 11 Page F31J OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Visual Impact Analysis Re-evaluationTechnical Memo Addition of abridge span on the west bank of the SAR, behind an existing levee to accommodate an undercrossing for the SAR Trail and Bikeway(and Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) maintenance road). The profile of the trail and maintenance road would be modified to facilitate the grade separation; Relocation of the traction power substations (TPSS) to the PE ROWand publically owned properties and reducing the number of TPSS from sixto four; and, Change from single contact wire in the PE ROWto a two -wire catenaryto enhance operations at higher speed. Supplemental Visual Impact Analysis The 2012 Visual Impact Assessment thatwas included in AppendixEofthe 2015 ENEIR organized the project into three segments for purposes ofevaluating potential Visual impacts. These segments consisted of Segment 1: PE ROW, Segment 2: Flower to Raitt Street, and Segment 3: Flower to Santa Ana Regional Transit Center (See Figure 1, EA Alignment Segments forVisual Impact Assessment). The segments were further subdivided into Visual Character Areas (A to J). Figure 1 — EA Alignment Segments for Visual Impact Assessment SEGMENT i:PE ROW SEGMENT 3:STREETCAR ALTERNATIVES 1 & 2 - FLOWER TO SARTC SEGME 3@. STNEETCM AL NkT1YE9 q EGMEMF :STREETCARALTERNATI E1•. Pcten9alO8Y Faci@F.al ty(OSMFac[thy iSke 0) SIm A) j i SEGMENT 2: FLOWER TO RAITT STREET t LCGCNG. Q suarwe. s:scae aaMni.mra C noommsm IoaR Design modifications described above are located within Segment 1 for (1) the Westminster Avenue Bridge; (2) the Santa Ana River Bridge; (3) realignment of the track and change from one to two -wire catenaryin the Pacific Electric right ofway(PE ROW) and (4) repositioning of Traction Power Substations (TPSS) (1) and (2). The repositioning of TPSS (3) and (4) are located within Segment 3. 21 Page OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project J Visual Impact Analysis Re-evaluationTechnical Memo Supplemental visual impactanalyses of the potential change in Visual contextfrom the minor design modifications at Westminster Avenue Bridge and the Santa Ana River Bridge was performed and compared againstthe previously approved analysis. The visual impact of two wire catenarywithin the PE ROWis considered to be not adverse/less than significant in the contextof the prioranalysis and presence of overhead wires in adjacent areas, therefore no supplemental visual analysis was performed for this change. Westminster Avenue Bridge — Segment 1 (Visual Character Area A) The visual character of Area Awithin Segment 1 is influenced byadjacent commercial and residential developmentthatborders the PE ROWand contains existing roadways, streettrees, and residential neighborhoods. As provided in the 2015 EA, the visual qualityof Area Ais considered Moderate Low to Moderate. Under existing conditions, Westminster Avenue is situated at -grade within the PE ROWand contains median landscaped with grass and several tall. mature trees. With the implementation of the LPA, Westminster Avenue would be maintained atgrade through the PE ROWwith the streetcar alignment crossing via a new single span tied -arch bridge crossing up to 220feet in length with a maximum deck height of 23 feet. Although no bridge design was prepared for the Westminster Avenue Bridge as part of the 2015 EA, for Visual analysis purposes, the 2015 EAdepicted the bridge in a conceptual photo simulation as a single span arched bridge. Figure 2 illustrates the existing at -grade crossing and proposed conditions under the approved 2015 LPA, with a single span tied -arch bridge. As an outcome of advancing the projectdesign and performing value engineering for the LPA, OCTA determined that more efficient bridge design options could be implemented at the WestminsterAvenue location. This resulted in the selection of concrete box girder bridge design thatis more co nve ntionally used in highwayand light-rail/streetcar corridors throughout southern California. The modified bridge design would include a two span concrete box girder bridge structure, as depicted in Figure 3, which would have similar dimensions for deck height and total length as compared to the conceptual bridge structure depicted in the 2015 EA. The main differences between the previously -depicted bridge and the currentbridge type include the elimination of the arches and hangers in the bridge's superstructure, which would increase the visibilityof the catenarywires, and the addition of single bent(pier support) near the center of the bridge. As shown in Figure 3, the modified bridge's appearance within the PE ROWwould be similar to what was previously shown for the bridge in terms of scale. Additionally, based on the surrounding Moderate Lowto Moderatevisualquality,the minor modifications would notoccur within an area that is highlysensitive to Visual change. Similar to the bridge concept depicted in the 2015 EA, the existing mature trees along Westminster Avenue would screen/buffer views of the bridge from adjacent vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Although the bridge would be Visible to residences south of Westminster Avenue and motorists driving along Westminster Avenue, the visual qualityof the area is urban in nature such thatthe bridge's addition would have no adverse affect/no significant impact. 31 Page OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project J Visual Impact Analysis Re-evaluationTechnical Memo Further, itis notanticipated thatthe bridge would be visible to residences northeastof the Harbor Boulevard/Westminster Avenue intersection. Based on these considerations, the modified bridged esign would not diminish the visual qualityofthe area and the resulting affect would not be adverse/less than significant. No visual impactwas identified in the 2015 EA; therefore, this projectfeature would notresultin a newadverse or significant visual impact, nor would itincrease the severityofa visual impactas compared to the originally approved project and as evaluated in the 2015 EA. Figure 2 — Westminster Avenue Bridge (Existing and Simulation of Approved LPA) Figure 3 — Westminster Avenue Bridge (Modified Bridge Type) Aesthetic Concept (Alternative 1) 41 Page OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project I Visual Irrpact Analysis Re-evaluationTechnical Memo Aesthetic Concept (Alternative 2) Aesthetic Concept (Alternative 3) Santa AnaAna River Bridge — Segment 1 (Visual Character Area A) The existing Santa Ana River Bridge is located at the southern end of Area Awithin Segment 1 as presented in the 2015 EA. The visual character of the surrounding area is similar to that described for Westminster Avenue, which is moderate low to moderate. The main difference within this portion of Area Ais the presence of the Willowick Municipal Golf Course, which provides an open space character thatis absentin areas further north. The 2015 EAanalyzed construction of a new bridge immediately south of the existing Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge and concluded that its construction would partiallyobstructviews from the south of the bridge. The 2015 EAalso concluded that the design of the bridge would have minimal 51 Page F31J OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Visual Impact Analysis Re-evaluationTechnical Memo vertical elements, other than poles and overheadwires thatwould conflict with the views of the truss and the visual features of the existing bridge. Therefore, views in the vicinity of the existing bridge would not be substantially diminis hed and the resulting impact was determined to be not adverse/less than significant. Figure 4 depicts the existing bridge and the approved bridge design in the LPA. Figure 4. Santa Ana River Bridge (Existing and Approved LPA) Currently, minor design modifications to the bridge crossing include a double track configuration rather than single track), use of two catenarywires as opposed to one, and the re -positioning of the bridge to north of the existing Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge (as opposed to the south which was the previously -contemplated location of the new bridge). To assess these minor design modifications, visual simulations were prepared for vantages e.g. from the south) similar to those identified in the 2015 EA. In addition, because the bridge is re -positioned north of the Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge, an additional vantage was captured from the north. Figure 5 illustrates the keyobservation points that were used for the two simulations. Figure 5 — Key Observation Points 61 Page OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project J Visual Impact Analysis Re-evaluationTechnical Memo Figure 6 presents the revised visual simulation for the minor design modifications at the Santa Ana River Bridge from the same vantage as provided in the 2015 EA. As shown in Figure 6 north -facing), the existing Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge genera Ilyobstructs the bridge with the exception of the catenarysupports, guardrail, and bridge foundational supports. Similar to the approved LPA, no major lighting is proposed. Asa result, the re -positioning of the bridgeto the northwould resultin lessofan obstruction than compared to the approved LPA. Forth is reason, this bridge design modification would not substantially alter the visual character of the project vicinity and no adverse effect/significantimpactwould result. Figure 6 — Santa Ana River Bridge (Modified Project) — North Facing 71 Page F31J OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Visual Impact Analysis Re-evaluationTechnical Memo Figure 7 presents the visualsimulationforthe modified bridge crossing as could be viewed from the north of the bridge (i.e. south -facing). As depicted, this minor modification would result in similarvisual affects to the approved LPAand would functionally shift these affects from the south to the north of the Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge. Given that the modified bridgedesign has not s ubstantiallychanged since theapproval of the LPAin 2015 and the re- positioning of the bridge would result in less visual impactwhen compared to the approved LPA no substantial changes in the significance determinations provided in the 2015 EAwouId result. Forthis reason, the minor design modifications to the Santa Ana River Bridge fall within the scopeofanalysis for the 2015 EAand remain notadverse/less than significant. No visual impact was identified in the 2015 EA; therefore, this project feature would not result in anew adverse/significantvisual impact, nor would it increase the severityofa visual impactas compared to the originallyapproved project and as evaluated in the 2015 EA. Figure 7 — Santa Ana River Bridge (Minor Design Modification) — South Facing 81 Page OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project J Visual Impact Analysis Re-evaluationTechnical Memo yam TPSS Locations — Segment 1 and Segment 3 k In the LPA, a total ofsixTPSS facilities were proposed to be located at (1) Harbor Bloulevard 2) Susan Street (outside of PE ROW) (3) east side of Santa Ana River (outside of PE ROW) (4) PacificAwnue (5) in parking structure at5th and Main Street, and (6) on south side of Santa Ana Boulevard at Garfield Street. The design modification decision to reduce the number of TPSS sites from sixto fourwas made during the preliminaryengineering (30% design) phase of the project. This resulted from consultation with Southern California Edison on power supply feeder locations to TPSS sites and completion of a load flow analysis for the streetcar power distribution network. 30% design TPSS sites are proposed to be located (1) on the south side of Westminster Avenue in PE ROW (2) at the Maintenance and Storage Facilityon the former SA Recycling yard (3) in Cityof Santa Ana parking loton the north side of Santa Ana Boulevard eastofParton Streetand (4)on the north eastcornerofSanta Ana Boulevard and N. Garfield Street. Figure 8 compares TPSS locations per LPA against the 30% design. Figure 8 — TPSS Locations per LPAvs. TPSS Locations per 30%Design 91 Page OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Visual Impact Analysis Re-evaluationTechnical Memo a aex ia.r 3 LPA in Certified EAIEIR o Design TPSS (1) and (2) on the west side of the alignment and located in the PE ROWare within Segment 1 Visual Character Area A, which has a visual quality of moderate low to moderate. TPSS (1) will be located on the south side of the Westminster Bridge east abutment and adjacentto WestminsterAvenue. TPSS (2) will be located within the MSF site, which will be bounded byfencing. TPSS (3) which is proposed on the existing City of Santa Ana parking lot, is located within Segment 3 Visual Character Area H, which has a moderate visual quality. TPSS (4) is proposed to be located on a lotbounded byN Garfield Street, E Santa Ana Boulevard and an alleywaywithin Segment 3 Character Area J, which has a Low to Moderate visual quality. Similar to the analysis provided in the ENEIR, the TPSS facilities that would be located throughoutthe StudyArea would provide a moderate vertical element. The size of the TPSS site will be designed to accommodate a 1 Megawatt (MW) facilityand will have an anticipated structure heightofapproximatelyl2 feet(1-story). Figure 9 providesa representative example of the TPSS appearance (and as previously presented in the ENEIR). Figure 9—Typical TPSS Appearance 101 Page OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Visual Impact Analysis Re-evaluationTechnical Memo I MMW_WaOOO TPSS would be generally located in areas that are multi -family residential, commercial/light industrial and low to mid -rise commercial in nature and of low to moderate visual quality. Landscaping features and otherfeatures, such as walls and paint colors associated with the substation structure, would be selected on a site-specific basis to increase the visual compatibilityof other structures within the surrounding environment. Based on the nature of the areas in which the TPSS would be located, the TPSS structures would be consistentwith the other structures and equipment typical of the location. For this reason, the minor design modificationsto the TPSS locationsfall within the scope of analysis for the 2015 EAand remain notadverse/less than significant. No visual impact was identified in the 2015 EA; therefore, this projectfeature would not result in anew adverse or significant visual impact, nor would it increase the severity of a visual impact as compared to the originally approved project and as evaluated in the 2015 EA. Conclusions The minor design modifications that have been determined to potentiallyaffect visual resources and were re-evaluated in this memo include the Westminster Avenue Bridge, the Santa Ana River Bridge, and repositioning of TPSS. Realignment of the track and change from one to two - wire catenary in the Pacific Electric right ofway (PE ROW) is also proposed; however, the visual impact of the two -wire catenarywithin the PE ROWis not considered to be adverse/significant in the context of the prior analysis and presence of overhead wires in adjacent areas, therefore no re-evaluation of the prior visual impact analysis was performed for this change. Westminster Avenue Bridge. Based on the analysis, the modified bridge design would not diminish the visualqualityofthe area. No adverse orsignificantvisual effect was identified in the EA/FONSI; therefore, this projectfeature would not result in anew adverse or significant visual effect, norwould it increase the severityofa visual effect as compared to the originally approved project and as evaluated in the 2015 EA/FONSI. 11JPage F31J OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Visual Impact Analysis Re-evaluationTechnical Memo Santa Ana River Bridge. Based on the analysis, the modified bridge design has not substantiallychanged since the approval of the LPAin 20l5andthe re-positioningofthe bridge would result in less visual impact when compared to the approved LPA Therefore, no substantial changes in the significance determinations identified in the 2015 EA/FONSI would result. No adverse orsignificantvisualeffectwas identified in the prior EA/EIR; therefore, this project feature would not result in a new adverse or significant visual effect, nor would it increase the severityof a visual effectas compared to the originally approved project and as evaluated in the 2015 EA/FONSI. TPSS Repositioning. The TPSS would be generally located in areas that are multi -family residential,commercial/light industrial and lowto mid -rise commercial in nature and of low to moderate invisualquality. No adverse or significant visual effectwas identified in the 2015 EA/FONSI; therefore, this projectfeature would notresultin a newadverseorsignificant Visual effect, nor would it increase the severity of a visual effect as compared to the originally approved project and as evaluated in the 2015 EA/FONSI. This analysis concludes thattherewould be no change to the conclusion that visual impacts would not be adverse orsignificantwith the implementation ofminor design modifications to the adopted 2015 Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), and therefore, there would be no change to the prior Visual Impact Assessment in the adopted (EA/FONSI) (Appendix E of the 2015 EA/EIR). Recommendation This memorandum documents the environmental effects of project changes and the changes in circumstances per23 CIFIR 771.129(c) as itrelates to Visual Impact Assessment. Based on this analysis, itis recommended that this memorandum be transmitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as partof OCTAs requestfor confirmation from FTAthatthe prioranalysis remains valid. 121 Page APPENDIX B OC STREETCAR SANTA ANA / GARDEN GROVE PROJECT Cultural Resources Technical Memo Update n i M Y a 7ffiW= r Prepared by HDR For. Orange County Transportation Authority 7/8/2016 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNCulturalResourcesTechnicalMemoUpdate Memo Date: Friday, July 8, 2016 Project: OCTA Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project To: Mary Shavalier/Program Manager, OCTA From: Jeanne Barnes/Architectural Historian, HDR and Nina Delu/Environmental Planner, HDR Subject: Cultural Resources Technical Memo Update HDR performed a supplemental cultural resources technical analysis in response to advancements in engineering by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) on the Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project (Project). The purpose of this analysis was to identify for the engineering team whether any of the proposed minor design modifications to the adopted Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) would affect the previous findings regarding cultural resources (both historic and archaeological) within the previously -approved Area of Potential Effects (APE), and the revised APE to reflect design modifications. Project Background Construction and operation of the Project (the adopted LPA), based on conceptual engineering, was approved by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in a Finding of No Significant Impact FONSI), dated March 10, 2015, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The approval of the project was based on the findings of the Revised Environmental Assessment EA) (January 2015). The City of Santa Ana, the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) certified the Final Environmental Impact Record (EIR) (State Clearinghouse #2010051060) in January 2015.00TA subsequently adopted the Final EIR as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. URS Corporation prepared a Cultural Resources Evaluation Report in May 2014 that determined the project would have no adverse effects on historic properties. The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) concurred with the findings of the report (OHP reference number FTA111011 B). The 2015 approved Project was not expected to have an adverse effect on historic properties, inclusive of historic architecture and archaeological resources, under NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Under the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA), the proposed project was not expected to have a significant impact on archaeological resources. However, given the sensitivity of the area for archaeological resources, archaeological monitoring would be conducted for earth -disturbing activities that could encounter previously undisturbed soils per the Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted by OCTA. The project has since advanced with the completion of the 30% design in May 2016. OCTA, as the agency responsible for design and implementation of the Project, is proposing design modifications to the LPA as defined in the Revised EA/Final EIR as approved by FTA and July 8, 2016 1 1 OCTA ISanta Ana/Garden Grove Streetcar Project J Cultural Resources Technical Nlamo Update adopted bythe Cityof Santa Ana and OCTA The modifications comprise ofphysical and operational improvements, and are partlyderived from value engineering and risk workshops conducted in2015,as well as design coordination with the cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove. The modifications are notanticipatedto resultin changes to the maintenance plan for the Project. Design Modifications The following provides a description of the proposed minor design modifications that OCTA is proposing in response to advancements in the project's engineering design since the approval of the ENEIR in 2015. Table 1 provides a listing of design updates, comparing the description of projectfeatures in the approved 2015 LPAto the revised description of projectfeatures resulting from minor design modifications. See Appendix Afor current engineering plans and Appendix B for a comparison of the 2015 Approved alignment and the 2016 Minor Design Modifications. Physicallmprovements: The design modifications would result in the following changes to the physical improvements described in the LPA: Concrete Box Girder bridge instead of Tied -Arch bridge at Westminster Avenue; A double track bridge instead of a single track bridge across the Santa Ana River SAR). The position of the bridge would be north instead of south of the existing historic bridge location. Repositioning the double track alignment, shifting the railroad centerline within the former Pacific Electric right-of-way (PE ROW) from the middle to the north at the approaches to the SAR crossing; Addition of a bridge span on the west bank of the SAR, behind a existing levee to accommodate an undercrossing for the SAR Trail and Bikeway(and Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) maintenance road. The profile of the trail and maintenance road would be modified atthe crossing to facilitate the grade separation; Deletion of Willowick Station Stop. This station stop is associated with future development. Atthis time there is no development that is accessible to this station stop; Repositioning of Station Stop side platforms to center platforms at Harbor Boulevard, Fairview Street (both west side), and Raitt Street in the PE ROW segment of the Project alignment; Repositioning Station Stop westbound platform at Ross Streetfrom farside to nearside, and Station Stop platforms atBroadwayand Main consolidated and moved to farside Sycamore Street; Placement of single crossovers on bothsides ofthe Maintenance and Storage Facility MSF) with a revised Iayoutforthe MSF, added crossovers on both sides of downtown couplet, and replaced the tail track beyond the SARTC platform with a double crossover before the SARTC platform; Restriping Santa Ana Boulevard from Flower Streetto RaittStreetfrom a four -lane to a two-lane street with a raised 4 -ft median; July 8, 2016 1 2 F31J OCTA ISanta Ana/Garden Grove Streetcar Project Cultural Resources Technical Nlamo Update Res tripingwestboundSanta Ana Boulevard from French Street to Flower Street from three -lanes to two -lanes and a protected bike lane on the north side of the street; Relocation of the traction power substations (TPSS) to the PE ROW and publically owned properties and reducing the number of TPSS from sixto four; Re-evaluation ofthe scope ofdrainage improvements to mitigate additional surface storm water drainage needs generated bythe Project, or change in drainage patterns caused solelybythe Project; Changingfrom single contactwire in the PE ROWto a two -wire catenaryto enhance operations at higher speed; and Consideration of underground fiber optic lines from SARTC to the OCTAGarden Grove Bus Annex north of the PE ROW, about 1500 feetwestofHarbor Blvd. Operationallmpmv>'ments: Two changesto the Project's operations are proposed as part of the modifications: Increasing the maximum speed within the PE ROWfrom 35 miles per hour (mph) to 45 mph. The increased speed reduces travel time, providing operational costand ridership benefits; and, Implementation of traffic signal priorityat all traffic signals along the route exceptfor Main Street, Broadway, and Bristol Street. July 8, 2016 1 3 F31J OCTA ISanta Ana/Garden Grove Streetcar Project Cultural Resources Technical rvlamo Update Table 1. Comparison of 2015 Approved Project and Proposed 2016 Minor Design Modifications LPA in Certified EA/EIR —January 30% Design —May 2016 Figure/Appendix 2015 Reference Single-track bridge across the Santa Double -track bridge across the Santa Ana Figure 1 Ana River south of the existing historic River, north of the existing historic bridge. bridge. The double -track bridge is the same distance away from the historic bridge as the single-track bridge. Track positioned in the center of the Track shifted to the northern side of the PE Appendix A PE ROW ROW, no private property is required. At -grade Santa Ana Ricer Trail Provision of a Santa Ana River Trail Figure 2 crossing on the West Bank. undercrossing at the West Bank by including an extra span on the Santa Ana River bridge Streetcar Maximum Speed of 35 mph Streetcar Maximum Speed of 45 mph in PE in PE ROW. ROW Willowick Station Stop within PE ROW. No Willowick Station Stop within PE ROW. Appendix A Side platforms at Harbor Blvd., Center platforms at Harbor Blvd., Fairview Appendix A Fairview St. (staggered, farside), and St., and Raitt St., nearside Bristol St. Raitt St., farside Bristol St. eastbound, westbound, nearside Ross St. westbound, farside Ross St. westbound, stops at stops at Sycamore (farside westbound, Broadway and Main. farside eastbound), No private property is required for the platforms. Double crossover west of maintenance Single crossovers on both sides of the MSF, Appendix A and storage facility (MSF), turnout and revised MSF track layout, single crossovers tail track beyond Santa Ana Regional on both ends of downtown couplet, double - Transportation Center (SARTC) crossover prior to SARTC platform. platform. No consideration for traffic signal Traffic signal priority at all traffic signals Appendix A priority for the streetcar. along the route except for Main St., Broadway, and Bristol St. The TSP extends a green phase or shortens an opposing green phase by as much as 20 seconds, Tied -Arch Bridge at Westminster Concrete Box Girder Bridge at Westminster Figure 3, Avenue Avenue Figure 4 Santa Ana Blvd. from Flower St. to Santa Ana Blvd from Flower St. to Raitt Appendix A Raitt St. maintained as a four -lane St. with a raised 4 -ft median and re -striped street (two lanes in each direction with as a two-lane street (one lane in each streetcar in the outside lanes). direction) with left and U-tums allowed only at signalized intersections and striped bike lanes. No private property is required. Santa Ana Blvd. from French St. to Santa Ana Blvd. from French St. to Flower Appendix A Flower St. with three -lanes westbound. St. with two -lanes westbound and a protected bike lane on the north side of the street. No private property is required. Six traction power substations (TPSS) Elimination of two TPSS to result in a total Figure 5, located at the following locations: of four TPSS for the Project, with the 1) At Harbor Blvd., following revised locations. No private 2) At Susan St. (outside PE property is required: July 8, 2016 1 4 OCTAI Santa Ana/Garden Grove Streetcar Project J Cultural Resources Technical Nlamo Update LPA in Certified EA/EIR —January 30% Design—May2016 Figure/Appendix 2015 Reference ROW), 1) On south side of Westminster Ave 3) On east side of Santa Ana in the PE ROW, Ricer (outside of PE ROW), 2) Atthe Maintenance and Storage 4) At Pacific Ace.; Facility (MSF) site; 5) In a parking structure at 51 3) On north side of Santa Am Blvd and Main, and east of Parton St.; and 6) On south side of Santa Ana 4) On north side of Santa Ana Bled Bled at Garfield St. and N. Garfield St. Locations 1 and 2 are within the ROW previously cleared. Locations 3 and 4 are identified within the updated APE. Appendix P to the EIR, the Drainage Modification of scope of drainage Appendix A Technical Report, indicate storm drain improvements to rely less on connections to improvements on many streets outside storm drain network and use surface the project alignment. conveyance in streets to maintain existing drainage patterns to the maximum extent practicable while addressing surface storm water drainage needs generated by the Project or change in drainage patterns caused solely bythe Project. Single contact wire in the PE ROW. Two -wire catenary in the PE ROW. No provision for underground fiber Underground fiber optics cable Appendix A optics cable communications) from SARTC to OCTA Garden Grove Bus Annex north of PE ROW, approximately 1500 feet west of Harbor Blvd. July 8, 2016 15 o IIVN-L b3AA24 VNVV1 VS J da" aVuviNws. U u LL yz F 2 0 N 1U a w> X UE o9 NI JwV ULU y4 N F fl- u Q y fv i wu I I a aBvi+e a laagS poeGtlovd 'ro3 ___--_---- H 1 m U Ni a6PP9 fznni 3d 5u9e:3 r i G v d a 9 a0a.'IPImroY1PP 00 Y u VLLq1C Q v SW v w a ui o ao- n i w OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guidew ay Project Cultural Resources Technical Nlamo Update Area of Potential Effects (APE) The 2015 APE was originally created to take into consideration both archaeology and architectural resources, encompassing the maximum footprint for construction, ground - disturbance and grading, and generallyextended one parcel pastthe limits of the above -ground project improvements, and/ordirect impacts for the TPSS sites, gated crossings, tree removal areas, maintenance facilities, transit structures, raised medians, staging areas, property acquisitions, and ROWimpacts. The APE also included previouslyrecorded cultural resources located adjacentto the above -ground project improvements and direct impact areas. In addition, the APE included parcels adjacentto the proposed project footprint as part of the architectural historyfield surveys for propertiesthat maybe potentially indirectly affected byvisual, audible, or atmospheric intrusions; shadow effects; vibrations from construction activities; or change in access or use. These areas of the APE would not be physically demolished, destroyed, relocated/removed, materia Ilya ltered, orimpacted from neglect ordeterioration as a result of this project. The original projectAPEwas compared to the minordesign modifications to the adopted LPA, and a revisedand expandedAPEwas developed to addressthe modifications (see Appendix C). The revised APE encompasses the original 2015 APE and was expanded in areas to accommodate minordesign modifications, primarilyto include the relocation of TPSS, areas of ground disturbance due to utility relocations and storm drain improvements, adjustments to platforms, station stops, and rail lines, and the location ofthe bridge over the Santa Ana River. The APE maps include the locations of historic properties. In keeping with the previous methodology, both directand indirect effects were taken into accountwhen revising the APE and include areas where the streetcar and its project components will be visible and/or where there may be effects due to audible or atmospheric impacts or vibration impacts from construction. Identification of Historic Properties An updated records search was conducted with the South Central Coastal Information Center to ensure that all recently recorded cultural resources in the expanded APE were taken into accountin the currentstudy(seeAppendix D). The areas of the expanded 2016 APE do not include any newly identified historic properties since the 2014survey, and whatwas included in the 2015APE.A reconnaissance -level field surveywas conducted in May2016 to photograph and documentthe expanded areas of the revised APE. Surveyphotos ofkeyproperties and photo key maps are included in Appendix E. As noted in the 2014 surveyand evaluation, there are several historic properties located with the 2015APE. The proposed modifications refinements and the expanded APE include the historic properties identified in Table 2. There are no known archaeological or paleontological resources eligible for listing in the NRHP located within the original or expanded APE. July 8, 2016 1 10 J OCTA ISanta Ana/Garden Grove Streetcar Project Cultural Resources Technical Nlamo Update Table 2. Previously Identified Historic Properties in the Expanded APE ID Number Name NRHP Eligibility NR 84000438 Downtown Santa Ana Historic District Listed NR 99000051 French Park Historic District Listed P-30-161847 Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge Eligible P- 30-160401 Orange County Original Courthouse Listed Ten properties are located within the expanded APE that are 50 years of age or older. All 10 properties are located outside of the two historic districts. These parcels were included in the expanded APE because theyare located adjacentto a relocated TPSS or curb improvements. Table 3. Parcels W ithin the Expanded APE Containing Resources 50 Years of Age or Older Parcel Number Address Location on APE Map(Appendix B) 405-053-15 1631 West Santa Ana Boulevard Sheet 7 405-171-06 1702 West Santa Ana Boulevard Sheet 7 405-172-01 1630 West Santa Ana Boulevard Sheet 7 405-053-07 1601 West Santa Ana Boulevard Sheet 7 405-054-06 1529 West Santa Ana Boulevard Sheet 7 405-172-08, 09 1602 West Santa Ana Boulevard Sheet 7 405-064-15 410 North Bristol Street Sheet 7 398-303-09 817 East Santa Ana Boulevard Sheet 13 398-303-03 711 North Garfield Street Sheet 13 398-302-09 708/729 North Garfield Street Sheet 13 In lightof the expedited project deliveryschedule, the minor nature of the design modifications, and the previous no adverse effectfinding for the original project, FTA is assuming that all 10 properties are considered eligiblefor listing in the NRHPfor the purposes of this project only and is seeking concurrence from the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Assessment of Project Effects The assessment of project effects is limited to the minor design modificatio ns a nd to the overall project in the expanded APE. The previous assessment of effect for the 2014 project remains unchanged, with the exception of these design modifications. July 8, 2016 1 11 OCTA ISanta Ana/Garden Grove Streetcar Project Cultural Resources Technical Nlamo Update Archaeological Resources The expanded APE does not include anyknown archaeological or paleontological resources e I ig ible for o r I isted in the NRHP. Ground d isturban ce wo uld not be more than five feet beneath the existing surface in most areas. The dee pest e xca va ti o ns would be 12-20 feet deep (Iikelya 36 -inch diameter boring) to accommodate OCS pole foundations, depending on soil conditions which will be determined througha geotechnical investigation. Although the APE has already been subjectto extensive d is ruption from previous d eve lo p m e n t a nd may contain artificial fill materials, the APE has the poss ibil ity of co n ta i nin g intact, undisturbed cultural deposits below the level of p revio us d istu rbance. As such, important a rchaeologica I resou roes may existwithin the APE. The potential exists tha t co nstructio n activities associated with ground disturbance may unearth undocumented archaeological resources. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures specified in Section 7.5 ofthe 2014 Cultural Resources Evaluation would ensure that measures are taken to minimize potential effects to archaeological resources. Therefore, no adverse effects would occur to archaeological resourcesas a resultof the design modifications. The proposed utility and storm drain modifications, the repositioning of double -track and platforms, placing single crossovers, restriping Santa Ana Boulevard, and repositioning of platforms would occur almost entirely within the street and PE ROW, which have been previouslydisturbed with pavement, utilitylines and a previous rail line. Within the street ROW, construction would require a depth of approximately 18 inches below ground surface of excavation for placement of foundation material and laying track. Additional depth of excavation maybe required for utility relocations and foundation construction for the TPSSs ata depth of five feet or less, butthis would not Iikelyencounter previouslyundisturbed soil. These areas are all located in previouslydisturbedareas with underground infrastructure along the street ROW, and the potential for the accidental discoveryof archeological resources is low. Architectural Resources The previous cultural resources evaluation for this project identified 53 significant historic properties eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, oras historical resources for purposes of CEQA within the APE. Within the expanded APE, there are four previous ly identified historic properties (Table 2) and 10 properties over 50 years of age are being treated as eligible for the purposes of the current evaluation (Table 3). The construction and operation of the proposed projectwould not disrupt the essential form or i n te g rity of th e h istoric p roperti es in the expanded APE. Further, the minor design modifications would not result in vis ual, audible, or atmospheric intrus ions beyond those noted in the 2014 cultural resources evaluation. As described in the previous evaluation, many of the proposed construction features s uch as staging and construction areas would be considered temporary or i n d i rect effe cts, since no pe rmanent improve ment wo u Id occur.Other improvements would be considered minor changes to the built environment that would not have any direct effect or physical alteration to a character -defining feature of a historic property. These types of improvements include the removal of street landscaping (e.g., trees), newtraffic signals, gated crossings, curb closures and repair, and pedestrian safety measures (e.g., cross -walks). Since construction of the proposed projectwould be temporary and would not require acquisition or July 8, 2016 1 12 F31J OCTA ISanta Ana/Garden Grove Streetcar Project Cultural Resources Technical Nlamo Update physical alterations with surrounding historical properties, the onlypotential for an adverse impact to occur during construction would result from indirect vibration effects thatcause physical damage to historic structures. Thep rope rtiesin thee xpanded APE would beset back ata distance far enough from construction activitythat the vibration levels would be belowthe FTA threshold for historic structures. As an outcome of furthering the projectdesign and value engineering for the LPA, OCTAhas determined that more efficient bridged esignoptions could be implemented at the Westminster Avenue location. This resulted in the selection of a bridge design that is more typical of rail crossings that exist throughout southern California. The proposed modified bridge design would include a concrete cast -in-place boxgirder bridge structure rather than the proposed tied arch structure (Figure 3, Figure 4). As noted in the 2014 cultural resources evaluation and in the updated Visual Impact Analysis (VIA)conducted in 2016 to address the bridge modifications, the visual quality of the Westminster Bridge is considered moderate low to moderate (see Appendix F). The proposed bridge area is surrounded bynon-historic period commercial and industrial properties, and would notcause a change in the area's visual characterand would not be considered a visual intrusion to the surrounding area. Therefore, modifications to the proposed Westminster Bridge would have no adverse effect on historic properties. The two minordesign modifications thathave the greatest potential to effect historic properties are the proposed bridge adjacent to the Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge and the relocation ofTPSSs. As orig inallyproposed in 2014, a single-track bridge would be constructed south of the historic Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge. The proposed modification includes construction of a double -track bridge north of the historic bridge. The updated 2016 VIA determined thatno news ignificantvis ual impacts and no increase in the severity of an impact would result as compared to the originally approved bridge (Appendix F). Currentviews of the bridge are limited to long range views along 5m Street to the south and Fairview Street to the north and east. Unobstructed views of the bridge can only be seen from the Santa Ana River Trail, which is open to pedestrians, bicycles and horses. The existing bridge would remain in place and a new bridge would be constructed to the north of the existing historic bridge. The proposed projectwould require the alignment to be grade separated from the Santa Ana River Trail on both the eastand west sides of the river. The grade separation would occur on the backside of the flood control levee to avoid impacting the western abutment of the historic bridge. The visual elements of the historic bridge would be minimally affected because the materials used forthe newparallel structure would differfrom the historic materials. The feature thatqualifies the Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge as a historic property, the Pegram truss, is defined byits features of distinguishable geometric design, with the posts arranged at increasing anglesfrom the vertical chords from the center of the truss towards the ends. These features are most distinguishable atthe top of the bridge span. Because the views of the existing bridge would onlybe partiallyobstructed atthe base of the bridge and to a limited group of viewers, the proposed new bridge would nots ubstantially impair the historic bridge's activities, or views of the Pegram truss architecture. The proposed new bridge will notadvorsely affectthe integrityor features and attributes that qualifythe Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge as a historic property. Thus, there would be no adverse effects resulting from the July 8, 2016 1 13 OCTA ISanta Ana/Garden Grove Streetcar Project Cultural Resources Technical Nlamo Update construction ofanew double -track bridge north of the historic Pacific Electric Santa Ana Riker Bridge. As part of ad van cement of engineering forth project, some TPSSsites have been refined and have resulted in the relocation of some TPSSs to publicly owned properties outside of the ROW. The proposed TPSS sites located at Harbor Blvd., Susan Street (outside of PE ROW), east side of Santa Ana River (outside of PE ROW), Pacific Avenue, in the parking structure at 5`h and Main, and on south side of Santa Ana Boulevard at Garfield Street have been consolidated and relocated. New sites for TPSS include the Civic Center Plaza and the northeast corner of Santa Ana Boulevard and North Garfield Street (Appendix A) As noted in the 2014 Cultural Resource Evaluation, the TPSS sites and passenger platforms for the projectwould be small mundane utilitarian elements intended to match the existing setting within the APE. The TPSS sites would be visuallycons istentwith other objects and equipment located along the sidewalks and ROW, such as generators and telecommunication equipment. The TPSS on Garfield Streetis within the boundaryofthe French Park Historic District, however there are no contributing resources to thatdistrict near the TPSS and the TPSS is expected to have no adverse effects on the districtor other historic properties. The relocations will result in TPSSs being located adjacent to three properties in the expanded APE that are considered eligible for the purposes of this project (Table 3). However, these TPSS would have a minimal visual intrusion to the surrounding area and would notalter the character of surrounding historic properties. Thus the relocation of TPSS will have no adverse effect on historic properties. Overall, the proposed modifications/engineering refinements to the adopted LPAwould not be considered to have an adverse effect to historic properties under NEPA, Section 106 of the NHPA, or a significant impactto historical resources under CEQA. Conclusions The updated cultural resources analysis confirms thatthe proposed engineering refinements to the projectdo notchange the previous conclusions regarding cultural resources. No adverse effects are expected within the expanded APE for the design modifications under NEPA. Under CEQA, a less than significant impact would remain the finding for the design modifications within the expanded APE. Based on the expanded 2016APE, the sensitivityof the area for archaeological resources and the recommendation for archaeological monitoring to be conducted for earth -disturbing activities thatcould encounter previouslyundisturbed soils remain unchanged and will remain consistent with the 2015 EA/EIR. July 8, 2016 1 14 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guidew ay Project Cultural Resources Technical ivbmo Update July 8, 2016 zzz s 11 1 1 m FN OCTA ISanta Ana/Garden Grove Streetcar Project Cultural Resources Technical Memo Update Comparison Alignments July 8, 2016 P4a.p Niap g59 ss Al+ sarvl E ayNlmam ll 8 w g u, ti 05 16.PKIi?a J l9 rePap O QAAA O ly 6 16FPalx W _ .'e Yn IS Mapes Z l€ W N4a`I CSI w ff i0 ao91rymxaISY003 Y6uPuay ppis4Pilld6N"° - P enpr elWVp w zjISIfiM^6N entlnewMV 8' 3 S u;PYi N w i9.weM1S 19 1 46N As.xpegiBf: 19 amuie/.95 3' ley A P. 95 m 1p e sN Ica lyvn0u C os4 HSA woEr g Is asoaN ISse469 _P s z m m as YaaRM19.P E nspaevN units g IaHtldi"rj Ti_ c 1..l.A, .13 3 Is uOile, 8` 19 AieUeeNSmISINgiN3Q Pl.enNO p' Is anMMl9 ISanppN ,y j. ulyBiro'1 €. IS:1—,N IA g 4' 15 uW9B a161aaxAlNISuewaV 4 Z' m X YPopT:eejy 3 E avPoeNe.%aaN F 154PIRu5.6. Is layes a^v vvppasoy9 Swanegg ad6 iii Pi 3 Is olsl6 ry _0 3 YavewOAexN s slvsaag S=eNPd n Ap ; ISama=ax 5 3. Is a3Na3H 4 st _ mVvyoeyry SPA I6 FeiP..ev 3 1511'etlN I61ye ' 3 3 aSwras d1s M n' a :6 emewee E. i Sn4M4V3 N9 3 m anvAsa96 a'. < f6b3ouasYNP15v fy5, l.z 16 PeN6.Ir{ a SP as veva, aluPlpH uearts` 6 Aapou6 i E `sFeIsmps-3Iswie; v m.° i9 ^e.uy{ IS Mdy1%63 N cact ala»gyp S W Hp1433 2 Pb Y Is o -Mo J 9E q o 6 0 b 3 43heGyp l n0 y onrew'' g I9 assm6N dgues{IssjdiNElsIFairy IS wlad s9la+nelN a H AAs ,st IS ... M -i S q4. i9 eWlea EscVaeOW Ia l41PYn9 Yv y p 6 Ty 6 3a 0PaSvoryPHvNgloryapNv' Pti aee8 ° W! 3 4 P Pb IW!, e Vl Alms ly ¢.[uua09 e m u G aide{3 m j G[ K'Us Jµ a 410 Fk, S y n A 4, uw N vq. n. z u Md 0' W a 40 O a m 40 Q m a tt LL W lu fi,7... r a 40 4AA I 1 MA k uj I 1 MA 0) zLU q E . ... _ •il ly'la9v vSl Rt t r w 4 FN OCTA ISanta Ana/Garden Grove Streetcar Project Cultural Resources Technical Memo Update July 8, 2016 3 Pill FI k e ro r meveas _ o x J 0 o Y s g Z Q ozWWII— rcaw q a LA Z V r m Qrow m a aa QwaarwW o Z 9 w ZK< QN0wKO D — m s 1 w'0 m H O IMAM. IIFrmill - aid i' I 3 Pill FI k e ro r meveas _ o x 0 o Y s g LA r m Ll IFe m J9w D — m s ass m m s e d s m ea waery a w e0 YY "c o' me ume a xg y s= d ..e 3 unre.ax 3 e 3eNm a x gy3 3 n Wam p HFT- SWe r m em a m 3 s m 5 mm @ m e i m o w Z FmJ-L e Ec ftj A a a` Z ww 00 Ow0 ZU< p FOzwwr O Ow aroW WZZd'K N N a U O o o a pl 'Y d ZC]Z4-JJ4 TlWd YE49J4 SS4E4W4 0 qe a ce bo rsce bo 99 SCt6W1 IY ]Z4 4 D6 ISFM n 9^ 0 00 WII4W4 64 W4 4546s00! u eo-essoo o p d 91.1 R p ¢ o-uro 5 erurm m sao s wax Nl 3 n-ltlml o§ 1p w; oz j Z Z*| Q0 o§ 1p IZP 442ffi4 CuigP p d3o m 6—BN 5 XR1 H EEEfi 3 t9 r< e ZUQEcpFhoz o Qwwr ow QHOW aA WZd' w K Z Z N N Qww 00 0 o- lnac o - mac rmac auac4 s" use lzlsc slat lacma use lzlsc mac mac4 2 s 8'cp3 less o-lzlas o-slas alas 4 less o-lzlas o-slas seas 4 Q^ ISWu I IZP 442ffi4 CuigP p d3o m 6—BN 5 XR1 H EEEfi 3 ash s` p 4 t9 r< e Z U< E co p Foz o ooowAv v LL oz< 1 a a=n wZw, W o w ZK, Z Z ani fV) O w 15 eu Lp 00 Aga 0 s0>- ye o-ewg a 3 omr ao-4¢as4 by S n Q Lts4wo Lsr zLosor o„k 900 peJ Jg e> F 3 q zaoy rz'osta J aeJ 3 1 LSEe osor hN osor 3 y h Lo-eLzsoe z nOS'6T26 LSE[ ZSELOO hm 10 4 eLr ec 8 8 u e re 3 k Po q^ p mx 9bJtlo Y N s 4rhPo 8 3 zp"sEa r"Po zsorLL 3 F q`"s 8 44 py ah firy Y e Oti A erRnrq" ry 8 A Ll LL IL -414964 HryR ash s` p 4 Mar1¢s W O 15 eu Lp Aga s" ye a 3 ao-4¢as4 by D Q peJ 1 4PZtt SW Z4-r650Y gefW`0 636 pyo g s-mwr 000 +% e4' v o-mwr a FmYL 0 cL JUQ as w A Z aWOW Z w $ wa w 0 ago Zw, a< K o a i a< V) V) H P O g 9 e-sme z«IL ozr o m-mrew X424 -Ni IaOWDiwN ZP 424 -Ni m-xeoo 94Y9C('J 0 0 3 za r e o-¢-rm x u-Iserm- semo c x; oWiire 4PZtt SW Z4-r650Y gefW`0 636 pyo g s-mwr 000 +% e4' v o-mwr a W 0K JUQ aWOW ago Zw, Ka i V) V) H O e-sme z«IL ozr o m-mrew X424 -Ni IaOWDiwN ZP 424 -Ni m-xeoo 94Y9C('J 0 0 3 r x oo e o-¢-rm x u-Iserm- semo x; oWiire 4PZtt SW Z4-r650Y gefW`0 636 pyo g s-mwr 000 +% e4' v o-mwr a i 4PZtt SW Z4-r650Y gefW`0 636 pyo g s-mwr 000 +% e4' v o-mwr a 5 X`r•XX 0w0 e ZU< Ec p Fhoz o ftj wwr Dow LL 1 tj F442P[W A war0W a a a` WZwZd'K N N aZZw Pe 3 w 00 0 m eo-snsm - a osuso. o9 98 p 3 ISI!¢LH 5 -XS 5 X`r•XX F442P[W k 3 Pe 3 98 pg cTR£[W F 3 S S Ow0 e ZU< Ec p F ftj Ozwwr o O Ow 442(N LL 1 tj A arow a 4 a a` WZW , w Z v ZK, N N aww8 000 O F 3 S S og S 442(N og 442(N 4 S B 6 adsaX X o a 9 o 3 o n iw 3 3 v w=dsa+tlmax a orem e tl aax 6RNJx tl aaX 8 S 0 e ZUQEcpF ftj Oz Qwwr o O Ow IIIb I. LL 1 tj A QFpw a W aa w Z az ZK, NN Qwa$} 00 O hrcxp e I. LI tI. 1.01 sna.mx 11111 111 1 logo 111 FmJ-L 1 1111® O Im w0 e ZUQEcpFOZ o ftj Qwwr l OW A QrOw a W aa w Z K KQw6$} N a Q000 I A- - N 5 Aacaie9N 0 n soo 8 m sna.mx 11111 111 1 logo 111 1 1111® sna.mx 11111 111 1 logo 111 1111® Im sna.mx 11111 111 1 logo 111 Im G uauvai N.,e.=t uuu 111 111 Im 1111111 111 111 AQaaXa saaaLLsx S s-zaosar z zo-mos M-H s,ayae x oz Z :_ Z*| Q`` T7. i IrJ LJ JfCi' i a I 15 aiwo%5 x cess sw og 8 8 m N 8 oe O ism 0 t9Ue - z U Q cA p F F Oz 3 z IILQoW a aaa Zw, w zrc, N N QZwa$ 1 } 000 UO ao g uIM x i IrJ LJ JfCi' i a I 15 aiwo%5 x cess sw og 8 8NN i IrJ LJ JfCi' i a 15 aiwo%5 x cess sw og 8 8NN 8 8 oe i IrJ LJ JfCi' i a 15 aiwo%5 x oe ta sw ism F i IrJ LJ JfCi' i a oz ftj Z Z*| ` Q 0 " / 110, 61. 611. 611. Iuffl m. umFT a a s g 4 ` a 1 a swan b u411oaE N m m m nRc ac m an W W W W zosroaerE F jos W s ryzo-z X Bash St W T V4ZVOEa4 m m A ` S Vsn9N 4a9Y£ FOYAL 0 06Qt9 e ZU cv ooz HOZftjo v rc ~O w A v o ow w o Q f 0a W Q afw o o w Zd'KQ 1 } a w 00 QN m rr*" as a,n+ pan 4k a',a"0a aa%' aoa a mmoo e+ a a s g 4 ` a 1 a swan b u411oaE N m m m nRc ac m an W W W W zosroaerE F jos W s ryzo-z X Bash St W T V4ZVOEa4 m m A ` S Vsn9N 4a9Y£ oz n Z= Z*| 00` oz n ( Z Z*| 0§ OCTA ISanta Ana/Garden Grove Streetcar Project Cultural Resources Technical ivbmo Update July 8, 2016 a O Q K OFFwZU w OwDKKaxW C N w O a d Z K D n w y NNOwwDHU9UW I Y 8 a a3 a .. m ; m a 8 w s=•e -M . m _ - aeT+ w sm- P a a a w g E k ae ms s a O m w3e rv.,c a, w www remmrs+ a im Ia s% a .e.m e• °g m s e a aM a -. z e_ g E s= >:.`` a g s m __ a Q 4 v C 5 E • IY.9 .nm • s _ II 6 3 en re • e a, n° 11 Ji.„. a- k EWvis g 3-11 ae 8 , x g s§ y I m S? c es= r9 L a in 84 4 F nmrvm $ 5 ew N%a awz eun ' ' . ew.}`, a stz e s m 8 a 0 Q t7rFZU WOW o v Q U X — Z ® Z a V) W $ = 0 00:: 9 Y un _ u W 0 w ap6ena Cir Aaupft ISIIYII n ul xo4eM1.yy e G ` M:aIM @M eu'rn9 Ery 2 m n C Keung M p eo p' Ka6paled Katld3lp y p e• h K WIVWM g Ij 5xneaPnRC mWdn6n5 5 KuoPIU F O hee9p a199 J 9 a 3 E Kwame - o ' gree:ewav or a' lal n!Yied per 3 3 6 E Klamel p A 3 knel 15 WIed h ewl Q W—WurXi Is aaawer aas+enraAr > E >m $a4linp X AL a 6ia41un9 W RainE % V SntllneX K Ralac2 ¢ lul &Il ed 01 m 3e Ee o KercanBi LL e pVB meXX •\\ WIgao X s o Pa 3 F M Wuld +VPreopea5 uplla4o PXRa+6Xtldep 3 S KWM e Rockn9M1ORe Rd • e e. e e e e e e e e e e e e. o JS FaM 3 E aw 'gee a w m b 99 $ V ¢ J X Z ® oa oo Za m $ = 000 = a 0 t7rFZV- Q U aFa V) O u W O r s..a snM,ystiy ana o+ O•o amalroa a a..tl ma xvae M ln6 RMalmtl VenN+ Pi F aauWol seuan9 2 or'0 F Q C19s03 I xeuu3 a' Oby q6 mm xe s a' rc y&Dr IN, o bnbeg Yll& 3°s Re,N nJ 6uWUIJ V o J 4Jeq an a 3LefeIX 3Intl kegiJH +wnO A 6uas H ey-g O Ralltl M—nsEo0 U, k F 61ane s v 1JXkson st Is uosMaefs s+a4wnsN ; w+a4wn x Q 5+a41ung5 6.laMa9 N SFal.. N 6 s eoren51 N s Fe e+eam. o xns+o4rex N we+.xnxs Lo+ s Pa 2 y u,Fuoi a Q +X 6uptl5 ua+oj eIIN N.Spaurel3 Twn Me 66aM E is uw¢4S9 uuJ leYnsul.—n Q E9 4 mR Q® ulsvlRnXX E Sa kJ LOMai+ N a' a 9 6nall mery+ggM j b 5yerinY urcwn9 N N;xa uewnGS a 0 t7rFZU WOW oa Q U m X r zm Dun O U W O 8 sae d m 3 3 s iolai8 x s Ices s Raxtl s eaeaxs s •a:axx z sPops sl F 3 sPaRC P'aantlaiYxdXQ b 6 g e s Ie+Ud x 33 apus{oMs 3 atlusleam a+VYgUJ a fi 3 j IS U?tlry 6Q!eNs 3 Gu.xe4led antlu.xe4led G 9XUei] s a -I Ramax anvRz¢Ox l¢rcOs 3 s P—U-1 x a w-Um ry 6 4alEu3 5 3 6 Pxn5 sq vs a a sRa.xxry 3 ada...a cP v V m 3 e9•e 9 z 3 3 Is eiq3ry d a iNNa k 3 o hN sp ' a'se is wwnlaary u, ye33 nlaXnx xFa1Nt•w 5t m -11I X ISUuxnss F wxx 3 N ryfiuiXied o o N pyN a 0 Q t7rFZU oa Q U e WOW X — Z ® Z a V) W $ = o 00:e- YDun_ u W o uAaa,x Q tldS/yyYa,X 0 4 m ISs491X 4 15YOm d q ,ya vypi sages ASwaN - W w p m w aRtlaEu¢p w iS yy y5 H Ralltl u xa x w w w ayae,ec w Z L+ 6uexX w ulaWS 0 6awueaRSN ISxawroR65 Aemp:o e N Re"w•ogN 3 3 Yhry• gasS m Se Ralltl ; 3 g u w 16 N 3 ul xp x'• g Isw,ies m a^vay4a^!n sssaas 3 yE m F z F a..tl—xvenx F3 Is 4aas 6 u vyaea x - 3 SRasme9 N m IS Aaswe9 N 3 56asu¢95 NFIo erse sv xrxarA 3 3 3 6axp H 1$axIOX xi lla w,H - E 3 srsae a• s uawaai Lj 5 5 Aw V. = 3 fieix • z 3 uuga ss fr N SM1ZMan St g a•tl4acx M rti 3 3 s syeS x • AG aXeS x 6 a1xS5 X Z oa Z am $ r 00:: N 9 Y 000 = a 0 t7rtoUE W, Q U N N KO U W O w j 0ala{MvawoeJH ooi 51wT.W a4ty m 8 xampw° pw a 3 Mt s" ttOpa c 2wm .N MaMayS ulNI35 3 6 uo<le Is °a,cls o Is aoclx 6 Is p mu° Ed a is 4.1m N ow S S 6WG,1NN aWoPAse3 w atlaws a N Z Ntl pwa°Ilx Est'a n Ntlpww°Ilx ISRamwx ••... •. 5 tatiPa 6 antlp{1 •.......••.. NtlPe/JX• w w Q N E tW dHie ISRemeVleN N p 5 ev w NSaat'^ pW; ISlwiw l t aM1e9L° t Eo0 p GawyP antlwmwl o C Q t£gan5t antlpx e$N aMPeP.65 W ¢t.Jbw Gaff M St 3 V w e sRa'pawxktae° P FN OCTA ISanta Ana/Garden Grove Streetcar Project Cultural Resources Technical Memo Update July 8, 2016 EXPANDED APE PHOTOGRAPHS (5.20.2016-6.14.2016) OCTA Santa Ana/Garden Grove Streetcar Project Photo 1. View north-northwest towards OCTA Maintenance building. Photo 2. Santa Ana River Trail adjacent to the Willowick Golf Course, view northeast with historic Santa Ana River bridge visible (center right). hdrinc.com 3230 EI Camino Real, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92602-1 377 714) 730-2300 CTA esources UpdateO padied AtPE (Photographs and PhoouKey Maps FN Photo 3. Santa Ana River Trail at the PE ROW, adjacent to the historic Santa Ana River bridge, view northeast. L Photo 4. View of the proposed TPSS location at the sunken parking lot area of the Santa Ana Civic Center, view east northeast. 3230 EI Camino Real, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 9 2602-1 377 hdrinc.com 714) 730-2300 2 FNOCTA I Cultural Resources Memorandum Update Expanded APE Photographs and Photo Key Maps Photo 5. Photo of residence at 1631 West Santa Ana Boulevard, taken from intersection of West Santa Ana Boulevard and North Western Street, view northeast. *Building assumed eligible for purposes of this study. W Photo 6. Photo of residence at 1702 West Santa Ana Boulevard, taken from intersection of West Santa Ana Boulevard and North Western Street, view southwest. *Building assumed eligible for purposes of this study. hdrinc.com 3230 EI Camino Real, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 926 02-1 377 714) 730-2300 3 OCTA I Cultural Resources Memorandum Update L Expanded APE Photographs and Photo Key Maps r Photo 7. Photo of residence at 1630 West Santa Ana Boulevard, taken from intersection of West Santa Ana Boulevard and North Western Street, view southeast. *Building assumed eligible for purposes of this study. Photo 8. Photo of residence at 1601 West Santa Ana Boulevard, taken from intersection of West Santa Ana Boulevard and North Forest Avenue, view northwest. *Building assumed eligible for purposes of this study. 3230 EI Camino Real, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 9 2602-1 377 hdrinc.com 714) 730-2300 FNOCTA I Cultural Resources Memorandum Update Expanded APE Photographs and Photo Key Maps y( a ;.,-JITMT Photo 9. Photo of residence at 1529 West Santa Ana Boulevard, taken from intersection of West Santa Ana Boulevard and North Forest Avenue, view northeast. *Building assumed eligible for purposes of this study. Photo 10. Photo of residence at 1602 West Santa Ana Boulevard, taken from intersection of West Santa Ana Boulevard and North Forest Avenue, view southwest. *Building assumed eligible for purposes of this study. hdrinc.com 3230 EI Camino Real, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 926 02-1 377 714) 730-2300 5 CTA esources UpdateO padied AtPE (Photographs and PhoouKey Maps FN Photo 11. Photo of Lydia Romero -Cruz Elementary School on West Santa Ana Boulevard, taken from intersection of West Santa Ana Boulevard and North Forest Avenue, view southeast. Photo 12. Photo of Carver Elementary School exercise field, taken from intersection of West Santa Ana Boulevard and North Pacific Avenue, view northwest. 3230 EI Camino Real, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 9 2602-1 377 hdrinc.com 714) 730-2300 FNOCTA I Cultural Resources Memorandum Update Expanded APE Photographs and Photo Key Maps Photo 13. Carver Elementary School main school buildings on West Santa Ana Boulevard, view roughly north. Photo 14. Photo of Rotex Plaza, taken from intersection of West Santa Ana Boulevard and North Bristol Street, view northwest. *Building assumed eligible for purposes of this study. hdrinc.com 3230 EI Camino Real, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 926 02-1 377 714) 730-2300 CTA esources UpdateO padied AtPE (Photographs and PhoouKey Maps FN Photo 15. Overview of the proposed area of ADA related curb repairs in front of the Orange County Historic Courthouse, taken from intersection of West Santa Ana Boulevard and North Sycamore Street, view west. Photo 16. Detail photo of curbs in front of the Orange County Historic Courthouse, taken at intersection corner of West Santa Ana Boulevard and North Sycamore Street. North - south trending curb on Sycamore Street shows heavy modification near intersection corner. 3230 EI Camino Real, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 9 2602-1 377 hdrinc.com 714) 730-2300 8 FNOCTA I Cultural Resources Memorandum Update Expanded APE Photographs and Photo Key Maps Photo 17. Detail photo of curbs in front of the Orange County Historic Courthouse, taken at intersection corner of West Santa Ana Boulevard and North Sycamore Street. East- west trending curb on West Santa Ana Boulevard shows heavy modification near intersection corner. hdrinc.com 3230 EI Camino Real, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 926 02-1 377 714) 730-2300 OCTA I Cultural Resources Memorandum Update L Expanded APE Photographs and Photo Key Maps r Photo 18. Overview of curbs in front of the Orange County Historic Courthouse, taken near intersection corner of West Santa Ana Boulevard and North Sycamore Street. View of east -west trending curb (view looking west) on West Santa Ana Boulevard shows integrity/damages. 3230 EI Camino Real, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 9 2602-1 377 hdrinc.com 714) 730-2300 10 FNOCTA I Cultural Resources Memorandum Update Expanded APE Photographs and Photo Key Maps Photo 19. Overview of curbs in front of the Orange County Historic Courthouse, taken at corner of West Santa Ana Boulevard and North Broadway. View of east -west trending curb (view looking east) on West Santa Ana Boulevard shows integrity/damages. hdrinc.com 3230 EI Camino Real, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 926 02-1 377 714) 730-2300 0 OCTA I Cultural Resources Memorandum Update F Expanded APE Photographs and Photo Key Maps r Photo 20. Overview of curbs in front of the Orange County Historic Courthouse, taken at corner of West Santa Ana Boulevard and North Broadway. View of north -south trending curb (view looking north) on North Broadway shows integrity/damages. 3230 EI Camino Real, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 9 2602-1 377 hdrinc.com 714) 730-2300 12 FNOCTA I Cultural Resources Memorandum Update Expanded APE Photographs and Photo Key Maps Photo 21. View southwest from the corner of West Santa Ana Boulevard and North Broadway. Photo 22. View east from the corner of West Santa Ana Boulevard and North Sycamore. hdrinc.com 3230 EI Camino Real, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 926 02-1 377 714) 730-2300 13 CTA esources UpdateO padied AtPE (Photographs and PhoouKey Maps FN 1 t 41 tii. Id Photo 23. View southeast from the corner of West Santa Ana Boulevard and North Sycamore. Photo 24. View of the proposed TPSS location at corner of North Garfield Street and East Santa Ana Boulevard, view northeast. 3230 EI Camino Real, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 9 2602-1 377 hdrinc.com 714) 730-2300 14 FNOCTA I Cultural Resources Memorandum Update Expanded APE Photographs and Photo Key Maps Photo 25. View of the proposed TPSS location at corner of North Garfield Street and East Santa Ana Boulevard, view from East Santa Ana Boulevard looking roughly northeast the wall of the Tobin Steel Factory is visible, center right). Photo 26. View of the Tobin Steel Factory adjacent to the proposed TPSS location at corner of North Garfield Street and East Santa Ana Boulevard, view from East Santa Ana Boulevard looking roughly north. *Building assumed eligible for purposes of this study. hdrinc.com 3230 EI Camino Real, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 926 02-1 377 714) 730-2300 15 OCTA I Cultural Resources Memorandum Update F Expanded APE Photographs and Photo Key Maps r Photo 27. View of residence at 711 North Garfield Street located adjacent to the proposed TPSS location at corner of North Garfield Street and East Santa Ana Boulevard, view from North Garfield Street looking roughly northeast. *Building assumed eligible for purposes of this study. Photo 28. View of lot at 708/729 North Garfield Street, view west looking across the street from the TPSS location at North Garfield Street and East Santa Ana Boulevard. *Building assumed eligible for purposes of this study. 3230 EI Camino Real, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92602-1377 hdrinc.com 714)730-2300 16 FNOCTA I Cultural Resources Memorandum Update Expanded APE Photographs and Photo Key Maps Photo 29. Detail of residence at 708/729 North Garfield Street. *Building assumed eligible for purposes of this study. Photo 30. Detail of residence at 708/729 North Garfield Street. *Building assumed eligible for purposes of this study. hdrinc.com 3230 EI Camino Real, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 926 02-1 377 714) 730-2300 17 e s r w- rS aM NFowC'.Sr N ' L cs-o-1 • n „ C-51d1,. wr.c z N o s y.pdc[ N a. ., ffi 5-Snell i Shellan':5 U i - N si {71ZI] st NP ' iX4+12 i 5•aacrf,c-Ave Yh'Fores1Yw, IT , O,E•©hve , ar,y,m;a]sanp-Siz mE _ 4 -- Liz1 1 Ire_,. yea• a"sfi ._. ' Nn1 Q Z o OCTA ISanta Ana/Garden Grove Streetcar Project Cultural Resources Technical ivbmo Update mpact July 8, 2016 OCTA I July 2016 r VIASupplement J Memo DA: Thursday, July 14, 2016 Project Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project To: Jim Hecht, Project Manager/HDR From: Clint Meyer, Senior Environmental Planner/HDR Subject: Supplemental Visual Impact Analysis prepared in support of Minor Design Modifications for the Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project HDR performed a supplemental visual impact analysis on the preliminary engineering 30% design) for the Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project (Project). The purpose of this analysis was to identify any changes to visual effects that were previously disclosed in the adopted Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) (2015), due to several design modifications with the advancement of engineering since the Project (and conceptual design) was approved in 2015. Project Background Construction and operations of the Project (the adopted Locally Preferred Alternative, or LPA") defined at a conceptual engineering level, was approved by the FTA in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), dated March 10, 2015 pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The approval of the project was based on findings of the Revised Environmental Assessment (EA) (January 2015). The City of Santa Ana, the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse #2010051060) in January 2015. OCTA subsequently adopted the Final EIR as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. The project has since advanced with the completion of the 30% design in May 2016. OCTA as the lead in design and implementation of the Project, is proposing minor design modifications to the LPA as defined in the Revised EA/Final EIR as approved by FTA and OCTA The modifications comprise of physical and operational improvements, and are partly derived from value engineering and risk workshops conducted in 2015, as well as design coordination with the Cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove. The modifications are not anticipated to result in changes to the maintenance plan for the Project. 11 Page OCTA I July 2016 r VIASupplement J Minor Design Modifications The minor design modifications that have been determined to potentially affect visual resources and require further evaluation in this memo are described below: A Concrete Box Girder bridge instead of a Tied -Arch bridge at Westminster Avenue; A double track bridge instead of a single track bridge across the Santa Ana River SAR). The position of the bridge would be north instead of south of the existing historic bridge location; Addition of a bridge span on the west bank of the SAR, behind an existing levee to accommodate an undercrossing for the SAR Trail and Bikeway (and Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) maintenance road). The profile of the trail and maintenance road would be modified to facilitate the grade separation; Relocation of the traction power substations (TPSS) to the PE ROW and publically owned properties and reducing the number of TPSS from six to four; and, Change from single contact wire in the PE ROW to a two -wire catenary to enhance operations at higher speed. Supplemental Visual Impact Analysis The 2012 Visual Impact Assessment that was included in Appendix E of the 2015 ENEIR organized the project into three segments for purposes of evaluating potential visual impacts. These segments consisted of Segment 1: PE ROW, Segment 2: Flower to Raitt Street, and Segment 3: Flower to Santa Ana Regional Transit Center (See Figure 1, EA Alignment Segments for Visual Impact Assessment). The segments were further subdivided into Visual Character Areas (A to J). 21 Page OCTA July 2016 VIASulpplemerk FN Figure 1 — EA Alignment Segments for Visual Impact Assessment SEGMENT 1:PE ROW SEGMENT 3:5TREETCAR ALTERNATIVES 1 &2 -FLOWER TO SARTC nys STREETCM !LL NATNEIJEUMMEE'U;STREETCARAILWRNiATI E1: Pat.nSal O B M Polentlal Q &M Facility B Facllky(Sita AI i SEGMENT 2: FLOWER TO RAITT STREET LEGEND' 9IStiMMN'IitlM5i 611Ge J ..:::nS Su S U. 91ab/JLni9Te2 .. e O YbalClm,slnNu tl M • Design modifications described above are located within Segment 1 for (1) the Westminster Avenue Bridge; (2) the Santa Ana River Bridge; (3) realignment of the track and change from one to two -wire catenary in the Pacific Electric right of way (PE ROW) and (4) repositioning of Traction Power Substations (TPSS) (1) and (2). The repositioning of TPSS (3) and (4) are located within Segment 3. Supplemental visual impact analyses of the potential change in visual context from the minor design modifications at Westminster Avenue Bridge and the Santa Ana River Bridge was performed and compared against the previously approved analysis. The visual impact of two wire catenary within the PE ROW is considered to be not adverse/less than significant in the context of the prior analysis and presence of overhead wires in adjacent areas, therefore no supplemental visual analysis was performed for this change. Westminster Avenue Bridge — Segment 1 (Visual Character Area A) The visual character of Area Awithin Segment 1 is influenced by adjacent commercial and residential development that borders the PE ROW and contains existing roadways, street 31 Page OCTA I July 2016 r VIASupplement J trees, and residential neighborhoods. As provided in the 2015 EA, the visual quality of Area A is considered Moderate Low to Moderate. Under existing conditions, Westminster Avenue is situated at -grade within the PE ROW and contains a median landscaped with grass and several tall, mature trees. With the implementation of the LPA, Westminster Avenue would be maintained at grade through the PE ROW with the street car alignment crossing via a new single span tied - arch bridge crossing up to 220 feet in length with a maximum deck height of 23 feet. Although no bridge design was prepared for the Westminster Avenue Bridge as part of the 2015 EA, for visual analysis purposes, the 2015 EA depicted the bridge in a conceptual photo simulation as a single span arched bridge. Figure 2 illustrates the existing at -grade crossing and proposed conditions under the approved 2015 LPA, with a single span tied - arch bridge. As an outcome of advancing the project design and performing value engineering for the LPA, OCTA determined that more efficient bridge design options could be implemented at the Westminster Avenue location. This resulted in the selection of a concrete box girder bridge design that is more conventionally used in highway and light-rail/streetcar corridors throughout southern California. The modified bridge design would include a two span concrete box girder bridge structure, as depicted in Figure 3, which would have similar dimensions for deck height and total length as compared to the conceptual bridge structure depicted in the 2015 EA. The main differences between the previously -depicted bridge and the current bridge type include the elimination of the arches and hangers in the bridge's superstructure, which would increase the visibility of the catenary wires, and the addition of a single bent (pier support) near the center of the bridge. As shown in Figure 3, the modified bridge's appearance within the PE ROW would be similar to what was previously shown for the bridge in terms of scale. Additionally, based on the surrounding Moderate Low to Moderate visual quality, the minor modifications would not occur within an area that is highly sensitive to visual change. Similar to the bridge concept depicted in the 2015 EA, the existing mature trees along Westminster Avenue would screen/buffer views of the bridge from adjacent vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Although the bridge would be visible to residences south of Westminster Avenue and motorists driving along Westminster Avenue, the visual quality of the area is urban in nature such that the bridge's addition would have no adverse affect/no significant impact. Further, it is not anticipated that the bridge would be visible to residences northeast of the Harbor BoulevardANestminster Avenue intersection. Based on these 41 Page OCTA I July 2016 r VIASupplement J considerations, the modified bridge design would not diminish the visual quality of the area and the resulting affect would not be adverse/less than significant. No visual impact was identified in the 2015 EA; therefore, this project feature would not result in a new adverse or significant visual impact, nor would it increase the severity of a visual impact as compared to the originally approved project and as evaluated in the 2015 EA. Figure 2 — Westminster Avenue Bridge (Existing and Simulation of Approved LPA) 51 Page CTA July 2016OASullpplement FN Figure 3 — Westminster Avenue Bridge (Modified Bridge Type) Aesthetic Concept (Alternative 1) Aesthetic Concept (Alternative 2) Aesthetic Concept (Alternative 3) Q OCTA I July 2016 r VIASupplement J Santa Ana River Bridge — Segment 1 (Visual Character Area A) The existing Santa Ana River Bridge is located at the southern end of Area A within Segment 1 as presented in the 2015 EA. The visual character of the surrounding area is similar to that described for Westminster Avenue, which is moderate low to moderate. The main difference within this portion of Area A is the presence of the Willowick Municipal Golf Course, which provides an open space character that is absent in areas further north. The 2015 EA analyzed construction of a new bridge immediately south of the existing Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge and concluded that its construction would partially obstruct views from the south of the bridge. The 2015 EA also concluded that the design of the bridge would have minimal vertical elements, other than poles and overhead wires that would conflict with the views of the truss and the visual features of the existing bridge. Therefore, views in the vicinity of the existing bridge would not be substantially diminished and the resulting impact was determined to be not adverse/less than significant. Figure 4 depicts the existing bridge and the approved bridge design in the LPA Figure 4. Santa Ana River Bridge (Existing and Approved LPA) 71 Page OCTA I July 2016 r VIASupplement J Currently, minor design modifications to the bridge crossing include a double track configuration (rather than single track), use of two catenary wires as opposed to one, and the re -positioning of the bridge to north of the existing Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge (as opposed to the south which was the previously -contemplated location of the new bridge). To assess these minor design modifications, visual simulations were prepared for vantages (e.g. from the south) similar to those identified in the 2015 EA. In addition, because the bridge is re -positioned north of the Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge, an additional vantage was captured from the north. Figure 5 illustrates the key observation points that were used for the two simulations. Figure 5 — Key Observation Points Figure 6 presents the revised visual simulation for the minor design modifications at the Santa Ana River Bridge from the same vantage as provided in the 2015 EA. As shown in Figure 6 (north -facing), the existing Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge generally obstructs the bridge with the exception of the catenary supports, guard rail, and bridge 81 Page OCTA I July 2016 r VIASupplement J foundational supports. Similar to the approved LPA, no major lighting is proposed. As a result, the re -positioning of the bridge to the north would result in less of an obstruction than compared to the approved LPA. For this reason, this bridge design modification would not substantially alter the visual character of the project vicinity and no adverse effect/significant impact would result. Figure 6 — Santa Ana River Bridge (Modified Project) — North Facing Figure 7 presents the visual simulation for the modified bridge crossing as could be viewed from the north of the bridge (i.e. south -facing). As depicted, this minor modification would result in similar visual affects to the approved LPA and would functionally shift these affects from the south to the north of the Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge. Given that the modified bridge design has not substantially changed since the approval of the LPA in 2015 and the re -positioning of the bridge would result in less visual impact when compared to the approved LPA, no substantial changes in the significance determinations provided in the 2015 EA would result. For this reason, the minor design modifications to the Santa Ana River Bridge fall within the scope of analysis for the 2015 EA and remain not adverse/less than significant. No visual impact was identified in the 2015 EA; therefore, this project feature would not result in a new adverse/significant visual 91 Page OCTA July 2016 VIASuipplemerk FN impact, nor would it increase the severity of a visual impact as compared to the originally approved project and as evaluated in the 2015 EA. Figure 7 — Santa Ana River Bridge (Minor Design Modification) —South Facing TPSS Locations — Segment 1 and Segment 3 In the LPA, a total of six TPSS facilities were proposed to be located at (1) Harbor Bloulevard (2) Susan Street (outside of PE ROW) (3) east side of Santa Ana River outside of PE ROW) (4) Pacific Avenue (5) in parking structure at 5th and Main Street, and (6) on south side of Santa Ana Boulevard at Garfield Street. The design modification decision to reduce the number of TPSS sites from six to four was made during the preliminary engineering (30% design) phase of the project. This resulted from consultation with Southern California Edison on power supply feeder locations to TPSS sites and completion of a load flow analysis for the streetcar power distribution network. 30% design TPSS sites are proposed to be located (1) on the south side of Westminster Avenue in PE ROW (2) at the Maintenance and Storage Facility on the former SA Recycling yard (3) in City of Santa Ana parking lot on the north side of Santa Ana Boulevard east of Parton Street and (4) on the north east corner of Santa Ana Boulevard 101 Page OCTA July 2016 VIASulpplemerk FN and N. Garfield Street. Figure 8 compares TPSS locations per LPA against the 30% design. Figure 8 — TPSS Locations per LPA vs. TPSS Locations per 30% Design sur» r` a (•• •* i eam,w., LPA in Certified EAIEIR 1 .. wA,rs . w'ce .... ei I b i•_ AM mar 30%o_Des ign"................"---......_.......- TPSS (1) and (2) on the west side of the alignment and located in the PE ROW are within Segment 1 Visual Character Area A, which has a visual quality of moderate low to moderate. TPSS (1) will be located on the south side of the Westminster Bridge east abutment and adjacent to Westminster Avenue. TPSS (2) will be located within the MSF site, which will be bounded by fencing. TPSS (3) which is proposed on the existing City of Santa Ana parking lot, is located within Segment 3 Visual Character Area H, which has a moderate visual quality. TPSS (4) is proposed to be located on a lot bounded by N Garfield Street, E Santa Ana Boulevard 11 1 Page OCTA I July 2016 r VIASupplement J and an alley way within Segment 3 Character Area J, which has a Low to Moderate visual quality. Similar to the analysis provided in the EA/EIR, the TPSS facilities that would be located throughout the Study Area would provide a moderate vertical element. The size of the TPSS site will be designed to accommodate a 1 Megawatt (MW) facility and will have an anticipated structure height of approximately 12 feet (1 -story). Figure 9 provides a representative example of the TPSS appearance (and as previously presented in the EA/EIR). Figure 9 —Typical TPSS Appearance TPSS would be generally located in areas that are multi -family residential, commercial/light industrial and low to mid -rise commercial in nature and of low to moderate visual quality. Landscaping features and other features, such as walls and paint colors associated with the substation structure, would be selected on a site-specific basis to increase the visual compatibility of other structures within the surrounding environment. Based on the nature of the areas in which the TPSS would be located, the TPSS structures would be consistent with the other structures and equipment typical of the location. For this reason, the minor design modifications to the TPSS locations fall within the scope of analysis for the 2015 EA and remain not adverse/less than significant. No visual impact was identified in the 2015 EA; therefore, this project feature would not result 121 Page OCTA I July 2016 1 1 VIASupplement J in a new adverse or significant visual impact, nor would it increase the severity of a visual impact as compared to the originally approved project and as evaluated in the 2015 EA. Conclusions The minor design modifications that have been determined to potentially affect visual resources and were re-evaluated in this memo include the Westminster Avenue Bridge, the Santa Ana River Bridge, and repositioning of TPSS. Realignment of the track and change from one to two -wire catenary in the Pacific Electric right of way (PE ROW) is also proposed; however, the visual impact of the two -wire catenary within the PE ROW is not considered to be adverse/significant in the context of the prior analysis and presence of overhead wires in adjacent areas, therefore no re-evaluation of the prior visual impact analysis was performed for this change. Westminster Avenue Bridge. Based on the analysis, the modified bridge design would not diminish the visual quality of the area. No adverse or significant visual effect was identified in the EA/FONSI; therefore, this project feature would not result in a new adverse or significant visual effect, nor would it increase the severity of a visual effect as compared to the originally approved project and as evaluated in the 2015 EA/FONSI. Santa Ana River Bridge. Based on the analysis, the modified bridge design has not substantially changed since the approval of the LPA in 2015 and the re -positioning of the bridge would result in less visual impact when compared to the approved LPA. Therefore, no substantial changes in the significance determinations identified in the 2015 EA/FONSI would result. No adverse or significant visual effect was identified in the prior EA/EIR; therefore, this project feature would not result in a new adverse or significant visual effect, nor would it increase the severity of a visual effect as compared to the originally approved project and as evaluated in the 2015 EA/FONSI. TPSS Repositioning. The TPSS would be generally located in areas that are multi -family residential, commercial/light industrial and low to mid -rise commercial in nature and of low to moderate in visual quality. No adverse or significant visual effect was identified in the 2015 EA/FONSI; therefore, this project feature would not result in a new adverse or significant visual effect, nor would it increase the severity of a visual effect as compared to the originally approved project and as evaluated in the 2015 EA/FONSI. This analysis concludes that there would be no change to the conclusion that visual impacts would not be adverse or significant with the implementation of minor design modifications to the adopted 2015 Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), and therefore, there 131 Page OCTA I July 2016 r VIASupplement J would be no change to the prior Visual Impact Assessment in the adopted (EA/FONSI) Appendix E of the 2015 EA/EIR). Recommendation This memorandum documents the environmental effects of project changes and the changes in circumstances per 23 CFR 771.129(c) as it relates to Visual Impact Assessment. Based on this analysis, it is recommended that this memorandum be transmitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as part of OCTA's request for confirmation from FTA that the prior analysis remains valid. 141 Page APPENDIX C OC STREETCAR SANTA ANA -GARDEN GROVE PROJECT Traffic Study Addendum ai N Oaq q,Ce co3G O Z l f Submitted by March 10, 2016 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Study Purpose........................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Report Organization............................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 Analysis Methodologies.............................................................................................................................3 2.1 Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification....................................................................................................3 2.1.1 Study Area............................................................................................................................. 3 2.1.2 Traffic Volumes and Geometric Configuration......................................................................4 2.1.3 Methodology and Significance Criteria................................................................................. 4 2.2 Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation Analysis.................................................................................4 2.2.1 Study Area............................................................................................................................. 4 2.2.2 Traffic Volumes and Geometric Configuration...................................................................... 4 2.2.3 Methodology and Significance Criteria................................................................................. 5 2.3 Fairview Street Grade Crossing Analysis................................................................................................ 5 2.3.1 Study Area............................................................................................................................. 5 2.3.2 Traffic Volumes and Geometric Configuration...................................................................... 5 2.3.3 Methodology and Significance Criteria................................................................................. 5 2.4 Traffic Signal Priority Analysis................................................................................................................ 6 2.4.1 Study Area............................................................................................................................. 6 2.4.2 Traffic Volumes and Geometric Configuration...................................................................... 7 2.4.3 Methodology and Significance Criteria................................................................................. 7 2.5 Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation Analysis................................................................................. 7 2.5.1 Study Area............................................................................................................................. 7 2.5.2 Traffic Volumes and Geometric Configuration......................................................................8 2.5.3 Methodology and Significance Criteria.................................................................................8 3.0 Impact Assessment....................................................................................................................................9 3.1 Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification Impact Analysis..........................................................................9 3.1.1 Intersection Analysis.............................................................................................................. 9 3.1.2 Roadway Segment Analysis................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation Impact Analysis...................................................................10 3.2.1 Intersection Analysis............................................................................................................10 3.3 Fairview Street Grade Crossing Impact Analysis..................................................................................11 3.3.1 Intersection HCM Analysis...................................................................................................11 f Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 5.0 Conclusions..............................................................................................................................................20 3.3.2 Intersection Queuing Analysis.............................................................................................12 3.4 Traffic Signal Priority Impact Analysis..................................................................................................13 3.4.1 Intersection HCM Analysis...................................................................................................13 3.4.2 Intersection ICU Analysis.....................................................................................................15 3.5 Santa Ana Boulevard Street Design Concept Analysis.........................................................................16 3.5.1 Intersection ICU Analysis.....................................................................................................16 3.5.2 Intersection ICU Analysis with TSP......................................................................................17 3.5.3 Intersection HCM Analysis...................................................................................................18 4.0 Mitigation Measures................................................................................................................................19 4.1 Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification Mitigation Measures................................................................19 4.2 Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation Mitigation Measures...........................................................19 4.3 Fairview Grade Crossing Mitigation Measures....................................................................................19 4.4 Transit Signal Priority Mitigation Measures.........................................................................................19 4.5 Street Design Concept Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................19 5.0 Conclusions..............................................................................................................................................20 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum List of Tables Table 3-1 Intersection LOS Summary — Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification............................................................9 Santa Ana Boulevard Street Design Concept Plans Table 3-2 Roadway Segment LOS Summary ...............................................................................................................10 Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassfication LOS Worksheets Table 3-3 Intersection LOS Summary — Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation......................................................10 Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation LOS Worksheets Table 3-4 Intersection LOS Summary— Fairview Street Grade Crossing....................................................................11 Transit Signal Priority LOS Worksheet (HCM Methodology) Table 3-5 Intersection AM Peak Hour Queuing Summary — Fairview Street Grade Crossing....................................12 Transit Signal Priority LOS Worksheets (ICU Methodology) Table 3-6 Intersection PM Peak Hour Queuing Summary — Fairview Street Grade Crossing....................................13 Design Concept LOS Worksheets (ICU Methodology) Table 3-7 Intersection LOS Summary—Transit Signal Priority HCM Method.............................................................14 Street Design Concept LOS Worksheets (HCM Methodology) Table 3-8 Intersection LOS Summary—Transit Signal Priority ICU Methodology......................................................15 Table 3-9 LOS Summary — Street Design Concept (ICU Methodology)......................................................................16 Table 3-10 LOS Summary — Street Design Concept with TSP (ICU Methodology)......................................................17 Table 3-11 Intersection LOS Summary — Transit Signal Priority and Street Design Concept (HCM Methodology) ...18 Appendices Appendix A— Santa Ana Boulevard Street Design Concept Plans Appendix B - Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassfication LOS Worksheets AppendixC Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation LOS Worksheets Appendix D Transit Signal Priority LOS Worksheet (HCM Methodology) Appendix E Transit Signal Priority LOS Worksheets (ICU Methodology) Appendix F—Street Design Concept LOS Worksheets (ICU Methodology) Appendix G Street Design Concept LOS Worksheets (HCM Methodology) iv Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 1.0 Introduction The cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove, in cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), prepared an Environmental Assessment/Draft Environmental Impact Report (EA/DIER) in May 2014 for a fixed guideway project (Project) that would provide high frequency transit service between the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC) and a new multi -modal transportation center to be located in the city of Garden Grove. As part of the EA/DEIR, a Traffic Impact Assessment (October 2012) was conducted that analyzed a No Build Alternative, a Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative, and two Build Alternatives including Streetcar Alternative 1 and 2. The Build Alternative (Streetcar Alternative 1) was subsequently selected as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Streetcar Alternative 1 includes construction and implementation of a streetcar rail line between Harbor Boulevard and SARTC. Streetcars would follow an east -west alignment on the Pacific Electric right-of-way (PE ROW) from Harbor Boulevard to Raitt Street, then along Santa Ana Boulevard to Ross Street, then in a Santa Ana Boulevard and Fourth Street couplet configuration through the downtown area. The couplet converges on Santa Ana Boulevard at Mortimer Street, where the bi-directional tracks continue on Santa Ana Boulevard to SARTC. Streetcar Alternative 1 is approximately 4.0 miles in length with 20 directional stations spaced at approximately one-third mile intervals. 1.1 Study Purpose The purpose of this Traffic Study Addendum (Addendum) is to update the previous Traffic Impact Assessment based on proposed Project modifications and required additional analyses. The five Project modifications and additional analyses are summarized below: Reclassification of Santa Ana Boulevard —The Project includes a proposal to reclassify Santa Ana Boulevard between Raitt Street and Shelton Streetfrom a four -lane undivided roadwayto a two-lane roadway (divided with a center left turn lane or raised median with left -turn pockets). The Addendum will update both the roadway segment capacity and level of service calculations based on this reclassification. Relocation of Santa Ana Boulevard Stations — The Project proposes to relocate and modify streetcar stations between Ross Street and Main Street. The westbound Ross Street station would be relocated from the far side of Ross Street to the nearside of Ross Street. The four stations of Santa Ana/Broadway, Santa Ana/Main, 4th/Broadway, and 41h/Main would be consolidated to two stations located at Santa Ana/Sycamore and 4th/Sycamore. The intersection level of service results at these intersections will be updated as part of this Addendum to reflect the proposed relocations. Fairview Street Grade Crossing Analysis — As part of the Traffic Impact Assessment, the Fairview Street grade crossing was analyzed based on queues from the upstream Fairview Street/Civic Center Drive intersection. The analysis did not include a detailed evaluation of the interface with the downstream intersection of Fairview Street/5th Street. Due to the proximity of the proposed crossing to the two intersections of Fairview Street/Civic Center Drive and Fairview Street/5th Street, it is anticipated that the 1 f Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum traffic signals would need to be preempted during streetcar crossing events. The Addendum analyzes the interaction of both intersections with traffic signal preemption. Traffic Signal Priority for Streetcar — The Traffic Impact Assessment conducted for the Project did not assume any traffic signal preemption or priority (TSP) for the streetcar. The Project design concept now calls for TSP to be provided at signalized intersections along the proposed streetcar alignment (with the exception of Santa Ana Boulevard at Main Street, Broadway, and Bristol Street). The Addendum provides a new analysis at each of the affected intersections along the alignment with TSP implementation. Street Design Concept for Santa Ana Boulevard — The project proposes to reconfigure portions of Santa Ana Boulevard between Raitt Street and SARTC to accommodate a bike lane on the north side of the street throughout the alignment as well as 14 -inch high platforms. The Addendum provides an updated level of service analysis reflecting the proposed geometric configuration. 1.2 Report Organization Chapter 1 Introduction — This chapter provides an introduction to the previous analysis conducted for the Project, the purpose of the Traffic Study Addendum (summary of Project modifications and new analysis), and an overview of the organization of the report. Chapter Analysis Methodologies -Thischapter clescribesthe methodology, analysis procedures, significance criteria, and standards utilized, to evaluate roadway and intersection traffic conditions for each analysis scenario. Chapter 3 Impact Assessment —This chapter describes traffic operational impacts of the four proposed Project modifications and additional analysis scenarios (Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification Analysis, Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation Analysis, Fairview Street Grade Crossing Analysis, Traffic Signal Priority Analysis, and the proposed Santa Ana Boulevard Design Concept). Chapter 4 Mitigation Measures — This section provides an overview of proposed mitigation measures for the Project (if applicable). Chapter 5 Summary and Conclusion —This chapter summarizes analysis presented in the preceding chapters. 2 f Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 2.0 Analysis Methodologies The traffic analyses prepared for this study were performed in accordance with City of Santa Ana requirements and the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) (OCTA 2015) requirements as listed in Chapter 2 of the Traffic Impact Assessment. Detailed information on specific methodologies, standards, and thresholds used as part of this Addendum are provided below for each of the analysis scenarios. 2.1 Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification 2.1.1 Study Area The reclassification of Santa Ana Boulevard between Raitt Street and Shelton Street would affect the following intersections and roadway segments: Affected Intersections 1. Santa Ana Boulevard/Raitt Street 2. Santa Ana Boulevard/Pacific Avenue 3. Santa Ana Boulevard/Bristol Street 4. Santa Ana Boulevard/Shelton Street Affected Roadway Segments on Santa Ana Boulevard A. From Raitt Street to Western Avenue B. From Western Avenue to Forest Street C. Forest Street to Pacific Avenue D. Pacific Avenue to Hesperian Street E. Hesperian Street to Bristol Street F. Bristol Street to Baker Street G. Baker Street to Shelton Street 3 f Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 2.1.2 Traffic Volumes and Geometric Configuration AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes and roadway average daily traffic (ADT) were referenced from the Year 2035 Streetcar Alternative 1 volumes contained in the Traffic Impact Assessment. Baseline intersection and roadway configurations were based on the geometrics assumed as part of the 2035 Streetcar Alternative 1. The reclassification of Santa Ana Boulevard would reduce the roadway from four lanes to two lanes. 2.1.3 Methodology and Significance Criteria The intersection level of service (LOS) utilizes the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method as described in Chapter 2.1 of the Traffic Impact Assessment, consistent with City of Santa Ana directives for the preparation of traffic impact studies. An impact would occur when the reclassification of Santa Ana Boulevard would cause any of the affected intersections to deteriorate from acceptable LOS D or better to unacceptable LOS E or F. Furthermore, for intersections already operating at unacceptable E or F, should the reclassification cause the ICU value to increase by 0.01 or more, the location would be considered impacted. Roadway segment LOS is determined based on the methodology presented in the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and the City of Santa Ana Circulation Element, as referenced in Chapter 2.2 of the Traffic Impact Assessment. The City of Santa Ana Circulation Element defines maximum roadway capacities and corresponding LOS by roadway classification. Level of service of the affected roadway segments will be based on reducing the capacity of the roadway from a four lane facility to a two lane facility. 2.2 Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation Analysis 2.2.1 Study Area The relocation of stations along Santa Ana Boulevard between Ross Street and Main Street would only affect the intersection of Santa Ana Boulevard/Ross Street. All other intersections and roadway segments along Santa Ana Boulevard and 4th Street in the vicinity of Broadway and Main Street are not anticipated to be affected by the proposed station location changes. 2.2.2 Traffic Volumes and Geometric Configuration AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes at Santa Ana Boulevard/Ross Street were referenced from Year 2035 Streetcar Alternative 1 volumes contained in the Traffic Impact Assessment. The proposed station relocation at Santa Ana Boulevard/Ross Street would result in closure of the existing westbound free right turn from Santa Ana Boulevard to northbound Ross Street. 4 f Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 2.2.3 Methodology and Significance Criteria The ICU method as described in Section 2.1.3 was used for the analysis of Santa Ana Boulevard/Ross Street. An impact would occur at this location if the closure of the westbound free right turn lane would result in the LOS to deteriorate from acceptable to unacceptable LOS. 2.3 Fairview Street Grade Crossing Analysis 2.3.1 Study Area Affected Intersections 1. Fairview Street/Civic Center Drive 2. Fairview Street/5th Street 2.3.2 Traffic Volumes and Geometric Configuration AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes were based on the Year 2035 Streetcar Alternative 1 volume growth contained in the Traffic Impact Assessment. The Traffic Impact Assessment conducted in 2014 does not include the Fairview Street and 5th Street intersection as a study intersection. To provide consistency, existing 2016 counts were conducted for both study intersections on Wednesday February 17, 2016 during the AM and PM peak periods. Annual growth rates, obtained from intersection volumes for baseline and 2035 Streetcar Alternative 1 from the 2014 Traffic Impact Assessment, were applied to existing 2016 counts to represent future year 2035 traffic volumes. Baseline intersection configurations for Fairview Street and Civic Center Drive were based on the geometrics assumed as part of the 2035 Streetcar Alternative 1. Baseline intersection configurations for Fairview Street and 5th Street include: Fairview Street Northbound and Southbound —1 left turn, 2 through, and 1 through right lane 5th Street Eastbound and Westbound —1 left turn, 1 through, and 1 through right lane The Fairview Street grade crossing will not modify intersection configurations for both study intersections. 2.3.3 Methodology and Significance Criteria The analysis of the proposed grade crossing and the operation of the intersections of Fairview Street/Civic Center Drive and Fairview Street/5th Street with signal preemption was conducted using VISSIM, Synchro and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology (based on delay) in addition to the city -approved ICU analysis methodology. The use of VISSIM as the modeling software provided the necessary detail to model streetcar operations, the grade crossing, and the adjacent signalized intersections. This analysis assessed the potential delay to be experienced at each location, with and without the Project. 5 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum The 2010 HCM methodology for signalized intersections evaluates LOS based on controlled delay per vehicle. Controlled delay is defined as the portion of the total delay attributed to the traffic signal operation including deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay and final acceleration delay. This methodology differs from ICU methodology which sums up volume -to -capacity ratios at critical movements. HCM methodology is the appropriate tool for the grade crossing analysis as signal timing can be adjusted to account for streetcar crossing events. Furthermore, the system interface as a whole (upstream/downstream intersections and the grade crossing) can be evaluated. 2.4 Traffic Signal Priority Analysis The requirement of transit signal priority (TSP) for all signalized intersections along the proposed streetcar alignment (with the exception of Santa Ana Boulevard at Main Street, Broadway, and Bristol Street) would affect the following locations: 2.4.1 Study Area Affected Intersections 1. Santa Ana Boulevard/Raitt Street 2. Santa Ana Boulevard/Pacific Avenue 3. Santa Ana Boulevard/Shelton Street 4. Santa Ana Boulevard/Flower Street 5. Santa Ana Boulevard/Parton Street 6. Santa Ana Boulevard/Ross Street 7. Santa Ana Boulevard/Bush Street 8. Santa Ana Boulevard/French Street 9. Santa Ana Boulevard/Lacy Street 10. Santa Ana Boulevard/Santiago Street 11. 4th Street/Bush Street 12. 4th Street/French Street 13. 4th Street/Mortimer Street 6 f Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 2.4.2 Traffic Volumes and Geometric Configuration AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes were referenced from the Year 2035 Streetcar Alternative 1 volumes contained in the Traffic Impact Assessment. Baseline intersection configurations were based on the geometrics assumed as part of the 2035 Streetcar Alternative 1. 2.4.3 Methodology and Significance Criteria Since the streetcar alternative would operate in shared traffic lanes, operation of TSP for the streetcar would affect traffic flows and capacity. Implementation of TSP atthe affected intersections would permit extended green phases for streetcar movements) or shortened red phases (for all conflicting movements) by up to 20 seconds per intersection. Since the City -approved ICU methodology does not factor in signal timing or delay, the TSP analysis was first run using the HCM methodology. The HCM methodology (using the Synchro traffic software) was used to determine the increase in delays experienced by non -streetcar movements at each intersection, as well as the decrease in delays experienced by streetcar movements. The increase or decrease in delay on a movement -by -movement basis from the HCM analysis due to TSP was then utilized as the basis for a series of capacity adjustments within the ICU analysis at each intersection. Intersection movements that corresponded with streetcar movements (i.e., eastbound and westbound through movements) were given a capacity "credit" due to the increase in green time or shortened/truncated red time associated with a preemption event. The lane capacity for all other movements at the intersection during a preemption event were effectively decreased to reflect the shortened green time/increased red time given to allow the streetcar to pass. Detailed capacity adjustments are discussed in Section 3.4, Transit Signal Priority Impact Analysis. 2.5 Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation Analysis 2.5.1 Study Area The project is proposing a new street design concept that affects portions of the alignment on Santa Ana Boulevard from Raitt Street to SARTC. Affected Intersections 1. Santa Ana Boulevard/Raitt Street 2. Santa Ana Boulevard/Pacific Avenue 3. Santa Ana Boulevard/Shelton Street 4. Santa Ana Boulevard/Flower Street 5. Santa Ana Boulevard/Parton Street 7 f Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 6. Santa Ana Boulevard/Ross Street 7. Santa Ana Boulevard/Bush Street 8. Santa Ana Boulevard/French Street 9. Santa Ana Boulevard/Lacy Street 10. Santa Ana Boulevard/Santiago Street 11. Santa Ana Boulevard/Bristol Street 12. Santa Ana Boulevard/Broadway 13. Santa Ana Boulevard/Main Street 2.5.2 Traffic Volumes and Geometric Configuration AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes at Santa Ana Boulevard/Ross Street were referenced from Year 2035 Streetcar Alternative 1 volumes contained in the Traffic Impact Assessment. The geometric configuration is referenced from the new Street Design Concept Plan for Santa Ana Boulevard, provided in Appendix A. 2.5.3 Methodology and Significance Criteria The ICU method as described in Section 2.1.3 was used for the analysis of the affected intersections. An impact would occur if any of the proposed geometric modifications would result in the LOS to deteriorate from acceptable to unacceptable LOS. f Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 3.0 Impact Assessment This chapter will describe and assess the impacts of the four proposed Project modifications and new analysis: Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification, Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation, Fairview Street Grade Crossing, and Traffic Signal Priority. 3.1 Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification Impact Analysis 3.1.1 Intersection Analysis Table 3-1 shows the results of the intersection LOS analysis at the four affected intersections. At each of the intersections, the approach on Santa Ana Boulevard was reduced from four lanes to two lanes, per the proposed reclassification. Table 3-1 Intersection LOS Summary - Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification Notes: ICU — intersection capacity utilization (volume -to -capacity ratio) Traffic Impact Assessment (October 2012) Reduction in eastbound/westbound approach lanes from four lanes to two lanes As shown in Table 3-1, the Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification would not cause any of the affected intersections to deteriorate to unacceptable LOS (all affected intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better). The ICU values would be expected to increase by an average of 0.28 in the AM peak hour and 0.56 in the PM peak hour. Detailed LOS worksheets for the reclassification are provided in Appendix B. 3.1.2 Roadway Segment Analysis Table 3-2 shows the results of the roadway segment LOS analysis at the seven affected roadway segments. The number of lanes was changed from four lanes to two lanes, with the corresponding target LOS E capacity. 9 f Santa Ana Blvd W Previous Analysis 2035 Streetcar Conditions' Santa Ana Blvd Reclassification 2035 Streetcar Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Hour Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Main St Cross St ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Delta 1 Santa Ana Blvd Raitt St 0.60 A 0.84 D 0.61 B 0.89 D 0.01 0.05 2 Santa Ana Blvd Pacific Ave 0.25 A 0.44 A 0.33 A 0.58 A 0.08 0.12 3 Santa Ana Blvd Bristol St 0.52 A 0.64 B 0.61 B 0.84 D 0.09 0.20 4 Santa Ana Blvd Shelton St 0.36 A 0.41 A 0.46 A 0.60 B 0.10 0.19 Notes: ICU — intersection capacity utilization (volume -to -capacity ratio) Traffic Impact Assessment (October 2012) Reduction in eastbound/westbound approach lanes from four lanes to two lanes As shown in Table 3-1, the Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification would not cause any of the affected intersections to deteriorate to unacceptable LOS (all affected intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better). The ICU values would be expected to increase by an average of 0.28 in the AM peak hour and 0.56 in the PM peak hour. Detailed LOS worksheets for the reclassification are provided in Appendix B. 3.1.2 Roadway Segment Analysis Table 3-2 shows the results of the roadway segment LOS analysis at the seven affected roadway segments. The number of lanes was changed from four lanes to two lanes, with the corresponding target LOS E capacity. 9 f Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum Table 3-2 Roadway Segment LOS Summary Street From To 2035 Streetcar ADT' No. of Lanes LOS E Capacity LOS A Raitt St Western Ave 12,600 2D 18,750 B B Western Ave Forest St 12,100 2D 18,750 B Santa C Forest St Pacific Ave 12,600 2D 18,570 B Ana D Pacific Ave Hesperian St 12,200 2D 18,750 B Blvd. E Hesperian St Bristol St 12,200 2D 18,750 B F Bristol St Baker St 11,800 2D 18,750 B G Baker St Shelton St 11,800 2D 18,750 B Notes: ADT—average daily traffic 12035 Streetcar ADT referenced from Traffic Impact Assessment (October 2012) As shown in Table 3-2, the Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification would not cause any of the affected roadway segments to deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS (all seven roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B). 3.2 Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation Impact Analysis 3.2.1 Intersection Analysis Table 3-3 shows the results of the intersection LOS analysis at the intersection of Santa Ana Boulevard/Ross Street. As discussed previously, the LOS reflects the removal of the existing westbound free right turn lane due to the relocation of the station at this intersection. Table 3-3 Intersection LOS Summary -Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation Notes: ICU — intersection capacity utilization (volume -to -capacity ratio) Traffic Impact Assessment (October 2012) Reduction in eastbound/westbound approach lanes from four lanes to two lanes 10 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum As shown in Table 3-3, the Santa Ana Boulevard station relocation would not cause the affected intersection to deteriorate to unacceptable LOS (the intersection is forecast to operate at acceptable LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours). The LOS worksheets for this intersection are provided in Appendix C. 3.3 Fairview Street Grade Crossing Impact Analysis 3.3.1 Intersection HCM Analysis Table 3-4 shows the results of the intersection VISSIM analysis at the intersections of Fairview Street and Civic Center Drive and Fairview Street and 5th Street. As discussed previously, the LOS reflects the addition of the at - grade street crossing. Table 3-4 Intersection LOS Summary — Fairview Street Grade Crossing Notes: Intersection analysis performed using VISSIM 7 and Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010; delay is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle; LOS — Level of Service Addition of Fairview Street at -grade street crossing As shown in Table 3-4, the Fairview Street grade crossing would not cause the affected intersections to deteriorate to unacceptable LOS. In most cases, compared to the No Build scenario, vehicle delay is shortened. This is primarily due to signal preemption taking place during streetcar crossing. Gate down times during northbound/southbound movements can create long queues. These high volume northbound/southbound traffic flows must be coordinated with gate uptimes to allow for proper traffic flow. The result of these coordinated green times in the northbound/southbound direction is an overall slight improvement over No Build conditions. Please note for Fairview Street and 5th Street, the AM peak hour street car scenario experiences an increase in delay due to higher volumes of protected left turns in the eastbound/westbound direction slightly reducing the amount of northbound/southbound green times. It is important to clear these eastbound/westbound left turns as their queues can go beyond the pocket length blocking through movement. Outside of signal timing adjustments to Fairview/5th and Fairview/Civic Center Drive, no other design modifications are required. 11 f Intersectionr 10111 2035 No Build 9 2035 Streetcar Conditions' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Main St Cross St Delay LOS I Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay I LOS 1 Fairview Street Civic Center Drive 29.7 C 29.7 C 26.7 C 25.2 C 2 Fairview Street 5th Street 47.1 D 59.0 E 50.1 D 53.6 D Notes: Intersection analysis performed using VISSIM 7 and Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010; delay is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle; LOS — Level of Service Addition of Fairview Street at -grade street crossing As shown in Table 3-4, the Fairview Street grade crossing would not cause the affected intersections to deteriorate to unacceptable LOS. In most cases, compared to the No Build scenario, vehicle delay is shortened. This is primarily due to signal preemption taking place during streetcar crossing. Gate down times during northbound/southbound movements can create long queues. These high volume northbound/southbound traffic flows must be coordinated with gate uptimes to allow for proper traffic flow. The result of these coordinated green times in the northbound/southbound direction is an overall slight improvement over No Build conditions. Please note for Fairview Street and 5th Street, the AM peak hour street car scenario experiences an increase in delay due to higher volumes of protected left turns in the eastbound/westbound direction slightly reducing the amount of northbound/southbound green times. It is important to clear these eastbound/westbound left turns as their queues can go beyond the pocket length blocking through movement. Outside of signal timing adjustments to Fairview/5th and Fairview/Civic Center Drive, no other design modifications are required. 11 f Santa Ana - Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 3.3.2 Intersection Queuing Analysis Tables 3-5 and 3-6 shows the queuing results of the intersection VISSIM analysis at the intersections of Fairview Street and Civic Center Drive, Fairview Street and 5th Street, and at the Fairview Grade Crossing. Table 3-5 Intersection AM Peak Hour Queuing Summary - Fairview Street Grade Crossing Note: Queue length reported in feet. 12 f No Build AM Build AM Average Max Average MaxOOOWne::: Queue Queue Queue Queue Length Length Length Length Delt 1 Civic Center & Fairview North Bound Left 1.5 30.8 0.9 23.0 0.6 7.8 1 Civic Center & Fairview North Bound Thru 203.6 858.4 57.1 326.7 146.5 531.7 1 Civic Center & Fairview East Bound Thru 53.7 227.9 53.4 234.5 0.3 6.6 1 Civic Center & Fairview East Bound Right 1.1 63.3 1.1 62.0 0.0 1.4 1 Civic Center & Fairview South Bound Left 147.2 488.4 127.2 465.7 20.0 22.7 1 Civic Center & Fairview South Bound Thu 48.7 446.0 78.2 462.6 29.4 16.6 1 Civic Center & Fairview West Bound 8.2 73.5 9.6 77.6 1.4 4.1 2 5th & Fairview North Bound Left 83.4 510.0 135.0 564.8 51.6 54.9 2 5th & Fairview North Bound Thu 115.7 573.2 165.4 577.2 49.7 4.1 2 5th & Fairview East Bound Left 40.7 208.0 52.0 243.4 11.3 35.4 2 5th & Fairview East Bound Thru 88.6 313.1 88.3 351.9 0.3 38.8 2 5th & Fairview South Bound Left 37.5 308.0 40.7 295.2 3.2 12.8 2 5th & Fairview South Bound Thru 245.3 834.5 188.6 661.7 56.7 172.8 2 5th & Fairview West Bound Left 70.1 414.4 83.6 474.6 13.6 60.2 2 5th & Fairview West Bound Thru 122.9 454.4 122.6 510.2 0.3 55.8 3 Fairview Grade Crossing North Bound Left 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 Fairview Grade Crossing North Bound 48.0 611.5 48.0 611.5 3 Fairview Grade Crossing South Bound 15.5 200.3 15.5 200.3 Note: Queue length reported in feet. 12 f Santa Ana - Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum Table 3-6 Intersection PM Peak Hour Queuing Summary - Fairview Street Grade Crossing Note: Queue length reported in feet. As shown in Tables 3-5 and 3-6, addition of the at -grade crossing at Fairview Street between Civic Center Drive and 5th Street would reduce, on average, both the average and maximum queue lengths. During the AM peak hour, the at -grade crossing would reduce the average and maximum queue lengths at Civic Center Drive and 5th Street by 4 feet and 32 feet, respectively. Similarly, during the PM peak hour, the at -grade crossing would reduce the average and maximum queue lengths at Civic Center Drive and 5th Street by four 14 and 49 feet, respectively. The most significant reductions in queue lengths were observed to occur at the north bound through movement at Fairview Street/Civic Center Drive and the south bound approach at Fairview Street/51h Street. During gate -down events, the at -grade crossing would essentially serve as a queue -cutting signal, allowing north bound and south bound vehicles to clear at the upstream and downstream intersections. 3.4 Traffic Signal Priority Impact Analysis 3.4.1 Intersection HCM Analysis A level of service analysis was conducted using the HCM methodology to compare conditions with and without transit signal priority. In the Synchro traffic software, which utilizes HCM methodology, signal timing was adjusted to reflect the following: 13 f No Build PM Build PM Average Max Average Max Lane Queue Queue Queue Queue Length Length Length Length Delt 1 Civic Center & Fairview North Bound Left 0.6 22.3 0.1 20.2 0.5 2.1 1 Civic Center & Fairview North Bound Thru 174.3 736.1 54.6 323.6 119.7 412.4 1 Civic Center & Fairview East Bound Thru 69.6 311.5 69.3 321.7 0.3 10.3 1 Civic Center & Fairview East Bound Right 1.4 71.3 1.0 56.3 0.4 15.0 1 Civic Center & Fairview South Bound Left 67.2 319.8 83.1 337.9 15.8 18.0 1 Civic Center & Fairview South Bound Thru 50.6 336.3 61.8 388.6 11.2 52.4 1 Civic Center & Fairview West Bound 0.3 29.4 1.3 37.0 0.9 7.6 2 5th & Fairview North Bound Left 86.6 491.1 219.2 557.7 132.5 66.6 2 5th & Fairview North Bound Thru 128.0 566.4 148.0 578.4 20.1 12.0 2 5th & Fairview East Bound Left 51.2 357.1 55.6 484.8 4.4 127.7 2 5th & Fairview East Bound Thru 345.1 568.8 279.6 567.4 65.5 1.4 2 5th & Fairview South Bound Left 94.6 848.6 62.6 483.4 32.0 365.3 2 5th & Fairview South Bound Thru 401.5 1055.5 169.9 699.8 231.6 355.7 2 5th & Fairview West Bound Left 63.9 328.4 94.8 397.8 30.9 69.4 2 5th & Fairview West Bound Thru 74.1 328.5 95.3 386.3 21.1 57.8 3 Fairview Grade Crossing North Bound Left 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 Fairview Grade Crossing North Bound 38.0 579.4 38.01 579.4 3 Fairview Grade Crossing South Bound 24.0 312.4 24.0 312.4 Note: Queue length reported in feet. As shown in Tables 3-5 and 3-6, addition of the at -grade crossing at Fairview Street between Civic Center Drive and 5th Street would reduce, on average, both the average and maximum queue lengths. During the AM peak hour, the at -grade crossing would reduce the average and maximum queue lengths at Civic Center Drive and 5th Street by 4 feet and 32 feet, respectively. Similarly, during the PM peak hour, the at -grade crossing would reduce the average and maximum queue lengths at Civic Center Drive and 5th Street by four 14 and 49 feet, respectively. The most significant reductions in queue lengths were observed to occur at the north bound through movement at Fairview Street/Civic Center Drive and the south bound approach at Fairview Street/51h Street. During gate -down events, the at -grade crossing would essentially serve as a queue -cutting signal, allowing north bound and south bound vehicles to clear at the upstream and downstream intersections. 3.4 Traffic Signal Priority Impact Analysis 3.4.1 Intersection HCM Analysis A level of service analysis was conducted using the HCM methodology to compare conditions with and without transit signal priority. In the Synchro traffic software, which utilizes HCM methodology, signal timing was adjusted to reflect the following: 13 f Santa Ana - Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum Streetcar headway of 12 per hour (frequency per cycle dependent on intersection cycle lengths) Green Extension - green interval increased by up to 20 seconds when a streetcar is detected (signal would extend the green time for that particular approach to allow the streetcar to essentially skip the red interval) Red Truncation/Early Green - effectively shortens the conflicting phases by up to 20 seconds in the event the streetcar arrives during a red interval. Table 3-7 summarizes the delay and corresponding LOS for 2035 Streetcar Conditions, with and without the transit signal priority adjustments. Table 3-7 Intersection LOS Summary - Transit Signal Priority HCM Method a 2035 Streetcar Conditions' No Transit Signal Priority 2035 Streetcar Conditions With Transit Signal Priority IV AM Peak PM Peak Hour Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Main St Cross St Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS iPelta 1* Santa Ana Blvd Raitt St 57.9 E 72.6 E 58.7 E 72.8 E 0.8 0.2 2* Santa Ana Blvd Pacific Ave 27.2 C 42.3 D 32.1 C 40.2 D 4.9 2.1 3* Santa Ana Blvd Shelton St 18.6 B 17.2 B 18.6 B 16.1 B 0 1.1 4 Santa Ana Blvd Flower St 33.1 C 37.1 D 33.8 C 37.1 D 0.7 0 5 Santa Ana Blvd Parton St 8.7 A 8.0 A 8.8 A 8.0 A 0.1 0 6 Santa Ana Blvd Ross St 45.9 D 58.7 F 46.9 D 56.5 E 1.0 2.2 7 Santa Ana Blvd Bush St 21.1 C 22.5 C 21.1 C 22.8 C 0 0.3 8 Santa Ana Blvd French St 13.1 B 12.7 B 12.9 B 12.8 B 0.2 0.1 9 Santa Ana Blvd Lacy St 36.6 D 32.9 C 33.9 C 32.5 C 2.7 0.4 10 Santa Ana Blvd Santiago St 21.5 C 25.9 C 21.8 C 24.4 C 0.3 1.5 11 4" St Bush St 17.3 B 18.0 B 16.7 B 17.6 B 0.6 0.4 12 4" St French St 14.1 B 16.9 B 14.2 B 16.4 B 0.1 0.5 13 4" St Mortimer St 1 19.2 1 B 28.7 1 C 1 19.2 B 1 27.4 1 C 0 1.3 Notes: Delay expressed as average intersection delay (in seconds) Includes proposed Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification (reduction in eastbound and westbound through lanes from 4 lanes to 2 lanes). Traffic Impact Assessment (October 2012). Includes TSP adjustments (green extension for street preemption, red truncation for all other phases). Table 3-7 reports the overall intersection delay changes with implementation of TSP. It should be noted that the delay changes on a movement -by -movement basis were documented in order to determine the appropriate capacity credits and reductions used in the subsequent ICU analysis. On average, application of TSP would increase delay in the AM peak hour by 0.33 seconds and would decrease delay by 0.53 seconds in the PM peak hour throughout the alignment. HCM level of service worksheets are provided in Appendix D. 14 f Santa Ana - Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 3.4.2 Intersection ICU Analysis Based on the HCM analysis above, the average delay increase (in seconds) for all non -streetcar movements was calculated to be 15 percent. Similarly, all intersection movements that corresponded with the streetcar movements i.e., eastbound and westbound through movements at affected intersections) experienced an average delay decrease of 15 percent. In order to translate these delay increases/decreases into the ICU methodology, the capacity for each movement was adjusted accordingly. For example, at the intersection of Santa Ana Boulevard/Pacific Avenue, the eastbound and westbound through lane capacity (where the streetcar travels) was increased by 15 percent to reflect the reduction in delay due to transit signal priority. Conversely, all the other intersection movements (northbound/southbound and other turning movements) were effectively decreased by 15 percent to reflect the added delay experienced by non -streetcar movements during a preemption event. Table 3-8 Intersection LOS Summary - Transit Signal Priority ICU Methodology Notes: ICU - intersection capacity utilization (volume -to -capacity ratio) * Includes proposed Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification (reduction in eastbound and westbound through lanes from 4lanes to 2 lanes). Traffic Impact Assessment (October 2012). Includes capacity adjustments (increase in capacity for streetcar movements, decrease in capacity for all other movements). As shown in Table 3-8, the application of TSP (increase in capacity by 15 percent for streetcar movements with a reduction in capacity by 15 percent for all other movements) to all the affected intersections would not result in any deterioration of LOS from acceptable to unacceptable. Throughout the streetcar alignment, TSP would result in a 0.01 decrease in ICU during the both the AM and PM peak hours. Detailed ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix E. FF Previous Analysis 2035 Streetcar Conditions' Transit Signal Priority 2035 Streetcar Conditionsz Delta AM Peak PM Peak Hour Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Main St Cross St ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1* Santa Ana Blvd Raitt St 0.61 B 0.89 D 0.61 B 0.85 D 0.01 0.04 2* Santa Ana Blvd Pacific Ave 0.33 A 0.58 A 0.33 A 0.55 A 0.01 0.03 3* Santa Ana Blvd Shelton St 0.46 A 0.60 B 0.46 A 0.55 A 0 0.05 4 Santa Ana Blvd Flower St 0.67 B 0.63 B 0.66 B 0.61 B 0.01 0.02 5 Santa Ana Blvd Parton St 0.47 A 0.43 A 0.47 A 0.43 A 0 0 6 Santa Ana Blvd Ross St 0.61 B 0.47 A 0.59 A 0.46 A 0.02 0.01 7 Santa Ana Blvd Bush St 0.43 A 0.55 A 0.43 A 0.55 A 0 0 8 Santa Ana Blvd French St 0.67 B 0.73 C 0.67 B 0.74 C 0 0.01 9 Santa Ana Blvd Lacy St 0.75 C 0.57 A 0.76 C 0.57 A 0.01 0 10 Santa Ana Blvd Santiago St 0.53 A 0.64 B 0.49 A 0.65 B 0.04 0.01 11 4" St Bush St 0.39 A 0.5 A 0.53 A 0 0.01 12 4th St French St 0.45 A 0.4 A 0.46 A 0.01 0.03 13 4th St Mortimer St 0.45 A 0.64= A 0.65 B 0.02 0.01 Notes: ICU - intersection capacity utilization (volume -to -capacity ratio) * Includes proposed Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification (reduction in eastbound and westbound through lanes from 4lanes to 2 lanes). Traffic Impact Assessment (October 2012). Includes capacity adjustments (increase in capacity for streetcar movements, decrease in capacity for all other movements). As shown in Table 3-8, the application of TSP (increase in capacity by 15 percent for streetcar movements with a reduction in capacity by 15 percent for all other movements) to all the affected intersections would not result in any deterioration of LOS from acceptable to unacceptable. Throughout the streetcar alignment, TSP would result in a 0.01 decrease in ICU during the both the AM and PM peak hours. Detailed ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix E. Santa Ana - Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 3.5 Santa Ana Boulevard Street Design Concept Analysis 3.5.1 Intersection ICU Analysis A level of service analysis was conducted using the ICU methodology to compare results from the Traffic Impact Assessment (2012) to the new street design concept and is summarized in Table 3-9. Table 3-9 LOS Summary -Street Design Concept (ICU Methodology) llwwPeakPrevious Analysis 2035 Streetcar Conditions' Street Design Concept 2035 Streetcar Conditions' PM Peak Hour Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Main St Cross St ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1* Santa Ana Blvd Raitt St 0.61 B 0.84 D 0.66 B 0.96 E 0.05 0.12 2* Santa Ana Blvd Pacific Ave 0.33 A 0.58 A 0.33 A 0.58 A 0.00 0.00 3* Santa Ana Blvd Shelton St 0.46 A 0.60 B 0.46 A 0.60 B 0.00 0.00 4 Santa Ana Blvd Flower St 0.67 B 0.63 B 0.71 C 0.69 B 0.04 0.06 5 Santa Ana Blvd Parton St 0.47 A 0.43 A 0.55 A 0.54 A 0.08 0.11 6 Santa Ana Blvd Ross St 0.61 B 0.47 A 0.61 B 0.59 A 0.00 0.12 7 Santa Ana Blvd Bush St 0.43 A 0.55 A 0.53 A 0.65 B 0.10 0.10 8 Santa Ana Blvd French St 0.67 B 0.73 C 0.67 B 0.73 C 0.00 0.00 9 Santa Ana Blvd Lacy St 0.75 C 0.57 A 0.75 C 0.57 A 0.00 0.00 10 Santa Ana Blvd Santiago St 0.53 A 0.64 B 0.53 A 0.64 B 0.00 0.00 11 Santa Ana Blvd Bristol St 0.52 A 0.64 A 0.61 B 0.84 D 0.09 0.20 12 Santa Ana Blvd Broadway 0.65 B 0.63 B 0.74 C 0.72 C 0.09 0.09 13 Santa Ana Blvd Main St 0.69 B 0.78 C 0.76 C 0.85 D 0.07 1 0.07 Notes: ICU - intersection capacity utilization (volume -to -capacity ratio) Includes proposed Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification (reduction in eastbound and westbound through lanes from 4 lanes to 2 lanes). Configuration reflects the removal of existing WB free right -turn due to proposed station relocation. Traffic Impact Assessment (October 2012). Lane configuration based on proposed HNTB Santa Ana Boulevard Street Design Concept. As shown in Table 3-9, the implementation of the proposed Street Design Concept along Santa Ana Boulevard would cause in impact at the intersection of Santa Ana Boulevard/Raitt Street. The street design concept at this location provides one left -turn and one right -turn lane for the westbound approach, where the previous analysis provided two left -turn lanes and one right -turn lane. The reduction in westbound left -turn lanes from two to one lane would cause this location to deteriorate from acceptable LOS D to unacceptable LOS E in the PM peak hour. LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix F. 16 f Santa Ana - Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 3.5.2 Intersection ICU Analysis with TSP A level of service analysis was conducted using the ICU methodology to compare results from the Traffic Impact Assessment (2012) to the new street design concept with traffic signal priority and is summarized in Table 3-10. Table 3-10 LOS Summary -Street Design Concept with TSP (ICU Methodology) Notes: ICU - intersection capacity utilization (volume -to -capacity ratio) Includes proposed Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification (reduction in eastbound and westbound through lanes from 4 lanes to 2 lanes). Configuration reflects the removal of existing WB free right -turn due to proposed station relocation. Lane configuration based on proposed HNTB Santa Ana Boulevard Street Design Concept. Includes capacity adjustments (increase in capacity for streetcar movements, decrease in capacity for all other movements). As shown in Table 3-10, the application of TSP (increase in capacity by 15 percent for streetcar movements with a reduction in capacity by 15 percent for all other movements) to all the affected intersections would not result in any deterioration of LOS from acceptable to unacceptable. Throughout the streetcar alignment, TSP would result in a 0.01 decrease in ICU during the AM peak hour and a 0.01 increase during the PM peak hour. Detailed ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix F. 17 f Street Design Concept 2035 Streetcar Conditions' Street Design Concept with TSP 2035 Streetcar Conditions' AM Peak PM Peak Hour Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Main St Cross 5iA, ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1111 1* Santa Ana Blvd Raitt St 0.66 B 0.96 E 0.67 A 0.97 E 0.01 0.01 2* Santa Ana Blvd Pacific Ave 0.33 A 0.46 A 0.33 A 0.47 A 0.00 0.01 3* Santa Ana Blvd Shelton St 0.46 A 0.6 B 0.46 A 0.55 A 0.00 -0.05 4 Santa Ana Blvd Flower St 0.71 C 0.69 B 0.72 C 0.7 C 0.01 0.01 5 Santa Ana Blvd Parton St 0.55 A 0.54 A 0.56 A 0.55 A 0.01 0.01 6 Santa Ana Blvd Ross St 0.61 B 0.59 A 0.59 A 0.6 A 0.02 0.01 7 Santa Ana Blvd Bush St 0.53 A 0.65 B 0.54 A 0.66 B 0.01 0.01 8 Santa Ana Blvd French St 0.67 B 0.73 C 0.67 B 0.74 C 0.00 0.01 9 Santa Ana Blvd Lacy St 0.75 C 0.57 A 0.76 C 0.57 A 0.01 0.00 10 Santa Ana Blvd Santiago St 1 0.53 1 A 1 0.64 1 B 0.49 1 A 1 0.65 1 B 1 -0.04 1 0.01 Notes: ICU - intersection capacity utilization (volume -to -capacity ratio) Includes proposed Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification (reduction in eastbound and westbound through lanes from 4 lanes to 2 lanes). Configuration reflects the removal of existing WB free right -turn due to proposed station relocation. Lane configuration based on proposed HNTB Santa Ana Boulevard Street Design Concept. Includes capacity adjustments (increase in capacity for streetcar movements, decrease in capacity for all other movements). As shown in Table 3-10, the application of TSP (increase in capacity by 15 percent for streetcar movements with a reduction in capacity by 15 percent for all other movements) to all the affected intersections would not result in any deterioration of LOS from acceptable to unacceptable. Throughout the streetcar alignment, TSP would result in a 0.01 decrease in ICU during the AM peak hour and a 0.01 increase during the PM peak hour. Detailed ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix F. 17 f Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 3.5.3 Intersection HCM Analysis A level of service analysis was conducted using the HCM methodology to compare conditions with and without transit signal priority and the proposed street design concept. In the Synchro traffic software, which utilizes HCM methodology, signal timing and splits were optimized. Table 3-11 summarizes the delay and corresponding LOS for 2035 Streetcar Conditions, with both the transit signal priority adjustments and the proposed street design concept. Table 3-11 also includes the westbound queue length throughout the affected alignment. As discussed previously, TSP would not affect the intersections of Santa Ana Boulevard with Bristol Street, Broadway, and Main Street. Table 3-11 Intersection LOS Summary - Transit Signal Priority and Street Design Concept (HCM Methodology) Cross StIRaitt HN ree esign Concep Westbound Queue Length' 2035 Streetcar Conditions) AM Peak Hour Delay LOS PM Peak Hour Delay LOS AM PM 1* Santa Ana Blvd St 36.5 D 66.8 E 184' 665' 2* Santa Ana Blvd Pacific Ave 27.7 C 17.9 B 184' 292' 3* Santa Ana Blvd Shelton St 15.8 B 15.80 B 170' 401' 4 Santa Ana Blvd Flower St 38.6 D 32.6 C 333' 362' 5 Santa Ana Blvd Parton St 15.7 B 17.2 B 196' 306' 6' Santa Ana Blvd Ross St 28.9 C 27.7 C 256' 318' 7 Santa Ana Blvd Bush St 23.8 C 22.4 C 363' 367' 8 Santa Ana Blvd French St 12.9 B 12.7 B 151' 150' 9 Santa Ana Blvd Lacy St 32.1 C 25.2 C 806' 497' 10 Santa Ana Blvd Santiago St 23.1 C 25.3 C 280' 247' Notes: Delay expressed in average signal delay in seconds. All signal cycle lengths and splits were optimized. Includes proposed Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification (reduction in EB and WB through lanes from 4 lanes to 2 lanes). Configuration reflects the removal of existing WB free right -turn due to proposed station relocation. 1 Lane configuration based on proposed HNTB Santa Ana Boulevard Street Design Concept. z Reported as the 95th percentile queue forthe westbound approach. As shown in Table 3-11, implementation of the proposed street design concept plan, coupled with TSP, would cause the intersection of Santa Ana Boulevard/Raitt Street to operate at unacceptable LOS E in the PM peak hour. LOS worksheets are contained in Appendix G. 18 f Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 4.0 Mitigation Measures This section includes recommendations to mitigate any impacts identified from the intersection analysis presented in this report for each of the proposed project modifications and additional analysis. 4.1 Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification Mitigation Measures The results of the intersection and roadway segment LOS analysis with and without the proposed reclassification of Santa Ana Boulevard from a four -lane divided roadway to a two-lane divided roadway determined that no impacts to the affected intersections are anticipated. 4.2 Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation Mitigation Measures The results of the intersection LOS analysis with and without the proposed relocation of stations determined that no impacts are anticipated. 4.3 Fairview Grade Crossing Mitigation Measures The results of the intersection LOS analysis with and without the proposed grade crossing determined that no impacts are anticipated. The affected intersections would only require minor signal timing adjustments. No design modifications are anticipated. 4.4 Transit Signal Priority Mitigation Measures The results of the intersection LOS analysis with and without implementation of transit signal priority at the affected intersections determined that no impacts are anticipated. 4.5 Street Design Concept Mitigation Measures The results of the intersection LOS analysis with and without implementation of the new street design concept determined that a significant impact would occur at Santa Ana Boulevard/Raitt Street. Mitigation measures to improve this location would be the addition of a second westbound left -turn lane, as way analyzed in the Traffic Impact Assessment. 19 f Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 5.0 Conclusions The Traffic Study Addendum to the May 2014 EA/DEIR evaluated proposed Project modifications and required additional analysis scenarios to determine if new impacts would occur. Based on the results of the Traffic Study Addendum, all proposed Project modifications (Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification, Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation, Fairview Street Grade Crossing, and Transit Signal Priority) can be implemented without causing any impacts beyond those disclosed in the EA/DEIR. 20 f Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum APPENDIX A SANTA ANA BOULEVARD STREET DESIGN CONCEPT PLANS 21 f 0 II! 11 ss., 6 o0 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum APPENDIX B SANTA ANA BOULEVARD RECLASSIFICATIONWORKSHEETS 2035 AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:27:14 Page 2-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum Santa Ana Blvd Reclassification Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Raitt St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.612 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 30 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Raitt St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 445 180 120 420 0 0 0 0 195 0 25 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: 0 445 180 120 420 0 0 0 0 195 0 25 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: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 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: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.95 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.00 0.71 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.77 0.00 0.23 Final Sat.: 0 1192 482 1576 1675 0 0 0 0 2870 0 381 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.08 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:27:14 Page 3-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum Santa Ana Blvd Reclassification Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Pacific Ave/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.330 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 18 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Pacific Ave Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 65 65 40 85 15 20 255 25 50 190 70 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 65 65 40 85 15 20 255 25 50 190 70 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: 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 PHF Volume: 14 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 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 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 0.10 0.45 0.45 0.28 0.61 0.11 1.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 176 762 762 486 1032 182 1600 1548 152 1600 1700 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.10 0.04 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:27:14 Page 4-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum Santa Ana Blvd Reclassification Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Shelton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.460 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Shelton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 15 45 245 10 15 30 300 75 70 345 190 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: 5 15 45 245 10 15 30 300 75 70 345 190 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: 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 PHF Volume: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 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: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 0.08 0.23 0.69 0.96 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 131 392 1177 1633 67 1600 1600 1360 340 1600 1700 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.02 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.19 0.11 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:27:14 Page 5-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum Santa Ana Blvd Reclassification Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #14 Bristol St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.605 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Bristol St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 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: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 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: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 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: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.81 0.19 1.00 2.76 0.24 1.00 0.89 0.11 1.00 0.84 0.16 Final Sat.: 1600 4779 321 1600 4692 408 1600 1505 195 1600 1423 277 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.13 0.13 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 13:17:37 Page 2-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum Santa Ana Blvd Reclassification Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Raitt St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.892 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 82 Level Of Service: D Street Name: Raitt St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 845 80 95 445 0 0 0 0 355 0 165 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: 0 845 80 95 445 0 0 0 0 355 0 165 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: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 0 918 87 103 484 0 0 0 0 386 0 179 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 918 87 103 484 0 0 0 0 386 0 179 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: 0 918 87 103 484 0 0 0 0 386 0 179 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.94 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.37 0.00 0.63 Final Sat.: 0 1530 145 1576 1675 0 0 0 0 2188 0 1063 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.07 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 13:17:37 Page 3-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum Santa Ana Blvd Reclassification Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Pacific Ave/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.583 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 28 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Pacific Ave Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 0.05 0.63 0.32 0.49 0.49 0.02 1.00 0.84 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 89 1074 537 828 828 45 1600 1434 266 1600 1700 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.29 0.05 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 13:17:37 Page 4-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum Santa Ana Blvd Reclassification Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Shelton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.603 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Shelton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 25 95 165 30 45 20 350 85 10 760 145 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 25 95 165 30 45 20 350 85 10 760 145 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: 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 PHF Volume: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 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: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 0.11 0.19 0.70 0.85 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 189 315 1196 1438 262 1600 1600 1368 332 1600 1700 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.22 0.01 0.39 0.08 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 13:17:37 Page 5-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum Santa Ana Blvd Reclassification Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #14 Bristol St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.840 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 62 Level Of Service: D Street Name: Bristol St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 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: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 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: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 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: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.78 0.22 1.00 2.78 0.22 1.00 0.87 0.13 1.00 0.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 1600 4723 377 1600 4724 376 1600 1484 216 1600 1278 422 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.04 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.08 0.40 0.40 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum APPENDIX C SANTA ANA BOULEVARD STATION RELOCATION LOS WORKSHEETS 23 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum APPENDIX D TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY WORKSHEETS (HCM METHOLODOGY) HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Raitt & Street Car/Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations T I ft F T+ I t Traffic Volume (vph) 0 12 0 190 12 20 0 430 160 125 415 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 12 0 190 12 20 0 430 160 125 415 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1.00 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1770 3539 1583 1794 1770 1863 At Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1863 1770 3539 1583 1794 245 1863 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 13 0 207 13 22 0 467 174 136 451 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 17 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 13 0 207 13 11 0 624 0 136 451 0 Tum Type NA Prot NA custom NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 8 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.1 40.6 40.6 30.4 30.4 30.4 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.1 40.6 40.6 30.4 30.4 30.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.23 0.51 0.51 0.38 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 419 400 1796 803 681 93 707 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.12 0.00 0.01 0.35 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm c0.55 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.52 0.01 0.01 0.92 1.46 0.64 Uniform Delay, d1 24.2 27.1 9.7 9.8 23.6 24.8 20.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 4.7 0.0 0.0 19.2 257.5 4.4 Delay (s) 24.3 31.8 9.7 9.8 42.8 282.3 24.7 Level of Service C C A A D F C Approach Delay (s) 24.3 28.7 42.8 84.4 Approach LOS C C D F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 56.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Ross & Santa Ana & 5th 1/28/2016 Iq:1 q:1 q:1: 1:1 I:1 I:1:Y.9:1.9:1.9:1:S.9r01.99r1:S.99r1:Ya Lane Configurations I ft F I T F I T F I FFF F Traffic Volume (vph) 80 655 25 30 310 75 65 225 110 210 700 180 Future Volume (vph) 80 655 25 30 310 75 65 225 110 210 700 180 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3610 1583 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 226 1863 1583 1039 1863 1583 1770 3610 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 87 712 27 33 337 82 71 245 120 228 761 196 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 21 0 0 52 0 0 89 0 0 146 Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 712 6 33 337 30 71 245 31 228 761 50 Tum Type Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 2 61 61 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 61 6 61 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.5 19.0 19.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Effective Green, g (s) 19.5 19.0 19.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 383 747 334 82 683 580 265 476 404 452 922 404 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.20 c0.18 0.13 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.15 0.02 0.07 0.02 c0.21 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.95 0.02 0.40 0.49 0.05 0.27 0.51 0.08 0.50 0.83 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 29.0 35.1 28.1 21.2 22.0 18.4 26.8 28.7 25.4 28.6 31.6 25.8 Progression Factor 0.81 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.35 1.34 4.14 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 22.9 0.1 14.0 2.5 0.2 2.5 3.9 0.4 3.7 7.8 0.6 Delay (s) 24.7 52.3 28.2 35.2 24.6 18.6 29.2 32.7 25.8 42.4 50.2 107.3 Level of Service C D C D C B C C C D D F Approach Delay (s) 48.6 24.3 30.2 58.1 Approach LOS D C C E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 45.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 I Phase conflict between lane groups c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Bristol & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T'+ I TT, I M4 I TTt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 45 210 25 130 155 35 20 1050 65 55 1105 100 Future Volume (vph) 45 210 25 130 155 35 20 1050 65 55 1105 100 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3483 1770 3441 1770 5041 1770 5022 At Permitted 0.62 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1160 3483 794 3441 1770 5041 1770 5022 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 228 27 141 168 38 22 1141 71 60 1201 109 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 15 0 0 5 0 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 248 0 141 191 0 22 1207 0 60 1302 0 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.5 24.0 46.0 33.0 8.5 55.0 14.5 61.0 Effective Green, g (s) 32.5 24.0 46.0 33.0 8.5 55.0 14.5 61.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.18 0.35 0.25 0.07 0.42 0.11 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 329 643 412 873 115 2132 197 2356 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.07 c0.05 0.06 0.01 0.24 c0.03 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.39 0.34 0.22 0.19 0.57 0.30 0.55 Uniform Delay, d1 37.6 46.5 29.8 38.3 57.5 28.4 53.1 24.7 Progression Factor 2.04 1.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 1.7 2.3 0.6 3.7 1.1 4.0 0.9 Delay (s) 77.5 83.1 32.0 38.9 61.2 29.5 57.1 25.7 Level of Service E F C D E C E C Approach Delay (s) 82.2 36.1 30.1 27.0 Approach LOS F D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Shelton & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T'+ I ft F 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 30 300 80 75 325 190 5 15 50 250 10 20 Future Volume (vph) 30 300 80 75 325 190 5 15 50 250 10 20 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3427 1770 3539 1583 1676 1777 1583 At Permitted 0.54 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.68 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1007 3427 950 3539 1583 1650 1266 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 326 87 82 353 207 5 16 54 272 11 22 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 43 0 0 0 133 0 29 0 0 0 12 Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 370 0 82 353 74 0 46 0 0 283 10 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.46 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 359 1223 339 1263 565 766 587 734 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.09 0.05 0.03 c0.22 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.30 0.24 0.28 0.13 0.06 0.48 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 12.0 13.0 12.7 12.9 12.1 8.3 10.4 8.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.6 1.7 0.6 0.5 0.2 2.8 0.0 Delay (s) 12.5 13.6 14.4 13.4 12.6 8.4 13.2 8.1 Level of Service B B B B B A B A Approach Delay (s) 13.5 13.3 8.4 12.8 Approach LOS B B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Flower & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 11111 111] 11C N1:11111.0M0M0111.Sl11.1.1.4 Lane Configurations I ttt F I TT F I T F I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 80 450 70 125 435 120 75 950 70 180 890 80 Future Volume (vph) 80 450 70 125 435 120 75 950 70 180 890 80 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 621 5085 1583 533 3539 1583 441 3539 1583 271 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 87 489 76 136 473 130 82 1033 76 196 967 87 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 62 0 0 102 0 0 42 0 0 42 Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 489 14 136 473 28 82 1033 34 196 967 45 Tum Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.5 24.0 24.0 40.5 28.0 28.0 66.5 59.0 59.0 79.0 67.0 67.0 Effective Green, g (s) 32.5 24.0 24.0 40.5 28.0 28.0 66.5 59.0 59.0 79.0 67.0 67.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.18 0.18 0.31 0.22 0.22 0.51 0.45 0.45 0.61 0.52 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 230 938 292 284 762 340 302 1606 718 343 1823 815 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.10 c0.05 c0.13 0.02 c0.29 c0.07 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.12 0.02 0.28 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.52 0.05 0.48 0.62 0.08 0.27 0.64 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 38.7 47.8 43.6 33.9 46.2 40.7 16.9 27.4 19.8 16.9 21.0 15.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 2.1 0.3 5.7 3.8 0.5 2.2 2.0 0.1 6.8 1.1 0.1 Delay (s) 43.4 49.9 43.9 39.6 50.0 41.2 19.1 29.4 19.9 23.7 22.1 15.8 Level of Service D D D D D D B C B C C B Approach Delay (s) 48.3 46.5 28.1 21.9 Approach LOS D D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Parton & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I M4 I ttT+ 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 40 540 120 95 640 105 15 5 120 100 10 25 Future Volume (vph) 40 540 120 95 640 105 15 5 120 100 10 25 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 0.88 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4947 1770 4978 1638 1782 1583 At Permitted 0.31 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.97 0.69 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 568 4947 644 4978 1598 1292 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 587 130 103 696 114 16 5 130 109 11 27 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 39 0 0 25 0 0 79 0 0 0 17 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 678 0 103 785 0 0 72 0 0 120 11 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 284 2473 322 2489 621 502 615 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.16 0.04 c0.09 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.27 0.32 0.32 0.12 0.24 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 12.2 13.0 13.4 13.4 17.6 18.5 16.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.3 1.7 0.2 0.4 1.1 0.1 Delay (s) 13.3 13.3 3.5 1.3 18.0 19.7 17.0 Level of Service B B A A B B B Approach Delay (s) 13.3 1.6 18.0 19.2 Approach LOS B A B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.28 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Broadway & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I TT+ Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 20 760 55 40 565 0 0 540 185 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 20 760 55 40 565 0 0 540 185 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.96 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5029 1770 3539 3404 At Permitted 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5029 542 3539 3404 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 22 826 60 43 614 0 0 587 201 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 899 0 43 614 0 0 760 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 Effective Green, g (s) 34.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.51 0.51 0.51 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1899 277 1808 1739 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.16 0.34 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 21.2 11.7 13.0 13.8 Progression Factor 2.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.8 Delay (s) 44.1 12.9 13.5 14.6 Level of Service D B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 44.1 13.5 14.6 Approach LOS A D B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Broadway & 5th 1/28/2016 J l4\ T l d Mover EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt At Protected Satd. Flow (prot) At Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3.0 Sum of lost time (s) 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: 4th & Ross 1128/2016 4- T Is. l Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt At Protected Satd. Flow (prot) At Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3.0 Sum of lost time (s) 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: Broadway & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Satd. Flow (prot) 44 1800 1770 4 1770 j T+ 0.95 I Ti 1.00 Traffic Volume (vph) 15 50 15 25 55 15 10 430 30 15 410 70 Future Volume (vph) 15 50 15 25 55 15 10 430 30 15 410 70 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 4 1.00 8 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Fr: 0.97 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 At Protected 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1799 1800 1770 3504 1770 3462 At Permitted 0.95 0.92 0.43 1.00 0.45 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1728 1687 805 3504 829 3462 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 54 16 27 60 16 11 467 33 16 446 76 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 8 0 0 6 0 0 15 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 77 0 0 95 0 11 494 0 16 507 0 Tum Type Perm NA B Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 33.0 33.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 Effective Green, g (s) 33.0 33.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 633 618 420 1829 432 1807 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.06 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.15 0.03 0.27 0.04 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 18.9 19.1 10.4 12.0 10.5 12.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.4 Delay (s) 19.3 27.8 10.5 12.3 10.6 12.4 Level of Service B C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 19.3 27.8 12.3 12.4 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.23 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Main & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I T Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 55 670 60 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 55 670 60 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5010 1770 3539 3500 At Permitted 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5010 344 3539 3500 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 60 728 65 92 1261 0 0 1092 87 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 843 0 92 1261 0 0 1173 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Effective Green, g (s) 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.62 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1336 214 2202 2177 v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.43 0.57 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 29.1 8.8 10.0 9.7 Progression Factor 0.46 0.56 0.56 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 5.0 0.9 1.0 Delay (s) 15.5 9.9 6.5 10.6 Level of Service B A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 15.5 6.7 10.6 Approach LOS A B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Main & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 3507 1.00 1.00 T+ 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) T+ 1704 3467 ti 71 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 55 10 0 70 120 0 1110 175 0 995 65 Future Volume (vph) 0 55 10 0 70 120 0 1110 175 0 995 65 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Fr: 0.98 0.91 0.98 0.99 At Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1824 1704 3467 3507 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1824 1704 3467 3507 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 60 11 0 76 130 0 1207 190 0 1082 71 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 69 0 0 14 0 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 63 0 0 137 0 0 1383 0 0 1148 0 Tum Type NA NA NA NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 22.0 22.0 58.0 58.0 Effective Green, g (s) 22.0 22.0 58.0 58.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.64 0.64 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 445 416 2234 2260 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.08 c0.40 0.33 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.14 0.33 0.62 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 26.6 27.9 9.5 8.5 Progression Factor 0.80 0.52 1.00 0.46 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 2.1 1.3 0.7 Delay (s) 21.9 16.7 10.8 4.6 Level of Service C B B A Approach Delay (s) 21.9 16.7 10.8 4.6 Approach LOS C B B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 31: Bush & 4th 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations 44 4 1 T+ I 1 Traffic Volume (vph) 10 235 45 10 195 25 10 135 125 30 150 5 Future Volume (vph) 10 235 45 10 195 25 10 135 125 30 150 5 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 0.99 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 At Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1820 1832 1770 1728 1770 1854 At Permitted 0.99 0.98 0.65 1.00 0.53 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1802 1804 1211 1728 981 1854 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 255 49 11 212 27 11 147 136 33 163 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 5 0 0 37 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 308 0 0 245 0 11 246 0 33 167 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 39.0 39.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 Effective Green, g (s) 39.0 39.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 780 781 551 787 446 844 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm c0.17 0.14 0.01 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.31 0.02 0.31 0.07 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 17.4 16.7 13.5 15.6 13.8 14.7 Progression Factor 1.10 1.24 1.00 1.00 0.54 0.52 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 1.0 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.5 Delay (s) 20.5 21.7 13.5 16.6 7.8 8.1 Level of Service C C B B A A Approach Delay (s) 20.5 21.7 16.5 8.1 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 32: Bush & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I T F Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 35 795 90 30 140 0 0 165 35 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 35 795 90 30 140 0 0 165 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5001 1770 1863 1863 1583 At Permitted 1.00 0.62 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5001 1164 1863 1863 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 38 864 98 33 152 0 0 179 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 986 0 33 152 0 0 179 15 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2500 452 724 724 615 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.03 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.07 0.21 0.25 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 14.0 17.3 18.3 18.6 17.0 Progression Factor 1.61 0.75 0.73 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.1 Delay (s) 22.9 13.3 14.1 19.4 17.0 Level of Service C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 22.9 13.9 19.0 Approach LOS A C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.33 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 35: French & 4th 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations 41) 4 F 41) 1 1 Traffic Volume (vph) 10 370 10 55 205 45 5 20 175 90 140 20 Future Volume (vph) 10 370 10 55 205 45 5 20 175 90 140 20 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.88 1.00 0.98 At Protected 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1854 1843 1583 1641 1770 1827 At Permitted 0.99 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.57 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1839 1583 1583 1634 1063 1827 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 402 11 60 223 49 5 22 190 98 152 22 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 23 0 120 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 423 0 0 283 26 0 97 0 98 168 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 47.0 47.0 47.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Effective Green, g (s) 47.0 47.0 47.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.37 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 960 826 826 599 389 669 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm c0.23 0.18 0.02 0.06 c0.09 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.34 0.03 0.16 0.25 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 13.3 12.5 10.4 19.2 19.9 19.9 Progression Factor 0.68 0.68 0.57 1.00 1.03 1.03 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 1.0 0.1 0.6 1.6 0.9 Delay (s) 10.5 9.4 6.0 19.8 22.0 21.4 Level of Service B A A B C C Approach Delay (s) 10.5 8.9 19.8 21.6 Approach LOS B A B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 36: French & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Frt EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1.00 Lane Configurations 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3526 1564 M+ 71 49 4 0 27 1 RTOR Reduction (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 25 850 15 65 45 0 0 25 5 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 25 850 15 65 45 0 0 25 5 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 8 4.5 2 4.5 6 4.5 Permitted Phases Lane Util. Factor 8 0.95 2 1.00 1.00 Actuated Green, G (s) Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 At Protected 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3526 1809 1823 At Permitted 1.00 0.84 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3526 1564 1823 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 27 924 16 71 49 0 0 27 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 965 0 0 120 0 0 29 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1410 625 729 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 c0.08 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.19 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 11.2 8.8 8.2 Progression Factor 1.00 0.90 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.7 0.7 0.1 Delay (s) 13.9 8.6 8.3 Level of Service B A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 13.9 8.6 8.3 Approach LOS A B A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 39: Mortimer & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I 0.95 1.00 T+ 0.97 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1782 4+ 65 Traffic Volume (vph) 115 520 0 0 245 115 0 0 0 75 0 60 Future Volume (vph) 115 520 0 0 245 115 0 0 0 75 0 60 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 1.00 Fr: 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.94 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1782 1704 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1782 1704 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 125 565 0 0 266 125 0 0 0 82 0 65 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 125 565 0 0 372 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 Tum Type Prot NA NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.5 56.5 35.5 24.5 Effective Green, g (s) 16.5 56.5 35.5 24.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.63 0.39 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 324 1169 702 463 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.30 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.48 0.53 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 32.3 9.0 20.9 25.2 Progression Factor 1.22 0.87 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.3 1.4 2.9 1.0 Delay (s) 42.5 9.1 23.7 26.2 Level of Service D A C C Approach Delay (s) 15.2 23.7 0.0 26.2 Approach LOS B C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 43: Santa Ana & Santiago 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T F I T F I TT+ I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 215 185 115 30 75 65 50 405 45 125 890 330 Future Volume (vph) 215 185 115 30 75 65 50 405 45 125 890 330 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fr1 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3486 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1311 1863 1583 1135 1863 1583 1770 3486 1770 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 234 201 125 33 82 71 54 440 49 136 967 359 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 79 0 0 45 0 11 0 0 0 227 Lane Group Flow (vph) 234 201 46 33 82 26 54 478 0 136 967 132 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 5.0 22.0 11.0 27.5 27.5 Effective Green, g (s) 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 5.0 22.0 11.0 27.5 27.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.07 0.29 0.15 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 480 683 580 416 683 580 118 1022 259 1297 580 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 0.04 0.03 0.14 c0.08 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm c0.18 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.29 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.04 0.46 0.47 0.53 0.75 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 18.3 16.9 15.5 15.5 15.7 15.3 33.7 21.7 29.6 20.7 16.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.24 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.5 1.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.1 11.4 1.4 7.4 3.9 0.9 Delay (s) 21.8 18.0 15.8 15.9 16.1 15.4 53.1 15.5 37.0 24.6 17.3 Level of Service C B B B B B D B D C B Approach Delay (s) 19.1 15.8 19.3 24.0 Approach LOS B B B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 46: PAcific & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations I T'+ I ft F 44 4 Traffic Volume (vph) 15 245 25 50 180 65 15 65 70 40 85 15 Future Volume (vph) 15 245 25 50 180 65 15 65 70 40 85 15 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3490 1770 3539 1583 1737 1810 At Permitted 0.61 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.89 Satd. Flow (perm) 1139 3490 954 3539 1583 1695 1630 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 266 27 54 196 71 16 71 76 43 92 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 50 0 24 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 287 0 54 196 21 0 139 0 0 148 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 82.5 82.5 Effective Green, g (s) 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 82.5 82.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.63 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 337 1033 282 1048 468 1075 1034 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.08 c0.09 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.28 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.13 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 32.7 35.1 34.1 34.1 32.6 9.5 9.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.72 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.7 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 Delay (s) 32.9 35.8 29.3 28.2 23.7 9.7 9.8 Level of Service C D C C C A A Approach Delay (s) 35.6 27.4 9.7 9.8 Approach LOS D C A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.19 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 49: Santa Ana & Lacy 1/28/2016 y r-+ f 3 "$ '_A R. Move SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Satd. Flow (prot) 44 1810 1770 4 1770 j T+ 0.92 I 1 1.00 Traffic Volume (vph) 20 40 25 5 135 35 10 425 10 55 920 35 Future Volume (vph) 20 40 25 5 135 35 10 425 10 55 920 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 6 1.00 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fr: 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1768 1810 1770 1856 1770 1853 At Permitted 0.92 0.99 0.09 1.00 0.41 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1638 1803 175 1856 764 1853 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 43 27 5 147 38 11 462 11 60 1000 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 19 0 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 73 0 0 178 0 11 472 0 60 1036 0 Tum Type Perm NA D Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 23.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 Effective Green, g (s) 23.5 23.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 513 564 99 1051 432 1050 v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 c0.56 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.10 0.06 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.32 0.11 0.45 0.14 0.99 Uniform Delay, d1 18.5 19.6 7.5 9.4 7.6 16.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.10 2.07 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 1.5 2.3 1.4 0.5 21.0 Delay (s) 19.1 21.1 9.8 10.8 16.5 54.2 Level of Service B C A B B D Approach Delay (s) 19.1 21.1 10.8 52.1 Approach LOS B C B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Raitt & Street Car/Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations T 11 F T+ I t Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 195 0 25 0 445 180 120 420 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 195 0 25 0 445 180 120 420 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1.00 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1583 1790 1770 1863 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1583 1790 245 1863 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 212 0 27 0 484 196 130 457 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 18 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 212 0 14 0 662 0 130 457 0 Tum Type Prot Prot NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.1 40.6 30.4 30.4 30.4 Effective Green, g (s) 18.1 40.6 30.4 30.4 30.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.51 0.38 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 776 803 680 93 707 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.01 0.37 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm c0.53 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.02 0.97 1.40 0.65 Uniform Delay, d1 25.5 9.8 24.4 24.8 20.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.0 28.6 231.6 4.5 Delay (s) 26.4 9.8 53.0 256.4 24.9 Level of Service C A D F C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 24.5 53.0 76.2 Approach LOS A C D E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 57.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Ross & Santa Ana & 5th 1/28/2016 Iq:1 q:1 q:1: 1:1 I:1 I:1:Y.9:1.9:1.9:1:S.9r01.99r1:S.99r1:Ya Lane Configurations I ft F I T F I T F I FFF F Traffic Volume (vph) 85 675 30 25 310 70 70 245 120 210 700 180 Future Volume (vph) 85 675 30 25 310 70 70 245 120 210 700 180 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3610 1583 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 226 1863 1583 1039 1863 1583 1770 3610 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 92 734 33 27 337 76 76 266 130 228 761 196 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 26 0 0 48 0 0 97 0 0 146 Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 734 7 27 337 28 76 266 33 228 761 50 Tum Type Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 2 61 61 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 61 6 61 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.5 19.0 19.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Effective Green, g (s) 19.5 19.0 19.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 383 747 334 82 683 580 265 476 404 452 922 404 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.21 c0.18 0.14 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.07 0.02 c0.21 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.98 0.02 0.33 0.49 0.05 0.29 0.56 0.08 0.50 0.83 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 29.1 35.3 28.1 20.5 22.0 18.4 26.9 29.1 25.5 28.6 31.6 25.8 Progression Factor 0.76 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.35 1.34 4.14 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 28.7 0.1 10.4 2.5 0.2 2.7 4.7 0.4 3.7 7.8 0.6 Delay (s) 23.7 56.8 28.2 30.9 24.6 18.5 29.6 33.8 25.9 42.4 50.2 107.3 Level of Service C E C C C B C C C D D F Approach Delay (s) 52.1 23.9 30.9 58.1 Approach LOS D C C E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 46.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 I Phase conflict between lane groups c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Bristol & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T'+ I TT, I M4 I TTt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 45 210 25 130 155 35 20 1050 65 55 1105 100 Future Volume (vph) 45 210 25 130 155 35 20 1050 65 55 1105 100 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3483 1770 3441 1770 5041 1770 5022 At Permitted 0.62 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1160 3483 794 3441 1770 5041 1770 5022 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 228 27 141 168 38 22 1141 71 60 1201 109 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 15 0 0 5 0 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 248 0 141 191 0 22 1207 0 60 1302 0 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.5 24.0 46.0 33.0 8.5 55.0 14.5 61.0 Effective Green, g (s) 32.5 24.0 46.0 33.0 8.5 55.0 14.5 61.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.18 0.35 0.25 0.07 0.42 0.11 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 329 643 412 873 115 2132 197 2356 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.07 c0.05 0.06 0.01 0.24 c0.03 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.39 0.34 0.22 0.19 0.57 0.30 0.55 Uniform Delay, d1 37.6 46.5 29.8 38.3 57.5 28.4 53.1 24.7 Progression Factor 2.07 1.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 1.7 2.3 0.6 3.7 1.1 4.0 0.9 Delay (s) 78.7 84.0 32.0 38.9 61.2 29.5 57.1 25.7 Level of Service E F C D E C E C Approach Delay (s) 83.2 36.1 30.1 27.0 Approach LOS F D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Shelton & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T'+ I ft F 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 30 300 75 70 345 190 5 15 45 245 10 15 Future Volume (vph) 30 300 75 70 345 190 5 15 45 245 10 15 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.91 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3433 1770 3539 1583 1681 1777 1583 At Permitted 0.53 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.68 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 985 3433 954 3539 1583 1653 1273 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 326 82 76 375 207 5 16 49 266 11 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 40 0 0 0 133 0 26 0 0 0 9 Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 368 0 76 375 74 0 44 0 0 277 7 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.46 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 351 1226 340 1263 565 767 591 734 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.03 c0.22 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.30 0.22 0.30 0.13 0.06 0.47 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 12.0 13.0 12.6 12.9 12.1 8.3 10.3 8.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.6 1.5 0.6 0.5 0.1 2.7 0.0 Delay (s) 12.5 13.6 14.1 13.5 12.6 8.4 12.9 8.1 Level of Service B B B B B A B A Approach Delay (s) 13.5 13.3 8.4 12.7 Approach LOS B B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Flower & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 11111 111] 11C N1:11111.0M0M0111.Sl11.1.1.1 Lane Configurations I ttt F I TT F I T F I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 90 440 60 110 450 145 65 1005 65 215 910 90 Future Volume (vph) 90 440 60 110 450 145 65 1005 65 215 910 90 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.32 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.23 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 588 5085 1583 549 3539 1583 424 3539 1583 235 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 98 478 65 120 489 158 71 1092 71 234 989 98 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 53 0 0 124 0 0 39 0 0 47 Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 478 12 120 489 34 71 1092 32 234 989 51 Tum Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.5 24.0 24.0 40.5 28.0 28.0 66.5 59.0 59.0 79.0 67.0 67.0 Effective Green, g (s) 32.5 24.0 24.0 40.5 28.0 28.0 66.5 59.0 59.0 79.0 67.0 67.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.18 0.18 0.31 0.22 0.22 0.51 0.45 0.45 0.61 0.52 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 224 938 292 288 762 340 294 1606 718 325 1823 815 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.09 c0.04 c0.14 0.01 0.31 c0.09 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.11 0.02 c0.35 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.51 0.04 0.42 0.64 0.10 0.24 0.68 0.04 0.72 0.54 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 39.0 47.7 43.5 33.5 46.4 40.9 16.9 28.0 19.8 19.5 21.2 15.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.1 2.0 0.3 4.4 4.1 0.6 1.9 2.3 0.1 12.9 1.2 0.1 Delay (s) 45.1 49.7 43.8 37.9 50.6 41.5 18.8 30.4 19.9 32.4 22.4 15.9 Level of Service D D D D D D B C B C C B Approach Delay (s) 48.4 46.7 29.1 23.7 Approach LOS D D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Parton & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations I M4 I ttT+ 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 40 555 125 90 660 95 20 5 130 25 10 105 Future Volume (vph) 40 555 125 90 660 95 20 5 130 25 10 105 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 0.89 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4945 1770 4989 1641 1799 1583 At Permitted 0.30 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.97 0.80 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 561 4945 625 4989 1600 1494 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 603 136 98 717 103 22 5 141 27 11 114 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 41 0 0 21 0 0 86 0 0 0 70 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 699 0 98 799 0 0 82 0 0 38 44 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 280 2472 312 2494 622 581 615 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.16 c0.05 0.03 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.28 0.31 0.32 0.13 0.07 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 12.2 13.1 13.3 13.4 17.7 17.2 17.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.3 1.7 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 Delay (s) 13.3 13.4 3.6 1.5 18.1 17.5 17.5 Level of Service B B A A B B B Approach Delay (s) 13.4 1.7 18.1 17.5 Approach LOS B A B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.24 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Broadway & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I TT+ Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 20 760 55 40 565 0 0 540 185 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 20 760 55 40 565 0 0 540 185 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.96 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5029 1770 3539 3404 At Permitted 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5029 542 3539 3404 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 22 826 60 43 614 0 0 587 201 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 899 0 43 614 0 0 760 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 Effective Green, g (s) 34.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.51 0.51 0.51 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1899 277 1808 1739 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.16 0.34 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 21.2 11.7 13.0 13.8 Progression Factor 2.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.8 Delay (s) 44.1 12.9 13.5 14.6 Level of Service D B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 44.1 13.5 14.6 Approach LOS A D B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Broadway & 5th 1/28/2016 J l4\ T l d Mover EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt At Protected Satd. Flow (prot) At Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3.0 Sum of lost time (s) 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: 4th & Ross 1128/2016 4- T Is. l Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt At Protected Satd. Flow (prot) At Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3.0 Sum of lost time (s) 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: Broadway & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Satd. Flow (prot) 44 1800 1770 4 1770 j T+ 0.95 I Ti 1.00 Traffic Volume (vph) 15 50 15 25 55 15 10 430 30 15 410 70 Future Volume (vph) 15 50 15 25 55 15 10 430 30 15 410 70 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 4 1.00 8 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Fr: 0.97 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 At Protected 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1799 1800 1770 3504 1770 3462 At Permitted 0.95 0.92 0.43 1.00 0.45 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1728 1687 805 3504 829 3462 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 54 16 27 60 16 11 467 33 16 446 76 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 8 0 0 6 0 0 15 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 77 0 0 95 0 11 494 0 16 507 0 Tum Type Perm NA B Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 33.0 33.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 Effective Green, g (s) 33.0 33.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 633 618 420 1829 432 1807 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.06 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.15 0.03 0.27 0.04 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 18.9 19.1 10.4 12.0 10.5 12.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.4 Delay (s) 19.3 27.8 10.5 12.3 10.6 12.4 Level of Service B C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 19.3 27.8 12.3 12.4 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.23 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Main & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I T Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 55 670 60 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 55 670 60 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5010 1770 3539 3500 At Permitted 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5010 344 3539 3500 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 60 728 65 92 1261 0 0 1092 87 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 843 0 92 1261 0 0 1173 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Effective Green, g (s) 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.62 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1336 214 2202 2177 v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.43 0.57 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 29.1 8.8 10.0 9.7 Progression Factor 0.47 0.56 0.56 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 5.0 0.9 1.0 Delay (s) 15.8 9.9 6.5 10.6 Level of Service B A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 15.8 6.7 10.6 Approach LOS A B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Main & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 3507 1.00 1.00 T+ 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) T+ 1704 3467 ti 71 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 55 10 0 70 120 0 1110 175 0 995 65 Future Volume (vph) 0 55 10 0 70 120 0 1110 175 0 995 65 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Fr: 0.98 0.91 0.98 0.99 At Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1824 1704 3467 3507 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1824 1704 3467 3507 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 60 11 0 76 130 0 1207 190 0 1082 71 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 69 0 0 14 0 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 63 0 0 137 0 0 1383 0 0 1148 0 Tum Type NA NA NA NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 22.0 22.0 58.0 58.0 Effective Green, g (s) 22.0 22.0 58.0 58.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.64 0.64 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 445 416 2234 2260 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.08 c0.40 0.33 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.14 0.33 0.62 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 26.6 27.9 9.5 8.5 Progression Factor 0.80 0.53 1.00 0.46 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 2.1 1.3 0.7 Delay (s) 21.9 16.8 10.8 4.6 Level of Service C B B A Approach Delay (s) 21.9 16.8 10.8 4.6 Approach LOS C B B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 31: Bush & 4th 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations 44 4 1 T+ I 1 Traffic Volume (vph) 10 220 45 0 190 25 10 135 120 30 155 5 Future Volume (vph) 10 220 45 0 190 25 10 135 120 30 155 5 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 At Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1818 1834 1770 1732 1770 1855 At Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.64 1.00 0.53 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1799 1834 1201 1732 993 1855 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 239 49 0 207 27 11 147 130 33 168 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 5 0 0 35 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 291 0 0 229 0 11 242 0 33 172 0 Tum Type Perm NA NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 39.0 39.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 Effective Green, g (s) 39.0 39.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 779 794 547 789 452 845 v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.14 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.01 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.29 0.02 0.31 0.07 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 17.2 16.5 13.5 15.5 13.8 14.7 Progression Factor 1.10 1.20 1.00 1.00 0.49 0.47 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.9 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.5 Delay (s) 20.2 20.6 13.5 16.5 7.1 7.4 Level of Service C C B B A A Approach Delay (s) 20.2 20.6 16.4 7.3 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 32: Bush & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I T F Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 30 780 90 30 140 0 0 180 40 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 30 780 90 30 140 0 0 180 40 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5001 1770 1863 1863 1583 At Permitted 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5001 1124 1863 1863 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 33 848 98 33 152 0 0 196 43 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 964 0 33 152 0 0 196 17 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2500 437 724 724 615 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 0.03 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.08 0.21 0.27 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 13.9 17.3 18.3 18.8 17.0 Progression Factor 1.61 0.75 0.73 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.1 Delay (s) 22.8 13.3 14.1 19.7 17.1 Level of Service C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 22.8 13.9 19.2 Approach LOS A C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 35: French & 4th 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations 41) 4 F 41) 1 1 Traffic Volume (vph) 10 350 10 55 200 50 5 20 170 95 150 20 Future Volume (vph) 10 350 10 55 200 50 5 20 170 95 150 20 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.88 1.00 0.98 At Protected 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1853 1843 1583 1641 1770 1830 At Permitted 0.99 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.58 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1838 1587 1583 1634 1074 1830 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 380 11 60 217 54 5 22 185 103 163 22 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 26 0 117 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 401 0 0 277 28 0 95 0 103 179 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 47.0 47.0 47.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Effective Green, g (s) 47.0 47.0 47.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.37 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 959 828 826 599 393 671 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.22 0.17 0.02 0.06 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.33 0.03 0.16 0.26 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 13.1 12.4 10.5 19.2 20.0 20.0 Progression Factor 0.69 0.70 0.55 1.00 1.01 1.01 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 1.0 0.1 0.6 1.6 1.0 Delay (s) 10.3 9.7 5.8 19.7 21.8 21.2 Level of Service B A A B C C Approach Delay (s) 10.3 9.0 19.7 21.4 Approach LOS B A B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 36: French & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Frt EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1.00 Lane Configurations 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3526 1573 M+ 60 43 4 0 38 1 RTOR Reduction (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 20 840 15 55 40 0 0 35 5 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 20 840 15 55 40 0 0 35 5 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 8 4.5 2 4.5 6 4.5 Permitted Phases Lane Util. Factor 8 0.95 2 1.00 1.00 Actuated Green, G (s) Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 At Protected 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3526 1810 1834 At Permitted 1.00 0.84 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3526 1573 1834 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 22 913 16 60 43 0 0 38 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 949 0 0 103 0 0 40 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1410 629 733 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 c0.07 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.16 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 11.1 8.7 8.3 Progression Factor 1.00 0.88 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 0.6 0.1 Delay (s) 13.7 8.2 8.4 Level of Service B A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 13.7 8.2 8.4 Approach LOS A B A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 39: Mortimer & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I 0.95 1.00 T+ 0.97 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1782 4+ 76 Traffic Volume (vph) 115 500 0 0 235 110 0 0 0 85 0 70 Future Volume (vph) 115 500 0 0 235 110 0 0 0 85 0 70 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 1.00 Fr: 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.94 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1782 1702 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1782 1702 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 125 543 0 0 255 120 0 0 0 92 0 76 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 125 543 0 0 356 0 0 0 0 0 115 0 Tum Type Prot NA NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.5 56.5 35.5 24.5 Effective Green, g (s) 16.5 56.5 35.5 24.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.63 0.39 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 324 1169 702 463 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.29 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.46 0.51 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 32.3 8.8 20.6 25.6 Progression Factor 1.21 0.86 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.3 1.3 2.6 1.3 Delay (s) 42.2 8.8 23.2 26.8 Level of Service D A C C Approach Delay (s) 15.1 23.2 0.0 26.8 Approach LOS B C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 43: Santa Ana & Santiago 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T F I T F I TT+ I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 245 150 100 25 60 70 30 430 35 140 910 355 Future Volume (vph) 245 150 100 25 60 70 30 430 35 140 910 355 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fr1 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3499 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.65 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1331 1863 1583 1218 1863 1583 1770 3499 1770 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 266 163 109 27 65 76 33 467 38 152 989 386 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 69 0 0 48 0 8 0 0 0 244 Lane Group Flow (vph) 266 163 40 27 65 28 33 497 0 152 989 142 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 5.0 22.0 11.0 27.5 27.5 Effective Green, g (s) 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 5.0 22.0 11.0 27.5 27.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.07 0.29 0.15 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 488 683 580 446 683 580 118 1026 259 1297 580 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.14 c0.09 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm c0.20 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.24 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.28 0.48 0.59 0.76 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 18.8 16.5 15.4 15.4 15.6 15.3 33.3 21.8 29.9 20.9 16.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.24 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.3 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 5.4 1.5 9.4 4.3 1.0 Delay (s) 23.1 17.3 15.7 15.6 15.9 15.5 46.7 15.8 39.3 25.2 17.5 Level of Service C B B B B B D B D C B Approach Delay (s) 19.9 15.6 17.7 24.6 Approach LOS B B B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 46: PAcific & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations I T'+ I ft F 44 4 Traffic Volume (vph) 20 255 25 50 190 70 15 65 65 40 85 15 Future Volume (vph) 20 255 25 50 190 70 15 65 65 40 85 15 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3492 1770 3539 1583 1741 1810 At Permitted 0.60 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.89 Satd. Flow (perm) 1117 3492 934 3539 1583 1697 1633 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 277 27 54 207 76 16 71 71 43 92 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 53 0 23 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 298 0 54 207 23 0 135 0 0 148 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 82.5 82.5 Effective Green, g (s) 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 82.5 82.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.63 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 330 1034 276 1048 468 1076 1036 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.08 c0.09 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.29 0.20 0.20 0.05 0.13 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 32.8 35.2 34.2 34.2 32.7 9.4 9.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.71 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.7 1.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 Delay (s) 33.2 35.9 29.5 28.6 23.4 9.7 9.8 Level of Service C D C C C A A Approach Delay (s) 35.7 27.6 9.7 9.8 Approach LOS D C A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.19 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 49: Santa Ana & Lacy 1/28/2016 y r-+ f 3 "$ '_A R. Move SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Satd. Flow (prot) 44 1810 1770 4 1770 j T+ 0.92 I 1 1.00 Traffic Volume (vph) 20 45 25 5 135 35 10 420 10 55 900 35 Future Volume (vph) 20 45 25 5 135 35 10 420 10 55 900 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 4 1.00 8 1.00 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fr: 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1774 1810 1770 1856 1770 1852 At Permitted 0.92 0.99 0.09 1.00 0.41 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1651 1803 175 1856 771 1852 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 49 27 5 147 38 11 457 11 60 978 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 19 0 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 79 0 0 178 0 11 467 0 60 1014 0 Tum Type Perm NA C Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 23.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 Effective Green, g (s) 23.5 23.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 517 564 99 1051 436 1049 v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 c0.55 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.10 0.06 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.32 0.11 0.44 0.14 0.97 Uniform Delay, d1 18.6 19.6 7.5 9.4 7.6 15.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.12 2.10 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 1.5 2.3 1.4 0.5 16.8 Delay (s) 19.2 21.1 9.8 10.8 16.7 49.6 Level of Service B C A B B D Approach Delay (s) 19.2 21.1 10.7 47.7 Approach LOS B C B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Raitt & Street Car/Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations T 11 T+ I t Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 355 0 165 0 845 80 95 445 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 355 0 165 0 845 80 95 445 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1.00 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 0 1841 1770 1863 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 0 1841 148 1863 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 386 0 179 0 918 87 103 484 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 115 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 386 64 0 0 1002 0 103 484 0 Tum Type Prot NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 2 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 0.0 50.5 50.5 50.5 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 0.0 50.5 50.5 50.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 617 0 929 74 940 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.54 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm c0.70 v/c Ratio 0.63 no cap 1.08 1.39 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 37.9 Error 24.8 24.8 16.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 Error 52.9 239.9 2.0 Delay (s) 42.6 Error 77.7 264.6 18.6 Level of Service D F E F B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 Error 77.7 61.7 Approach LOS A F E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay Error HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Ross & Santa Ana & 5th 1/28/2016 Iq:1 q:1 q:1: 1:1 I:1 I:1:Y.9:1.9:1.9:1:S.9r01.99r1:S.99r1:Ya Lane Configurations I ft F I T F I T F I FFF F Traffic Volume (vph) 80 530 75 65 235 120 80 230 100 125 915 130 Future Volume (vph) 80 530 75 65 235 120 80 230 100 125 915 130 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3610 1583 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 213 1863 1583 1120 1863 1583 1770 3610 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 87 576 82 71 255 130 87 250 109 136 995 141 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 66 0 0 79 0 0 82 0 0 107 Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 576 16 71 255 51 87 250 27 136 995 34 Tum Type Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 2 61 61 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 61 6 61 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.5 18.0 18.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.5 18.0 18.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 363 707 316 82 724 615 273 455 386 432 882 386 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.16 0.14 0.13 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.33 0.03 0.08 0.02 c0.28 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.81 0.05 0.87 0.35 0.08 0.32 0.55 0.07 0.31 1.13 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 29.9 34.4 29.1 25.3 19.5 17.4 27.9 29.7 26.1 27.8 34.0 26.3 Progression Factor 0.69 0.73 0.47 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 9.8 0.3 67.1 1.3 0.3 3.1 4.7 0.3 1.9 72.0 0.5 Delay (s) 22.3 34.9 14.1 92.4 20.8 17.6 30.9 34.4 26.5 29.7 106.0 26.7 Level of Service C C B F C B C C C C F C Approach Delay (s) 31.1 31.1 31.8 89.1 Approach LOS C C C F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 56.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 I Phase conflict between lane groups c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Bristol & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 11111 111] 11C N1:11111.0M0M0111.Sl11.1.1.1 Lane Configurations I T'+ I TT, I M4 I TTt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 35 260 60 115 375 145 50 1195 100 70 1385 95 Future Volume (vph) 35 260 60 115 375 145 50 1195 100 70 1385 95 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3440 1770 3391 1770 5026 1770 5036 At Permitted 0.29 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.14 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 535 3440 588 3391 204 5026 270 5036 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 283 65 125 408 158 54 1299 109 76 1505 103 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 32 0 0 7 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 332 0 125 534 0 54 1401 0 76 1602 0 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 28.9 23.2 40.2 30.0 79.8 79.8 79.8 79.8 Effective Green, g (s) 28.9 23.2 40.2 30.0 79.8 79.8 79.8 79.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.18 0.31 0.23 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 173 613 295 782 125 3085 165 3091 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.10 c0.04 c0.16 0.28 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.54 0.42 0.68 0.43 0.45 0.46 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 40.4 48.6 34.0 45.7 13.2 13.4 13.5 14.2 Progression Factor 1.42 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.7 3.2 4.4 4.8 10.5 0.5 9.0 0.6 Delay (s) 60.0 67.9 38.4 50.5 23.7 13.9 22.5 14.8 Level of Service E E D D C B C B Approach Delay (s) 67.2 48.3 14.3 15.2 Approach LOS E D B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Shelton & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T'+ I ft F 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 20 350 85 10 760 145 15 25 95 165 30 45 Future Volume (vph) 20 350 85 10 760 145 15 25 95 165 30 45 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3436 1770 3539 1583 1676 1787 1583 At Permitted 0.25 1.00 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.68 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 466 3436 879 3539 1583 1623 1266 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 380 92 11 826 158 16 27 103 179 33 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 38 0 0 0 96 0 59 0 0 0 28 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 434 0 11 826 62 0 87 0 0 212 21 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Effective Green, g (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.43 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 183 1349 345 1390 621 695 542 678 v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.05 c0.17 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.32 0.03 0.59 0.10 0.13 0.39 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 10.8 11.8 10.5 13.5 10.7 9.7 11.0 9.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.6 0.2 1.9 0.3 0.4 2.1 0.1 Delay (s) 12.2 12.4 10.6 15.3 11.1 10.0 13.1 9.4 Level of Service B B B B B B B A Approach Delay (s) 12.4 14.6 10.0 12.4 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Flower & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I ttt F I TT F I T F I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 110 415 95 210 700 230 160 850 55 95 555 55 Future Volume (vph) 110 415 95 210 700 230 160 850 55 95 555 55 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.18 1.00 1.00 0.35 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 336 5085 1583 658 3539 1583 579 3539 1583 298 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 120 451 103 228 761 250 174 924 60 103 603 60 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 78 0 0 155 0 0 37 0 0 37 Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 451 25 228 761 95 174 924 23 103 603 23 Tum Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 43.5 31.0 31.0 54.0 37.0 37.0 62.5 50.0 50.0 60.5 49.0 49.0 Effective Green, g (s) 43.5 31.0 31.0 54.0 37.0 37.0 62.5 50.0 50.0 60.5 49.0 49.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.24 0.24 0.42 0.28 0.28 0.48 0.38 0.38 0.47 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 250 1212 377 431 1007 450 392 1361 608 268 1333 596 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.09 c0.08 c0.22 c0.04 c0.26 0.03 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.02 0.14 0.06 0.17 0.01 0.14 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.37 0.07 0.53 0.76 0.21 0.44 0.68 0.04 0.38 0.45 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 32.0 41.4 38.3 26.0 42.4 35.4 20.3 33.3 25.0 22.3 30.4 25.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.5 0.9 0.3 4.6 5.3 1.1 3.6 2.7 0.1 4.1 1.1 0.1 Delay (s) 38.5 42.2 38.6 30.6 47.7 36.5 23.9 36.1 25.1 26.5 31.5 25.7 Level of Service D D D C D D C D C C C C Approach Delay (s) 41.0 42.2 33.7 30.4 Approach LOS D D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Parton & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations I M4 I ttT+ 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 5 545 15 35 1020 25 90 5 95 45 10 30 Future Volume (vph) 5 545 15 35 1020 25 90 5 95 45 10 30 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5065 1770 5067 1697 1790 1583 At Permitted 0.18 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.83 0.72 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 344 5065 733 5067 1450 1347 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 592 16 38 1109 27 98 5 103 49 11 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 40 0 0 0 19 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 605 0 38 1133 0 0 166 0 0 60 14 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 Effective Green, g (s) 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.42 0.42 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 160 2363 342 2364 612 568 668 v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.05 c0.11 0.04 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.26 0.11 0.48 0.27 0.11 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 13.0 14.5 13.5 16.5 17.0 15.7 15.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.12 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.4 0.1 Delay (s) 13.4 14.8 1.7 2.1 18.1 16.1 15.2 Level of Service B B A A B B B Approach Delay (s) 14.8 2.1 18.1 15.8 Approach LOS B A B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Broadway & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I TT+ Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 685 80 45 685 0 0 610 125 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 685 80 45 685 0 0 610 125 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4996 1770 3539 3449 At Permitted 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4996 499 3539 3449 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 49 745 87 49 745 0 0 663 136 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 854 0 49 745 0 0 765 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Effective Green, g (s) 21.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.38 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2098 189 1344 1310 v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.26 0.55 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 10.1 10.7 12.2 12.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 3.3 1.7 1.9 Delay (s) 10.7 14.0 13.8 14.3 Level of Service B B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 10.7 13.8 14.3 Approach LOS A B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Broadway & 5th 1/28/2016 J l4\ T l d Mover EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt At Protected Satd. Flow (prot) At Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3.0 Sum of lost time (s) 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: 4th & Ross 1128/2016 4- T Is. l Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt At Protected Satd. Flow (prot) At Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3.0 Sum of lost time (s) 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: Broadway & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Satd. Flow (prot) 44 1788 1770 4 1770 j T+ 0.87 I Ti 1.00 Traffic Volume (vph) 45 100 30 70 120 45 20 535 90 25 545 25 Future Volume (vph) 45 100 30 70 120 45 20 535 90 25 545 25 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 4 1.00 8 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Fr: 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1796 1788 1770 3463 1770 3516 At Permitted 0.87 0.86 0.38 1.00 0.35 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1590 1557 714 3463 643 3516 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 109 33 76 130 49 22 582 98 27 592 27 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 17 0 0 27 0 0 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 176 0 0 238 0 22 653 0 27 612 0 Tum Type Perm NA B Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 636 622 285 1385 257 1406 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 c0.15 0.03 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.38 0.08 0.47 0.11 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 10.1 10.6 9.3 11.1 9.4 10.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 1.8 0.5 1.2 0.8 1.0 Delay (s) 11.2 12.4 9.8 12.2 10.2 11.9 Level of Service B B A B B B Approach Delay (s) 11.2 12.4 12.2 11.8 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Main & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I T Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 60 670 90 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 60 670 90 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4983 1770 3539 3500 At Permitted 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4983 344 3539 3500 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 65 728 98 92 1261 0 0 1092 87 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 874 0 92 1261 0 0 1173 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Effective Green, g (s) 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.62 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1328 214 2202 2177 v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.43 0.57 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 29.4 8.8 10.0 9.7 Progression Factor 0.32 0.42 0.41 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 5.1 0.9 1.0 Delay (s) 11.6 8.7 5.0 10.6 Level of Service B A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 11.6 5.3 10.6 Approach LOS A B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Main & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 3519 1.00 1.00 T+ 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) T+ 1808 3517 ti 54 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 130 45 0 215 60 0 1130 50 0 1240 50 Future Volume (vph) 0 130 45 0 215 60 0 1130 50 0 1240 50 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Fr: 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.99 At Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1798 1808 3517 3519 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1798 1808 3517 3519 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 141 49 0 234 65 0 1228 54 0 1348 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 11 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 176 0 0 288 0 0 1279 0 0 1399 0 Tum Type NA NA NA NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 27.0 27.0 53.0 53.0 Effective Green, g (s) 27.0 27.0 53.0 53.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.59 0.59 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 539 542 2071 2072 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.16 0.36 c0.40 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.33 0.53 0.62 0.68 Uniform Delay, d1 24.4 26.2 12.0 12.6 Progression Factor 1.00 0.76 1.00 0.54 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 3.3 1.4 1.6 Delay (s) 26.1 23.2 13.3 8.5 Level of Service C C B A Approach Delay (s) 26.1 23.2 13.3 8.5 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 31: Bush & 4th 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations 44 4 1 T+ I 1 Traffic Volume (vph) 25 145 30 0 300 90 30 315 25 40 225 15 Future Volume (vph) 25 145 30 0 300 90 30 315 25 40 225 15 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1813 1805 1770 1842 1770 1846 At Permitted 0.92 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.43 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1687 1805 1017 1842 810 1846 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 158 33 0 326 98 33 342 27 43 245 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 12 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 211 0 0 412 0 33 366 0 43 258 0 Tum Type Perm NA NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 749 802 452 818 360 820 v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 c0.20 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.03 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.51 0.07 0.45 0.12 0.31 Uniform Delay, d1 15.9 18.0 14.4 17.3 14.7 16.1 Progression Factor 0.62 1.25 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.65 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 2.0 0.3 1.8 0.7 1.0 Delay (s) 10.7 24.5 14.7 19.1 10.7 11.5 Level of Service B C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 10.7 24.5 18.7 11.4 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 32: Bush & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I T F Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 825 75 90 335 0 0 215 115 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 825 75 90 335 0 0 215 115 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5013 1770 1863 1863 1583 At Permitted 1.00 0.59 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5013 1098 1863 1863 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 49 897 82 98 364 0 0 234 125 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 1017 0 98 364 0 0 234 101 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 35.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 Effective Green, g (s) 35.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1949 549 931 931 791 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.09 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.18 0.39 0.25 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 21.1 12.4 14.0 12.9 12.0 Progression Factor 1.50 0.60 0.56 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.3 Delay (s) 32.4 8.0 9.0 13.5 12.3 Level of Service C A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 32.4 8.8 13.1 Approach LOS A C A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 35: French & 4th 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations 41) 4 F 41) 1 1 Traffic Volume (vph) 15 160 35 85 380 90 20 65 85 100 50 15 Future Volume (vph) 15 160 35 85 380 90 20 65 85 100 50 15 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 0.97 At Protected 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1814 1846 1583 1727 1770 1799 At Permitted 0.96 0.90 1.00 0.97 0.60 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1747 1670 1583 1679 1110 1799 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 174 38 92 413 98 22 71 92 109 54 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 0 42 0 39 0 0 11 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 220 0 0 505 56 0 146 0 109 59 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 51.0 51.0 51.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Effective Green, g (s) 51.0 51.0 51.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.32 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 989 946 897 541 357 579 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 c0.30 0.04 0.09 c0.10 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.53 0.06 0.27 0.31 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 9.7 12.1 8.8 22.6 22.9 21.4 Progression Factor 1.82 0.76 1.74 1.00 0.99 0.99 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 1.3 0.1 1.2 2.2 0.4 Delay (s) 18.1 10.5 15.3 23.9 24.9 21.5 Level of Service B B B C C C Approach Delay (s) 18.1 11.3 23.9 23.6 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 36: French & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Frt EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1.00 Lane Configurations 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3527 1486 M+ 120 71 4 0 43 1 RTOR Reduction (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 30 830 10 110 65 0 0 40 5 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 30 830 10 110 65 0 0 40 5 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 8 4.5 2 4.5 6 4.5 Permitted Phases Lane Util. Factor 8 0.95 2 1.00 1.00 Actuated Green, G (s) Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3527 1806 1837 At Permitted 1.00 0.80 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3527 1486 1837 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 33 902 11 120 71 0 0 43 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 944 0 0 191 0 0 45 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1410 594 734 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.32 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 11.1 9.3 8.3 Progression Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 1.4 0.2 Delay (s) 13.6 9.9 8.5 Level of Service B A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 13.6 9.9 8.5 Approach LOS A B A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 39: Mortimer & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I 0.95 1.00 T+ 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1835 4+ 33 Traffic Volume (vph) 150 195 0 0 525 65 0 0 0 110 0 30 Future Volume (vph) 150 195 0 0 525 65 0 0 0 110 0 30 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 1.00 Fr: 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.97 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1835 1740 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1835 1740 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 163 212 0 0 571 71 0 0 0 120 0 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 163 212 0 0 637 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 Tum Type Prot NA NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.5 60.5 38.5 20.5 Effective Green, g (s) 17.5 60.5 38.5 20.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.67 0.43 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 344 1252 784 396 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.11 c0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.17 0.81 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 32.2 5.5 22.6 28.4 Progression Factor 1.04 0.88 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.5 0.3 9.0 1.5 Delay (s) 37.8 5.1 31.6 29.9 Level of Service D A C C Approach Delay (s) 19.3 31.6 0.0 29.9 Approach LOS B C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 43: Santa Ana & Santiago 1/28/2016 61q 11 11 0LTA 0PDI0LTA : 01M 0111 0111SI N1 1.1 Lane Configurations I T F I T F I TT+ I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 325 185 105 40 100 80 65 765 50 125 790 340 Future Volume (vph) 325 185 105 40 100 80 65 765 50 125 790 340 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fr1 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3507 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.69 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1279 1863 1583 1170 1863 1583 1770 3507 1770 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 353 201 114 43 109 87 71 832 54 136 859 370 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 77 0 0 59 0 8 0 0 0 243 Lane Group Flow (vph) 353 201 37 43 109 28 71 878 0 136 859 127 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 5.0 18.1 8.0 20.6 20.6 Effective Green, g (s) 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 5.0 18.1 8.0 20.6 20.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.08 0.30 0.13 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 413 602 511 378 602 511 147 1057 236 1215 543 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 0.06 0.04 c0.25 c0.08 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm c0.28 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.33 0.07 0.11 0.18 0.06 0.48 0.83 0.58 0.71 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 19.0 15.4 14.1 14.3 14.6 14.0 26.3 19.5 24.4 17.1 14.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 19.7 1.5 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.2 9.7 6.8 9.9 3.5 1.0 Delay (s) 38.7 16.9 14.3 14.9 15.3 14.2 35.0 29.6 34.3 20.6 15.1 Level of Service D B B B B B C C C C B Approach Delay (s) 28.0 14.8 30.0 20.4 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 46: Pacific & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T'+ I ft F 44 4 Traffic Volume (vph) 15 135 25 110 500 85 10 120 60 185 185 10 Future Volume (vph) 15 135 25 110 500 85 10 120 60 185 185 10 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3457 1770 3539 1583 1779 1812 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.73 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 3457 1770 3539 1583 1739 1360 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 147 27 120 543 92 11 130 65 201 201 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 0 62 0 13 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 163 0 120 543 30 0 193 0 0 412 0 Tum Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.5 23.5 20.5 34.5 34.5 72.5 72.5 Effective Green, g (s) 9.5 23.5 20.5 34.5 34.5 72.5 72.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.18 0.16 0.27 0.27 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 129 624 279 939 420 969 758 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.05 c0.07 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.11 c0.30 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.26 0.43 0.58 0.07 0.20 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 56.4 45.8 49.5 41.4 35.7 14.3 18.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.29 1.15 1.95 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 1.0 4.3 2.3 0.3 0.5 2.8 Delay (s) 58.3 46.8 67.9 49.8 69.9 14.8 21.0 Level of Service E D E D E B C Approach Delay (s) 47.8 55.1 14.8 21.0 Approach LOS D E B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 39.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 49: Santa Ana & Lacy 1/28/2016 y r-+ f 3 "$ '_A R. Move SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Satd. Flow (prot) 44 1810 1770 4 1770 j T+ 0.92 I 1 1.00 Traffic Volume (vph) 20 30 15 15 65 15 20 580 5 40 690 40 Future Volume (vph) 20 30 15 15 65 15 20 580 5 40 690 40 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 6 1.00 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fr: 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.98 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1779 1810 1770 1861 1770 1848 At Permitted 0.92 0.96 0.15 1.00 0.22 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1663 1759 271 1861 410 1848 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 33 16 16 71 16 22 630 5 43 750 43 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 61 0 0 93 0 22 634 0 43 790 0 Tum Type Perm NA D Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 23.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 Effective Green, g (s) 23.5 23.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 651 688 124 852 187 847 v/s Ratio Prot 0.34 c0.43 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.05 0.08 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.14 0.18 0.74 0.23 0.93 Uniform Delay, d1 11.5 11.7 9.6 13.4 9.8 15.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.33 2.16 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.4 3.1 5.9 2.2 15.2 Delay (s) 11.8 12.1 12.7 19.2 25.2 48.5 Level of Service B B B B C D Approach Delay (s) 11.8 12.1 19.0 47.3 Approach LOS B B B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Raitt & Street Car/Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations T I T+ T+ I t Traffic Volume (vph) 0 12 0 330 12 170 0 800 75 100 400 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 12 0 330 12 170 0 800 75 100 400 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.99 1.00 1.00 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1770 1602 1841 1770 1863 At Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1770 1602 1841 148 1863 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 13 0 359 13 185 0 870 82 109 435 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 13 0 359 131 0 0 949 0 109 435 0 Tum Type NA Prot NA NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 40.5 50.5 50.5 50.5 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 40.5 50.5 50.5 50.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 335 318 648 929 74 940 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.20 c0.08 0.52 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm c0.74 v/c Ratio 0.04 1.13 0.20 1.02 1.47 0.46 Uniform Delay, d1 33.9 41.0 19.3 24.8 24.8 16.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 90.0 0.7 34.9 272.1 1.6 Delay (s) 34.1 131.0 20.0 59.7 296.8 17.6 Level of Service C F B E F B Approach Delay (s) 34.1 91.5 59.7 73.6 Approach LOS C F E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 71.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.13 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Ross & Santa Ana & 5th 1/28/2016 Iq:1 q:1 q:1: 1:1 I:1 I:1:Y.9:1.9:1.9:1:S.9r01.99r1:S.99r1:Ya Lane Configurations I ft F I T F I T F I FFF F Traffic Volume (vph) 80 540 70 65 230 105 80 235 100 115 925 130 Future Volume (vph) 80 540 70 65 230 105 80 235 100 115 925 130 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3610 1583 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 213 1863 1583 1125 1863 1583 1770 3610 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 87 587 76 71 250 114 87 255 109 125 1005 141 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 61 0 0 70 0 0 82 0 0 107 Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 587 15 71 250 44 87 255 27 125 1005 34 Tum Type Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 2 61 61 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 61 6 61 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.5 18.0 18.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.5 18.0 18.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 363 707 316 82 724 615 275 455 386 432 882 386 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.17 0.13 0.14 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.33 0.03 0.08 0.02 c0.28 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.83 0.05 0.87 0.35 0.07 0.32 0.56 0.07 0.29 1.14 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 29.9 34.5 29.1 25.3 19.4 17.3 27.8 29.8 26.1 27.6 34.0 26.3 Progression Factor 0.70 0.73 0.48 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 10.7 0.3 67.1 1.3 0.2 3.0 4.9 0.3 1.7 76.4 0.5 Delay (s) 22.4 36.0 14.2 92.4 20.7 17.5 30.8 34.7 26.5 29.3 110.4 26.7 Level of Service C D B F C B C C C C F C Approach Delay (s) 32.2 31.6 32.0 93.2 Approach LOS C C C F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 58.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 I Phase conflict between lane groups c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Bristol & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 11111 111] 11C N1:11111.0M0M0111.Sl11.1.1.1 Lane Configurations I T'+ I TT, I M4 I TTt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 35 260 60 115 375 145 50 1195 100 70 1385 95 Future Volume (vph) 35 260 60 115 375 145 50 1195 100 70 1385 95 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3440 1770 3391 1770 5026 1770 5036 At Permitted 0.29 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.14 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 535 3440 588 3391 204 5026 270 5036 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 283 65 125 408 158 54 1299 109 76 1505 103 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 32 0 0 7 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 332 0 125 534 0 54 1401 0 76 1602 0 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 28.9 23.2 40.2 30.0 79.8 79.8 79.8 79.8 Effective Green, g (s) 28.9 23.2 40.2 30.0 79.8 79.8 79.8 79.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.18 0.31 0.23 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 173 613 295 782 125 3085 165 3091 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.10 c0.04 c0.16 0.28 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.54 0.42 0.68 0.43 0.45 0.46 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 40.4 48.6 34.0 45.7 13.2 13.4 13.5 14.2 Progression Factor 1.44 1.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.7 3.2 4.4 4.8 10.5 0.5 9.0 0.6 Delay (s) 61.1 68.5 38.4 50.5 23.7 13.9 22.5 14.8 Level of Service E E D D C B C B Approach Delay (s) 67.8 48.3 14.3 15.2 Approach LOS E D B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Shelton & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T'+ I ft F 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 20 375 75 5 745 140 15 25 95 170 25 35 Future Volume (vph) 20 375 75 5 745 140 15 25 95 170 25 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3450 1770 3539 1583 1676 1785 1583 At Permitted 0.26 1.00 0.46 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.68 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 482 3450 854 3539 1583 1623 1258 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 408 82 5 810 152 16 27 103 185 27 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 30 0 0 0 92 0 59 0 0 0 22 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 460 0 5 810 60 0 87 0 0 212 16 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Effective Green, g (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.43 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 189 1355 335 1390 621 695 539 678 v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.05 c0.17 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.34 0.01 0.58 0.10 0.13 0.39 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 10.8 11.9 10.4 13.4 10.7 9.7 11.0 9.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.7 0.1 1.8 0.3 0.4 2.1 0.1 Delay (s) 12.1 12.6 10.5 15.2 11.0 10.0 13.1 9.3 Level of Service B B B B B B B A Approach Delay (s) 12.6 14.5 10.0 12.6 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Flower & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I ttt F I TT F I T F I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 110 425 105 220 695 235 150 840 50 90 560 45 Future Volume (vph) 110 425 105 220 695 235 150 840 50 90 560 45 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.18 1.00 1.00 0.35 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 343 5085 1583 644 3539 1583 572 3539 1583 307 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 120 462 114 239 755 255 163 913 54 98 609 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 87 0 0 160 0 0 33 0 0 31 Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 462 27 239 755 95 163 913 21 98 609 18 Tum Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 43.5 31.0 31.0 54.0 37.0 37.0 62.5 50.0 50.0 60.5 49.0 49.0 Effective Green, g (s) 43.5 31.0 31.0 54.0 37.0 37.0 62.5 50.0 50.0 60.5 49.0 49.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.24 0.24 0.42 0.28 0.28 0.48 0.38 0.38 0.47 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 251 1212 377 427 1007 450 390 1361 608 272 1333 596 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.09 c0.08 c0.21 c0.04 c0.26 0.03 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.02 0.15 0.06 0.16 0.01 0.14 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.38 0.07 0.56 0.75 0.21 0.42 0.67 0.03 0.36 0.46 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 32.0 41.5 38.4 26.2 42.3 35.4 20.2 33.2 24.9 22.1 30.5 25.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.4 0.9 0.4 5.2 5.1 1.1 3.3 2.6 0.1 3.7 1.1 0.1 Delay (s) 38.4 42.4 38.7 31.4 47.4 36.4 23.5 35.8 25.0 25.8 31.6 25.6 Level of Service D D D C D D C D C C C C Approach Delay (s) 41.1 42.1 33.5 30.5 Approach LOS D D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Parton & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations I M4 I ttT+ 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 5 545 15 35 1030 25 90 5 95 50 10 30 Future Volume (vph) 5 545 15 35 1030 25 90 5 95 50 10 30 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5065 1770 5067 1697 1788 1583 At Permitted 0.18 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.83 0.71 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 338 5065 733 5067 1446 1326 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 592 16 38 1120 27 98 5 103 54 11 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 40 0 0 0 19 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 605 0 38 1144 0 0 166 0 0 65 14 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 Effective Green, g (s) 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.42 0.42 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 157 2363 342 2364 610 559 668 v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.05 c0.11 0.05 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.26 0.11 0.48 0.27 0.12 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 13.0 14.5 13.5 16.5 17.0 15.8 15.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.4 0.1 Delay (s) 13.4 14.8 1.6 2.1 18.1 16.2 15.2 Level of Service B B A A B B B Approach Delay (s) 14.8 2.1 18.1 15.9 Approach LOS B A B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Broadway & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I TT+ Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 685 80 45 685 0 0 610 125 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 685 80 45 685 0 0 610 125 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4996 1770 3539 3449 At Permitted 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4996 499 3539 3449 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 49 745 87 49 745 0 0 663 136 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 854 0 49 745 0 0 765 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Effective Green, g (s) 21.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.38 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2098 189 1344 1310 v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.26 0.55 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 10.1 10.7 12.2 12.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 3.3 1.7 1.9 Delay (s) 10.7 14.0 13.8 14.3 Level of Service B B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 10.7 13.8 14.3 Approach LOS A B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Broadway & 5th 1/28/2016 J l4\ T l d Mover EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt At Protected Satd. Flow (prot) At Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3.0 Sum of lost time (s) 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: 4th & Ross 1128/2016 4- T Is. l Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt At Protected Satd. Flow (prot) At Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3.0 Sum of lost time (s) 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: Broadway & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Satd. Flow (prot) 44 1788 1770 4 1770 j T+ 0.87 I Ti 1.00 Traffic Volume (vph) 45 100 30 70 120 45 20 535 90 25 545 25 Future Volume (vph) 45 100 30 70 120 45 20 535 90 25 545 25 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 4 1.00 8 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Fr: 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1796 1788 1770 3463 1770 3516 At Permitted 0.87 0.86 0.38 1.00 0.35 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1590 1557 714 3463 643 3516 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 109 33 76 130 49 22 582 98 27 592 27 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 17 0 0 27 0 0 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 176 0 0 238 0 22 653 0 27 612 0 Tum Type Perm NA B Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 636 622 285 1385 257 1406 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 c0.15 0.03 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.38 0.08 0.47 0.11 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 10.1 10.6 9.3 11.1 9.4 10.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 1.8 0.5 1.2 0.8 1.0 Delay (s) 11.2 12.4 9.8 12.2 10.2 11.9 Level of Service B B A B B B Approach Delay (s) 11.2 12.4 12.2 11.8 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Main & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I T Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 60 670 90 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 60 670 90 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4983 1770 3539 3500 At Permitted 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4983 344 3539 3500 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 65 728 98 92 1261 0 0 1092 87 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 874 0 92 1261 0 0 1173 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Effective Green, g (s) 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.62 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1328 214 2202 2177 v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.43 0.57 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 29.4 8.8 10.0 9.7 Progression Factor 0.33 0.42 0.41 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 5.1 0.9 1.0 Delay (s) 11.9 8.7 5.0 10.6 Level of Service B A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 11.9 5.3 10.6 Approach LOS A B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Main & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 3519 1.00 1.00 T+ 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) T+ 1808 3517 ti 54 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 130 45 0 215 60 0 1130 50 0 1240 50 Future Volume (vph) 0 130 45 0 215 60 0 1130 50 0 1240 50 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Fr: 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.99 At Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1798 1808 3517 3519 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1798 1808 3517 3519 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 141 49 0 234 65 0 1228 54 0 1348 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 11 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 176 0 0 288 0 0 1279 0 0 1399 0 Tum Type NA NA NA NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 27.0 27.0 53.0 53.0 Effective Green, g (s) 27.0 27.0 53.0 53.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.59 0.59 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 539 542 2071 2072 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.16 0.36 c0.40 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.33 0.53 0.62 0.68 Uniform Delay, d1 24.4 26.2 12.0 12.6 Progression Factor 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.55 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 3.2 1.4 1.6 Delay (s) 26.1 22.1 13.3 8.5 Level of Service C C B A Approach Delay (s) 26.1 22.1 13.3 8.5 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 31: Bush & 4th 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations 44 4 1 T+ I 1 Traffic Volume (vph) 30 140 30 25 295 90 30 330 30 40 230 15 Future Volume (vph) 30 140 30 25 295 90 30 330 30 40 230 15 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1811 1802 1770 1839 1770 1846 At Permitted 0.90 0.97 0.54 1.00 0.41 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1643 1761 1007 1839 768 1846 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 152 33 27 321 98 33 359 33 43 250 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 11 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 211 0 0 435 0 33 388 0 43 263 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 730 782 447 817 341 820 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 c0.25 0.03 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.56 0.07 0.48 0.13 0.32 Uniform Delay, d1 15.9 18.4 14.4 17.6 14.7 16.2 Progression Factor 0.62 1.22 1.00 1.00 0.68 0.65 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 2.5 0.3 2.0 0.7 1.0 Delay (s) 10.7 24.9 14.7 19.6 10.8 11.5 Level of Service B C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 10.7 24.9 19.2 11.4 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 32: Bush & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I T F Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 40 820 75 95 335 0 0 220 120 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 40 820 75 95 335 0 0 220 120 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5013 1770 1863 1863 1583 At Permitted 1.00 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5013 1089 1863 1863 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 43 891 82 103 364 0 0 239 130 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 1004 0 103 364 0 0 239 105 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 35.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 Effective Green, g (s) 35.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1949 544 931 931 791 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.09 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.19 0.39 0.26 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 21.0 12.4 14.0 12.9 12.0 Progression Factor 1.50 0.59 0.56 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.3 Delay (s) 32.3 8.0 8.9 13.6 12.4 Level of Service C A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 32.3 8.7 13.2 Approach LOS A C A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 35: French & 4th 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations 41) 4 F 41) 1 1 Traffic Volume (vph) 15 160 35 85 375 105 20 70 100 100 45 15 Future Volume (vph) 15 160 35 85 375 105 20 70 100 100 45 15 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 0.96 At Protected 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1814 1846 1583 1721 1770 1794 At Permitted 0.96 0.90 1.00 0.97 0.57 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1748 1668 1583 1679 1055 1794 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 174 38 92 408 114 22 76 109 109 49 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 0 49 0 45 0 0 11 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 220 0 0 500 65 0 162 0 109 54 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 51.0 51.0 51.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Effective Green, g (s) 51.0 51.0 51.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.32 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 990 945 897 541 339 578 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 c0.30 0.04 0.10 c0.10 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.53 0.07 0.30 0.32 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 9.7 12.1 8.8 22.9 23.1 21.3 Progression Factor 1.79 0.81 1.94 1.00 0.99 0.99 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 1.2 0.1 1.4 2.5 0.3 Delay (s) 17.8 11.0 17.1 24.3 25.4 21.3 Level of Service B B B C C C Approach Delay (s) 17.8 12.1 24.3 23.9 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 36: French & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Frt EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1.00 Lane Configurations 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3527 1494 M+ 120 76 4 0 43 1 RTOR Reduction (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 30 820 10 110 70 0 0 40 5 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 30 820 10 110 70 0 0 40 5 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 8 4.5 2 4.5 6 4.5 Permitted Phases Lane Util. Factor 8 0.95 2 1.00 1.00 Actuated Green, G (s) Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3527 1807 1837 At Permitted 1.00 0.80 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3527 1494 1837 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 33 891 11 120 76 0 0 43 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 933 0 0 196 0 0 45 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1410 597 734 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.26 c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.33 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 11.0 9.3 8.3 Progression Factor 1.00 0.94 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 1.4 0.2 Delay (s) 13.5 10.2 8.5 Level of Service B B A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 13.5 10.2 8.5 Approach LOS A B B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 39: Mortimer & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I 0.95 1.00 T+ 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1828 4+ 38 Traffic Volume (vph) 155 205 0 0 530 85 0 0 0 100 0 35 Future Volume (vph) 155 205 0 0 530 85 0 0 0 100 0 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 1.00 Fr: 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.97 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1828 1733 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1828 1733 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 168 223 0 0 576 92 0 0 0 109 0 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 223 0 0 662 0 0 0 0 0 91 0 Tum Type Prot NA NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.5 60.5 38.5 20.5 Effective Green, g (s) 17.5 60.5 38.5 20.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.67 0.43 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 344 1252 781 394 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.12 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.18 0.85 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 32.3 5.5 23.1 28.3 Progression Factor 1.02 0.90 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.8 0.3 11.0 1.4 Delay (s) 37.6 5.2 34.1 29.7 Level of Service D A C C Approach Delay (s) 19.1 34.1 0.0 29.7 Approach LOS B C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 43: Santa Ana & Santiago 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T F I T F I TT+ I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 355 185 110 35 90 90 65 755 55 145 795 345 Future Volume (vph) 355 185 110 35 90 90 65 755 55 145 795 345 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fr1 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3503 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.69 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1292 1863 1583 1170 1863 1583 1770 3503 1770 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 386 201 120 38 98 98 71 821 60 158 864 375 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 81 0 0 66 0 9 0 0 0 246 Lane Group Flow (vph) 386 201 39 38 98 32 71 872 0 158 864 129 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 5.0 18.1 8.0 20.6 20.6 Effective Green, g (s) 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 5.0 18.1 8.0 20.6 20.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.08 0.30 0.13 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 417 602 511 378 602 511 147 1056 236 1215 543 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 0.05 0.04 c0.25 c0.09 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm c0.30 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.33 0.08 0.10 0.16 0.06 0.48 0.83 0.67 0.71 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 19.6 15.4 14.1 14.2 14.5 14.0 26.3 19.5 24.7 17.1 14.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 28.9 1.5 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.2 9.7 6.6 14.1 3.5 1.0 Delay (s) 48.5 16.9 14.4 14.7 15.1 14.3 35.0 29.4 38.9 20.7 15.1 Level of Service D B B B B B D C D C B Approach Delay (s) 33.7 14.7 29.8 21.2 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 46: Pacific & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T'+ I ft F 44 4 Traffic Volume (vph) 15 140 20 105 480 80 10 115 65 185 165 10 Future Volume (vph) 15 140 20 105 480 80 10 115 65 185 165 10 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3472 1770 3539 1583 1772 1809 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.72 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 3472 1770 3539 1583 1734 1338 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 152 22 114 522 87 11 125 71 201 179 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 0 61 0 15 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 165 0 114 522 26 0 192 0 0 390 0 Tum Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.5 23.5 20.5 34.5 34.5 72.5 72.5 Effective Green, g (s) 9.5 23.5 20.5 34.5 34.5 72.5 72.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.18 0.16 0.27 0.27 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 129 627 279 939 420 967 746 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.05 c0.06 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.11 c0.29 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.26 0.41 0.56 0.06 0.20 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 56.4 45.8 49.3 41.1 35.7 14.3 18.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.30 1.16 2.04 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 1.0 3.9 2.1 0.2 0.5 2.6 Delay (s) 58.3 46.8 68.1 49.7 73.2 14.8 20.6 Level of Service E D E D E B C Approach Delay (s) 47.8 55.4 14.8 20.6 Approach LOS D E B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 39.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 49: Santa Ana & Lacy 1/28/2016 y r-+ f 3 "$ '_A R. Move SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Satd. Flow (prot) 44 1810 1770 4 1770 j T+ 0.92 I 1 1.00 Traffic Volume (vph) 20 30 15 15 65 15 20 580 5 40 695 40 Future Volume (vph) 20 30 15 15 65 15 20 580 5 40 695 40 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 6 1.00 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fr: 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.98 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1779 1810 1770 1861 1770 1848 At Permitted 0.92 0.96 0.15 1.00 0.22 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1663 1759 271 1861 410 1848 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 33 16 16 71 16 22 630 5 43 755 43 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 61 0 0 93 0 22 634 0 43 795 0 Tum Type Perm NA D Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 23.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 Effective Green, g (s) 23.5 23.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 651 688 124 852 187 847 v/s Ratio Prot 0.34 c0.43 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.05 0.08 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.14 0.18 0.74 0.23 0.94 Uniform Delay, d1 11.5 11.7 9.6 13.4 9.8 15.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.33 2.16 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.4 3.1 5.9 2.2 15.9 Delay (s) 11.8 12.1 12.7 19.2 25.1 49.3 Level of Service B B B B C D Approach Delay (s) 11.8 12.1 19.0 48.1 Approach LOS B B B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 20 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum APPENDIX E TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY WORKSHEETS (ICU METHOLODOGY) TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:34 Page 2-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Raitt Street/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.606 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Raitt Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 445 180 120 420 0 0 0 0 195 0 25 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: 0 445 180 120 420 0 0 0 0 195 0 25 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: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 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: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 0.00 0.71 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1192 482 1576 1675 0 0 0 0 3152 0 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.08 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:34 Page 3-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Pacific Ave/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.334 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 18 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Pacific Avenue Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 65 65 40 85 15 20 255 25 50 190 70 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 65 65 40 85 15 20 255 25 50 190 70 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: 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 PHF Volume: 14 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 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 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 0.10 0.45 0.45 0.28 0.61 0.11 1.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 173 751 751 478 1017 179 1576 1780 150 1576 1955 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.13 0.15 0.03 0.09 0.04 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:34 Page 4-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Shelton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.464 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Shelton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 15 45 245 10 15 30 300 75 70 345 190 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: 5 15 45 245 10 15 30 300 75 70 345 190 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: 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 PHF Volume: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 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: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 0.08 0.23 0.69 0.96 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 129 386 1159 1609 66 1576 1576 1564 335 1576 1955 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.02 0.18 0.21 0.04 0.16 0.11 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:35 Page 5-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 Flower St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.659 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Flower St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 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: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 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: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 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: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 3349 1576 1576 3349 1576 1576 5865 1576 1576 3910 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.30 0.04 0.14 0.27 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.09 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:35 Page 6-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Parton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.473 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Parton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 5 130 105 10 25 40 555 125 90 660 95 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: 20 5 130 105 10 25 40 555 125 90 660 95 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: 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 PHF Volume: 24 6 159 128 12 30 49 677 152 110 805 116 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 24 6 159 128 12 30 49 677 152 110 805 116 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: 24 6 159 128 12 30 49 677 152 110 805 116 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.13 0.03 0.84 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.00 2.45 0.55 1.00 2.62 0.38 Final Sat.: 216 54 1404 1529 146 1576 1576 4787 923 1576 5127 632 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.14 0.17 0.07 0.16 0.18 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:35 Page 7-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Ross St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.585 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 28 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Ross St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 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: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 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: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 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: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 1576 1576 1675 1576 1576 3910 1576 1576 5865 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.19 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.17 0.02 0.13 0.12 0.11 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:35 Page 8-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Bush St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.433 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 21 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Bush St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 30 140 0 0 180 40 0 0 0 30 780 90 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: 30 140 0 0 180 40 0 0 0 30 780 90 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: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 PHF Volume: 35 163 0 0 209 47 0 0 0 35 907 105 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 35 163 0 0 209 47 0 0 0 35 907 105 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: 35 163 0 0 209 47 0 0 0 35 907 105 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 2.60 0.30 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 0 0 1370 304 0 0 0 167 5083 502 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.18 0.21 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:35 Page 9-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #8 French St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.673 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 34 Level Of Service: B Street Name: French St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 55 40 0 0 35 5 0 0 0 20 840 15 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: 55 40 0 0 35 5 0 0 0 20 840 15 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: 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 PHF Volume: 108 78 0 0 69 10 0 0 0 39 1647 29 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 108 78 0 0 69 10 0 0 0 39 1647 29 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: 108 78 0 0 69 10 0 0 0 39 1647 29 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.58 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 1.92 0.03 Final Sat.: 969 705 0 0 1465 209 0 0 0 77 3754 57 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.44 0.51 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:35 Page 10-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Lacy St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.763 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 45 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Lacy St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 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: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 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: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 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: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.03 0.77 0.20 0.22 0.50 0.28 0.02 0.96 0.02 0.06 0.91 0.03 Final Sat.: 48 1292 335 372 837 465 38 1866 38 93 1777 59 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.23 0.26 0.03 0.51 0.59 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:35 Page 11-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Santiago St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.493 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Santiago St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 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: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 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: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 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: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.85 0.15 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 1576 1576 1675 1576 1576 3616 252 1576 3910 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.16 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.12 0.14 0.09 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:35 Page 12-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #11 Bush St/4th St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.391 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 20 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Bush 4th Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 10 135 120 30 155 5 10 220 45 10 190 25 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: 10 135 120 30 155 5 10 220 45 10 190 25 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: 10 135 120 30 155 5 10 220 45 10 190 25 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 10 135 120 30 155 5 10 220 45 10 190 25 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: 10 135 120 30 155 5 10 220 45 10 190 25 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 0.53 0.47 1.00 0.97 0.03 0.04 0.80 0.16 0.04 0.85 0.11 Final Sat.: 1576 887 788 1576 1622 52 61 1564 274 74 1651 186 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.14 0.16 0.01 0.12 0.13 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:35 Page 13-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #12 French St/4th St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.460 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Street Name: French St 4th St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 20 170 95 150 20 10 350 10 55 200 50 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: 5 20 170 95 150 20 10 350 10 55 200 50 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: 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 PHF Volume: 5 19 162 90 143 19 10 333 10 52 190 48 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 19 162 90 143 19 10 333 10 52 190 48 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: 5 19 162 90 143 19 10 333 10 52 190 48 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 0.03 0.10 0.87 1.00 0.88 0.12 0.03 0.94 0.03 0.22 0.78 1.00 Final Sat.: 43 172 1460 1576 1477 197 45 1849 45 361 1533 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.18 0.21 0.03 0.12 0.03 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:35 Page 14-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #13 Mortimer St/4th St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.433 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 21 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Mortimer St 4th St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 85 0 70 115 500 0 0 235 110 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: 0 0 0 85 0 70 115 500 0 0 235 110 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: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 88 0 72 119 515 0 0 242 113 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 88 0 72 119 515 0 0 242 113 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: 0 0 0 88 0 72 119 515 0 0 242 113 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.45 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.32 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 918 0 756 1576 1955 0 0 1332 534 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.08 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.21 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 2-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Raitt Street/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.847 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 64 Level Of Service: D Street Name: Raitt Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 845 80 95 445 0 0 0 0 355 0 165 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: 0 845 80 95 445 0 0 0 0 355 0 165 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: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 0 929 88 104 489 0 0 0 0 390 0 181 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 929 88 104 489 0 0 0 0 390 0 181 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: 0 929 88 104 489 0 0 0 0 390 0 181 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 0.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1530 145 1576 1675 0 0 0 0 3152 0 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.07 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 3-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Pacific Ave/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.548 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Pacific Avenue Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 0.05 0.63 0.32 0.49 0.49 0.02 1.00 0.84 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 88 1058 529 815 815 44 1576 1650 262 1576 1955 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.01 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.26 0.05 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 4-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Shelton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.554 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Shelton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 25 95 165 30 45 20 350 85 10 760 145 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 25 95 165 30 45 20 350 85 10 760 145 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: 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 PHF Volume: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 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: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 0.11 0.19 0.70 0.85 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 186 310 1178 1417 258 1576 1576 1573 327 1576 1955 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.23 0.01 0.34 0.08 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 5-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 Flower St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.607 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Flower St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 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: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 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: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 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: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 3349 1576 1576 3349 1576 1576 5865 1576 1576 3910 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.25 0.03 0.06 0.17 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.13 0.18 0.15 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 6-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Parton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.432 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 21 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Parton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 5 95 45 10 30 5 545 15 35 1020 25 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: 90 5 95 45 10 30 5 545 15 35 1020 25 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: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 98 5 103 49 11 33 5 592 16 38 1109 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 98 5 103 49 11 33 5 592 16 38 1109 27 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: 98 5 103 49 11 33 5 592 16 38 1109 27 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.47 0.03 0.50 0.82 0.18 1.00 1.00 2.92 0.08 1.00 2.93 0.07 Final Sat.: 793 44 837 1370 304 1576 1576 5708 135 1576 5725 120 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.10 0.12 0.02 0.19 0.23 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 7-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Ross St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.456 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Ross St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 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: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 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: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 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: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 1576 1576 1675 1576 1576 3910 1576 1576 5865 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.14 0.06 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.08 0.16 0.08 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 8-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Bush St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.553 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Bush St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 335 0 0 215 115 0 0 0 45 825 75 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: 90 335 0 0 215 115 0 0 0 45 825 75 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: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 102 381 0 0 244 131 0 0 0 51 938 85 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 102 381 0 0 244 131 0 0 0 51 938 85 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: 102 381 0 0 244 131 0 0 0 51 938 85 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 2.62 0.24 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 0 0 1091 584 0 0 0 239 5120 399 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.18 0.21 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 9-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #8 French St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.740 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 42 Level Of Service: C Street Name: French St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 110 65 0 0 40 5 0 0 0 30 830 10 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: 110 65 0 0 40 5 0 0 0 30 830 10 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: 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 PHF Volume: 208 123 0 0 76 9 0 0 0 57 1572 19 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 208 123 0 0 76 9 0 0 0 57 1572 19 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: 208 123 0 0 76 9 0 0 0 57 1572 19 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.63 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 1.91 0.02 Final Sat.: 1053 622 0 0 1488 186 0 0 0 115 3730 38 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.42 0.49 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 10-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Lacy St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.572 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Lacy St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 65 15 20 30 15 20 580 5 45 690 40 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 65 15 20 30 15 20 580 5 45 690 40 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: 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 PHF Volume: 14 62 14 19 29 14 19 558 5 43 663 38 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 62 14 19 29 14 19 558 5 43 663 38 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 63 14 19 29 14 19 558 5 43 663 38 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.16 0.68 0.16 0.31 0.46 0.23 0.03 0.96 0.01 0.06 0.89 0.05 Final Sat.: 264 1146 264 515 773 386 55 1874 14 97 1741 86 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.30 0.35 0.03 0.38 0.45 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 11-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Santiago St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.651 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Santiago St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 40 100 80 325 185 105 65 765 50 125 790 340 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: 40 100 80 325 185 105 65 765 50 125 790 340 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: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 PHF Volume: 41 102 82 332 189 107 66 781 51 128 806 347 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 41 102 82 332 189 107 66 781 51 128 806 347 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: 41 102 82 332 189 107 66 781 51 128 806 347 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 1576 1576 1675 1576 1576 3670 205 1576 3910 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.04 0.21 0.25 0.08 0.21 0.22 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 12-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #11 Bush St/4th St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.531 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Bush 4th Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 30 315 25 40 225 15 25 145 30 25 300 90 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: 30 315 25 40 225 15 25 145 30 25 300 90 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: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 PHF Volume: 29 309 25 39 221 15 25 142 29 25 294 88 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 29 309 25 39 221 15 25 142 29 25 294 88 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: 29 309 25 39 221 15 25 142 29 25 294 88 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 0.93 0.07 1.00 0.94 0.06 0.12 0.73 0.15 0.06 0.72 0.22 Final Sat.: 1576 1551 123 1576 1570 105 209 1417 251 101 1413 363 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.20 0.20 0.02 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.21 0.24 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 13-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #12 French St/4th St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.458 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Street Name: French St 4th St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 65 85 100 50 15 15 160 35 85 380 90 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: 20 65 85 100 50 15 15 160 35 85 380 90 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: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 PHF Volume: 20 64 84 99 50 15 15 158 35 84 376 89 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 20 64 84 99 50 15 15 158 35 84 376 89 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: 20 64 84 99 50 15 15 158 35 84 376 89 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 0.12 0.38 0.50 1.00 0.77 0.23 0.07 0.76 0.17 0.18 0.82 1.00 Final Sat.: 197 640 837 1576 1288 386 120 1490 279 306 1598 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.05 0.24 0.06 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 14-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #13 Mortimer St/4th St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.647 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 32 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Mortimer St 4th St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 110 0 30 150 195 0 0 525 65 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: 0 0 0 110 0 30 150 195 0 0 525 65 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: 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 124 0 34 169 219 0 0 590 73 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 124 0 34 169 219 0 0 590 73 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: 0 0 0 124 0 34 169 219 0 0 590 73 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.11 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1316 0 359 1576 1955 0 0 1740 184 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.40 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum APPENDIX F STREET DESIGN CONCEPT LOS WORKSHEETS (ICU METHOLODOGY) 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 2-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Raitt Street/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.664 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 34 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Raitt Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 445 180 120 420 0 0 0 0 195 0 25 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: 0 445 180 120 420 0 0 0 0 195 0 25 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: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 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: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.71 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1210 490 1600 1700 0 0 0 0 1600 0 1700 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.08 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 3-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Pacific Ave/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.330 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 18 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Pacific Avenue Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 65 65 40 85 15 20 255 25 50 190 70 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 65 65 40 85 15 20 255 25 50 190 70 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: 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 PHF Volume: 14 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 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 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.10 0.45 0.45 0.28 0.61 0.11 1.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.46 0.54 Final Sat.: 176 762 762 486 1032 182 1600 1548 152 1600 2485 915 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.07 0.07 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 4-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Shelton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.460 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Shelton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 15 45 245 10 15 30 300 75 70 345 190 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: 5 15 45 245 10 15 30 300 75 70 345 190 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: 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 PHF Volume: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 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: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 0.08 0.23 0.69 0.96 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 131 392 1177 1633 67 1600 1600 1360 340 1600 1700 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.02 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.19 0.11 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 5-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 Flower St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.711 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Flower St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 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: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 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: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 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: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.76 0.24 1.00 1.51 0.49 Final Sat.: 1600 3400 1600 1600 3400 1600 1600 2992 408 1600 2571 829 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.30 0.04 0.13 0.27 0.06 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.18 0.17 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 6-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Parton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.549 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Parton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 5 130 105 10 25 40 555 125 90 660 95 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: 20 5 130 105 10 25 40 555 125 90 660 95 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: 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 PHF Volume: 24 6 159 128 12 30 49 677 152 110 805 116 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 24 6 159 128 12 30 49 677 152 110 805 116 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: 24 6 159 128 12 30 49 677 152 110 805 116 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.13 0.03 0.84 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.63 0.37 1.00 1.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 219 55 1426 1552 148 1600 1600 2775 625 1600 2972 428 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.24 0.24 0.07 0.27 0.27 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 7-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Ross St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.606 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Ross St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 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: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 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: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 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: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.59 0.41 Final Sat.: 1600 1700 1600 1600 1700 1600 1600 3400 1600 1600 2705 695 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.18 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.20 0.02 0.13 0.26 0.26 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 8-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Bush St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.530 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Bush St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 30 140 0 0 180 40 0 0 0 30 780 90 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: 30 140 0 0 180 40 0 0 0 30 780 90 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: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 PHF Volume: 35 163 0 0 209 47 0 0 0 35 907 105 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 35 163 0 0 209 47 0 0 0 35 907 105 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: 35 163 0 0 209 47 0 0 0 35 907 105 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 1.73 0.20 Final Sat.: 1600 1700 0 0 1391 309 0 0 0 113 2947 340 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 9-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #8 French St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.664 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 34 Level Of Service: B Street Name: French St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 55 40 0 0 35 5 0 0 0 20 840 15 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: 55 40 0 0 35 5 0 0 0 20 840 15 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: 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 PHF Volume: 108 78 0 0 69 10 0 0 0 39 1647 29 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 108 78 0 0 69 10 0 0 0 39 1647 29 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: 108 78 0 0 69 10 0 0 0 39 1647 29 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.58 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 1.92 0.03 Final Sat.: 984 716 0 0 1488 212 0 0 0 78 3264 58 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.50 0.50 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 10-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Lacy St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.753 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 44 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Lacy St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 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: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 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: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 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: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 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: 0.03 0.77 0.20 0.22 0.50 0.28 0.02 0.96 0.02 0.06 0.91 0.03 Final Sat.: 49 1311 340 378 850 472 39 1623 39 94 1545 60 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.26 0.26 0.03 0.58 0.58 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 11-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Santiago St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.525 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Santiago St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 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: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 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: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 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: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.85 0.15 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 1700 1600 1600 1700 1600 1600 3144 256 1600 3400 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.27 0.22 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 12-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #14 Bristol/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.605 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Bristol Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 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: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 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: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 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: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.81 0.19 1.00 2.76 0.24 1.00 0.89 0.11 1.00 0.84 0.16 Final Sat.: 1600 4779 321 1600 4692 408 1600 1505 195 1600 1423 277 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.13 0.13 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 13-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #15 Broadway/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.736 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 41 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Broadway Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 45 635 0 0 615 265 0 0 0 25 795 70 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: 45 635 0 0 615 265 0 0 0 25 795 70 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: 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 PHF Volume: 58 825 0 0 799 344 0 0 0 32 1032 91 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 58 825 0 0 799 344 0 0 0 32 1032 91 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: 58 825 0 0 799 344 0 0 0 32 1032 91 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 1.94 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3400 0 0 2376 1024 0 0 0 104 3296 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.31 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 14-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #17 Main St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.755 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 44 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Main St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 1260 0 0 1150 80 0 0 0 65 720 65 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: 90 1260 0 0 1150 80 0 0 0 65 720 65 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: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 98 1370 0 0 1250 87 0 0 0 71 783 71 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 98 1370 0 0 1250 87 0 0 0 71 783 71 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: 98 1370 0 0 1250 87 0 0 0 71 783 71 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.87 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.83 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3400 0 0 3179 221 0 0 0 282 3118 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.25 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:50 Page 2-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Raitt Street/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.957 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 140 Level Of Service: E Street Name: Raitt Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 845 80 95 445 0 0 0 0 355 0 165 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: 0 845 80 95 445 0 0 0 0 355 0 165 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: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 0 929 88 104 489 0 0 0 0 390 0 181 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 929 88 104 489 0 0 0 0 390 0 181 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: 0 929 88 104 489 0 0 0 0 390 0 181 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1553 147 1600 1700 0 0 0 0 1600 0 1700 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.07 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:50 Page 3-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Pacific Ave/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.461 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Pacific Avenue Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.05 0.63 0.32 0.49 0.49 0.02 1.00 0.84 0.16 1.00 1.71 0.29 Final Sat.: 89 1074 537 828 828 45 1600 1434 266 1600 2906 494 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.17 0.17 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:50 Page 4-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Shelton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.603 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Shelton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 25 95 165 30 45 20 350 85 10 760 145 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 25 95 165 30 45 20 350 85 10 760 145 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: 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 PHF Volume: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 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: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 0.11 0.19 0.70 0.85 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 189 315 1196 1438 262 1600 1600 1368 332 1600 1700 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.22 0.01 0.39 0.08 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:50 Page 5-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 Flower St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.695 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Flower St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 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: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 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: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 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: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.63 0.37 1.00 1.51 0.49 Final Sat.: 1600 3400 1600 1600 3400 1600 1600 2767 633 1600 2559 841 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.25 0.03 0.06 0.16 0.03 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.27 0.27 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:50 Page 6-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Parton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.538 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Parton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 5 95 45 10 30 5 545 15 35 1020 25 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: 90 5 95 45 10 30 5 545 15 35 1020 25 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: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 98 5 103 49 11 33 5 592 16 38 1109 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 98 5 103 49 11 33 5 592 16 38 1109 27 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: 98 5 103 49 11 33 5 592 16 38 1109 27 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.47 0.03 0.50 0.82 0.18 1.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.95 0.05 Final Sat.: 805 45 850 1391 309 1600 1600 3309 91 1600 3319 81 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.02 0.33 0.33 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:50 Page 7-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Ross St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.596 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Ross St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 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: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 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: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 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: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 1600 1700 1600 1600 1700 1600 1600 3400 1600 1600 2977 423 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.14 0.06 0.05 0.16 0.05 0.08 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:50 Page 8-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Bush St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.650 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Bush St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 335 0 0 215 115 0 0 0 45 825 75 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: 90 335 0 0 215 115 0 0 0 45 825 75 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: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 102 381 0 0 244 131 0 0 0 51 938 85 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 102 381 0 0 244 131 0 0 0 51 938 85 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: 102 381 0 0 244 131 0 0 0 51 938 85 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 1.75 0.16 Final Sat.: 1600 1700 0 0 1108 592 0 0 0 162 2968 270 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.32 0.32 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:50 Page 9-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #8 French St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.730 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 41 Level Of Service: C Street Name: French St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 110 65 0 0 40 5 0 0 0 30 830 10 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: 110 65 0 0 40 5 0 0 0 30 830 10 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: 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 PHF Volume: 208 123 0 0 76 9 0 0 0 57 1572 19 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 208 123 0 0 76 9 0 0 0 57 1572 19 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: 208 123 0 0 76 9 0 0 0 57 1572 19 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.63 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 1.91 0.02 Final Sat.: 1069 631 0 0 1511 189 0 0 0 117 3244 39 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.48 0.48 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:50 Page 10-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Lacy St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.565 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Lacy St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 65 15 20 30 15 20 580 5 45 690 40 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 65 15 20 30 15 20 580 5 45 690 40 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: 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 PHF Volume: 14 62 14 19 29 14 19 558 5 43 663 38 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 62 14 19 29 14 19 558 5 43 663 38 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 63 14 19 29 14 19 558 5 43 663 38 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 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: 0.16 0.68 0.16 0.31 0.46 0.23 0.03 0.96 0.01 0.06 0.89 0.05 Final Sat.: 268 1163 268 523 785 392 56 1630 14 99 1514 88 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.34 0.34 0.03 0.44 0.44 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:51 Page 11-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Santiago St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.642 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 32 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Santiago St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 40 100 80 325 185 105 65 765 50 125 790 340 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: 40 100 80 325 185 105 65 765 50 125 790 340 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: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 PHF Volume: 41 102 82 332 189 107 66 781 51 128 806 347 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 41 102 82 332 189 107 66 781 51 128 806 347 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: 41 102 82 332 189 107 66 781 51 128 806 347 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 1700 1600 1600 1700 1600 1600 3191 209 1600 3400 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.04 0.24 0.24 0.08 0.24 0.22 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:51 Page 12-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #14 Bristol/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.840 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 62 Level Of Service: D Street Name: Bristol Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 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: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 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: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 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: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.78 0.22 1.00 2.78 0.22 1.00 0.87 0.13 1.00 0.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 1600 4723 377 1600 4724 376 1600 1484 216 1600 1278 422 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.04 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.08 0.40 0.40 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:51 Page 13-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #15 Broadway/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.722 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 40 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Broadway Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 70 770 0 0 685 130 0 0 0 70 885 85 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: 70 770 0 0 685 130 0 0 0 70 885 85 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: 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 PHF Volume: 83 917 0 0 815 155 0 0 0 83 1054 101 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 83 917 0 0 815 155 0 0 0 83 1054 101 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: 83 917 0 0 815 155 0 0 0 83 1054 101 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.68 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 1.85 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3400 0 0 2858 542 0 0 0 249 3151 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.33 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:51 Page 14-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #17 Main St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.852 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 66 Level Of Service: D Street Name: Main St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 1395 0 0 1330 95 0 0 0 65 855 110 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: 90 1395 0 0 1330 95 0 0 0 65 855 110 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: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 97 1500 0 0 1430 102 0 0 0 70 919 118 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 97 1500 0 0 1430 102 0 0 0 70 919 118 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: 97 1500 0 0 1430 102 0 0 0 70 919 118 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.87 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 1.86 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3400 0 0 3173 227 0 0 0 240 3160 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.29 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 2-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Raitt Street/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.673 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 34 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Raitt Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 445 180 120 420 0 0 0 0 195 0 25 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: 0 445 180 120 420 0 0 0 0 195 0 25 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: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 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: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.00 0.71 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1192 482 1576 1675 0 0 0 0 1576 0 1675 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.08 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 3-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Pacific Ave/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.334 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 18 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Pacific Avenue Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 65 65 40 85 15 20 255 25 50 190 70 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 65 65 40 85 15 20 255 25 50 190 70 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: 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 PHF Volume: 14 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 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 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.10 0.45 0.45 0.28 0.61 0.11 1.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.46 0.54 Final Sat.: 173 751 751 478 1017 179 1576 1780 150 1576 2857 902 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.13 0.15 0.03 0.06 0.07 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 4-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Shelton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.464 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Shelton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 15 45 245 10 15 30 300 75 70 345 190 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: 5 15 45 245 10 15 30 300 75 70 345 190 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: 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 PHF Volume: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 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: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 0.08 0.23 0.69 0.96 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 129 386 1159 1609 66 1576 1576 1564 335 1576 1955 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.02 0.18 0.21 0.04 0.16 0.11 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 5-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 Flower St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.721 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 40 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Flower St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 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: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 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: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 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: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.76 0.24 1.00 1.51 0.49 Final Sat.: 1576 3349 1576 1576 3349 1576 1576 3441 402 1576 2957 816 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.30 0.04 0.14 0.27 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.15 0.07 0.15 0.18 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 6-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Parton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.555 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Parton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 5 130 105 10 25 40 555 125 90 660 95 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: 20 5 130 105 10 25 40 555 125 90 660 95 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: 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 PHF Volume: 24 6 159 128 12 30 49 677 152 110 805 116 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 24 6 159 128 12 30 49 677 152 110 805 116 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: 24 6 159 128 12 30 49 677 152 110 805 116 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.13 0.03 0.84 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.63 0.37 1.00 1.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 216 54 1404 1529 146 1576 1576 3191 616 1576 3418 421 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.21 0.25 0.07 0.24 0.27 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 7-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Ross St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.596 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Ross St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 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: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 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: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 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: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.59 0.41 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 1576 1576 1675 1576 1576 3910 1576 1576 3110 685 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.19 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.17 0.02 0.13 0.23 0.26 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 8-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Bush St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.537 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Bush St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 30 140 0 0 180 40 0 0 0 30 780 90 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: 30 140 0 0 180 40 0 0 0 30 780 90 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: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 PHF Volume: 35 163 0 0 209 47 0 0 0 35 907 105 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 35 163 0 0 209 47 0 0 0 35 907 105 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: 35 163 0 0 209 47 0 0 0 35 907 105 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 1.73 0.20 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 0 0 1370 304 0 0 0 112 3389 335 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.27 0.31 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 9-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #8 French St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.673 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 34 Level Of Service: B Street Name: French St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 55 40 0 0 35 5 0 0 0 20 840 15 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: 55 40 0 0 35 5 0 0 0 20 840 15 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: 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 PHF Volume: 108 78 0 0 69 10 0 0 0 39 1647 29 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 108 78 0 0 69 10 0 0 0 39 1647 29 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: 108 78 0 0 69 10 0 0 0 39 1647 29 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.58 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 1.92 0.03 Final Sat.: 969 705 0 0 1465 209 0 0 0 77 3754 57 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.44 0.51 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 10-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Lacy St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.763 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 45 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Lacy St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 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: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 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: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 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: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.03 0.77 0.20 0.22 0.50 0.28 0.02 0.96 0.02 0.06 0.91 0.03 Final Sat.: 48 1292 335 372 837 465 38 1866 38 93 1777 59 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.23 0.26 0.03 0.51 0.59 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 11-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Santiago St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.493 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Santiago St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 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: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 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: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 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: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.85 0.15 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 1576 1576 1675 1576 1576 3616 252 1576 3910 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.16 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.12 0.14 0.09 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 12-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #14 Bristol/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.614 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 30 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Bristol Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 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: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 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: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 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: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 2.81 0.19 1.00 2.76 0.24 1.00 0.89 0.11 1.00 0.84 0.16 Final Sat.: 1576 4707 317 1576 4622 402 1576 1731 192 1576 1637 273 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.16 0.18 0.10 0.11 0.13 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 13-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #15 Broadway/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.701 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Broadway Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 45 635 0 0 615 265 0 0 0 25 795 70 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: 45 635 0 0 615 265 0 0 0 25 795 70 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: 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 PHF Volume: 58 825 0 0 799 344 0 0 0 32 1032 91 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 58 825 0 0 799 344 0 0 0 32 1032 91 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: 58 825 0 0 799 344 0 0 0 32 1032 91 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 1.94 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 3349 0 0 2340 1009 0 0 0 102 3791 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.27 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 14-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #17 Main St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.730 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 41 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Main St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 1260 0 0 1150 80 0 0 0 65 720 65 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: 90 1260 0 0 1150 80 0 0 0 65 720 65 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: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 98 1370 0 0 1250 87 0 0 0 71 783 71 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 98 1370 0 0 1250 87 0 0 0 71 783 71 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: 98 1370 0 0 1250 87 0 0 0 71 783 71 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.87 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.83 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 3349 0 0 3131 218 0 0 0 277 3586 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.22 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 2-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Raitt Street/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.971 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 164 Level Of Service: E Street Name: Raitt Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 845 80 95 445 0 0 0 0 355 0 165 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: 0 845 80 95 445 0 0 0 0 355 0 165 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: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 0 929 88 104 489 0 0 0 0 390 0 181 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 929 88 104 489 0 0 0 0 390 0 181 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: 0 929 88 104 489 0 0 0 0 390 0 181 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1530 145 1576 1675 0 0 0 0 1576 0 1675 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.07 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 3-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Pacific Ave/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.467 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Pacific Avenue Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.05 0.63 0.32 0.49 0.49 0.02 1.00 0.84 0.16 1.00 1.71 0.29 Final Sat.: 88 1058 529 815 815 44 1576 1650 262 1576 3342 487 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.01 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.15 0.17 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 4-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Shelton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.554 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Shelton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 25 95 165 30 45 20 350 85 10 760 145 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 25 95 165 30 45 20 350 85 10 760 145 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: 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 PHF Volume: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 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: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 0.11 0.19 0.70 0.85 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 186 310 1178 1417 258 1576 1576 1573 327 1576 1955 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.23 0.01 0.34 0.08 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 5-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 Flower St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.705 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Flower St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 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: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 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: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 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: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.63 0.37 1.00 1.51 0.49 Final Sat.: 1576 3349 1576 1576 3349 1576 1576 3182 624 1576 2943 828 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.25 0.03 0.06 0.17 0.03 0.06 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.24 0.28 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 6-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Parton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.545 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Parton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 5 95 45 10 30 5 545 15 35 1020 25 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: 90 5 95 45 10 30 5 545 15 35 1020 25 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: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 98 5 103 49 11 33 5 592 16 38 1109 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 98 5 103 49 11 33 5 592 16 38 1109 27 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: 98 5 103 49 11 33 5 592 16 38 1109 27 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.47 0.03 0.50 0.82 0.18 1.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.95 0.05 Final Sat.: 793 44 837 1370 304 1576 1576 3805 90 1576 3816 80 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.16 0.18 0.02 0.29 0.34 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 7-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Ross St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.604 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Ross St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 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: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 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: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 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: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 1576 1576 1675 1576 1576 3910 1576 1576 3424 417 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.14 0.06 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.08 0.27 0.31 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 8-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Bush St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.659 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Bush St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 335 0 0 215 115 0 0 0 45 825 75 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: 90 335 0 0 215 115 0 0 0 45 825 75 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: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 102 381 0 0 244 131 0 0 0 51 938 85 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 102 381 0 0 244 131 0 0 0 51 938 85 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: 102 381 0 0 244 131 0 0 0 51 938 85 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 1.75 0.16 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 0 0 1091 584 0 0 0 159 3413 266 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.27 0.32 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 9-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #8 French St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.740 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 42 Level Of Service: C Street Name: French St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 110 65 0 0 40 5 0 0 0 30 830 10 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: 110 65 0 0 40 5 0 0 0 30 830 10 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: 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 PHF Volume: 208 123 0 0 76 9 0 0 0 57 1572 19 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 208 123 0 0 76 9 0 0 0 57 1572 19 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: 208 123 0 0 76 9 0 0 0 57 1572 19 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.63 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 1.91 0.02 Final Sat.: 1053 622 0 0 1488 186 0 0 0 115 3730 38 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.42 0.49 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 10-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Lacy St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.572 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Lacy St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 65 15 20 30 15 20 580 5 45 690 40 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 65 15 20 30 15 20 580 5 45 690 40 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: 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 PHF Volume: 14 62 14 19 29 14 19 558 5 43 663 38 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 62 14 19 29 14 19 558 5 43 663 38 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 63 14 19 29 14 19 558 5 43 663 38 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.16 0.68 0.16 0.31 0.46 0.23 0.03 0.96 0.01 0.06 0.89 0.05 Final Sat.: 264 1146 264 515 773 386 55 1874 14 97 1741 86 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.30 0.35 0.03 0.38 0.45 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 11-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Santiago St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.651 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Santiago St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 40 100 80 325 185 105 65 765 50 125 790 340 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: 40 100 80 325 185 105 65 765 50 125 790 340 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: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 PHF Volume: 41 102 82 332 189 107 66 781 51 128 806 347 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 41 102 82 332 189 107 66 781 51 128 806 347 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: 41 102 82 332 189 107 66 781 51 128 806 347 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 1576 1576 1675 1576 1576 3670 205 1576 3910 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.04 0.21 0.25 0.08 0.21 0.22 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 12-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #14 Bristol/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.852 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 66 Level Of Service: D Street Name: Bristol Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 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: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 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: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 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: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 2.78 0.22 1.00 2.78 0.22 1.00 0.87 0.13 1.00 0.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 1576 4653 371 1576 4653 370 1576 1707 213 1576 1470 416 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.30 0.30 0.04 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.16 0.19 0.09 0.35 0.41 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 13-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #15 Broadway/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.683 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 35 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Broadway Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 70 770 0 0 685 130 0 0 0 70 885 85 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: 70 770 0 0 685 130 0 0 0 70 885 85 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: 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 PHF Volume: 83 917 0 0 815 155 0 0 0 83 1054 101 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 83 917 0 0 815 155 0 0 0 83 1054 101 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: 83 917 0 0 815 155 0 0 0 83 1054 101 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.68 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 1.85 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 3349 0 0 2815 534 0 0 0 245 3623 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.29 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 14-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #17 Main St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.822 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 57 Level Of Service: D Street Name: Main St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 1395 0 0 1330 95 0 0 0 65 855 110 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: 90 1395 0 0 1330 95 0 0 0 65 855 110 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: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 97 1500 0 0 1430 102 0 0 0 70 919 118 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 97 1500 0 0 1430 102 0 0 0 70 919 118 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: 97 1500 0 0 1430 102 0 0 0 70 919 118 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.87 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 1.86 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 3349 0 0 3126 223 0 0 0 237 3634 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.25 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum APPENDIX STREET DESIGN CONCEPT LOS WORKSHEETS (HCM METHOLODOGY) 27 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 1: Raitt & Street Car/Santa Ana AM Peak Hour EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations T I F T+ I t Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 195 0 25 0 445 180 120 420 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 195 0 25 0 445 180 120 420 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1.00 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1790 1770 1863 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1790 277 1863 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 212 0 27 0 484 196 130 457 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 16 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 212 0 12 0 664 0 130 457 0 Tum Type Prot Prot NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.1 40.6 40.4 40.4 40.4 Effective Green, g (s) 18.1 40.6 40.4 40.4 40.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 355 714 803 124 836 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 c0.01 0.37 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm c0.47 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.02 0.83 1.05 0.55 Uniform Delay, d1 32.6 13.7 21.7 24.8 18.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.2 0.0 9.5 94.4 2.6 Delay (s) 39.9 13.7 31.3 119.2 20.7 Level of Service D B C F C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 36.9 31.3 42.5 Approach LOS A D C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 2: Ross & Santa Ana & 5th AM Peak Hour Iq:1 q:1 q:1: 1:1 I:1 I:1:Y.9:1.9:1.9:1:S.9r01.99r1:S.99r1:YJ Lane Configurations I ft F I T F I T F I Fri Traffic Volume (vph) 85 675 30 25 310 70 70 245 120 210 700 180 Future Volume (vph) 85 675 30 25 310 70 70 245 120 210 700 180 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 2787 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.36 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 885 1863 1583 670 1863 1583 1770 2787 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 92 734 33 27 337 76 76 266 130 228 761 196 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 25 0 0 55 0 0 95 0 58 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 734 8 27 337 21 76 266 35 228 899 0 Tum Type Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 6 3 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 18.0 18.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 18.0 30.0 Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 18.0 18.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 18.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 164 910 407 240 505 429 181 505 429 455 1194 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.21 c0.18 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.11 0.02 c0.13 c0.32 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.81 0.02 0.11 0.67 0.05 0.42 0.53 0.08 0.50 0.75 Uniform Delay, d1 30.4 24.4 19.4 19.2 22.7 18.8 21.0 21.7 19.0 22.2 16.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.50 Incremental Delay, d2 13.1 7.6 0.1 0.9 6.8 0.2 7.0 3.9 0.4 3.5 3.9 Delay (s) 43.5 32.0 19.5 20.1 29.5 19.0 28.0 25.6 19.4 26.8 29.2 Level of Service D C B C C B C C B C C Approach Delay (s) 32.7 27.1 24.3 28.7 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 3: Bristol & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations I T+ I T+ I M4 I TTt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 45 210 25 130 155 35 20 1050 65 55 1105 100 Future Volume (vph) 45 210 25 130 155 35 20 1050 65 55 1105 100 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1833 1770 1811 1770 5041 1770 5022 At Permitted 0.63 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1171 1833 657 1811 1770 5041 1770 5022 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 228 27 141 168 38 22 1141 71 60 1201 109 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 252 0 141 200 0 22 1206 0 60 1302 0 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 39.5 33.0 53.0 42.0 7.5 50.0 12.5 55.0 Effective Green, g (s) 39.5 33.0 53.0 42.0 7.5 50.0 12.5 55.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.25 0.41 0.32 0.06 0.38 0.10 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 385 465 400 585 102 1938 170 2124 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.14 c0.04 0.11 0.01 0.24 c0.03 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.54 0.35 0.34 0.22 0.62 0.35 0.61 Uniform Delay, d1 32.4 42.0 25.8 33.5 58.4 32.4 55.0 29.2 Progression Factor 2.16 1.82 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 4.1 2.4 1.6 4.8 1.5 5.7 1.3 Delay (s) 70.5 80.6 28.3 35.1 63.2 33.9 60.6 30.5 Level of Service E F C D E C E C Approach Delay (s) 79.0 32.3 34.4 31.9 Approach LOS E C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 6: Shelton & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour EBL EBT EBR Lane Configurations I T+ I t F 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 30 300 75 70 345 190 5 15 45 245 10 15 Future Volume (vph) 30 300 75 70 345 190 5 15 45 245 10 15 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.91 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1807 1770 1863 1583 1681 1777 1583 At Permitted 0.42 1.00 0.38 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.68 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 779 1807 703 1863 1583 1653 1273 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 326 82 76 375 207 5 16 49 266 11 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 0 133 0 26 0 0 0 9 Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 392 0 76 375 74 0 44 0 0 277 7 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.46 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 278 645 251 665 565 767 591 734 v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.11 0.05 0.03 c0.22 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.61 0.30 0.56 0.13 0.06 0.47 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 12.1 14.8 13.0 14.5 12.1 8.3 10.3 8.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 4.2 3.1 3.4 0.5 0.1 2.7 0.0 Delay (s) 13.0 19.0 16.1 17.9 12.6 8.4 12.9 8.1 Level of Service B B B B B A B A Approach Delay (s) 18.5 16.0 8.4 12.7 Approach LOS B B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 9: Flower & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour 11111 111] q11:9r1111111.01:10N01:1:5.911.9:1 .9:3:1 Lane Configurations I T'+ I TT, I T F I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 90 440 60 110 450 145 65 1005 65 215 910 90 Future Volume (vph) 90 440 60 110 450 145 65 1005 65 215 910 90 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fr1 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 3476 1770 3410 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.17 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 320 3476 370 3410 461 3539 1583 176 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 98 478 65 120 489 158 71 1092 71 234 989 98 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 24 0 0 0 43 0 0 47 Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 535 0 120 623 0 71 1092 28 234 989 51 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 37.1 27.6 41.9 30.0 57.9 52.0 52.0 76.0 65.6 65.6 Effective Green, g (s) 37.1 27.6 41.9 30.0 57.9 52.0 52.0 76.0 65.6 65.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.21 0.32 0.23 0.45 0.40 0.40 0.58 0.50 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 197 737 247 786 264 1415 633 341 1785 798 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.15 c0.04 c0.18 0.01 c0.31 c0.10 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.30 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.73 0.49 0.79 0.27 0.77 0.04 0.69 0.55 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 36.3 47.7 33.3 47.1 21.1 33.8 23.8 28.7 22.1 16.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.7 6.2 6.7 8.1 2.5 4.1 0.1 10.7 1.2 0.2 Delay (s) 45.0 53.8 40.0 55.1 23.6 38.0 24.0 39.4 23.4 16.6 Level of Service D D D E C D C D C B Approach Delay (s) 52.5 52.8 36.3 25.7 Approach LOS D D D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 12: Parton & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations I T'+ I T'+ 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 40 555 125 90 660 95 20 5 130 25 10 105 Future Volume (vph) 40 555 125 90 660 95 20 5 130 25 10 105 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 0.89 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3442 1770 3473 1641 1799 1583 At Permitted 0.27 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.97 0.80 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 508 3442 577 3473 1600 1494 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 603 136 98 717 103 22 5 141 27 11 114 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 22 0 0 13 0 0 86 0 0 0 70 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 718 0 98 808 0 0 82 0 0 38 44 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 254 1721 288 1736 622 581 615 v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.17 c0.05 0.03 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.42 0.34 0.47 0.13 0.07 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 12.3 14.2 13.6 14.7 17.7 17.2 17.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.7 3.2 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.2 Delay (s) 13.7 15.0 16.7 15.6 18.1 17.5 17.5 Level of Service B B B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 14.9 15.7 18.1 17.5 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.32 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 17: Broadway & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Lane Configurations 0 F I TT+ Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 20 760 55 40 565 0 0 540 185 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 20 760 55 40 565 0 0 540 185 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.96 At Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3535 1583 1770 3539 3404 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3535 1583 505 3539 3404 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 22 826 60 43 614 0 0 587 201 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 48 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 848 26 43 614 0 0 740 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Effective Green, g (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1515 678 216 1516 1458 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.24 0.02 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.04 0.20 0.41 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 15.0 11.6 12.5 13.8 14.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 0.1 2.1 0.8 1.3 Delay (s) 16.5 11.7 14.6 14.6 15.9 Level of Service B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 16.2 14.6 15.9 Approach LOS A B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 27: Main & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Lane Configurations 0 F I T Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 55 670 60 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 55 670 60 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3526 1583 1770 3539 3500 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3526 1583 344 3539 3500 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 60 728 65 92 1261 0 0 1092 87 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 788 17 92 1261 0 0 1173 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Effective Green, g (s) 24.0 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.62 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 940 422 214 2202 2177 v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 0.01 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.04 0.43 0.57 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 31.2 24.5 8.8 10.0 9.7 Progression Factor 0.41 0.20 0.56 0.56 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.8 0.2 5.0 0.9 1.0 Delay (s) 20.6 5.1 9.9 6.5 10.6 Level of Service C A A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 19.4 6.7 10.6 Approach LOS A B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 32: Bush & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 1 T F Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 30 780 90 30 140 0 0 180 40 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 30 780 90 30 140 0 0 180 40 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3480 1770 1863 1863 1583 At Permitted 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3480 1124 1863 1863 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 33 848 98 33 152 0 0 196 43 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 970 0 33 152 0 0 196 17 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1740 437 724 724 615 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.28 0.03 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.08 0.21 0.27 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 15.6 17.3 18.3 18.8 17.0 Progression Factor 1.66 0.75 0.73 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.1 Delay (s) 26.9 13.3 14.1 19.7 17.1 Level of Service C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 26.9 13.9 19.2 Approach LOS A C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 36: French & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Frt EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1.00 Lane Configurations 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3526 1573 4T+ 60 43 4 0 38 1 RTOR Reduction (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 20 840 15 55 40 0 0 35 5 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 20 840 15 55 40 0 0 35 5 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 8 4.5 2 4.5 6 4.5 Permitted Phases Lane Util. Factor 8 0.95 2 1.00 1.00 Actuated Green, G (s) Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 At Protected 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3526 1810 1834 At Permitted 1.00 0.84 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3526 1573 1834 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 22 913 16 60 43 0 0 38 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 949 0 0 103 0 0 40 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1410 629 733 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 c0.07 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.16 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 11.1 8.7 8.3 Progression Factor 1.00 0.88 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 0.6 0.1 Delay (s) 13.7 8.2 8.4 Level of Service B A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 13.7 8.2 8.4 Approach LOS A B A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 43: Santa Ana & Santiago AM Peak Hour Lane Configurations I T F I T F I TT+ I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 245 150 100 25 60 70 30 430 35 140 910 355 Future Volume (vph) 245 150 100 25 60 70 30 430 35 140 910 355 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fr1 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3499 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.65 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1331 1863 1583 1218 1863 1583 1770 3499 1770 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 266 163 109 27 65 76 33 467 38 152 989 386 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 69 0 0 48 0 8 0 0 0 244 Lane Group Flow (vph) 266 163 40 27 65 28 33 497 0 152 989 142 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 5.0 22.0 11.0 27.5 27.5 Effective Green, g (s) 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 5.0 22.0 11.0 27.5 27.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.07 0.29 0.15 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 488 683 580 446 683 580 118 1026 259 1297 580 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.14 c0.09 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm c0.20 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.24 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.28 0.48 0.59 0.76 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 18.8 16.5 15.4 15.4 15.6 15.3 33.3 21.8 29.9 20.9 16.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.3 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 5.8 1.6 9.4 4.3 1.0 Delay (s) 23.1 17.3 15.7 15.6 15.9 15.5 39.1 23.5 39.3 25.2 17.5 Level of Service C B B B B B D C D C B Approach Delay (s) 19.9 15.6 24.4 24.6 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 46: PAcific & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour EBL EBT EBR Lane Configurations I T+ I t F 44 4 Traffic Volume (vph) 20 255 25 50 190 70 15 65 65 40 85 15 Future Volume (vph) 20 255 25 50 190 70 15 65 65 40 85 15 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1838 1770 1863 1583 1741 1810 At Permitted 0.51 1.00 0.36 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.89 Satd.Flow (perm) 946 1838 679 1863 1583 1697 1633 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 277 27 54 207 76 16 71 71 43 92 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 53 0 23 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 301 0 54 207 23 0 135 0 0 148 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 82.5 82.5 Effective Green, g (s) 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 82.5 82.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.63 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 280 544 201 551 468 1076 1036 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.08 c0.09 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.55 0.27 0.38 0.05 0.13 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 33.0 38.5 35.0 36.2 32.7 9.4 9.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.72 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 4.0 3.1 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.3 Delay (s) 33.5 42.5 32.3 32.2 23.7 9.7 9.8 Level of Service C D C C C A A Approach Delay (s) 41.9 30.3 9.7 9.8 Approach LOS D C A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.27 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 49: Santa Ana & Lacy AM Peak Hour y r-+ f 3 "$ '_A R. Move SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations 1849 44 0.92 0.99 4 0.95 Satd. Flow (berm) 44 1803 1810 4 0 Traffic Volume (vph) 20 45 25 5 135 35 10 420 10 55 900 35 Future Volume (vph) 20 45 25 5 135 35 10 420 10 55 900 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4 4.5 Permitted Phases 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 4 1.00 8 1.00 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.00 1.00 Fr: 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.00 At Protected 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1774 1810 1855 1849 At Permitted 0.92 0.99 0.97 0.95 Satd. Flow (berm) 1646 1803 1810 1765 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 49 27 5 147 38 11 457 11 60 978 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 17 0 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 81 0 0 179 0 0 478 0 0 1074 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.5 22.5 48.5 48.5 Effective Green, g (s) 22.5 22.5 48.5 48.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.61 0.61 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 462 507 1097 1070 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.10 0.26 c0.61 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.35 0.44 1.00 Uniform Delay, d1 21.7 22.9 8.4 15.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 1.9 1.3 28.5 Delay (s) 22.6 24.9 9.7 44.3 Level of Service C C A D Approach Delay (s) 22.6 24.9 9.7 44.3 Approach LOS C C A D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 13 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 1: Raitt & Street Car/Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Queues t T Is. l Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 212 27 680 130 457 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.04 0.83 1.05 0.55 Control Delay 40.6 5.6 31.5 124.5 21.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 40.6 5.6 31.5 124.5 21.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 110 0 316 81 184 Queue Length 95th (ft) 184 14 524 193 276 Internal Link Dist(ft) 492 336 Tum Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 355 728 819 124 836 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.60 0.04 0.83 1.05 0.55 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 2: Ross & Santa Ana & 5th AM Peak Hour Queues W --* --* 4\ Lane Group EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT NBR2 SBL SBT SBR SWL SWR Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 734 33 27 337 76 76 266 130 228 957 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.81 0.06 0.11 0.67 0.14 0.42 0.53 0.23 0.50 0.76 Control Delay 45.1 32.8 0.2 20.8 30.2 0.5 29.4 26.2 2.6 27.4 27.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 45.1 32.8 0.2 20.8 35.9 0.5 29.4 26.2 2.6 27.4 27.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 39 155 0 9 129 0 27 97 0 91 185 Queue Length 95th (ft) 94 238 0 27 213 0 66 165 19 156 256 Internal Link Dist(ft) 629 179 316 1040 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 100 200 100 200 Base Capacity(vph) 164 910 540 240 505 560 182 505 560 455 1252 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.56 0.81 0.06 0.11 0.86 0.14 0.42 0.53 0.23 0.50 0.76 Intersection Summary 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 3: Bristol & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Queues J 4\ t Lane Group Iff EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 255 141 206 22 1212 60 1310 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.54 0.35 0.35 0.22 0.62 0.35 0.61 Control Delay 52.7 80.6 27.2 34.1 63.8 33.9 61.3 30.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 52.7 80.6 27.2 34.1 63.8 33.9 61.3 30.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 39 217 75 126 18 298 48 307 Queue Length 95th (ft) m73 309 123 196 48 349 94 357 Internal Link Dist(ft) 867 1671 1096 1040 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 390 468 403 591 102 1944 170 2133 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.54 0.35 0.35 0.22 0.62 0.35 0.61 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 6: Shelton & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Queues Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 408 76 375 207 70 277 16 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.62 0.30 0.56 0.30 0.09 0.47 0.02 Control Delay 13.5 18.8 17.1 18.5 3.6 4.5 13.6 1.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.5 18.8 17.1 18.5 3.6 4.5 13.6 1.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 102 18 98 0 4 59 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 23 181 47 170 35 20 115 4 Internal Link Dist(ft) 1671 1293 560 320 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 278 661 251 665 698 793 591 755 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.62 0.30 0.56 0.30 0.09 0.47 0.02 Intersection Summary 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 4 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 9: Flower & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Queues Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 543 120 647 71 1092 71 234 989 98 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.73 0.48 0.80 0.27 0.77 0.10 0.68 0.55 0.12 Control Delay 39.0 53.4 37.1 53.3 15.6 38.4 0.3 35.6 23.6 3.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 39.0 53.4 37.1 53.3 15.6 38.4 0.3 35.6 23.6 3.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 57 222 71 260 24 415 0 116 293 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 101 288 120 333 46 502 0 208 356 30 Internal Link Dist(ft) 1293 563 1152 1120 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 198 745 249 810 266 1415 711 342 1785 845 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.73 0.48 0.80 0.27 0.77 0.10 0.68 0.55 0.12 Intersection Summary 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 5 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 12: Parton & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Queues J --P f-- . 0--- t l Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 739 98 820 168 38 114 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.42 0.34 0.47 0.24 0.07 0.17 Control Delay 14.5 14.3 17.8 15.3 5.7 17.8 4.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.5 14.3 17.8 15.3 5.7 17.8 4.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 13 125 32 147 9 13 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 34 169 71 196 49 33 32 Internal Link Dist(ft) 563 629 360 184 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 100 Base Capacity(vph) 254 1741 288 1748 708 581 685 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.42 0.34 0.47 0.24 0.07 0.17 Intersection Summary 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 6 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 17: Broadway & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Queues 4- 4\ T Lane Group WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 848 60 43 614 788 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.08 0.20 0.41 0.52 Control Delay 16.8 4.1 15.5 14.8 14.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.6 53.9 0.0 Total Delay 16.8 4.1 16.1 68.7 14.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 138 0 11 92 111 Queue Length 95th (ft) 191 19 32 131 160 Internal Link Dist(ft) 911 87 908 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 1515 712 216 1516 1507 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 54 973 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.56 0.08 0.27 1.13 0.52 Intersection Summary 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 7 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 27: Main & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Queues 4- t 4\ T l Lane Group WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 788 65 92 1261 1179 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.14 0.43 0.57 0.54 Control Delay 21.6 2.0 10.8 6.6 10.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Delay 21.6 2.0 10.8 6.7 10.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 254 4 13 96 178 Queue Length 95th (ft) 323 m8 m23 116 230 Internal Link Dist(ft) 62 493 850 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 940 469 214 2202 2184 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 130 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.84 0.14 0.43 0.61 0.54 Intersection Summary 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 8 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 32: Bush & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Queues 0--- 4\ I i 41 Lane Group WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 979 33 152 196 43 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.08 0.21 0.27 0.07 Control Delay 26.7 13.6 14.3 20.1 6.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.7 13.6 14.3 20.1 6.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 276 8 38 75 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 363 20 62 125 20 Internal Link Dist(ft) 645 493 854 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 1749 436 724 724 641 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.56 0.08 0.21 0.27 0.07 Intersection Summary 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 9 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 36: French & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Queues Lane Group WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 951 103 43 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.16 0.06 Control Delay 14.0 8.3 8.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.0 8.3 8.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 99 24 6 Queue Length 95th (ft) 151 35 19 Internal Link Dist(ft) 843 494 453 Tum Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1412 629 736 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.67 0.16 0.06 Intersection Summary 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 10 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 43: Santa Ana & Santiago AM Peak Hour Queues Lane Group SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET SWL SWT SWR Lane Group Flow (vph) 266 163 109 27 65 76 33 505 152 989 386 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.24 0.16 0.06 0.10 0.11 0.28 0.49 0.59 0.76 0.47 Control Delay 23.9 17.7 1.2 16.0 16.2 0.3 39.6 23.3 40.1 25.6 4.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 23.9 17.7 1.2 16.0 16.2 0.3 39.6 23.3 40.1 25.6 4.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 96 51 0 8 19 0 15 98 67 208 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 169 94 9 24 44 0 41 143 128 280 52 Internal Link Dist(ft) 768 676 814 248 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 488 683 691 446 683 691 118 1034 259 1297 824 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.55 0.24 0.16 0.06 0.10 0.11 0.28 0.49 0.59 0.76 0.47 Intersection Summary 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 11 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 46: PAClflc & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Queues k- I i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 304 54 207 76 158 151 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.56 0.27 0.38 0.15 0.14 0.15 Control Delay 34.1 42.6 33.4 32.6 5.8 6.0 9.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 34.1 42.6 33.4 32.6 5.8 6.0 9.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 13 213 24 103 4 29 45 Queue Length 95th (ft) 36 310 m55 184 m18 57 74 Internal Link Dist(ft) 1664 867 606 344 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 150 Base Capacity(vph) 280 547 200 551 522 1099 1039 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.56 0.27 0.38 0.15 0.14 0.15 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 12 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 49: Santa Ana & Lacy AM Peak Hour Queues R Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 190 479 1076 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.37 0.44 1.00 Control Delay 18.3 23.5 9.9 46.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 18.3 23.5 9.9 46.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 69 115 494 Queue Length 95th (ft) 64 125 179 806 Internal Link Dist(ft) 647 802 990 814 Tum Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 480 518 1099 1071 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.37 0.44 1.00 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 1: Raitt & Street Car/Santa Ana PM Peak Hour EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations T I F T+ I t Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 355 0 165 0 845 80 95 445 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 355 0 165 0 845 80 95 445 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1.00 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1841 1770 1863 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1841 128 1863 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 386 0 179 0 918 87 103 484 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 2 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 386 0 80 0 1003 0 103 484 0 Tum Type Prot Prot NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.5 50.0 91.0 91.0 91.0 Effective Green, g (s) 27.5 50.0 91.0 91.0 91.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.33 0.61 0.61 0.61 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 324 527 1116 77 1130 v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 c0.05 0.54 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm c0.80 v/c Ratio 1.19 0.15 0.90 1.34 0.43 Uniform Delay, d1 61.2 35.1 25.5 29.5 15.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 112.6 0.6 11.4 216.8 1.2 Delay (s) 173.8 35.7 36.9 246.3 16.9 Level of Service F D D F B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 130.1 36.9 57.1 Approach LOS A F D E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 66.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.15 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 2: Ross & Santa Ana & 5th PM Peak Hour W t 4\ I T i 4 F t/ EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT NBR2 SBL SBT SBR SWL SWR SWRJ Lane Configurations I ft F I T F I T F I Fri Traffic Volume (vph) 80 530 75 65 235 120 80 230 100 125 915 130 Future Volume (vph) 80 530 75 65 235 120 80 230 100 125 915 130 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 2787 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.49 1.00 1.00 0.48 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 916 1863 1583 899 1863 1583 1770 2787 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 87 576 82 71 255 130 87 250 109 136 995 141 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 60 0 0 96 0 0 81 0 55 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 576 22 71 255 34 87 250 28 136 1081 0 Tum Type Prot NA custom Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 71 2 6 31 8 Permitted Phases 4 4 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.3 18.9 18.9 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.0 31.6 Effective Green, g (s) 6.3 18.9 18.9 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.0 31.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 159 955 427 236 481 409 232 481 409 455 1258 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.14 0.13 0.08 c0.39 v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.10 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.60 0.05 0.30 0.53 0.08 0.38 0.52 0.07 0.30 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 30.5 22.3 18.9 20.9 22.3 19.7 21.3 22.2 19.6 20.9 17.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.41 Incremental Delay, d2 12.9 2.8 0.2 3.2 4.1 0.4 4.6 4.0 0.3 1.6 7.4 Delay (s) 43.4 25.1 19.1 24.1 26.4 20.1 25.9 26.2 19.9 23.4 31.7 Level of Service D C B C C C C C B C C Approach Delay (s) 26.6 24.3 24.6 30.8 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 I Phase conflict between lane groups c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 3: Bristol & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Lane Configurations I T+ I T+ I M4 I TTt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 35 260 60 115 375 145 50 1195 100 70 1385 95 Future Volume (vph) 35 260 60 115 375 145 50 1195 100 70 1385 95 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1811 1770 1785 1770 5026 1770 5036 At Permitted 0.14 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 270 1811 626 1785 1770 5026 1770 5036 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 283 65 125 408 158 54 1299 109 76 1505 103 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 16 0 0 11 0 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 339 0 125 550 0 54 1397 0 76 1600 0 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.7 27.6 35.5 29.0 5.3 30.4 6.5 31.6 Effective Green, g (s) 32.7 27.6 35.5 29.0 5.3 30.4 6.5 31.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.31 0.39 0.32 0.06 0.34 0.07 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 183 555 329 575 104 1697 127 1768 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.19 c0.03 c0.31 0.03 0.28 c0.04 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.61 0.38 0.96 0.52 0.82 0.60 0.90 Uniform Delay, d1 21.3 26.6 18.6 29.9 41.1 27.3 40.5 27.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 4.9 3.3 28.3 17.3 4.7 19.1 8.1 Delay (s) 23.9 31.6 21.9 58.2 58.4 32.0 59.6 35.9 Level of Service C C C E E C E D Approach Delay (s) 30.8 51.7 33.0 37.0 Approach LOS C D C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 6: Shelton & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour EBL EBT EBR Lane Configurations I T+ I t F 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 20 350 85 10 760 145 15 25 95 165 30 45 Future Volume (vph) 20 350 85 10 760 145 15 25 95 165 30 45 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1808 1770 1863 1583 1676 1787 1583 At Permitted 0.17 1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.68 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 323 1808 788 1863 1583 1613 1266 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 380 92 11 826 158 16 27 103 179 33 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0 0 0 68 0 74 0 0 0 35 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 460 0 11 826 90 0 72 0 0 212 14 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.29 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 184 1033 450 1064 904 460 361 452 v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 c0.44 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.04 c0.17 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.44 0.02 0.78 0.10 0.16 0.59 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 6.9 8.6 6.5 11.6 6.8 18.7 21.5 18.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 1.4 0.1 5.6 0.2 0.7 6.8 0.1 Delay (s) 8.2 10.0 6.6 17.1 7.0 19.4 28.3 18.1 Level of Service A B A B A B C B Approach Delay (s) 9.9 15.4 19.4 26.4 Approach LOS A B B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 9: Flower & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Lane Configurations I T'+ I TT, I T F I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 110 415 95 210 700 230 160 850 55 95 555 55 Future Volume (vph) 110 415 95 210 700 230 160 850 55 95 555 55 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 3441 1770 3408 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.21 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 396 3441 487 3408 529 3539 1583 334 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 120 451 103 228 761 250 174 924 60 103 603 60 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 26 0 0 42 0 0 0 41 0 0 42 Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 528 0 228 969 0 174 924 19 103 603 18 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.9 18.8 30.3 22.0 30.5 23.9 23.9 27.3 22.3 22.3 Effective Green, g (s) 23.9 18.8 30.3 22.0 30.5 23.9 23.9 27.3 22.3 22.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.25 0.40 0.29 0.41 0.32 0.32 0.36 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 219 862 338 999 324 1127 504 217 1052 470 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.15 c0.07 c0.28 c0.05 c0.26 0.03 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.20 0.17 0.01 0.14 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.61 0.67 0.97 0.54 0.82 0.04 0.47 0.57 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 20.1 24.9 16.0 26.2 15.2 23.6 17.6 17.3 22.3 18.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.5 3.2 10.3 22.0 6.3 6.7 0.1 7.3 2.3 0.2 Delay (s) 29.6 28.1 26.4 48.2 21.4 30.3 17.8 24.6 24.6 18.9 Level of Service C C C D C C B C C B Approach Delay (s) 28.4 44.2 28.3 24.1 Approach LOS C D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 12: Parton & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations I T'+ I T'+ 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 5 545 15 35 1020 25 90 5 95 45 10 30 Future Volume (vph) 5 545 15 35 1020 25 90 5 95 45 10 30 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3525 1770 3527 1697 1790 1583 At Permitted 0.15 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.83 0.72 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 286 3525 703 3527 1446 1339 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 592 16 38 1109 27 98 5 103 49 11 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 40 0 0 0 20 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 606 0 38 1134 0 0 166 0 0 60 13 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 143 1762 351 1763 562 520 615 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.05 c0.11 0.04 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.34 0.11 0.64 0.30 0.12 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 11.5 13.6 11.9 16.6 19.0 17.6 16.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.8 1.3 0.5 0.1 Delay (s) 11.9 14.1 12.5 18.4 20.3 18.0 17.0 Level of Service B B B B C B B Approach Delay (s) 14.1 18.2 20.3 17.7 Approach LOS B B C B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 17: Broadway & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Lane Configurations 0 F I TT+ Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 685 80 45 685 0 0 610 125 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 685 80 45 685 0 0 610 125 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.97 At Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3528 1583 1770 3539 3449 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3528 1583 495 3539 3449 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 49 745 87 49 745 0 0 663 136 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 25 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 794 37 49 745 0 0 774 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Effective Green, g (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1512 678 212 1516 1478 v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.23 0.02 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.05 0.23 0.49 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 14.7 11.7 12.7 14.5 14.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.2 2.5 1.1 1.3 Delay (s) 16.1 11.9 15.2 15.6 16.1 Level of Service B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 15.6 15.6 16.1 Approach LOS A B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 27: Main & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Lane Configurations 0 F I T Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 60 670 90 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 60 670 90 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3525 1583 1770 3539 3500 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3525 1583 344 3539 3500 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 65 728 98 92 1261 0 0 1092 87 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 793 44 92 1261 0 0 1173 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Effective Green, g (s) 24.0 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.62 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 940 422 214 2202 2177 v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 0.03 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.11 0.43 0.57 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 31.2 24.9 8.8 10.0 9.7 Progression Factor 0.51 0.17 0.53 0.53 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.1 0.4 5.3 0.9 1.0 Delay (s) 24.0 4.8 9.9 6.2 10.6 Level of Service C A A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 21.9 6.5 10.6 Approach LOS A C A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 32: Bush & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations M+ 1 T F Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 825 75 90 335 0 0 215 115 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 825 75 90 335 0 0 215 115 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3489 1770 1863 1863 1583 At Permitted 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3489 1037 1863 1863 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 49 897 82 98 364 0 0 234 125 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 1021 0 98 364 0 0 234 63 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1744 403 724 724 615 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.29 0.09 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.24 0.50 0.32 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 15.9 18.6 20.9 19.2 17.5 Progression Factor 1.61 0.65 0.62 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 1.3 2.3 1.2 0.3 Delay (s) 26.8 13.4 15.2 20.4 17.8 Level of Service C B B C B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 26.8 14.9 19.5 Approach LOS A C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 36: French & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Frt EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1.00 Lane Configurations 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3527 1486 M+ 120 71 4 0 43 1 RTOR Reduction (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 30 830 10 110 65 0 0 40 5 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 30 830 10 110 65 0 0 40 5 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 8 4.5 2 4.5 6 4.5 Permitted Phases Lane Util. Factor 8 0.95 2 1.00 1.00 Actuated Green, G (s) Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3527 1806 1837 At Permitted 1.00 0.80 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3527 1486 1837 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 33 902 11 120 71 0 0 43 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 944 0 0 191 0 0 45 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1410 594 734 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.32 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 11.1 9.3 8.3 Progression Factor 1.00 0.81 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 1.4 0.2 Delay (s) 13.6 9.0 8.5 Level of Service B A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 13.6 9.0 8.5 Approach LOS A B A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 43: Santa Ana & Santiago PM Peak Hour 61:1 11 .911 0LTA 0PDI0LTA : 01:1 0111 0111SI N1 1.1 Lane Configurations I T F I T F I TT+ I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 325 185 105 40 100 80 65 765 50 125 790 340 Future Volume (vph) 325 185 105 40 100 80 65 765 50 125 790 340 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fr1 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3507 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.69 1.00 1.00 0.62 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1279 1863 1583 1151 1863 1583 1770 3507 1770 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 353 201 114 43 109 87 71 832 54 136 859 370 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 68 0 0 52 0 6 0 0 0 247 Lane Group Flow (vph) 353 201 46 43 109 35 71 880 0 136 859 123 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 5.0 22.5 8.0 25.0 25.0 Effective Green, g (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 5.0 22.5 8.0 25.0 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.07 0.30 0.11 0.33 0.33 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 511 745 633 460 745 633 118 1052 188 1179 527 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 0.06 0.04 c0.25 c0.08 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm c0.28 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.27 0.07 0.09 0.15 0.05 0.60 0.84 0.72 0.73 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 18.7 15.1 13.9 14.0 14.3 13.8 34.0 24.5 32.4 22.0 18.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.23 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.5 0.9 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 19.2 7.3 21.4 4.0 1.0 Delay (s) 26.1 16.0 14.1 14.4 14.8 14.0 61.0 26.2 53.8 26.0 19.1 Level of Service C B B B B B E C D C B Approach Delay (s) 21.0 14.4 28.8 26.9 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 46: PAcific & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour EBL EBT EBR Lane Configurations I T+ I t F 44 4 Traffic Volume (vph) 15 135 25 110 500 85 10 120 60 185 185 10 Future Volume (vph) 15 135 25 110 500 85 10 120 60 185 185 10 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1819 1770 1863 1583 1779 1812 At Permitted 0.26 1.00 0.65 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.75 Satd.Flow (perm) 481 1819 1206 1863 1583 1741 1391 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 147 27 120 543 92 11 130 65 201 201 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 0 53 0 24 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 165 0 120 543 39 0 182 0 0 411 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 31.5 31.5 Effective Green, g (s) 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 31.5 31.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 202 766 508 785 667 783 625 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.10 0.02 0.10 c0.30 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.22 0.24 0.69 0.06 0.23 0.66 Uniform Delay, d1 12.1 12.9 13.0 16.5 12.0 11.8 15.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.6 1.1 5.0 0.2 0.7 5.4 Delay (s) 12.9 13.5 14.1 21.5 12.2 12.5 20.4 Level of Service B B B C B B C Approach Delay (s) 13.5 19.2 12.5 20.4 Approach LOS B B B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 49: Santa Ana & Lacy PM Peak Hour y r-+ f 3 "$ '_A R. Move SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations 1845 44 0.91 0.96 4 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 44 1754 1796 4+ 43 Traffic Volume (vph) 20 30 15 15 65 15 20 580 5 40 690 40 Future Volume (vph) 20 30 15 15 65 15 20 580 5 40 690 40 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 6 1.00 2 1.00 4 1.00 8 1.00 Fr: 0.97 0.98 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1779 1810 1858 1845 At Permitted 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1650 1754 1796 1753 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 33 16 16 71 16 22 630 5 43 750 43 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 60 0 0 94 0 0 657 0 0 833 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.5 22.5 43.5 43.5 Effective Green, g (s) 22.5 22.5 43.5 43.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.58 0.58 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 495 526 1041 1016 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.05 0.37 c0.48 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.18 0.63 0.82 Uniform Delay, d1 19.1 19.4 10.4 12.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.37 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.7 2.9 5.8 Delay (s) 19.6 20.2 13.3 35.7 Level of Service B C B D Approach Delay (s) 19.6 20.2 13.3 35.7 Approach LOS B C B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 20 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 1: Raitt & Street Car/Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Queues t T Is. l Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 386 179 1005 103 484 v/c Ratio 1.19 0.29 0.90 1.32 0.43 Control Delay 163.5 9.4 37.6 238.5 17.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 163.5 9.4 37.6 238.5 17.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 454 20 810 130 241 Queue Length 95th (ft) 665 78 1164 184 322 Internal Link Dist (ft) 492 336 Tum Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 324 627 1118 78 1130 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.19 0.29 0.90 1.32 0.43 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 2: Ross & Santa Ana & 5th PM Peak Hour Queues W --* --* 4\ Lane Group EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT NBR2 SBL SBT SBR SWL SWR Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 576 82 71 255 130 87 250 109 136 1136 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.60 0.15 0.30 0.53 0.24 0.38 0.52 0.20 0.30 0.87 Control Delay 44.9 25.4 0.6 25.1 27.0 2.8 27.0 26.8 1.8 23.9 30.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 44.9 25.4 0.6 25.1 28.7 2.8 27.0 26.8 1.8 23.9 30.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 37 113 0 25 94 0 31 92 0 54 224 Queue Length 95th (ft) 89 163 0 59 162 20 70 159 10 100 318 Internal Link Dist(ft) 629 179 316 1040 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 100 200 100 200 Base Capacity(vph) 159 955 558 236 481 542 232 481 542 455 1313 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.55 0.60 0.15 0.30 0.67 0.24 0.38 0.52 0.20 0.30 0.87 Intersection Summary 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 3: Bristol & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Queues J 4\ t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 348 125 566 54 1408 76 1608 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.62 0.38 0.96 0.52 0.82 0.60 0.91 Control Delay 17.7 31.3 19.2 58.8 59.6 32.0 61.1 36.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.7 31.3 19.2 58.8 59.6 32.0 61.1 36.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 12 162 42 303 30 263 43 312 Queue Length 95th (ft) 30 254 77 517 78 321 103 408 Internal Link Dist (ft) 867 1671 1096 1040 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 184 564 333 590 104 1707 127 1775 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.62 0.38 0.96 0.52 0.82 0.60 0.91 Intersection Summary 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 6: Shelton & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Queues Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 472 11 826 158 146 212 49 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.45 0.02 0.78 0.16 0.27 0.59 0.10 Control Delay 8.9 9.8 6.8 18.1 1.8 8.8 29.3 6.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 8.9 9.8 6.8 18.1 1.8 8.8 29.3 6.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 4 98 2 248 0 14 78 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 15 162 8 401 21 53 146 22 Internal Link Dist(ft) 1671 1293 560 320 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 184 1046 450 1064 972 534 361 487 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.45 0.02 0.78 0.16 0.27 0.59 0.10 Intersection Summary 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 4 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 9: Flower & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Queues Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 554 228 1011 174 924 60 103 603 60 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.62 0.67 0.97 0.53 0.82 0.10 0.47 0.57 0.10 Control Delay 23.9 26.9 25.6 48.0 19.3 31.0 0.3 19.8 24.9 0.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 23.9 26.9 25.6 48.0 19.3 31.0 0.3 19.8 24.9 0.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 33 112 67 230 47 206 0 27 124 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 65 163 126 362 85 283 0 54 175 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1293 563 1152 1120 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 222 888 341 1042 327 1127 613 219 1052 583 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.54 0.62 0.67 0.97 0.53 0.82 0.10 0.47 0.57 0.10 Intersection Summary 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 5 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 12: Parton & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Queues J --P f-- . 0--- t l Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 608 38 1136 206 60 33 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.34 0.11 0.64 0.34 0.12 0.05 Control Delay 12.4 14.2 13.0 18.7 14.9 18.5 6.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 12.4 14.2 13.0 18.7 14.9 18.5 6.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 1 104 11 238 53 21 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 142 29 306 108 48 18 Internal Link Dist(ft) 563 629 360 184 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 100 Base Capacity(vph) 143 1764 351 1764 602 520 635 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.34 0.11 0.64 0.34 0.12 0.05 Intersection Summary 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 6 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 17: Broadway & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Queues 4- 4\ T Lane Group WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 794 87 49 745 799 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.12 0.23 0.49 0.53 Control Delay 16.3 3.7 16.3 15.9 15.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.6 53.1 0.0 Total Delay 16.3 3.7 16.9 69.0 15.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 127 0 13 117 121 Queue Length 95th (ft) 176 23 37 163 171 Internal Link Dist(ft) 911 87 908 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 1512 728 212 1516 1501 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 49 925 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.53 0.12 0.30 1.26 0.53 Intersection Summary 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 7 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 27: Main & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Queues 4- t 4\ T l Lane Group WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 793 98 92 1261 1179 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.21 0.43 0.57 0.54 Control Delay 24.9 2.6 10.7 6.3 10.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 24.9 2.6 10.7 6.4 10.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 230 6 12 90 178 Queue Length 95th (ft) 315 m10 m21 98 230 Internal Link Dist(ft) 62 493 850 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 940 475 214 2202 2184 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 64 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.84 0.21 0.43 0.59 0.54 Intersection Summary 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 11 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 32: Bush & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Queues 0--- 4\ I i 41 Lane Group WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 1028 98 364 234 125 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.24 0.50 0.32 0.18 Control Delay 26.8 13.9 15.6 20.8 6.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.8 13.9 15.6 20.8 6.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 291 22 87 91 8 Queue Length 95th (ft) 367 42 124 149 43 Internal Link Dist(ft) 645 493 854 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 1752 403 724 724 677 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 0.24 0.50 0.32 0.18 Intersection Summary 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 14 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 36: French & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Queues Lane Group WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 946 191 48 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.32 0.07 Control Delay 13.9 9.2 8.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.9 9.2 8.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 98 30 6 Queue Length 95th (ft) 150 55 20 Internal Link Dist(ft) 843 494 453 Tum Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1411 594 737 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.67 0.32 0.07 Intersection Summary 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 16 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 43: Santa Ana & Santiago PM Peak Hour Queues Lane Group SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET SWL SWT SWR Lane Group Flow (vph) 353 201 114 43 109 87 71 886 136 859 370 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.27 0.16 0.09 0.15 0.13 0.60 0.84 0.72 0.73 0.48 Control Delay 27.2 16.4 3.9 14.8 15.1 3.2 62.9 27.0 56.2 26.4 4.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 27.2 16.4 3.9 14.8 15.1 3.2 62.9 27.0 56.2 26.4 4.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 132 61 0 12 31 0 35 140 62 182 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 230 107 28 32 62 20 m#67 257 146 247 54 Internal Link Dist(ft) 768 676 814 248 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 512 745 701 460 745 694 118 1058 188 1179 774 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.69 0.27 0.16 0.09 0.15 0.13 0.60 0.84 0.72 0.73 0.48 Intersection Summary 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 18 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 46: PAClflc & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Queues k- I i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 174 120 543 92 206 413 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.22 0.24 0.69 0.13 0.26 0.66 Control Delay 13.5 12.7 14.6 22.2 3.7 10.4 21.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.5 12.7 14.6 22.2 3.7 10.4 21.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 4 41 32 184 0 41 132 Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 80 66 292 24 81 229 Internal Link Dist(ft) 1664 867 606 344 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 150 Base Capacity (vph) 202 776 507 785 720 806 627 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.22 0.24 0.69 0.13 0.26 0.66 Intersection Summary 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 19 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 49: Santa Ana & Lacy PM Peak Hour Queues R Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT Lane Group Flow (vph) 71 103 657 836 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.19 0.63 0.82 Control Delay 16.6 18.2 13.8 37.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 16.6 18.2 13.8 37.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 31 183 362 Queue Length 95th (ft) 47 67 288 497 Internal Link Dist(ft) 647 802 990 814 Tum Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 506 535 1042 1019 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.19 0.63 0.82 Intersection Summary 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 20 APPENDIX D OC STREETCAR SANTA ANA/ GARDEN GROVE PROJECT Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis Re-evaluation Memo Prepared by HDR For: Orange County Transportation Authority 7/25/2016 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAnalysisRe-evaluation in Support of Minor Design Modifications Memo Date: Monday, July 25, 2016 Project: Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project To: Mary Shavalier/Program Manager, OCTA From: Keith Lay/Senior Air Quality and Noise Specialist, HDR Subject: Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis Re-evaluation in Support of Minor DesignModifications HDR performed a re-evaluation of noise and vibration technical analysis on the preliminary engineering (30% design) for the Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project (Project). The purpose of this analysis was to identify any changes to noise or vibration effects that were previously disclosed in the adopted Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) (2015), due to several design modifications with the advancement of engineering since the Project (and conceptual design) was approved in 2015. This memorandum presents the results of the noise and vibration technical analysis re- evaluation of the proposed minor design modifications. The results of this analysis are based on an independent assessment and review of the currently proposed minor design modifications as compared to the approved Project (Locally Preferred Alternative, 2015 LPA) that was the basis of evaluation in the February 2012 Noise and Vibration Technical Report (URS Corporation). The prior noise and vibration report was prepared by URS Corporation following the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Noise and Vibration Manual (FTA 2006). The prior report was included as Appendix J to the Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Report (EA/EIR) prepared and approved in 2015. The methodology of the FTA Noise and Vibration Manual was also followed for this re-evaluation. The outcome of this noise and vibration re-evaluation of proposed minor design modifications is that the recommendations have been incorporated into the project in the form of design features. Incorporation of these design features would attenuate noise and vibration levels at the few locations potentially affected by the minor design modifications along the project alignment, such that no new significant impacts and no increase in the severity of an impact would result as compared to the originally approved project and as evaluated in the 2015 EA/EIR. Project Background Construction and operation of the Project (the adopted LPA), based on conceptual engineering, was approved by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in a Finding of No Significant Impact FONSI), dated March 10, 2015, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The approval of the project was based on the findings of the Revised Environmental Assessment 1 0 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis Re-evaluation in Support of Minor Design Modifications EA) (January 2015). The City of Santa Ana, the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) certified the Final Environmental Impact Record (EIR) (State Clearinghouse #2010051060) in January 2015.00TA subsequently adopted the Final EIR as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. The project has since advanced with the completion of the 30% design in May 2016. OCTA, as the agency responsible for design and implementation of the Project, is proposing design modifications to the LPA as defined in the Revised EA/Final EIR as approved by FTA and adopted by the City of Santa Ana and OCTA. The modifications comprise of physical and operational improvements, and are partly derived from value engineering and risk workshops conducted in 2015, as well as design coordination with the cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove. The modifications are not anticipated to result in changes to the maintenance plan for the Project. Minor Design Modifications The proposed minor modifications that have been determined to have the potential to affect noise and vibration levels are presented below under the topics of proposed physical improvements and proposed operational modifications. It should be noted that OCTA does not propose to alter the underlying plans related to maintenance of the project as previously approved in 2015. The proposed minor design modifications are listed in Table 1, provided as Exhibit A to this memorandum. Physical Improvements. OCTA is proposing design modifications as part of the approved LPA that would result in the following physical improvements. These design modifications have the potential to influence noise and vibration levels and so were considered as part of the analysis: Alignment Shift. Repositioning the double track alignment within the Pacific Electric right-of-way (PE ROW) is proposed. This modification would shift the railroad centerline within the PE ROW to the north. Attachment B provides a map of the approved alignment and the currently proposed alignment (alignment shift). Changes to Special Trackwork. Placement of single crossovers on both sides of the maintenance and storage facility (MSF), changed layout for MSF, added crossovers on both sides of downtown couplet, and replacement of the tail track beyond the SAR Transit Center (SARTC) platform with a double -crossover before the SARTC platform. Traditional crossovers can be substantial sources of noise for receptors located within close proximity. However, the design plans call for the use of flange bearing frogs at all crossovers. The use of "well-designed" flange -bearing frogs for the special trackwork would eliminate any noise impacts. Operational Modifications. OCTA is proposing minor changes to the project's operations, which include: Increase in Speed. Increasing the maximum speed within the PE ROW from 35 miles per hour (mph) to 45 mph; and 2 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAnalysisRe-evaluation in Support of Minor Design Modifications Traffic Signal Priority. Implementation of traffic signal priority at all traffic signals along the route except for Main Street, Broadway, and Bristol Street. Noise and Vibration Analysis Re-evaluation The following describes the sensitive receptor locations analyzed in the context of this analysis, as compared to the previously approved analysis with respect to potential changes to noise and vibration at these locations. Noise Sensitive Areas and Receptor Locations In the prior noise and vibration analysis (2015 EA/EIR), URS identified noise sensitive areas (or NSAs) within the Study Area that could potentially be impacted from the Build Alternatives. The NSA's were defined by identifying noise sensitive land uses - residential, educational, recreation, churches (places of worship), etc. - within the defined screening distance of the project. Within each of these NSAs, URS modeled between one and nine specific receptor locations (e.g., R1, R2). Of the 21 NSAs identified by URS, only 10 are located within the area potentially affected by the currently proposed minor modifications. Table A lists each of the 10 NSA's and the corresponding receptors (e.g., R1, R2) within each NSA, and provides a description of the receptors included within each of the 10 NSAs. Figure 5 from the February 2012 Noise and Vibration Technical Report (URS Corporation), showing the locations of the NSAs and modeled receptors, is provided in Attachment A. Table A: Noise Sensitive Areas and Modeled Receptors Potentially Affected by Proposed Minor Modifications/Engineering Refinement NSA Rec. Description 1 R1 Single family residential land use located south of PE ROW at western end of the proposed alignment. R2 There are 14 housing units within NSA -1. R3 Mobile home park located north of W Ilowick Municipal Golf Course and south of PE ROW. There are 2 24 mobile homes within the screening distance. Note that a 6 -foot concrete wall was observed between R4 PE ROW and the mobile home park. R5 3 Mobile home park and single family residential land use located north or PE ROW and west of SantaR6AnaRiver. There are 68 mobile homes and 1 single family residential unit within NSA -3. R7 4 R8 Spurgeon Intermediate School athletic fields bounded by Fairview St., PE ROW, Santa Ana River, and R9 5th St. There are no structures within 350 feet from the proposed alignment. 5 R11 Small Wonders Children's Center, Templo Calvario Assembly of God, and Olive Crest AcademylocatedsouthofPEROWandeastofFairviewSt. 6 R10 Single family residential land uses located north of PE ROW, east of Fairview St at the end of 7th St. There are 7 housing units within NSA -6. 7 R12 Single family residential land uses located north of PE ROW, east of Fairview St at the end of 6th St. There are 4 housing units within NSA -7. 8 R13 One (1) single family residential unit within Manufacturing/Industrial Services land use located between5thStandPEROW, east of Hawley St. NSA -9 includes single family residences and commercial/industrial uses north of the proposed O&M 9 R15 Facility between English St. and Fairlawn Ave. There are approximately 20 housing units within NSA -9. Currently, the proposed O&M site is used as the metal recycling facility and is a significant source of noise. 3 0 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis Re-evaluation in Support of Minor Design Modifications Table A: Noise Sensitive Areas and Modeled Receptors Potentially Affected by Proposed Minor Modifications/Engineering Refinement NSA Rec. Description 10 R14 Four (4) single family residential units located south of 4th SUPE ROW. Welding facility is located at the Overall Project Noise Impact Prior to Mitigation) corner of 4th St. and Daisy Ave. The metal recycling facility is across from PE ROW. Source: URS, February 2012 (Appendix J of the 2015 EA/EIR) Streetcar Noise Analysis As stated above, proposed minor modifications could affect the noise levels previously predicted and documented in the February 2012 Noise and Vibration Technical Report (URS 2012) at certain locations. A noise analysis was conducted that provides a comparison of the noise findings associated with the originally -approved LPA as compared to the proposed project modifications. The following presents the results of this analysis. Approved LPA Train Operation Noise Levels Table B lists the noise levels calculated by URS (February 2012) for the originally -approved LPA alignment and as presented in Appendix J of the 2015 EA/EIR. Only the receptors included within the potentially affected area associated with the proposed project modifications (PE ROW) are listed. Table B: Originally -Approved LPA Train Operation Noise Levels NSA Rec. Land Use Cat. Existing Noise Level d BA) Streetcar Ops Predicted Project Only Noise Level Ldn or Lday (dBA) Warning Horn Crossing O&M Overall Project Noise Impact Prior to Mitigation) R1 2 53 51 N/A N/A N/A 51 No Impact 1 R2 2 52 50 N/A N/A N/A 50 No Impact R3 2 51 50 N/A N/A N/A 50 No Impact 2 R4 2 50 50 N/A N/A N/A 50 No Impact R5 2 51 51 N/A N/A N/A 51 No Impact 3 R6 2 52 56 N/A N/A N/A 56 Moderate Impact R7 2 50 57 N/A N/A N/A 57 Moderate Impact R8 3 52 51 65 50 N/A 66 Severe Impact 4 R9 3 52 48 63 54 N/A 64 Moderate Impact 5 R11 3 46 49 59 43 N/A 59 Moderate Impact 6 R10 2 53 56 69 51 N/A 69 Severe Impact 7 R12 2 50 57 73 49 N/A 73 Severe Impact 8 R13 2 55 56 69 44 N/A 69 Severe Impact 9 R15 2 67 1 N/A I N/A I N/A 1 66 1 66 Moderate Impact 10 R14 2 58 1 53 1 N/A I N/A 1 63 1 63 Severe Impact Source: URS, February 2012 (as provided in Appendix J of the 2015 EA/EIR) Notes: Land Use Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. Land Use Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. No Impact: A proposed project is considered to have no noise impact since, on average, the introduction of the project will result in an insignificant increase in the number of people highly annoyed by the new noise. Moderate Impact: The change in the cumulative noise level is noticeable to most people, but may not be El OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAnalysisRe-evaluation in Support of Minor Design Modifications sufficient to cause strong, adverse reactions from the community. Severe Impact: A significant percentage of people would be highly annoyed by the new noise. Noise and Vibration Evaluation of Minor Design Modifications INCREASE IN SPEED The potential noise impacts associated with the proposed increase in the streetcar operational speed was calculated using the methodology described in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (May 2006). Changing the average speed from 35 to 45 mph would increase the hourly streetcar operation noise levels by 2 dBA (see Attachment C). The change in speed would have no effect on the warning horn, crossing, or operations and maintenance (O&M) noise levels. CENTERLINE RE -ALIGNMENT (ALIGNMENT SHIFT) This proposed modification would shift the railroad alignment within the PE ROW to the north as compared to the originally -approved LPA alignment. Table C Comparison of the originally - approved LPA and Proposed Modified Project Alignment Shift Noise Levels lists the distances from the modeled receivers to the original LPA alignment and the distances to the currently proposed alignment shift. Table C also lists the streetcar operation noise levels associated with the original LPA and currently proposed streetcar alignments. Noise levels listed in Table C only reflect the change in alignment not the change in speed discussed above. Table C: Comparison of Originally -Approved LPA and Modified Project Alignment Shift Noise Levels Receiver Land Use Cat. Original Alignment Distance to Track Centerline (ft) Proposed Alignment Distance to Track Centerline ft) Original Alignment Streetcar Operations Noise Level Proposed Alignment Streetcar Operations Noise Level Change in Streetcar Operations Noise Level R1 2 72 89 51 54 3 R2 2 79 90 50 49 1 R3 2 92 92 50 50 0 R4 1 2 1 92 92 50 50 0 R5 2 65 55 51 52 1 R6 2 53 49 56 56 0 R7 2 50 37 57 62 5 R8 3 83 92 51 51 0 R9 3 392 401 48 48 0 R11 3 134 134 49 49 0 R10 1 2 1 55 1 55 1 56 1 56 1 0 R12 2 49 49 57 57 0 R13 2 57 60 56 56 0 R15 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A R14 2 110 110 53 53 0 Source: URS (February 2012) and HDR (June 2016). Note: The elevated tracks adjacent to receivers R1 and R7 increase the source level by 4 dBA. This was not 5 0 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis Re-evaluation in Support of Minor Design Modifications accounted for in the original noise and vibration analysis. As originally evaluated for the approved LPA in the 2015 EA/EIR, it was assumed that the streetcar transit vehicles will be equipped with vehicle warning horns, which will be sounded when approaching the rail/roadway grade crossings. This assumption is also applicable to the proposed modifications. Table D lists the noise levels associated with the vehicle warning horns, and the distances from the modeled receivers to the original alignment and to the proposed alignment. Table D: Comparison of Originally -Approved LPA and Modified Project Warning Horn Noise Levels Receiver Land Use Cat. Original Alignment Distance to Track Centerline (ft) Proposed Alignment Distance to Track Centerline ft) Original Alignment Warning Horn Noise Level Proposed Alignment Warning Horn Noise Level Change in Streetcar Operations Noise Level R8 3 83 92 65 65 0 R9 3 392 401 63 63 0 R11 3 134 134 59 59 0 R10 2 55 55 69 69 0 R12 2 49 49 73 73 0 R13 2 57 60 69 69 0 Source: URS (February 2012) and HDR (June 2016). COMBINED EFFECT (INCREASE IN SPEED AND ALIGNMENT SHIFT) Table E provides a comparison between the noise levels calculated for the originally -approved LPA and the proposed alignment shift. This table reflects the change in noise levels associated with both the proposed increase in speed and the proposed change in centerline location alignment shift). The impacts for the currently proposed increase in speed combined with the alignment shift are the same as those for the original LPA with the exception of at receivers R1 located within NSA 1), R4 (located within NSA 2), R7 (located within NSA 3), and R8 (located within NSA 4). With the proposed modifications, receivers R1 and R4 would be exposed to moderate noise impacts. At receiver R7 the noise level worsened from a moderate impact to a severe impact as compared to the original LPA. At receiver R8 the noise level improved, as it would be reduced from a severe impact under the original LPA, to a moderate impact under the currently modified project. Table E: Comparison of Originally -Approved LPA and Modified Project Train Operation Noise Levels (Unmitigated) Ll Land Existing Noise Predicted Project Only Noise Level Ldn or Lday (d BA) Approved Revised ProjectOverall Use Level Streetcar Warning Project Project Impact Impact NSA Rec. Cat. d BA) Ops Horn Crossing O&M Noise no mitigation) no mitigation) 1 R1 2 53 56 N/A N/A N/A 56 No Impact Moderate I mpact Ll 0 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis Re-evaluation in Support of Minor Design Modifications Table E: Comparison of Originally -Approved LPA and Modified Project Train Operation Noise Levels (Unmitigated) Source: URS (February 2012) and HDR (June 2016). Noise Attenuation Design Features — Streetcar Operation Table F lists the receptor locations within the affected area that are predicted to experience severe noise impacts based on the proposed Modified Project, but without consideration of the recommended noise attenuation measures as part of final design. As discussed in Section 6.1 of the original noise and vibration technical report (URS 2012), FTA guidance states that noise attenuation measures must be considered for identified severe impacts. These measures can be included as project design features for the proposed modifications/engineering refinements. Table F: Summary of Noise Impacts for Modified Project (Without Recommended Noise Attenuation Measures) NSA Rec. Land Use Cat. Existing Noise Level d BA) Predicted Project Only Noise Level Predicted Project Only Noise Level Ldn or Lday (d BA) Impact without attenuation measures) Overall Streetcar Warning Project Ops Horn Crossing O&M Noise 3 Existing Ldn or Lday (d BA) 50 Revised N/A N/A N/A 64 Severe Impact 6 Overall 2 53 Land Noise Approved Project 7 R12 Use Level Streetcar Warning 73 Severe Impact Project Project Impact Impact NSA Rec. Cat. d BA) Ops Horn Crossing O&M Noise no mitigation) no mitigation) R2 2 52 52 N/A N/A N/A 52 No Impact No Impact R3 2 51 52 N/A N/A N/A 52 No Impact No Impact 2 R4 1 2 1 50 52 N/A N/A N/A 52 No Impact No Impact R5 2 51 54 N/A N/A N/A 54 No Impact Moderate I mpact 3 R6R6 2 52 59 N/A N/A N/A 59 Moderate Impact Moderate R7 2 50 64 N/A N/A N/A 64 Moderate Impact Severe Impact R8 3 52 53 65 50 N/A 65 Severe Impact Moderate 1 mpact 4 R9 3 52 50 63 54 N/A 64 Moderate Impact Moderate I mpact 5 R11 3 46 51 59 43 N/A 60 Moderate Impact Moderate I mpact 6 R10 2 53 58 69 51 N/A 69 Severe lmpact Severe Impact 7 R12 2 50 59 73 49 N/A 73 Severe lmpact Severe Impact 8 R13 2 55 58 69 44 N/A 69 Severe lmpact Severe Impact 9 R15 2 67 N/A N/A N/A 66 66 Moderate Impact Moderate I mpact 10 R14 2 58 55 N/A N/A 63 64 Severe lmpact Severe Impact Source: URS (February 2012) and HDR (June 2016). Noise Attenuation Design Features — Streetcar Operation Table F lists the receptor locations within the affected area that are predicted to experience severe noise impacts based on the proposed Modified Project, but without consideration of the recommended noise attenuation measures as part of final design. As discussed in Section 6.1 of the original noise and vibration technical report (URS 2012), FTA guidance states that noise attenuation measures must be considered for identified severe impacts. These measures can be included as project design features for the proposed modifications/engineering refinements. Table F: Summary of Noise Impacts for Modified Project (Without Recommended Noise Attenuation Measures) NSA Rec. Land Use Cat. Existing Noise Level d BA) Predicted Project Only Noise Level Ldn or Lday (d BA) Impact without attenuation measures) Overall Streetcar Warning Project Ops Horn Crossing O&M Noise 3 R7 2 50 64 N/A N/A N/A 64 Severe Impact 6 R10 2 53 58 69 51 N/A 69 Severe Impact 7 R12 2 50 59 73 49 N/A 73 Severe Impact 7 0 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis Re-evaluation in Support of Minor Design Modifications 8 R13 2 55 58 69 44 N/A 69 Severe Impact 10 R14 2 58 55 N/A N/A 63 64 Severe Impart Source: URS (February 2012) and HDR (June 2016). The February 2012 Noise and Vibration Technical Report and the adopted EA/FONSI recommended the following mitigation measures to reduce the severe impacts: N1 Horn sounding exemption at grade crossings; N2 Location and design of special trackwork elements; and N3 Wayside noise barriers. As discussed above, the project plans call for the use of flange bearing frogs at all crossovers. This design feature of special trackwork is a typical mitigation for noise. Therefore, no new measures are required for the special trackwork (N2). N3 WAYSIDE NOISE BARRIERS The FTA Manual indicates that the shielding attenuation provided by a wayside noise barrier for the first row receptors would be 4.5 dBA. The 2012 noise analysis evaluation identified the need for noise barriers for receptor locations R10, R12, R13, and R14. Due to the change in train speed, elevation, and the shift in centerline an additional wayside noise barrier would be required to reduce the noise level in the vicinity of receptor R7 (located in NSA 3). Table G lists the train noise levels after the wayside noise barrier has been implemented. As shown, receivers R7 and R14 are reduced to moderate after the implementation of the proposed design feature. Attachment D shows the locations and heights for the proposed barriers. Table G: Modified Project — After Wayside Noise Barrier Design Features NSA Rec. Land Use Cat. Existing Noise Level dBA) Predicted Project Only Noise Level Ldn or Lday jdBA) Impact Overall Streetcar Warning Project Ops Horn Crossing O&M Noise 3 R7 2 50 59 N/A N/A N/A 59 Moderate Impact 6 R10 2 53 53 64 51 N/A 65 Severe Impact 7 R12 2 50 54 68 49 N/A 68 Severe Impact 8 R13 2 55 53 64 44 N/A 64 Severe Impact 10 R14 2 58 53 N/A N/A 59 60 Moderate Impact Source: URS (February 2012) and HDR (June 2016). N1 HORN SOUNDING EXEMPTION AT GRADE CROSSINGS The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requires that vehicle warning horns be sounded at public road crossings for all light rail transit vehicles and streetcar vehicles operating on a dedicated ROW (CPUC General Order 143-B). However, the CPUC may also allow a horn sounding exemption in cases for which supplemental safety measures are used in place of the warning horn to provide an equivalent level of safety at the grade crossing. If a horn sounding exemption is established and approved at each crossing, the required use of warning horns would be exempted and horns would not be sounded except in an emergency V1 0 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis Re-evaluation in Support of Minor Design Modifications situation. Consistent with 49 CFR Part 222, the local jurisdiction - City of Santa Ana - will be responsible for completing the quiet zone creation process in accordance with FRA's Train Horn Final Rule. Table H lists the train noise levels after the horn sounding exemption measure has been implemented. As shown, receivers R10 and R13 are reduced to a moderate impact after the implementation of the proposed mitigation measure. This measure was previously identified in the 2015 EA/EIR, and this analysis demonstrates that the proposed minor modification does not change the previously -adopted mitigation measure. Table H: Modified Project — After Horn Sounding Exemption Mitigation' NSA Rec. Land Use Cat. Existing Noise Level d BA) Predicted Project Only Noise Level Ldn or Lday (dBA) Impact Overall Streetcar Warning Project Ops Horn Crossing O&M Noise 3 R7 2 50 64 N/A N/A N/A 64 Severe Impact 6 R10 2 53 58 0 51 N/A 59 Moderate Impact 7 R12 2 50 59 0 49 N/A 60 Severe Impact 8 R13 2 55 58 0 44 N/A 58 Moderate Impact 10 R14 2 58 55 N/A N/A 63 64 Severe Impact Source: URS (February 2012) and HDR (June 2016). 1. Horn Sounding Exemption Mitigation previously adopted as part of the 2015 EA/EIR. No changes to this measure are required as part of the minor project modification. Summary of Noise Impacts with Noise Attenuation Measures and Implementation of Previously -Adopted Mitigation (2015 EA/EIR) Table I lists the combined noise levels after implementing all of the mitigation measures discussed above. As shown, all severely impacted receivers are reduced to moderate or no impact after the implementation of proposed mitigation. Eliminating the horn sounding at receptors R10 and R13 would reduce the noise impact from severe to moderate. Therefore, no barriers are recommended at those locations. Table I: Summary of Noise Impacts for Modified Project — With Noise Attenuation Measures and Previously -Adopted Mitigation (2015 EA/EIR) NSA Rec. Land Use Cat. Existing Noise Level d BA) Predicted Project Only Noise Level Ldn or Lday (dBA) Impact Streetcar Warning Ops Horn Crossing O&M Overall Project Noise 3 R7 2 50 59 N/A N/A N/A 59 Moderate Impact 6 R10 2 53 58 0 51 N/A 59 Moderate Impact 7 R12 2 50 54 0 49 N/A 55 Moderate Impact 8 R13 2 55 58 0 44 N/A 58 Moderate Impact 10 R14 2 58 53 N/A N/A 59 60 Moderate Impact Source: URS (February 2012) and HDR (June 2016). V%] OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAnalysisRe-evaluation in Support of Minor Design Modifications Streetcar Vibration Analysis The proposed project modifications would affect the vibration level results as presented in the February 2012 Noise and Vibration Technical Report prepared by the URS Corporation. Beginning at Harbor Boulevard and ending at Raitt Street the proposed modifications would implement the following changes to the previously approved LPA. Increase in Speed The proposed modification would increase the average train speed within the PE ROW from 35 to 45 mph. However, URS calculated the original vibration levels using a conservative speed of 40 mph. Therefore, this analysis evaluates the change in vibration levels associated with increasing the average speed from 40 to 45 mph. Alignment Shift The proposed modification would shift the railroad alignment within the PE ROW to the north. The original and proposed alignments are shown in Attachment B. Orginally-Approved LPA Vibration Levels Table J lists the noise levels calculated by URS (February 2012) for the approved LPA. Only the receptors included within the affected area (PE ROW) are listed. Table J: Originally -Approved LPA Train Operation Vibration Levels NSA Rec. Land Use Cat. Transit Vehicle Speed mph) Vibration Level (VdB) Vibration Impact R1 2 40 68 None 1 R2 2 40 67 None R3 2 40 67 None 2 R4 2 40 67 None R5 2 40 68 None 3 R6 2 40 70 None R7 2 40 70 None R8 3 40 66 None 4 R9 3 40 58 None 5 R11 3 40 62 None R10 2 40 70 None 7 R12 2 40 70 None 8 r106 R13 2 40 69 None 9 R15 2 40 65 None R14 2 40 64 None Source: URS, February 2012 10 0 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis Re-evaluation in Support of Minor Design Modifications Impact of Proposed Minor Modifications/Engineering Refinements INCREASE IN SPEED Changes in streetcar operational vibration levels due to increased speeds were calculated using the methodology described in Chapter 10 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (May 2006). The original vibration assessment (URS 2012) used a maximum vehicle speed of 40 mph. Changing the average speed from 40 to 45 mph would increase the streetcar vibration levels by 1 VdB. The vibration calculations used in this analysis are provided in Attachment C. ALIGNMENT SHIFT As discussed previously, the proposed modification would shift the railroad alignment within the PE ROW to the north. Table K lists the distances from the modeled receivers to the originally - approved LPA alignment and the distances to the proposed alignment. Table K also lists the streetcar operation vibration levels associated with the original and proposed streetcar alignments. The vibration levels listed in Table K only reflect the change in centerline not the change in speed discussed above. Table K: Comparison of Originally -Approved LPA and Proposed Modified Alignment Shift Streetcar Vibration Levels NSA Rec. Land Use Cat. Original Alignment Distance to Track Centerline (ft) Proposed Alignment Distance to Track Centerline (ft) Original Alignment Streetcar Operations Vibration Level VdB) Proposed Alignment Streetcar Operations Vibration Level VdB) Change in Streetcar Operations Vibration Level (VdB) R1 2 72 89 68 57 11 1 R2 2 79 90 67 67 0 R3 2 92 92 67 67 0 2 R4 2 92 92 67 67 0 R5 2 65 55 68 69 1 3 R6 2 53 49 70 70 0 R7 2 50 37 70 62 8 R8 3 83 92 66 65 1 4 R9 3 392 401 58 58 0 5 R11 3 134 134 62 62 0 6 R10 2 55 55 70 70 0 7 R12 2 49 49 70 70 0 8 R13 2 57 60 69 69 0 9 R15 2 N/A N/A 65 65 0 10 R14 2 110 110 64 64 0 Source: URS (February 2012) and HDR (June 2016). Note: The elevated tracks adjacent to receivers R1 and R7 decrease the source vibration level by 10 VdB. This was not accounted for in the original noise and vibration analysis. 11 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAnalysisRe-evaluation in Support of Minor Design Modifications COMBINED EFFECT (INCREASE IN SPEED AND ALIGNMENT SHIFT) Table L lists the vibration levels calculated for the proposed alignment. This table reflects the change in vibration levels associated with the increase in speed and the change in centerline location. Table L: Proposed Modified Project Train Operation Vibration Levels NSA Rec. Land Use Cat. Transit Vehicle Speed mph) Vibration Level (VdB) Vibration Impact (without inclusion of recommended design feature) II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) R1 2 45 58 None 1 R2 2 45 68 None R3 2 45 68 None 2 R4 2 45 68 None R5 2 45 70 None 3 R6 2 45 71 None R7 2 45 63 None R8 3 45 66 None 4 R9 3 45 59 None 5 R11 3 45 63 None 6 R10 2 45 71 None 7 R12 2 45 71 None 8 R13 2 45 70 None 9 R15 1 2 1 45 1 66 1 None 10 R14 1 2 1 45 1 65 1 None Source: URS (February 2012) and HDR (June 2016). The impact threshold for Land Use Category 2 is 72 VdB and for Land Use Category 3 is 75 VdB. As shown, the vibration levels are below the impact threshold at all receptor locations. Therefore, no minimization design features are required. Construction Vibration Analysis Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Ground vibrations from construction activities do not often reach the levels that can damage structures. A possible exception is the case of fragile buildings, many of them old, where special care must be taken to avoid damage. Table M lists FTA's Construction Noise Vibration Damage Criteria. Table M: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria Building Category PPV (in/sec) Approximate Lv I. Reinforced -concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Non -engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 Source: FTA (May 2006). Peak particle velocity (PPV): The maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration signal 12 0 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis Re-evaluation in Support of Minor Design Modifications Table M: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria Building Category I PPV (in/sec) Approximate Lv Lv: Root mean square (RMS) velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 micro-inch/second Construction of the proposed project may require pile driving and has the potential to result in temporary vibration impacts to structures and humans. The 2012 Noise and Vibration Technical Report (URS) determined that residences located within 100 feet of the Westminster Avenue overpass or the Santa Ana River Bridge would be exposed to vibration levels exceeding those listed in Table M. Although there would continue to be no sensitive locations within 100 feet of the Westminster Avenue overpass, with the proposed modified alignment pile driving activities associated with the Santa Ana River Bridge could occur within 50 feet of the historic Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge and within 40 feet of residences and other structures. The residences located adjacent to the Santa Ana River Bridge would be exposed to vibration levels of up to 0.32 PPV, exceeding the 0.2 PPV threshold for standard residential construction. The Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge would be exposed to vibration levels of up to 0.23 PPV, exceeding the 0.12 PPV threshold for historic structures. However, these levels are based on the use of impact pile drivers. Section 3.16.2.3 of the May 2014 EA/DEIR included the following best management practices (BMPs) for bridge construction vibration: Noise and Vibration Control Plan will be developed and implemented prior to construction that will include the following best management practices to minimize exposure to high levels of noise and vibration and ensure compliance with construction noise and vibration criteria listed in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance document. This includes ensuring that vibration levels at historic structures do not exceed 0.12 inches per second peak particle velocity. Where pile -driving operations are required, vibratory pile driving or pre -drilled pile insertion techniques shall be used whenever possible, rather than impact pile driving. FTA estimates that vibration/sonic pile driving generates PPV vibration levels of 0.17 in/sec at a distance of 25 feet. Distance attenuation would reduce this level to 0.08 in/sec at the closest residences and 0.06 in/sec at the Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge. Although perceptible at the residences these vibration levels would not exceed FTA's vibration damage criteria. In addition to pile driving, a road roller (sometimes called a roller -compactor or just roller) is a compactor type engineering vehicle that is often used to compact soil, gravel, concrete, or asphalt in the construction of roads and foundations. Road rollers use the weight of the vehicle to compress the surface being rolled (static) or use mechanical advantage (vibrating). While smaller in size as compared to the pile driving equipment, a vibratory roller would potentially be employed along the length of the streetcar alignment. 13 0 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis Re-evaluation in Support of Minor Design Modifications The 2012 Noise and Vibration Technical Report (URS) determined the following distances for potential for vibration impacts due to the use of a piece of equipment such as a vibratory roller during construction: Building damage to residential structure — 26 Feet Building damage to institutional structure — 15 Feet Human annoyance to residential land use — 145 Feet Human annoyance to institutional land use — 115 Feet Any structures within the distances identified above would be considered impacted due to use of construction equipment such as a vibratory roller. The proposed modified alignment would reduce the minimum distance to a residential structure to 37 feet. While this distance is within the annoyance area it is outside of the potential damage area. Traction Power Substation Noise Analysis The noise sources on traction power substation (TPSS) units are the transformer hum and noise from cooling systems. The wall mounted HVAC units are the primary noise source on the proposed TPSS units. The noise level at a distance of 40 ft from the cooling fan of a Gold Line TPSS unit in South Pasadena was measured to be 51 dBA, which is equivalent to 49 dBA at a distance of 50 ft. This measured noise level is consistent with the maximum sound level limit of 50 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from any surface included in the purchase agreement of TPSS units used in several recently completed light rail projects. The audible noise from the TPSS unit in South Pasadena was caused by a ventilation fan. The hourly TPSS noise levels are converted to daily Ldn noise levels using the following formula: Leq Leq+10 Ldn =10*Log (15*1010 +910 10 )-13.8 Using an hourly noise level of 50 dBA, the Ldn noise level for the TPSS units is 56 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Table N shows the predicted noise level at the TPSS sites assuming the units are specified to have a maximum sound level of 50 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from any surface. As shown, by orienting the TPSS units so that the noise from the HVAC units is directed away from the sensitive uses, the noise levels at all receptors closest to the TPSS units would result in no impacts. The locations of the TPSS units relative to the closest sensitive uses are shown in figures included in Attachment E. Table N: Summary of Traction Power Substation Noise Impacts 14 TPSS Noise FTA Impact Distance to Level Criteria closest land Land Use Existing Noise Level Ldn or Lday Ldn or Lday TPSS use (feet) Cat. Ldn or Lday (dBA) dBA) dBA) Impact 1 75 2 50 43 54 No Impact 2 180 2 50 45 54 No Impact 14 0 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis Re-evaluation in Support of Minor Design Modifications 3 200 3 61 38 64 No Impact 4 50 2 62 42 59 No Impact Source: URS (February 2012) and HDR (June 2016). Notes: TPSS#1 and TPSS#4 noise levels are based on an orientation where the HVAC units are located on the opposite side of and directed away from the closest receptors. Land Use Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. Land Use Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. FTA Impact Criteria: The noise level below which no impact would occur. Based on the land use category and the existing noise level. No Impact: A proposed project is considered to have no noise impact since, on average, the introduction of the project will result in an insignificant increase in the number of people highly annoyed by the new noise. Moderate Impact: The change in the cumulative noise level is noticeable to most people, but may not be sufficient to cause strong, adverse reactions from the community. Severe Impact: A significant percentage of people would be highly annoyed by the new noise. The City of Santa Ana's Municipal Code noise limit for nighttime activities near sensitive land uses is 50 dBA for events that occur for more than 30 minutes in a one hour period. This limit is reduced by 5 dBA, to 45 dBA, for noise consisting entirely of impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, or any combination thereof. TPSS units 1 and 4 are located in residential areas. As the Ldn noise levels listed in Table N are 6 dB higher than the hourly Leq noise level, the TPSS nighttime hourly noise levels would range from 36 to 39 dBA Leq. Therefore, the sensitive land uses located within the vicinity of the proposed TPSS units would not be exposed to noise levels exceeding 45 dBA. However, it is recommended that the following measures be implemented to ensure that the impact is below a level of significance: Orient the TPSS unit so that the HVAC units, the primary source of noise, are pointing away from the nearest residence. At the residential locations, the TPSS units will be designed so as not to exceed a maximum noise level of 45 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the unit or at the setback line of the nearest building, whichever is closer. Conclusions The design modifications that have been determined to potentially affect noise and vibration and were re-evaluated in this memo include both physical improvements (alignment shift, changes to special trackwork, and TPSS repositioning), and operational modifications (increase in speed and traffic signal priority). Streetcar Noise (Operation). The EA identified "severe" operational impacts at five different locations, and "moderate" impacts at seven other locations. Therefore, without mitigation, the project would result in adverse effects related to noise. The EA identified three measures to reduce these impacts: Mitigation Measure N1 would reduce noise impacts associated with warning horns; Mitigation Measure N2 would reduce noise impacts associated with streetcar pass -by noise; and Mitigation Measure N3 would reduce streetcar noise through the placement of noise barriers at certain locations. Based on this re-evaluation of noise analysis, there would be no new adverse or significant noise effect from streetcar operation, nor would there be an 15 0 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis Re-evaluation in Support of Minor Design Modifications increase in the severity of the noise effect as compared to the originally approved Project and as evaluated in the 2015 EA/FONSI. Streetcar Vibration (Operation). No adverse vibration effect was identified in the EA associated with streetcar operation. Based on this re-evaluation of vibration analysis due to increase in speed and alignment shift, theses features would not result in a new adverse or significant vibration effect, nor would they increase the severity of a vibration effect as compared to the originally approved Project and as evaluated in the 2015 EA/FONSI. Construction Vibration. The EA identified that with the implementation of Best Management Practices for noise and vibration, no adverse effects from construction vibration would occur with implementation of the project. No adverse or significant construction vibration effect was identified in the 2015 EA/FONSI. These physical and operational minor modifications would not result in a new adverse or significant construction vibration effect, nor would it increase the severity of a construction vibration effect as compared to the originally approved project and as evaluated in the 2015 EA/FONSI. TPSS Repositioning. The TPSS's would be generally located in areas that are commercial/light industrial in nature. No adverse noise or vibration effect was identified in the EA/FONSI; therefore, this project feature would not result in a new adverse noise or vibration effect, nor would it increase the severity of a noise or vibration effect as compared to the originally approved project and as evaluated in the 2015 EA/FONSI. Therefore, this current analysis concludes that there would be no change to the conclusions regarding noise and vibration with implementation of minor design modifications to the adopted 2015 LPA, and therefore, there would be no change to the prior noise and vibration technical report in the adopted EA/FONSI (Appendix J). Recommendation This memorandum documents the environmental effects of project changes and the changes in circumstances per 23 CFR 771.129(c) as it relates to Noise and Vibration. Based on this analysis, it is recommended that this memorandum be transmitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as part of OCTA's request for confirmation from FTA that the prior analysis remains valid. 16 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAnalysisRe-evaluation in Support of Minor Design Modifications Exhibit A —Summary of Minor Design Modifications 17 0 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis Re-evaluation in Support of Minor Design Modifications Table 1. Comparison of 2015 Approved Project and Proposed 2016 Minor Design Modifications LPA in Certified EA/EIR — January 2015 30% Design — May 2016 Single-track bridge across the Santa Ana Double -track bridge across the Santa Ana River south of the existing historic bridge. River; north of the existing historic bridge. The double -track bridge is the same distance away from the historic bridge as the single- track bridge. Track positioned in the center of the PE ROW Track shifted to the northern side of the PE ROW, no private property is required. At -grade Santa Ana River Trail crossing on Provision of a Santa Ana River Trail the West Bank. undercrossing at the West Bank by including an extra span on the Santa Ana River bridge Streetcar Maximum Speed of 35 mph in PE Streetcar Maximum Speed of 45 mph in PE ROW. ROW Willowick Station Stop within PE ROW. No Willowick Station Stop within PE ROW. Side platforms at Harbor Blvd., Fairview St. Center platforms at Harbor Blvd., Fairview St., staggered, farside), and Raitt St., farside and Raitt St., nearside Bristol St. westbound, Bristol St. eastbound, farside Ross St. nearside Ross St. westbound, stops at westbound, stops at Broadway and Main. Sycamore (farside westbound, farside eastbound), No private property is required for the platforms. Double crossover west of maintenance and Single crossovers on both sides of the MSF, storage facility (MSF), turnout and tail track revised MSF track layout, single crossovers beyond Santa Ana Regional Transportation on both ends of downtown couplet, double - Center (SARTC) platform. crossover prior to SARTC platform. No consideration for traffic signal priority for Traffic signal priority at all traffic signals along the streetcar. the route except for Main St., Broadway, and Bristol St. The TSP extends a green phase or shortens an opposing green phase by as much as 20 seconds, Tied -Arch Bridge at Westminster Avenue Concrete Box Girder Bridge at Westminster Avenue Santa Ana Blvd. from Flower St. to Raitt St. Santa Ana Blvd from Flower St. to Raitt maintained as a four -lane street (two lanes in St. with a raised 4 -ft median and re -striped as each direction with streetcar in the outside a two-lane street (one lane in each direction) lanes). with left and U-turns allowed only at signalized intersections and striped bike lanes. No private property is required. Santa Ana Blvd. from French St. to Flower St. Santa Ana Blvd. from French St. to Flower St. with three -lanes westbound. with two -lanes westbound and a protected bike lane on the north side of the street. No private property is required. Six traction power substations (TPSS) located Elimination of two TPSS to result in a total of at the following locations: four TPSS for the Project, with the following 1) At Harbor Blvd.; revised locations. No private property is 2) At Susan St. (outside PE ROW), required: 3) On east side of Santa Ana River 1) On south side of Westminster Ave in outside of PE ROW), the PE ROW, 4) At Pacific Ave.; 1 (2) At the Maintenance and Storage 18 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAnalysisRe-evaluation in Support of Minor Design Modifications LPA in Certified EA/EIR — January 2015 30% Design — May 2016 5) In a parking structure at 5`" and Main, Facility (MSF) site, and 3) On north side of Santa Ava Blvd east 6) On south side of Santa Ana Blvd at of Parton St., and Garfield St. 4) On north side of Santa Ana Blvd and N. Garfield St. Locations 1 and 2 are within the ROW previously cleared. Locations 3 and 4 are identified within the updated APE. Appendix P to the EIR, the Drainage Modification of scope of drainage Technical Report, indicate storm drain improvements to rely less on connections to improvements on many streets outside the storm drain network and use surface project alignment. conveyance in streets to maintain existing drainage patterns to the maximum extent practicable while addressing surface storm water drainage needs generated by the Project or change in drainage patterns caused solely by the Project. Single contact wire in the PE ROW. Two -wire catenary in the PE ROW. No provision for underground fiber optics Underground fiber optics cable cable communications) from SARTC to OCTA Garden Grove Bus Annex north of PE ROW, approximately 1500 feet west of Harbor Blvd. The Project footprint and Area of Potential Effect (APE) for Cultural Resources study were also updated to encompass the modifications as well as the anticipated revised construction limits of the Project. Physical Improvements: The design modifications would result in the following changes to the physical improvements described in the LPA: Concrete Box Girder bridge instead of a Tied -Arch bridge at Westminster Avenue; A double track bridge instead of a single track bridge across the Santa Ana River SAR). The position of the bridge would be north instead of south of the existing historic bridge location. Repositioning the double track alignment, shifting the railroad centerline within the former Pacific Electric right-of-way (PE ROW) from the middle to the north at the approaches to the SAR crossing; Addition of a bridge span on the west bank of the SAR, behind a existing levee to accommodate an undercrossing for the SAR Trail and Bikeway (and Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) maintenance road. The profile of the trail and maintenance road would be modified at the crossing to facilitate the grade separation; Deletion of Willowick Station Stop. This station stop is associated with future development. At this time there is no development that is accessible to this station stop; Repositioning of Station Stop side platforms to center platforms at Harbor Boulevard, Fairview Street (both west side), and Raitt Street in the PE ROW segment of the Project alignment; 19 0 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis Re-evaluation in Support of Minor Design Modifications Repositioning Station Stop westbound platform at Ross Street from farside to nearside, and Station Stop platforms at Broadway and Main consolidated and moved to farside Sycamore Street; Placement of single crossovers on both sides of the Maintenance and Storage Facility MSF) with a revised layout for the MSF, added crossovers on both sides of downtown couplet, and replaced the tail track beyond the SARTC platform with a double crossover before the SARTC platform; Restriping Santa Ana Boulevard from Flower Street to Raitt Street from a four -lane to a two-lane street with a raised 4 -ft median; Restriping westbound Santa Ana Boulevard from French Street to Flower Street from three -lanes to two -lanes and a protected bike lane on the north side of the street; Relocation of the traction power substations (TPSS) to the PE ROW and publically owned properties and reducing the number of TPSS from six to four; Re-evaluation of the scope of drainage improvements to mitigate additional surface storm water drainage needs generated by the Project, or change in drainage patterns caused solely by the Project; Changing from single contact wire in the PE ROW to a two -wire catenary to enhance operations at higher speed; and Consideration of underground fiber optic lines from SARTC to the OCTA Garden Grove Bus Annex north of the PE ROW, about 1500 feet west of Harbor Blvd. Operational Improvements: Two changes to the Project's operations are proposed as part of the modifications: Increasing the maximum speed within the PE ROW from 35 miles per hour (mph) to 45 mph. The increased speed reduces travel time, providing operational cost and ridership benefits; and, Implementation of traffic signal priority at all traffic signals along the route except for Main Street, Broadway, and Bristol Street. 20 Attachment A Noise Sensitive Receptors and Modeled Locations from February 2012 Noise and Vibration Technical Report) I LL] QLU 0 N N 3 ca 2,r F L - 71 71 I i i t p1 1: t f W e e O O P T 0 0 ph 6 m m > ; pNp 2 cR vii N m v5 in ij 7 r 1 ^ M • I Xr B mpOL, Oib .' R k4 ya 'Y to q 0.y n1.. IiAW afST . i%lr"' gZL` R m ern Z O OIV$ a r,. r _ I. III knik y r Wz' W n ax F 15 11 t 4 N N N N NItl m E 8 w 'Pi ili Q E b z z 1 2 Z Z O O a 11111,*LL{VSN Mk 1 a" I•. 1 Y 4 .w I 1 Y a O O a Z a ft t L m ay1g ymI isyf'{ Sar` a 1 Y 1 ws-vsN v, Y• E Y m S _ IJ 4 hk.•aI1Ny A 314 FI'Yen". m a 0. MIA N 1.1 l,a wc 3 z°zoo2 o Ilk- Y LI,-.<. rfi,' t T' r tr ex 1 0f1i LU y.• v. ti° i a III F f"',r.• ° l 5P LJw Y" {$ Zti i ti C3 i ,r m1g C • Y nrf a m e a Z i e azsmay, z E N z m LL LL 0. Wa ZA! 200 Attachment B Original and Proposed Streetcar Alignments P4a.p Niap g59 ss Al+ sarvl E ayNlmam ll 8 w g u, ti 05 16.PKIi?a J l9 rePap O QAAA O ly 6 16FPalx W _ .'e Yn IS Mapes Z l€ W N4a`I CSI w ff i0 ao91rymxaISY003 Y6uPuay ppis4Pilld6N"° - P enpr elWVp w zjISIfiM^6N entlnewMV 8' 3 S u;PYi N w i9.weM1S 19 1 46N As.xpegiBf: 19 amuie/.95 3' ley A P. 95 m 1p e sN Ica lyvn0u C os4 HSA woEr g Is asoaN ISse469 _P s z m m as YaaRM19.P E nspaevN units g IaHtldi"rj Ti_ c 1..l.A, .13 3 Is uOile, 8` 19 AieUeeNSmISINgiN3Q Pl.enNO p' Is anMMl9 ISanppN ,y j. ulyBiro'1 €. IS:1—,N IA g 4' 15 uW9B a161aaxAlNISuewaV 4 Z' m X YPopT:eejy 3 E avPoeNe.%aaN F 154PIRu5.6. Is layes a^v vvppasoy9 Swanegg ad6 iii Pi 3 Is olsl6 ry _0 3 YavewOAexN s slvsaag S=eNPd n Ap ; ISama=ax 5 3. Is a3Na3H 4 st _ mVvyoeyry SPA I6 FeiP..ev 3 1511'etlN I61ye ' 3 3 aSwras d1s M n' a :6 emewee E. i Sn4M4V3 N9 3 m anvAsa96 a'. < f6b3ouasYNP15v fy5, l.z 16 PeN6.Ir{ a SP as veva, aluPlpH uearts` 6 Aapou6 i E `sFeIsmps-3Iswie; v m.° i9 ^e.uy{ IS Mdy1%63 N cact ala»gyp S W Hp1433 2 Pb Y Is o -Mo J 9E q o 6 0 b 3 43heGyp l n0 y onrew'' g I9 assm6N dgues{IssjdiNElsIFairy IS wlad s9la+nelN a H AAs ,st IS ... M -i S q4. i9 eWlea EscVaeOW Ia l41PYn9 Yv y p 6 Ty 6 3a 0PaSvoryPHvNgloryapNv' Pti aee8 ° W! 3 4 P Pb IW!, e Vl Alms ly ¢.[uua09 e m u G aide{3 m j G[ K'Us Jµ a 410 Fk, S y n A 4, uw N vq. n. z u Md 0' W a 40 O a m 40 Q m a tt LL W lu fi,7... r a 40 4AA I 1 MA k uj I 1 MA 0) zLU q E . ... _ •il ly'la9v vSl Rt t r w 4 Attachment C Noise and Vibration Calculations @@ u@@ u u u@ u n E n n n n n nn n n m m E m m E E E mn0EEEEEaamaavvv@ vE30000ov0> v v>>> v> z z z z z mm m m 0 mmm m O m H ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 V ll1 ll1 ll1 w ll1 w ca/ 1 a -I N M C V1 tD n W Q1 O Z 00c 0 u` 00c a x m H ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 V ll1 ll1 ll1 w ll1 w ca/ 1 a -I N M C V1 tD n W Q1 O Z 0 txovCC v o f6 O @ O u o o Ta @ v v f6 O u o Ta @ c m C Y n Y O C 6 N v m 0 v f6 u o c m n Y C 6 N v m 0 0 1 M M? txo 0 UU O H N O uu H OD m m m v m m v O YOZ0 0 c fa m m 3 Ta u T M a 00 1 n 01 01 l0 I1 W u1 V Ta a -I N M O] 0) rC rC rC rC rC rC is uv N is m m 0v L V 0 a -I N M C V1 t0 n W Q1 H 3 ON 6NH n O N CZZY vv i Z N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C f6 -6 txo Q M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M C M V K [C [C [C [C [C NK a -I N M C V1 tD n W m Orl QM Z Y QQ Q E - -- E E E Eu Q N E E N— v%%% v v v is N3mooommvmmmmmmvm a > > > > 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 a m O I1 w w w w w n w w w O Z w LD O to N c N o a M N m aaaaO U mC C g M rn an M mOwtoulwnwax a YN Q m V M 0 Wm W u1 v O '^ Lo n n twxo LD M OHll1ll1ll1ll1ll1ll1ll1ll1ll1Vll1ll1 ll1 w ll1 w N Cf6J N E U N N M V lf1 w n W m IK r -IC rlC r -IC r -I rlC [C tuxo Q 6N 6 ca/ 1Z W m 0 0 0 u u u u u u u u m u u u m u m u m u m m m m E E E E E N N N N 6 E it R N L6 it E R R R= N QI QI QI QI QI QI O C N N N N N N C C C C C C C O Z O Z O Z 0 0 O O 0O m m m c c c o a a o a a o a a u` u` u` m m m c0 xNNw N mc X w c 0 v v x v 6 C 6 N 6 Ya m QI v a. rl rl rl rl W N a. rl rl rl rl N N a. rl rl rl rl C mm C O JO C E00xu u' m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m fa c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c E3 z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° Y v O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O vN Y6U N N N N N N N M M M N N N N N cf6J ca/ 1 a -I N M C V1 tD n W Q1 O Z cv2 @0000 72 v 0 CL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 aaaaaaaaaaa v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 yQaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa u K [C [C [C [C [C NK a -I N M C V1 tD n W m Orl QM Z cO3 n n n n 01 O N I1 W N O O 01 I1 V Z 4 j O @ TOc3cf6ODWOOtowNOOm@ m 6 vNy6WTTTVMTVO L p fa MM t6 00 n n 01 01 l0 I1 W H M u N N a -I N M O] 0) N u Y0cCCCCCCO O O N O N L H ry ca -I N M ZT CO Q1 Waif O N O u Z Z 6 t6 u' m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m fa c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c E3 z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° cO vJ Y vN Y ct6J ca/ 1 a -I N M W Q1 O Z WE a« 7F 7F 7F 7F 7F 7F 7F 7F 7F mwaa o m z 3 ma w c m aam s o m m a m ry o 0 0 mm 'a2 w a EE- a 01 > > > > > > > > o o N N N N N N N3 m maaa `wc mo 0 o a a a a aammmmmmmmm o aZ 3 v t; 0 0 0 0 '^ cO x u c0 0 0 0 0 m m o aaa x i co m m n o 0 o m m m a m a o a — c_ `oan a a s aCuawum nm a TPSS Noise 1 -hr Leq 24 -hr Ldn Land Use Distance to Reduction due Noise Impact TPSS # at 50 ft at 50 ft Category HVAC to Orientation Level Criteria Impact 1 50 56 2 75 10 42 54 None 2 50 56 2 100 10 40 57 None 3 50 NA 3 200 38 64 None 4 50 56 2 50 10 46 59 None Attachment D Recommended Noise Barrier Locations aN I N N N N N N N N M V M N 0000NNNNN w + + + + MVMO OON O O O O 1-0000tNNOO N d V V V V 0/ 92.2LIJ 1 1 1,21'£L 99 15 Mal tll`1j N Attachment E TPSS Locations 9W ONYH9 C YA • m 0 a N Sz d qq'ggkza 1S e3WLLtlOW 15NMV 1S AtlMOWtl6 l5 SSON 1S kL3M01i F is,oLsrts ig Msinurotl Io ame umH lirA W a W U 9 VONYH9 Fit Uy:IT, 1:101111a:1 EXHIBIT B Addendum #2 to the Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Orange County, California SCH No. 2010051060 Prepared For: Orange County Transportation Authority 550 S. Main Street Orange, CA 92868 www.octa.net Prepared By: HDR Engineering, Inc. 3230 EI Camino Real, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 February 2017 SA_GGFixedGuidewayAddendum2Draft2-21-17.docx Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum #2 INTRODUCTION This Environmental re-evaluation and Addendum to the Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project (Project) Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to address minor design modifications to the Project resulting from engineering refinements in advancing Preliminary Engineering (30%) design to 60% design. These minor changes include physical and operational improvements. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that if there are minor technical changes or additions to a project and no new or substantially more severe significant effects result, an Addendum to an approved EIR must be prepared. This Addendum describes design modifications that the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is proposing forthe Project and summarizes the evaluation of howthese minor changes affectthe previous environmental analysis contained in the EIR. Section 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that "the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none ofthe conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is only required when: 1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information ofsubstantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration, B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. If major revisions of the EIR are not necessary and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling forthe preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred, CEQA mandates that an addendum be prepared. 11 Page 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum #2 2. BACKGROUND The Project is an approximately 4 -route mile modern streetcar line that will connect the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC) to Downtown Santa Ana and a new transportation hub located near the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue in Garden Grove. Construction and operation of the Project (the adopted Locally Preferred Alternative, or "LPA") was approved by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), dated March 10, 2015 based on the findings of the Revised Environmental Assessment (EA) (January 2015), pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The City of Santa Ana certified the EIR (State Clearinghouse #2010051060) in January 2015, which was subsequently adopted by OCTA. OCTA is a CEQA "Responsible Agency" as defined by CEQA Guideline 15381. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15381, "Responsible Agency" means "a public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which a Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration." The approved Project was based on a conceptual level of engineering. Subsequent to Project approval in 2015, OCTA has taken the lead in advancing the design and implementation of the Project to 30% design. As part of this design phase, OCTA proposed some modifications to the Project as it was defined and analyzed in the EIR. The modifications are comprised of physical and operational improvements, and are partly derived from value engineering and risk workshops conducted in 2015, as well as design coordination with OCTA's partner cities and stakeholders. An Environmental Re-evaluation and CEQA Addendum was prepared and presented by OCTA staff to the OCTA Board of Directors in July 2016. The Project has since advanced to the completion of 60% Design in December 2016. The 60% design includes minor physical and operational modifications due to design refinement for the Project and consideration of risk register updates performed by the Project team in a workshop conducted in 2016. The design modifications at 30% design and 60% design are not anticipated to result in changes to the maintenance plan for the Project. 3. DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN MODIFICATIONS The following describes the proposed design modifications that are the basis of evaluation in this Addendum #2. Table 1 provides a listing of design updates comparing the description of Project features in the EIR, the revised description of Project features resulting from design modifications at the 30% design (which was addressed in an EIR Addendum dated June 2016, hereafter "Addendum #1")), and additional modifications from the 60% design which are the basis of analysis in this Addendum #2. The corresponding figures for each modification as a result of advancing preliminary engineering (30% design) to 60% design are referenced in Table 1 and are attached to this Addendum #2. Figure 1A provides an overview of the proposed traffic signal prioritization areas. Figure 2A provides a figure of the proposed track shift. Figure 10A and Figure 10B depict the proposed relocated traction power substation (TPSS) unit 4 to SARTC. 21 Page 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum #2 Table 1. Project Description Comparison of Approved Project (2015 EIR), Modifications 30% Design Revisions - May 2016) and Additional Modifications (60% Design Revisions December 2016) 3 Page 1170726.1 Project Description Approved Project in 30% Design - May 2016 Update 2015 EIR Addressed in EIR Addendum #1 60% Design - December 2016 ID June 2016) Subject of Addendum #2) Figure Double -track bridge across the Santa Single-track bridge across the Ana River, north of the existing historic 1 Santa Ana River south of the bridge. The double -track bridge is the same No Change N/A existing historic bridge. distance away from the historic bridge as the single-track bridge. Track shifted to the center of the Figure PE ROW starting from 140 -ft 2A east of SAR Bridge to 5th Street Track positioned in the center Track shifted to the northern side of the at -grade crossing resulting in a 2 ofthe former Pacific Electric PE ROW; no private property is slight track shift to the southern Right -of -Way (PE ROW). required. side of the PE ROW between 5th Street at -grade crossing and the Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF), no private property is required. Provision of a Santa Ana River Trail N/A 3 At -grade Santa Ana River Trail undercrossing at the West Bank by No ChangecrossingontheWestBank. including an extra span on the Santa Ana River bridge 4 Streetcar Maximum Speed of Streetcar Maximum Speed of 45 mph in Streetcar Maximum Operating NIA35mphinPEROWPEROWSpeedof44mphinPEROW 5 Willowick Station Stop within No Willowick Station Stop within the PE No Change. N/APEROW. ROW. Side platforms at Harbor Blvd., Center platforms at Harbor Blvd., Fairview St. (staggered, Fairview St., and Raitt St., nearside farside), and Raitt St., farside Bristol St. westbound, nearside Ross St. 6 Bristol St. eastbound, farside westbound, stops at Sycamore (farside No Change N/A Ross St. westbound, stops at westbound, farside eastbound), No Broadway and Main. private property is required for the platforms. Double crossover west of Single crossovers on both sides of theMaintenanceandStorageMSF, revised MSF track layout, single Facility (MSF), turnout and tail crossovers on both ends of downtown No Change N/AtrackbeyondSantaAnacouplet, double -crossover prior toTransportationRegionalaSARTCplatform. platform. SARTC) pl Traffic signal priority at all traffic signals Traffic signal priority at all traffic along the route except for Main St., signals along the route including No consideration for traffic Broadway, and Bristol St. The TSP MainBroadway, and Bristol St. Thee TSP extends a green 1A signal priority for the streetcar. extends a green phase or shortens an phase or shortens an opposingopposinggreenphasebyasmuchas20greenphasebyasmuchas20seconds. seconds. 9 Tied -Arch Bridge at Concrete Box Girder Bridge at No Change NIAWestminsterAvenueWestminsterAvenue 3 Page 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum #2 41 Page 1170726.1 Project Description Approved Project in 30% Design - May 2016 Updatep 2015 EIR Addressed in EIR Addendum #1 e g60% Design - December 2016 ID June 2016) Subject of Addendum #2) Figure Santa Ana Blvd from Flower St. to Raitt Santa Ana Blvd. from Flower St. with a raised 4 -ft median and re - St. to Raitt St. maintained as a striped as a two-lane street (one lane in 10 four -lane street (two lanes in each direction) with left and U-turns No Change N/A each direction with streetcar in allowed only at signalized intersections the outside lanes). and striped bike lanes. No private property is required. Santa Ana Blvd. from French St. to Santa Ana Blvd. from French Flower St. with two -lanes westbound 11 St. to Flower St. with three- and a protected bike lane on the north No Change. N/A lanes westbound. side of the street. No private property is required. Six traction power substations Elimination of two TPSS to result in a No change to the number of TPSS) located at the following total of four TPSS for the Project, with TPSS or locations, with the locations: the following revised locations. No exception of TPSS (4) as 1) At Harbor Blvd.; private property is required: described below. No private 2) At Susan St. (outside 1) On south side of Westminster property is required: PE ROW), Ave in the PE ROW, 4) On north side of the 3) On east side of Santa 2) At the Maintenance and parking structure at 10A 12 Ana River (outside of Storage Facility (MSF) site; Santa Ana Regional and PE ROW), 3) On north side of Santa Ava Transportation Center 10B 4) At Pacific Ave., Blvd east of Parton St., and S adjacent to 5) In a parking structure 4 On north side of Santa Ana SantiagoSantiago Street at 5th and Main; and Blvd and N. Garfield St. 6) On south side of Locations 1 and 2 are within the ROW Location 4 is within the ROW Santa Ana Blvd at previously cleared. Locations 3 and 4 previously cleared in certified Garfield St. are identified on the updated APE. EIR. Modification of scope of drainage improvements to rely less on Appendix P to the EI R, the connections to storm drain network and Drainage Technical Report, use surface conveyance in streets to 13 indicate storm drain maintain existing drainage patterns to No Change N/A improvements on many streets the maximum extent practicable while outside the project alignment. addressing surface storm water drainage needs generated by the Project, or change in drainage patterns caused solely by the Project. 14 Single contact wire in PE ROW. Two -wire catenary in the PE ROW. No Change. N/A Underground fiber optics cable No provision for underground communications) from SARTC to OCTA 15 fiber optics cable Garden Grove Bus Annex north of PE No Change. N/A ROW, approximately 1500 feet west of Harbor Blvd 41 Page 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum #2 Physical Improvements: The modifications from 60% design would result in the following changes to Project features from 30% design: 1) Track shifted to the center of the PE ROW starting from 140 -ft east of Santa Ana River (SAR) Bridge to 5th Street at -grade crossing resulting in a slight track shift to the southern side of the PE ROW between 5th Street at -grade crossing and the Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF), no private property is required. The Project footprint is not affected by this change. 2) Revised location of the TPSS unit. 4 formerly proposed at the north east corner of Santa Ana Blvd. and N. Garfield Ave. to the north side of the parking structure at SARTC, adjacent to N. Santiago Street. The Project footprint is not affected by this change. 3) Minor project footprint modifications and anticipated revised construction limits result from the process of advancement of 30% design to 60% design due to the following Project elements: a) Trenching in the public right-of-way (ROW) for drainage improvements and utility connections at West 5th Street, b) Paving, striping, signing, curb ramp and driveway approach improvements at N. Harbor Boulevard (Blvd.), N. Western Avenue (Ave.), N. Forest Street (St.), N. Pacific Ave., N. Hesperian St., N. Bristol St., N. Baker St., N. Spurgeon St., French St., N. Minter St., 4th St., E. Santa Ana Blvd., and Santiago St., c) Temporary Construction Easements (TCE) for a maintenance road turnaround on the east side of the SAR, d) Sidewalk paving re -construction at Nova Academy on the corner of Ross Street and 4th St., and e) Anticipated improvements at the driveway approach to the County of Orange Sherriffs Department Complex on W. Santa Ana Blvd. Operational Improvements: The modifications from 60% design would result in the following changes to the Project's operations from 30% design: 1) Reducing the maximum speed within the PE ROW from 45 miles per hour (mph) to 44 mph. 2) Implementation of Traffic Signal Priority (TSP) at all traffic signals along the route including at Main Street, Broadway, and Bristol Street. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF DESIGN MODIFICATIONS To evaluate whetherthe proposed design modifications would result in a new significant impact, increase in the severity of an impact, or require new mitigation measures, OCTA undertook environmental review and where needed, conducted a technical analysis of each Project feature update. The following technical reports were prepared as part of this analysis and are included as attachments to this Addendum #2: Visual Impact Analysis Re-evaluation Technical Memo Update, (HDR, February 2017) (Appendix A) Cultural Resources Technical Memo Update (HDR, February 2017) (Appendix B) Traffic Study Addendum v4 (IBI Group, February 2017) (Appendix C) Noise and Vibration Technical Addendum (HDR, February 2017) (Appendix D) The technical analysis was coordinated with the 60% design work that was progressing on the Project. In some cases, specific design modifications were refined based upon analysis undertaken in the 60% design work. The CEQA Guidelines require that a brief explanation be provided to support the findings that no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is needed for further discretionary approval. A summary of findings from the re-evaluation of each of the environmental issue areas that were analyzed in the EIR are described below. 51 Page 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum #2 Effects Determined Not Adverse The EIR identified the following environmental resource areas that would not be impacted by the proposed Project: coastal zones, wetlands and navigable waterways, ecologically sensitive areas, and endangered and/or threatened plant and animal species. The proposed four minor design modifications would not significantly impact these resources as these resources are not present within, or in proximity to, the limits of disturbance associated with implementation of the design modifications. No additional impacts would occur to these environmental resources and the conclusion that the Project would not result in a significant impact to these resources as identified in the EIR remain accurate. Land Use and Zoning The potential land use and zoning impacts (including agricultural and forestry resources) associated with the construction and operation of the Project were evaluated in the EIR. Since the certification of the EIR, there have been no changes to the land use or zoning environment, and the fundamental characteristics of the Project as evaluated in the EIR have not changed. The EIR concluded that impacts related to land use and zoning and agricultural and forestry resources were determined to be less than significant. No mitigation measures were required. The proposed four minor design modifications would not change the fundamental characteristics of the Project. The proposed Project design modifications would not expand or increase the development footprint in such a manner as to create a land use or zoning impact, and there are no agricultural or forestry resources located within the construction footprint. Both the construction and operations of the Project would be similar to the Project as evaluated in the EIR. No additional land use and zoning impact would occur and the conclusions that the Project would not result in a significant land use and zoning impact as identified in the EIR remain accurate. Land Acquisition and Displacements This environmental resource issue area is only applicable to the analysis pursuant to NEPA, and no further analysis is warranted in this Addendum #2. In addition, no additional displacements are anticipated by the design changes. Section 4(f) Resources This environmental resource issue area is only applicable to the analysis pursuant to NEPA, and no further analysis is warranted in this Addendum #2. Communitv Effects and Environmental Justice This section of the EIR includes an evaluation of potential impacts associated with fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities. The EIR determined that impacts to fire and police protection would be less than significant, and that there would be no impact to schools, parks or other public facilities. The design changes do not involve any modifications to the characteristics of the project that would affect any of these facilities. Both the construction and operations of the Project would be similar to the Project as evaluated in the EIR. No additional community effects impact would occur and the conclusions that the Project would not result in a significant community effects impact as identified in the EIR remain accurate. Visual Quality The potential visual quality impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project were evaluated in the EIR. The EIR determined that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to visual quality including scenic vistas, scenic resources, or aesthetic features, or substantially degrade the existing visual quality or character of the 61 Page 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum #2 area. Since the certification of the EIR, there have been no changes to the aesthetic environment of the Project as evaluated in the EIR. However, as described under "Description of Design Modifications" there is an additional design modification resulting from 60% design development that has been determined to potentially affect visual resources, and therefore further visual analysis evaluation was performed to address the revised location of TPSS unit 4 at SARTC. In order to address the potential visual quality impact associated with the proposed new location of TPSS unit 4, a supplemental visual impact analysis was prepared (see Visual Impact Analysis Re-evaluation Technical Memo Update, Appendix A). The purpose of the analysis was to identify any changes to visual effects that were previously disclosed in the EIR. The supplemental visual impact analysis update concludes that no new significant visual impacts and no increase in the severity of an impact would result as compared to the Project as evaluated in the EIR. No additional visual quality impact would occur and the conclusions that the Project would not result in a significant visual quality as identified in the EIR remain accurate. Cultural Resources In July of 2016, HDR performed a cultural resources technical analysis re-evaluation in response to advancements in engineering by the OCTA Project. The purpose of that 2016 analysis was to identify whether any of the proposed minor design modifications to the adopted Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) would affect the previous findings regarding cultural resources (both historic and archaeological) within the previously -approved Area of Potential Effects APE), and the revised APE to reflect design modifications. That updated cultural resources analysis confirmed that the proposed engineering refinements to the Project did not change the previous conclusions regarding cultural resources and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) recommended that there would be no adverse effects within the expanded APE under NEPA and a less than significant impact would remain the finding for the design modifications within the expanded APE under CEQA. The sensitivity of the area for archaeological resources and the recommendation for archaeological monitoring to be conducted for earth -disturbing activities that could encounter previously undisturbed soils remained unchanged and consistent with the 2015 EA/EIR. On October 14, 2016, the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with the findings of that Cultural Resources Technical Memo Update (OHP reference number FTA111011B, see Appendix B, Attachment A). In regard to the revised APE, the SHPO noted that "the APE should include the entirety of individual resources and historic properties located within it. As shown on sheet 4 of 15 of the APE, only part of the Pacific Electric Railroad Bridge (P-30-161847) is located within the APE. The APE should be expanded to include the whole property." The Project has since advanced with the completion of the 60% design. OCTA, as the agency responsible for design and implementation of the Project, is again proposing minor design modifications to the adopted LPA comprised of four physical and operational improvements. The design modifications were reviewed against their potential to affect the previous findings regarding cultural resources (both historic and archaeological) within the previously -approved APE, and, where necessary, the APE was revised to reflect these design modifications. An update to the cultural resources technical analysis re-evaluation was completed (see Appendix B). Physical improvement 1) The track shift occurs within the existing APE and there are no previously identified cultural resources in this area east of the SAR Bridge. As such, this proposed design modification does not directly or indirectly affect the existing cultural resource findings since it will not have a visible and/or audible or atmospheric impact or vibration impacts from construction on any previously identified historic property, nor necessitate a change in the APE. Physical improvement 2) The change of TPSS unit 4 location is to a new location within the existing APE limits (within APN 398-351-04, Sheet 15 of 15 of the APE map). The TPSS sites for the Project are described as small mundane utilitarian elements intended to match the existing setting within the APE. The TPSS sites would be visually consistent 71 Page 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum #2 with other objects and equipment located along the sidewalks and ROW, such as generators and telecommunication equipment. Since, TPSS unit 4 will be constructed adjacent to an existing parking structure at the modern SARTC facility, it will not have a visible and/or audible or atmospheric impact or vibration impact from construction on any previously identified historic property, nor necessitate a change in the APE. Area of Potential Effects (APE) The only impacts to the APE resultfrom footprint modifications and anticipated revised construction limits resulting from advancement of 30% design to 60% design modifications which include trenching in public streets for drainage improvements, utility connections, paving, striping, signing, curb ramp and driveway approach improvements, the addition of a TCE for a maintenance road turnaround on the east side of the SAR, sidewalk paving re -construction to match existing at Nova Academy on the corner of Ross Street and 4th Street (APN 398-221- 19), and anticipated improvements at the driveway approach to the County of Orange Sherrifrs Department Complex and specifically the parcel containing the Orange County Coroner's Office on W. Santa Ana Boulevard (APN 405-201- 13). As a result, the APE was expanded to include consideration of effects on adjacent parcels APN 405-201-13 and APN 398-221-19. An additional change to the APE was made in response to the SHPO's 2016 comments regarding the inclusion of the entirety of individual resources and historic properties located within it. Minor updates have also been made to the APE in response to comments received from the SHPO in October 14, 2016 regarding the comment to include of the entirety of the Pacific Electric Railroad Bridge (P-30-161847). The current APE map set is included in Appendix B, Attachment B, and updates are reflected on Sheets 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 15. Identification of Historic Properties The areas of the expanded 2017 APE do not include any newly identified historic properties since the 2014 survey, and what was included in the 2015 APE. None of the properties added to the expanded APE are 50 years of age or older. Nova Academy (APN 398-221-19) built in 2005 Orange County Coroner's Office (APN 405-201-13) built in 1981 Conclusion Minor updates have been made to the APE in response to comments received from the SHPO in October 14, 2016 regarding the comment to include of the entirety of the Pacific Electric Railroad Bridge (P-30-161847) within the APE of the Project, and to address expanded limits of construction for minor surface improvements and utility trenching and consideration of adjacent parcels to paving re -construction at Nova Academy and anticipated driveway approach improvements at the County of Orange Sherrifrs Department Complex (and specifically on the APN containing the Orange County's Coroner Office). The expanded 2017 APE does not include any newly identified historic properties from what has been previously reported for the Project. None of the parcels added to the expanded 2017 APE contain buildings that are 50 years of age or older. Indirect visual and/or audible atmospheric impacts or vibration impacts from changes in construction have been considered in this assessment. There are no known archaeological resources eligible for listing in the NRHP located within the expanded 2017 APE. The current cultural resources analysis confirms thatthe proposed engineering refinements to the project do not change the previous conclusions regarding cultural resources. No adverse effects are expected for the design modifications under NEPA. Under CEQA, a less than significant impact would remain the finding for the design modifications. The sensitivity of the area for archaeological resources and the recommendation for archaeological monitoring to be conducted for earth -disturbing activities that could encounter previously undisturbed soils remain unchanged and will remain consistent with the 2015 EA/EIR. 81 Page 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum #2 Geoloay. Soils. and Seismicit The potential geology, soils, and seismicity impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project were evaluated in the EIR. Since the certification of the EIR, there have been no changes to the geological, soils or seismic environment or changes to the characteristics of the proposed Project as evaluated in the EIR that would affect these resources. The EIR concluded that impacts related to geologic and seismic hazards were less than significant and that no mitigation measures are required. No additional geology, soils, and seismicity impact would occur and the conclusions regarding no significant impacts identified in the EIR remain accurate. Hazardous Materials The potential hazardous materials impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project was evaluated in the EIR. Since the certification of the EIR, there have been no changes to the hazardous materials environment or changes to the characteristics of the proposed project as evaluated in the EIR that would affect hazardous materials. As previously identified in the EIR, the Project would require limited acquisition of property which could have the potential to contain hazardous materials. Three properties identified as potentially hazardous sites would be acquired as part of Operations & Maintenance (0&M) Facility Site B (which is the currently proposed location for the 0&M facility). As described in the EIR, a detailed Phase I Environmental Site Assessment would be required to ascertain if employees working at the 0&M Facility would be exposed to toxic levels of hazardous materials. The EIR recommended implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ1 to reduce this potential impact to a level less than significant. Because the proposed design modifications do not involve a change with respect to the location of the proposed 0&M Facility Site B, the conclusions regarding hazardous materials would remain the same. The EIR indicates that operation of the streetcar along the Project alignment would not involve the use of hazardous materials. As stated previously, no change to streetcar maintenance activities is proposed as part of the design modifications, therefore, no new significant impact or the increase in the severity of a significant impact would result. The conclusions that the potential hazardous materials impact would be reduced to a level of less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ1 as identified in the EIR remain accurate. Traffic and Parking The potential traffic and parking related impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project were evaluated in the EIR. Since the certification of the EIR, there have been some changes to the transportation network within the Project area. Also, as described under "Description of Design Modifications," some of the design modifications were determined to have the potential to impact traffic, and further analysis was warranted. The potential traffic and parking impacts associated with the 30% design changes were addressed in Addendum #1. However, in order to evaluate the potential traffic impacts associated with the 60% operational design modification of adding Traffic Signal Priority to intersections at Santa Ana Boulevard/Main Street, Santa Ana Boulevard/Broadway, Santa Ana Boulevard/Bristol Street, 4th Street/Broadway and 4th Street/Main Street, an update to the previously - prepared Traffic Study Addendum v2, see Traffic Study Addendum v4 attached as Appendix C. The purpose of the analysis was to identify any additional changes to traffic impacts that were previously disclosed in the EIR and Addendum #1 that are due to the operational design modification with the advancement of engineering since the Project and conceptual design) was approved in 2015 and further advanced to 30% design and 60% design. Traffic Signal Priority for the Streetcar. Table 3-7 of the Traffic Study Addendum v4 (see Appendix C) summarizes the delay and corresponding LOS for 2035 Streetcar Conditions, with and without the transit signal priority adjustments, and using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Methodology. As shown on Table 3-7, overall intersection delay would change with implementation of Traffic Signal Priority, with minor decreases in delay at some locations, and minor 91 Page 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum #2 increases in delay at other locations. However, in no instance would the minor increase in delay result in a new significant impact, or increase in the seventy of an impact. All intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS. Table 3-8 summarizes the delay and corresponding LOS for 2035 Streetcar Conditions, with and without the transit signal priority adjustments, and using Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Methodology. As shown in Table 3-8, the application of Traffic Signal Priority to all of the affected intersections would not result in any deterioration of LOS from acceptable to unacceptable. Based on this supplemental traffic impact analysis of 60% design modifications, no new significant traffic impacts and no increase in the seventy of an impact would result as compared to the originally approved Project as evaluated in the EIR. No additional traffic impacts would occur and the conclusion that the Project would result in a less than significant traffic impact as identified in the EIR remains accurate. Noise and Vibration A Noise and Vibration Technical Addendum was prepared to address the potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed design modifications (see Appendix D). Decrease in Speed Reducing the maximum speed within the PE ROW from 45 mph to 44 mph would have no effect on the streetcar vibration levels. Centerline Re -Alignment (Alignment Shift) The proposed modification at 60% design would shift the railroad alignment within the PE ROW. Table K lists the vibration levels calculated by HDR (June 2016) for the 30% design. Only the receptors included within the affected area (PE ROW) are listed. Table L of the supplement analysis (see Appendix D) lists the distances from the modeled receivers to the 30% design alignment and the distances to the currently proposed 60% design alignment. Table L (see Appendix D) also lists the streetcar operation vibration levels associated with the 30% and 60% design streetcar alignments. The impact threshold for Land Use Category 2 is 72 VdB and for Land Use Category 3 is 75 VdB. As shown in Table L of Appendix D, the vibration levels are belowthe impactthreshold at all receptor locations. Therefore, no minimization design features are required. Traction Power Substation Noise Analysis The 60% design plans move TPSS unit 4 to the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC) on the north side of the parking structure adjacent to Santiago Street. At this location the TPSS unit would be located within 100 feet of the main SARTC structure and 350 feet from the nearest residences. Table M (see Appendix D) shows the predicted noise level at the TPSS sites assuming the units are specified to have a maximum sound level of 50 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from any surface. As shown, by orienting the TPSS units so that the noise from the HVAC units is directed away from the sensitive uses, the noise levels at all receptors closest to the TPSS units would result in no impacts. Air Quality The potential air quality and greenhouse gas emissions (global climate change) impacts associated with both the construction and operation of the proposed Project were evaluated in the EIR. There have been no changes to the air quality environment as evaluated in the EIR. The proposed minor design modifications would change some of proposed improvements within the corridor, however, the general Project construction characteristics as described in the EIR would not be altered in such a manner as to result in an increase in the daily construction emissions, and no new mitigation measures would be required. 101 Page 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum #2 In terms of short-term, construction -related air quality impacts, as described in the EIR (and applicable to the Project with the proposed design modifications), construction activities would be completed in a segment by segment basis to minimize the disruption to local residents and businesses in the Study Area. As concluded in the EIR, there would be no exceedances of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regional significance thresholds as a result of daily construction emissions. This conclusion would still apply with implementation of the proposed Project modifications as the construction parameters and characteristics would be the same, no new significant short-term air quality impact, increase in the severity of an impact, or new mitigation measure would be required associated with implementation of the proposed design modifications. In terms of long-term, operational air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts, with the exception of an almost discernable decrease in maximum speed in the PE ROW (from 45 MPH to 44 MPH), and the implementation of traffic signal priority, no changes to the operational characteristics are proposed that would affect the previous conclusions of "less than significant impact" for operational air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts. The Traffic Study Addendum v4 (provided in Appendix C), indicates that all roadway segments and intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS with the implementation of the traffic signal priority. Therefore, the conclusion that long-term impacts associated with localized CO concentrations (due to poor intersection LOS) would be less than significant would remain. No additional air quality or greenhouse gas emissions impacts would occur and the conclusions identified in the EIR remain accurate. Energy Resources The EIR identified a less than significant impact to Energy Resources as a result of the Project. This is attributed to the reduction of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) that is anticipated with the operation of the streetcar. The proposed design modifications would not affect the anticipated ridership forthe Project, therefore, there would be no new impact, or increase in the severity of an impact related to Energy Resources and the conclusions identified in the EIR remain accurate. Water Qualitv. Hvdroloqv, and Floodolains The potential water quality, hydrology, and floodplains impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project were evaluated in the EIR. The EIR determined that impacts to these resources would be less than significant related to water quality, water discharge, stormwater runoff and as related to alteration of drainage patterns. The currently proposed four minor design changes do not involve any additional changes to proposed drainage improvements. Appendix P (Drainage Technical Report) of the EIR, described storm drain improvements on many streets outside the Project alignment. Therefore, because there would be no further proposed design modifications to the drainage plan for the Project, there would not result in the increase in a new impact related to hydrology, increase in the severity of an impact related to hydrology, or require new mitigation measures in order to address drainage and/or hydrology impacts. The EIR identifies that the Project would be required to comply with BMPs to address pollutants of concern and hydrologic conditions of concern associated with the Project's stormwater runoff. With implementation of the BMPs, the Project would result in less than significant impacts to water quality, water discharge, and stormwater runoff. The construction and operation of the Project would be the same as evaluated in the EIR. No additional water quality, hydrology, or floodplains impact would occur and the conclusions that impacts to these environmental resource areas are less than significant as identified in the EIR remain accurate. Safety and Security This environmental resource issue area is only applicable to the analysis pursuant to the NEPA, and no further analysis is warranted in this CEQA Addendum. ill Page 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum #2 Construction The potential construction impacts associated with the proposed Project construction were evaluated in the EIR. This chapter of the EIR evaluated potential construction impacts related to visual quality, energy resources, traffic, circulation, parking, hazardous materials, air quality, noise and vibration, and land use. Since the certification of the EIR, there have been no changes to the construction characteristics of the proposed Project as evaluated in the EIR. Proposed construction activities would remain the same as previously evaluated with respect to these environmental resource areas. The proposed design modifications would not change the previous conclusions regarding construction impacts. No additional impacts would occur to these environmental resources and the conclusions that the Project would not result in a significant impact to these resources as identified in the EIR remain accurate. Other Considerations The EIR addressed several environmental issue areas within Chapter 3.17 Other Considerations. These included: Biological Resources, Utilities and Service Systems (Wastewater Treatment and Facilities, Stormwater Drainage Facilities, Water Supply, and Solid Waste Disposal and Compliance Regulations), Parklands and Recreational Facilities, Growth Inducing Impacts, Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes, and Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts. Biological Resources. The proposed design modifications would not significantly impact biological resources as these resources are not present within, or in proximity to, the limits of disturbance associated with implementation of the design modifications. No additional impacts would occur to this environmental resource and the conclusions that the Project would not result in a significant impact to this resource as identified in the EIR remain accurate. Utilities and Service Systems. The proposed design modifications would result in less than significant impacts to wastewater treatment facilities, stormwater drainage facilities, water supply, and solid waste disposal. As with the Project described in the EIR, implementation of the design modifications would not generate wastewater from activity along the alignment or at stations. Wastewater would be generated by the 0&M Facility, but no change to the 0&M Facility is proposed, and as identified in the EIR, the 0&M Facility would not put added strain on existing wastewater treatment capacity. Project modifications are proposed related to drainage improvements as described previously under "Water Quality, Hydrology and Floodplains." No change to the previous conclusion of less than significant impact would occur. The design modifications would not change the water use associated with operation and maintenance of the Project, such as vehicle washing and worker hygiene. No change to the previous conclusion of less than significant impact would occur. Solid waste receptacles would be placed at stations, and solid waste would be generated at the 0&M Facility. However, no changes to these aspects of the Project are proposed with the design modifications, therefore, no change to the previous conclusion of less than significant impact would occur. Parklands and Recreational Facilities. The proposed design modifications would not significantly impact parklands and recreational facilities. No additional impacts would occur to these environmental resources and the conclusions that the project would not result in a significant impact to these resources as identified in the EIR remain accurate. 121 Page 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum #2 Findings from Environmental Re-evaluation 1). Substantial changes are not proposed for the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity ofpreviously identified effects. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project was undertaken, that would require major revisions to the EIR. Since certification of the EIR in January 2015, there have been no major updates to the CEQA Guidelines or adoption of new legislation requiring additional environmental analysis. Therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to the EIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures are incorporated herein by reference. 2). Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, that would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As described in the preceding text for each environmental issue area, no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the proposed Project four minor design modifications would be undertaken that would suggest that its adoption and implementation would result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects not previously discussed in the certified EIR would occur. Therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to the EIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures presented in the EIR are incorporated herein by reference and would be implemented in compliance with the adopted MMRP for the Project. 3). No new information has been provided, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise ofreasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete that would indicate that the proposed project would result in one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, significant effects would be substantially more severe, mitigation measures or alternatives previously found to be infeasible would in fact be feasible, or mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. There is nothing in the proposed Project four minor design modifications that would suggest that its adoption and implementation would result in any new significant environmental effects or the increase in the severity of an environmental effect not previously discussed in the EIR. Therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to the EIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures presented in the EIR are incorporated herein by reference and would be implemented in compliance with the adopted MMRP for the Project. 6. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings and information contained in the EIR, the analysis above, the CEQA statute and State CEQA Guidelines, including Sections 15164 and 15162, the proposed four minor design modifications will not result in any new, increased, or substantially different impacts, otherthan those previously considered and addressed in the Project EIR. No changes or additions to the Project EIR analyses are necessary, noris there a need for any additional mitigation measures. Therefore, a Supplemental EIR is not required. This Addendum #2 to the EIR is the appropriate environmental documentation for the proposed modifications to the Project. 131 Page 1170726.1 Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project Addendum #2 List of Figures: Figure 1A Traffic Signal Prioritization Figure 2A Track Realignment in PE ROW Figure 10A TPSS Locations Figure 10B TPSS unit 4 Location Map Appendices are not included with the Addendum, but can be made available upon request. List of Appendices: Appendix A Visual Impact Analysis Re-evaluation Technical Memo Update (HDR, February 2017) Appendix B Cultural Resources Technical Memo Update (HDR, February 2017) Appendix C Traffic Study Addendum v4 (IBI Group, February 2017) Appendix D Noise and Vibration Technical Addendum (HDR, February 21, 2017) 141 Page 1170726.1 t i i)f Lr) q t i Lr) q 22 6 kt t i w \ m t 2 Q $ g ƒ $ \ \ G /3t a § $ g 0 U) y & g E 2 7 f mr«z 0 22 6 2 u j\ u a 00 J U) 2 a A r o G co m E Geo E fit/3 Q\\\ w \ m t 2 Q $ g ƒ $ \ \ G /3t a § $ g 0 U) y & g E 2 7 f mr«z m 6 2 u j\ u a 00 J U) 2 7> k a§ w \ m t 2 Q $ g ƒ $ \ \ G /3t a § $ g 0 U) y & g E 2 7 f mr«z d VUNYtlS 3'YUNVHU IC ................4 bS 6 y'c • 1S H]YlLLNOW 15NSWIWOW 1S NON3 J • • 1SW WN J • • ao a „socaCSON1 _ C OQV! 1jLSNMY2 yo dU I j T LSNNW OLyLU f iji T R T E T r 1S Abv,OtlOtle G p 1S AtlMOMDIIB 1s SSON • • O 15550!1 • • O f7 UVU c > c IS mMOIJ • is tl wj • N O VI i 15 101988 iSMISHs cm z IA U FFj 0 15 111M• \ . 01 0 O O r 3 F AA31AtlMd V4 h J OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAddendum Memo Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 Project: Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project To: Mary Shavalier/Program Manager, OCTA From: Keith Lay, Senior Air Quality and Noise Specialist Subject: Noise and Vibration Technical Addendum in Support of Engineering Refinements This noise and vibration re-evaluation and Addendum to the Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project (Project) has been prepared to address additional design modifications to the Project resulting from engineering refinements in advancing Preliminary Engineering (30%) design to 60% design. This document is supplemental to a previous Supplemental Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum, which was completed to study design modifications resulting from 30% design in June 2016. This memorandum presents the results of the supplemental noise and vibration technical analysis of the proposed minor modifications. The results of this analysis are based on an assessment and review of the currently proposed minor modifications/engineering refinement as compared to the 30% design was the basis of evaluation in the June 2016 memorandum. The methodology of the FTA Noise and Vibration Manual (May 2006) was followed for this supplemental analysis. Project Background The Project is a proposed as an approximately 4 -route mile modern streetcar line that will connect the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC) to Downtown Santa Ana and a new transportation hub located near the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue in Garden Grove. Construction and operation of the Project (the adopted Locally Preferred Alternative, or "LPA") was approved by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in a Finding of No Significant Impact FONSI), dated March 10, 2015 based on the findings of the Revised Environmental Assessment (EA) (January 2015), pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The City of Santa Ana certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse 2010051060) in January 2015, which was subsequently adopted by OCTA. OCTA is a CEQA Responsible Agency" as defined by CEQA Guideline 15381. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15381, "Responsible Agency" means "a public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which a Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration." The approved Project was based on a conceptual level of engineering. Subsequent to Project approval in 2015, OCTA has taken the lead in advancing the design and implementation of the Project. As part of this engineering design phase, OCTA is proposing some modifications to the Project as it was defined and analyzed in the EIR. The modifications comprise of physical and 1 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAddendum operational improvements, and are partly derived from value engineering and risk workshops conducted in 2015, as well as design coordination with OCTA's partner cities and stakeholders. The modifications are not anticipated to result in changes to the maintenance plan for the Project. Proposed Minor Modifications/Engineering Refinement The following describes the proposed additional design modifications that are the basis of evaluation in this Addendum. Additionally, Table A provides a listing of design updates, comparing the description of Project features in the EIR, revised description of Project features resulting from design modifications at the 30% design, and additional modifications from the 60% design. Table A. Project Description Comparison of Approved Project (2015 EIR), Modifications 30% Design Revisions - May 2016) and Additional Modifications (60% Design Revisions December 2016) 2 Project Description Update Approved Project in ID 2015 EIR 30°%o Design - May 2016 60% Desiqn - December 2016 Double -track bridge across the Single-track bridge across Santa Ana River (SAR), north of the 1 the Santa Ana River (SAR) existing historic bridge. No Change south of the existing historic The double -track bridge is the same bridge. distance away from the historic bridge as the single-track bridge. Track shifted to the center of the PE ROW starting from 140 -ft east of SAR Bridge to Track positioned in the Track shifted to the northern side of 5th Street at -grade crossing 2 center of the former Pacific the PE ROW, no private property is resulting in a slight track shiftElectricRight -of -Way (PE required. to the southern side of the PE ROW). ROW between 5 Street at - grade crossing and the MSF, no private property is required. Provision of a Santa Ana River At -grade Santa Ana River SAR) Trail undercrossing at the 3 SAR) Trail crossing on the West Bank by including an extra No Change West Bank. span on the Santa Ana River (SAR) bridge Streetcar Maximum Speed Streetcar Maximum Speed of 45 Streetcar Maximum 4 of 35 mph in PE ROW mph in PE ROW Operating Speed of 44 mph in PE ROW 5 Willowick Station Stop within No Willowick Station Stop within the No Change. PE ROW. PE ROW. Side platforms at Harbor Blvd., Center platforms at Harbor Blvd., 6 Fairview St. (staggered, Fairview St., and Raiff St., nearside No Changefarside), and Raitt St., farside Bristol St. westbound, nearside Ross Bristol St. eastbound, farside St. westbound, stops at Sycamore 2 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAddendum 3 Ross St. westbound, stops at farside westbound, farside Broadway and Main. eastbound), No private property is required for the platforms. Double crossover west of Single crossovers on both sides ofMaintenanceandStorage the MSF, revised MSF track layout, 7 Facility (MSF), turnout and single crossovers on both ends of No Change tail track beyond Santa Ana downtown couplet, double -crossoverRegionalTransportationpriortoSARTCplatform. Center (SARTC) platform. Traffic signal priority at all Traffic signal priority at all traffic traffic signals along the route No consideration for traffic signals along the route except for including Main St., Broadway, 8 signal priority for the Main St., Broadway, and Bristol St. and Bristol St. The TSP streetcar. The TSP extends a green phase or extends a green phase or shortens an opposing green phase shortens an opposing green by as much as 20 seconds, phase by as much as 20 seconds, 9 Tied -Arch Bridge at Concrete Box Girder Bridge at No ChangeWestminsterAvenueWestminsterAvenue Santa Ana Blvd from Flower St. to Santa Ana Blvd. from Flower Raiff St. with a raised 4 -ft median St. to Raiff St. maintained as and re -striped as a two-lane street 10 a four -lane street (two lanes one lane in each direction) with left No ChangeineachdirectionwithandU-turns allowed only at streetcar in the outside signalized intersections and striped lanes). bike lanes. No private property is required. Santa Ana Blvd. from French St. to Santa Ana Blvd. from Flower St. with two -lanes westbound 11 French St. to Flower St. with and a protected bike lane on the No Change. three -lanes westbound. north side of the street. No private property is required. Six traction power Elimination of two TPSS to result in substations (TPSS) located a total of four TPSS for the Project, No change to the number of at the following locations: with the following revised locations. TPSS locations, with the 1) At Harbor Blvd.; No private property is required: ioexception of TPSS (4) as 2) At Susan St. 1) On south side of described below. No private outside PE ROW); Westminster Ave in the PE property is required: 3) On east side of ROW, 4) On north side of the Santa Ana River 2) At the Maintenance and parking structure at12outsideofPEStorageFacility (MSF) site; Santa Ana Regional ROW), 3) On north side of Santa Ava Transportation 4) At Pacific Ave.; Blvd east of Parton St., and Center (SARTC), 5) In a parking 4) On north side of Santa Ana adjacent to Santiago structure at 5th and Blvd and N. Garfield St. Street Main, and Locations 1 and 2 are within the 6) On south side of ROW previously cleared. Locations Location 4 is within the ROW Santa Ana Blvd at 3 and 4 are identified on the updated previously cleared. Garfield St. APE. 3 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAddendum PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS The additional design modifications from 60% design would result in the following changes to proposed physical improvements from 30% design: Track shifted to the center of the PE ROW starting from 140 -feet east of Santa Ana River (SAR) Bridge to 5th Street at -grade crossing resulting in a slight track shift to the southern side of the PE ROW between 51 Street at -grade crossing and the MSF. No private property is required and the shift occurs within the existing APE. Revised location of the traction power substation (TPSS) unit. 4 formerly proposed at the north east corner of Santa Ana Blvd. and N. Garfield Ave. to the north side of the parking structure at Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC), adjacent to N. Santiago Street Project footprint modifications and anticipated revised construction limits are also proposed in the advancement of 30% design to 60% design. These include: Trenching in the public right-of-way (ROW) for drainage improvements and utility connections at West 51 Street; Paving, striping, signing, curb ramp and driveway approach improvements at: N. Harbor Boulevard (Blvd.), N. Western Avenue (Ave.), N. Forest Street (St.), N. Pacific Ave., N. Hesperian St., N. Bristol St., N. Baker St., N. Spurgeon St., French St., N. Minter St., 41 St., E. Santa Ana Blvd., and Santiago St.; Temporary Construction Easements (TCE) for a maintenance road turnaround on the east side of the SAR; Sidewalk paving re -construction at Nova Academy on the corner of Ross Street and 41 St.: and Anticipated improvements at the driveway approach to the County of Orange Sherriff's Department Complex on W. Santa Ana Blvd. rd Modification of scope of drainage improvements to rely less on Appendix P to the EIR, the connections to storm drain network Drainage Technical Report, and use surface conveyance in indicate storm drain streets to maintain existing drainage 13 improvements on many patterns to the maximum extent No Change streets outside the project practicable while addressing surface alignment. storm water drainage needs generated by the Project, or change in drainage patterns caused solely by the Project. 14 Single contact wire in PE Two -wire catenary in the PE ROW. No Change. ROW. Underground fiber optics cable No provision for communications) from SARTC to 15 underground fiber optics OCTA Garden Grove Bus Annex No Change. cable north of PE ROW, approximately 1500 feet west of Harbor Blvd PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS The additional design modifications from 60% design would result in the following changes to proposed physical improvements from 30% design: Track shifted to the center of the PE ROW starting from 140 -feet east of Santa Ana River (SAR) Bridge to 5th Street at -grade crossing resulting in a slight track shift to the southern side of the PE ROW between 51 Street at -grade crossing and the MSF. No private property is required and the shift occurs within the existing APE. Revised location of the traction power substation (TPSS) unit. 4 formerly proposed at the north east corner of Santa Ana Blvd. and N. Garfield Ave. to the north side of the parking structure at Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC), adjacent to N. Santiago Street Project footprint modifications and anticipated revised construction limits are also proposed in the advancement of 30% design to 60% design. These include: Trenching in the public right-of-way (ROW) for drainage improvements and utility connections at West 51 Street; Paving, striping, signing, curb ramp and driveway approach improvements at: N. Harbor Boulevard (Blvd.), N. Western Avenue (Ave.), N. Forest Street (St.), N. Pacific Ave., N. Hesperian St., N. Bristol St., N. Baker St., N. Spurgeon St., French St., N. Minter St., 41 St., E. Santa Ana Blvd., and Santiago St.; Temporary Construction Easements (TCE) for a maintenance road turnaround on the east side of the SAR; Sidewalk paving re -construction at Nova Academy on the corner of Ross Street and 41 St.: and Anticipated improvements at the driveway approach to the County of Orange Sherriff's Department Complex on W. Santa Ana Blvd. rd OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAddendum OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS The additional modifications from 60% design would result in the following changes to the Project's operations from 30% design: Reducing the maximum speed within the PE ROW from 45 miles per hour (mph) to 44 mph Implementation of Traffic Signal Priority (TSP) at all traffic signals along the route including at Main Street, Broadway, and Bristol Street Supplemental Noise and Vibration Analysis The following describes the sensitive receptor locations analyzed in the context of this analysis, as compared to the previously approved analysis with respect to potential changes to noise and vibration at these locations. Noise Sensitive Areas and Receptor Locations In the prior noise and vibration analyses (2015 EA/EIR and June 2016 Supplement), noise sensitive areas (or NSAs) were identified within the Study Area that could potentially be impacted from the Build Alternatives. The NSA's were defined by identifying noise sensitive land uses - residential, educational, recreation, churches (places of worship), etc. - within the defined screening distance of the project. Within each of these NSAs, URS modeled between one and nine specific receptor locations (e.g., R1, R2). Of the 21 NSAs identified by URS, only 10 are located within the area potentially affected by the currently proposed minor modifications. Table B lists each of the 10 NSA's and the corresponding receptors (e.g., R1, R2) within each NSA, and provides a description of the receptors included within each of the 10 NSAs. Figure 5 from the February 2012 Noise and Vibration Technical Report (URS Corporation), showing the locations of the NSAs and modeled receptors, is provided in Attachment A. Table B: Noise Sensitive Areas and Modeled Receptors Potentially Affected by Proposed Minor Modifications/Engineering Refinement NSA Rec. Description 1 R1 Single family residential land use located south of PE ROW at western end of the proposed alignment. R2 There are 14 housing units within NSA -1. R3 Mobile home park located north of Wllowick Municipal Golf Course and south of PE ROW. There are 2 24 mobile homes within the screening distance. Note that a 6 -foot concrete wall was observed betweenR4PEROWandthemobilehomepark. R5 3 Mobile home park and single family residential land use located north or PE ROW and west of SantaR6AnaRiver. There are 68 mobile homes and 1 single family residential unit within NSA -3. R7 4 R8 Spurgeon Intermediate School athletic fields bounded by Fairview St., PE ROW, Santa Ana River, and Rg 5th St. There are no structures within 350 feet from the proposed alignment. 5 R11 Small Wonders Children's Center, Templo Calvario Assembly of God, and Olive Crest AcademylocatedsouthofPEROWandeastofFairviewSt. 6 R10 Single family residential land uses located north of PE ROW, east of Fairview St at the end of 7th St. There are 7 housing units within NSA -6. 7 R12 Single family residential land uses located north of PE ROW, east of Fairview St at the end of 6th St. There are 4 housing units within NSA -7. 5 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAddendum Table B: Noise Sensitive Areas and Modeled Receptors Potentially Affected by Proposed Minor Modifications/Engineering Refinement NSA Rec. Description 8 R13 One (1) single family residential unit within Manufacturing/Industrial Services land use located between Impact Prior to Mitigation) 5th St and PE ROW, east of Hawley St. 2 53 NSA -9 includes single family residences and commercial/industrial uses north of the proposed O&M 9 R15 Facility between English St. and Fairlawn Ave. There are approximately 20 housing units within NSA -9. 56 Moderate Impact Currently, the proposed O&M site is used as the metal recycling facility and is a significant source of R2 2 noise. 10 R14 Four (4) single family residential units located south of 4th SUPE ROW. Welding facility is located at the N/A 52 corner of 4th St. and Daisy Ave. The metal recycling facility is across from PE ROW. Source: URS, February 2012 (Appendix J of the 2015 EA/EIR) Streetcar Noise Analysis The proposed minor modifications described in Table A could affect the noise levels previously predicted and documented in the June 2016 Noise and Vibration memorandum. A noise analysis was conducted that provides a comparison of the noise findings associated with the 30% design and with the 60% design. The following presents the results of this analysis. Approved LPA Train Operation Noise Levels Table C lists the noise levels calculated by HDR (June 2016) for the 30% design. Only the receptors included within the potentially affected area associated with the proposed project modifications (PE ROW) are listed. Table C: 30 Percent Design LPA Train Operation Noise Levels NSA Rec. Land Use Cat. Existing Noise Level d BA) Predicted Project Only Noise Level Ldn or Lday (dBA) Streetcar Audible Ops Warning Crossing O&M Overall Project Noise Impact Prior to Mitigation) R1 2 53 56 N/A N/A N/A 56 Moderate Impact 1 R2 2 52 52 N/A N/A N/A 52 No Impact R3 2 51 52 N/A N/A N/A 52 No Impact 2 R4 2 50 52 N/A N/A N/A 52 No Impact R5 2 51 54 N/A N/A N/A 54 Moderate Impact 3 R6 2 52 59 N/A N/A N/A 59 Moderate Impact R7 2 50 64 N/A N/A N/A 64 Severe Impact R8 3 52 53 65 50 N/A 65 Moderate Impact 4 R9 3 52 50 63 54 N/A 64 Moderate Impact 5 R11 3 46 50 58 43 N/A 59 Moderate Impact 6 R10 2 53 59 70 51 N/A 70 Severe Impact 7 R12 2 50 61 75 49 N/A 75 Severe Impact 8 R13 2 55 58 69 44 N/A 69 Severe Impact 9 R15 2 67 1 N/A I N/A I N/A 1 66 1 66 Moderate Impact 10 R14 2 58 1 55 1 N/A I N/A 1 63 1 64 Severe Imp Source: HDR, June 2016 Notes: Land Use Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. Land Use Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. Ll OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAddendum No Impact: A proposed project is considered to have no noise impact since, on average, the introduction of the project will result in an insignificant increase in the number of people highly annoyed by the new noise. Moderate Impact: The change in the cumulative noise level is noticeable to most people, but may not be sufficient to cause strong, adverse reactions from the community. Severe Impact: A significant percentage of people would be highly annoyed by the new noise. Noise Evaluation of Proposed Minor Project Modifications DECREASE IN SPEED Reducing the maximum speed within the PE ROW from 45 mph to 44 mph would have no effect on the streetcar operation, audible warning, crossing, or operations and maintenance (O&M) noise levels. CENTERLINE RE -ALIGNMENT (ALIGNMENT SHIFT) This proposed modification would shift the railroad alignment within the PE ROW. Table D, Comparison of the 30 Percent Design and 60 Percent Design Alignment Noise Levels, lists the distances from the modeled receivers to the 30% design alignment and the distances to the currently proposed 60% design alignment. Table D also lists the streetcar operation noise levels associated with the 30% and 60% design streetcar alignments. Table D: Comparison of the 30 Percent Design and 60 Percent Design Alignment Noise Levels (d BA) Receiver Land Use Cat. 30% Design Distance to Track Centerline (ft) 60% Design Distance to Track Centerline (ft) 30% Design Streetcar Operations Noise Level 60% Design Streetcar Operations Noise Level Change in Streetcar Operations Noise Level R1 2 89 89 56 56 0 R2 2 90 95 52 51 1 R3 2 92 91 52 52 0 R4 2 92 89 52 52 0 R5 2 55 49 54 54 0 R6 2 49 49 59 59 0 R7 2 37 37 64 64 0 R8 3 92 85 53 53 0 R9 3 401 370 50 50 0 R11 3 134 115 51 52 1 R10 2 55 66 58 57 1 R12 2 49 58 59 58 1 R13 2 60 78 58 57 1 R15 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A R14 2 110 97 55 56 1 Source: HDR (June 2016 and February 2017). Table E lists the noise levels associated with the vehicle audible warning, and the distances from the modeled receivers to the 30% and 60% design streetcar alignments. 7 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAddendum Table E: Comparison of the 30 Percent Design and 60 Percent Design Alignment Audible Warning Noise Levels (dBA) Receiver Land Use Cat. 30% Design Alignment Distance to Track Centerline ft) 60% Design Alignment Distance to Track Centerline ft) 30% Design Alignment Audible Warning Noise Level 60% Design Alignment Audible Warning Noise Level Change in Streetcar Operations Noise Level R8 3 92 85 65 65 0 R9 3 401 370 63 63 0 R11 1 3 1 165 1 115 1 59 1 60 1 1 R10 2 49 66 69 68 1 R12 2 30 58 73 72 1 R13 2 60 78 69 68 1 Source: HDR (June 2016 and February 2017). COMBINED EFFECT Table F lists the noise levels calculated by HDR (June 2016) for the 60% design. Table G provides a comparison between the noise levels calculated for the 30% and 60% design streetcar alignments. The impacts for the 60% design are the same as those for the 30% design. Table F: 60 Percent Design LPA Train Operation Noise Levels NSA Rec. Land Use Cat. Existing Noise Level d BA) Streetcar Ops Predicted Project Only Noise Ldn or Lday (dBA) Audible Warning Crossing O&M Level Overall Project Noise Impact Priorto Mitigation) R1 2 53 56 N/A N/A N/A 56 Moderate Impact 1 R2 2 52 51 N/A N/A N/A 51 No Impact R3 2 51 52 N/A N/A N/A 52 No Impact 2 R4 2 50 52 N/A N/A N/A 52 No Impact R5 2 51 54 N/A N/A N/A 54 Moderate Impact 3 R6 2 52 59 N/A N/A N/A 59 Moderate Impact R7 2 50 64 N/A N/A N/A 64 Severe Impact R8 3 52 53 65 50 N/A 65 Moderate Impact 4 R9 3 52 50 63 54 N/A 64 Moderate Impact 5 R11 3 46 52 60 43 N/A 60 Moderate Impact 6 R10 2 53 57 68 51 N/A 69 Severe Impact 7 R12 2 50 58 72 49 N/A 72 Severe Impact 8 R13 2 55 57 68 44 N/A 68 Severe Impact 9 R15 2 67 N/A N/A N/A 66 66 Moderate Impact 10 R14 2 58 56 N/A N/A 63 64 Severe Impact Source: URS (February 2012) and HDR (February 2017). vi OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAddendum Table G: Comparison of the 30 Percent Design and 60 Percent Design Train Operation Noise Levels (Unmitigated) NSA Rec. Land Use Cat. Existing Noise Level d BA) 30% Design 60% Design Overall Project Overall Project Noise Noise 30% Design Project Impact no mitigation) 60% Design Project Impact no mitigation) Impact R1 2 53 56 56 Moderate Impact Moderate Impact 1 R2 2 52 52 51 No Impact No Impact 63 51 R3 2 51 52 52 No Impact No Impact 2 R4 2 50 52 52 No Impact No Impact 55 R5 2 51 54 54 Moderate Impact Moderate Impact 3 R6 2 52 59 59 Moderate Impact Moderate Impact R7 2 50 64 64 Severe Impact Severe Impact R8 3 52 65 65 Moderate Impact Moderate Impact 4 R9 3 52 64 64 Moderate Impact Moderate Impact 5 R11 3 46 60 60 Moderate Impact Moderate Impact 6 R10 2 53 69 69 Severe Impact Severe Impact 7 R12 2 50 1 73 1 72 1 Severe Impact I Severe Impact 8 R13 2 55 69 68 Severe Impact Severe Impact 9 R15 2 67 66 66 Moderate Impact Moderate Impact 10 R14 2 58 64 64 Severe Impact Severe Impact Source: HDR (June 2016 and February 2017). The following noise attenuation features that were previously identified in the June 2016 memorandum would be required to reduce the project's severe impacts: 1. Wayside Noise Barriers The FTA Manual indicates that the shielding attenuation provided by a wayside noise barrier for the first row receptors would be 4.5 dBA. The 2016 noise analysis identified the need for noise barriers for receptor locations R7, R10, R12, R13, and R14. Table H lists the train noise levels for the 60% design after the wayside noise barrier has been implemented. Receivers R7 and R14 are reduced to moderate after the implementation of the proposed design feature. Attachment D shows the locations and heights for the proposed barriers. Table H: 60 Percent Design Noise Levels — After Wayside Noise Barrier Design Features NSA Rec. Land Use Cat. Existing Noise Level dBA) Predicted Project Only Noise Level Ldn or Lday (d BA) Impact Overall Streetcar Audible Project Ops Warning Crossing O&M Noise 3 R7 2 50 59 N/A N/A N/A 59 Moderate Impact 6 R10 2 53 52 63 51 N/A 64 Severe Impact 7 R12 2 50 53 67 49 N/A 68 Severe Impact 8 R13 2 55 52 63 44 N/A 63 Severe Impact 10 R14 2 58 53 N/A N/A 59 60 Moderate Impact Source: URS (February 2012) and HDR (February 2017). VJ OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAddendum 2. Vehicle Audible Warning Exemption at Grade Crossings The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requires that a Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) operating on a dedicated right-of-way, sound an audible warning when approaching public road crossings (CPUC General Order 143-B, Rule 7.09). One of the recommended mitigation measures for noise and vibration in the Final EIR document, is that the City of Santa Ana request the CPUC to consider an exemption from this rule for at -grade crossings at 5th Street and Fairview. The request will provide sufficient justification and demonstrate that safety would not be compromised at these crossings as a result of the exemption. If an exemption is established and approved at each crossing, the required sounding of audible warning by the vehicle would be exempted except in an emergency situation. Table I lists the train noise levels after the audible warning exemption measure has been implemented. As shown, receivers R10 and R13 are reduced to a moderate impact after the implementation of the proposed mitigation measure. 10 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAddendum Table I: 60 Percent Design Noise Levels — After Vehicle Audible Warning Exemption Mitigation NSA Rec. Land Use Cat. Existing Noise Level d BA) Predicted Project Only Noise Level Ldn or Lday (dBA) Impact Overall Streetcar Audible Project Ops Warning Crossing O&M Noise 3 R7 2 50 64 N/A N/A N/A 64 Severe Impact 6 R10 2 53 57 0 51 N/A 58 Moderate Impact 7 R12 2 50 58 0 49 N/A 59 Severe Impact 8 R13 2 55 57 0 44 N/A 57 Moderate Impact 10 R14 2 58 56 N/A N/A 63 64 Severe Impact Source: URS (February 2012) and HDR (February 2017). Table J lists the combined noise levels after implementing wayside barriers and the vehicle audible warning exemption. As shown, all severely impacted receivers are reduced to moderate or no impact after the implementation of proposed mitigation. Eliminating the vehicle audible warning at receptors R10 and R13 would reduce the noise impact from severe to moderate. Therefore, no barriers are recommended at those locations. Table J: Summary of Noise Impacts for 60 Percent Design — With Noise Attenuation Measures NSA Rec. Land Use Cat. Existing Noise Level d BA) Predicted Project Only Noise Level Ldn or Lday (d BA) Impact Overall Streetcar Audible Project Ops Warning Crossing O&M Noise 3 R7 2 50 59 N/A N/A N/A 59 Moderate Impact 6 R10 2 53 57 0 51 N/A 58 Moderate Impact 7 R12 2 50 53 0 49 N/A 55 Moderate Impact 8 R13 2 55 57 0 44 N/A 57 Moderate Impact 10 R14 2 58 53 N/A N/A 59 60 Moderate Impact Source: URS (February 2012) and HDR (February 2017). Streetcar Vibration Analysis The proposed minor modifications described in Table A could affect the vibration levels previously predicted and documented in the June 2016 Noise and Vibration memorandum. A vibration analysis was conducted that provides a comparison of the findings associated with the 30% design and with the 60% design. The following presents the results of this analysis. Evaluation of Proposed Minor Project Modifications DECREASE IN SPEED Reducing the maximum speed within the PE ROW from 45 mph to 44 mph would have no effect on the streetcar vibration levels. 11 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAddendum CENTERLINE RE -ALIGNMENT (ALIGNMENT SHIFT) This proposed modification would shift the railroad alignment within the PE ROW. Table K lists the vibration levels calculated by HDR (June 2016) for the 30% design. Only the receptors included within the affected area (PE ROW) are listed. Table K: 30 Percent Design LPA Train Operation Vibration Levels NSA Rec. Land Use Cat. Transit Vehicle Speed mph) Vibration Level (VdB) Vibration Impact 60% Design R1 2 45 58 None 1 R2 2 45 68 None R3 2 45 68 None 2 R4 2 45 68 None Operations R5 2 45 70 None 3 R6 2 45 71 None Cat. R7 2 45 63 None R8 3 45 66 None 4 R9 3 45 59 None 5 R11 3 45 63 None 6 R10 2 45 71 None 7 R12 2 45 71 None 8 R13 2 45 70 None 9 R15 2 45 66 None 10 R14 2 45 65 None Source: HDR, June 2016 Table L lists the distances from the modeled receivers to the 30% design alignment and the distances to the currently proposed 60% design alignment. Table L also lists the streetcar operation vibration levels associated with the 30% and 60% design streetcar alignments. Table L: Comparison of 30 Percent Design and 60 Percent Design Streetcar Vibration Levels 12 30% Design 60% Design Alignment Alignment Change in 60% Design Streetcar Streetcar Streetcar 30% Design Distance to Operations Operations Operations Land Use Distance to Track Track Vibration Level Vibration Level Vibration NSA Rec. Cat. Centerline (ft) Centerline (ft) VdB) VdB) Level (VdB) R1 2 89 89 58 58 0 1 R2 2 90 95 68 68 0 R3 2 92 91 68 68 0 2 R4 2 92 89 68 68 0 RS 2 55 49 70 71 1 3 R6 2 49 49 71 71 0 R7 2 37 37 63 63 0 R8 3 92 85 66 67 1 4 R9 3 401 370 59 59 0 12 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAddendum 5 R11 3 134 115 63 63 0 6 R10 2 55 66 71 70 1 7 R12 2 49 58 71 71 0 8 R13 2 60 78 70 69 1 9 R15 2 N/A N/A 66 66 0 10 R14 2 110 97 65 65 0 Source: HDR (June 2016 and February 2017). The impact threshold for Land Use Category 2 is 72 VdB and for Land Use Category 3 is 75 VdB. As shown in Table L, the vibration levels are below the impact threshold at all receptor locations. Therefore, no minimization design features are required. Traction Power Substation Noise Analysis The noise sources on traction power substation (TPSS) units are the transformer hum and noise from cooling systems. The wall mounted HVAC units are the primary noise source on the proposed TPSS units. The noise level at a distance of 40 ft from the cooling fan of a Gold Line TPSS unit in South Pasadena was measured to be 51 dBA, which is equivalent to 49 dBA at a distance of 50 ft. This measured noise level is consistent with the maximum sound level limit of 50 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from any surface included in the purchase agreement of TPSS units used in several recently completed light rail projects. The audible noise from the TPSS unit in South Pasadena was caused by a ventilation fan. The hourly TPSS noise levels are converted to daily Ldn noise levels using the following formula: Leq Leq+10\ Ldn= 10*Log I15*1010 +910 10 I-13.8 Using an hourly noise level of 50 dBA, the Ldn noise level for the TPSS units is 56 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The 60% design plans move TPSS unit 4 to the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center SARTC) on the north side of the parking structure adjacent to Santiago Street. At this location the TPSS unit would be located within 100 feet of the main SARTC structure and 350 feet frorr the nearest residences. Table M shows the predicted noise level at the TPSS sites assuming the units are specified to have a maximum sound level of 50 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from any surface. As shown, by orienting the TPSS units so that the noise from the HVAC units is directed away from the sensitive uses, the noise levels at all receptors closest to the TPSS units would result in no impacts. 13 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAddendum Table M: Summary of Traction Power Substation Noise Impacts TPSS Distance to closest land use (feet) Land Use Cat. Existing Noise Level Ldn or Lday (dBA) TPSS Noise Level FTA Impact Criteria Ldn or Lday dBA) Impact 1 75 2 50 42 dBA Ldn 54 No Impact 2 100 2 57 40 dBA Ldn 57 No Impact 3 200 3 61 38 dBA Lday 64 No Impact 4 1 100 1 3 1 54 1 44 dBA Lday 60 No Impact Source: URS (February 2012) and HDR (June 2016). Notes: TPSS#1 and TPSS#2 noise levels are based on an orientation where the HVAC units are located on the opposite side of and directed away from the closest receptors. Land Use Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. Land Use Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. FTA Impact Criteria: The noise level below which no impact would occur. Based on the land use category and the existing noise level. No Impact: A proposed project is considered to have no noise impact since, on average, the introduction of the project will result in an insignificant increase in the number of people highly annoyed by the new noise. Moderate Impact: The change in the cumulative noise level is noticeable to most people, but may not be sufficient to cause strong, adverse reactions from the community. Severe Impact: A significant percentage of people would be highly annoyed by the new noise. The City of Santa Ana's Municipal Code noise limit for nighttime activities near sensitive land uses is 50 dBA for events that occur for more than 30 minutes in a one hour period. This limit is reduced by 5 dBA, to 45 dBA, for noise consisting entirely of impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, or any combination thereof. TPSS units 1 and 2 are located in residential areas. As the Ldn noise levels listed in Table M are 6 dB higher than the hourly Leq noise levels, the TPSS nighttime hourly noise levels would range from 34 to 40 dBA Leq. Therefore, the sensitive land uses located within the vicinity of the proposed TPSS units would not be exposed to noise levels exceeding 45 dBA. However, it is recommended that the following measures be implemented to ensure that the impact is below a level of significance: Orient the TPSS unit so that the HVAC units, the primary source of noise, are pointing away from the nearest residence. At the residential locations, the TPSS units will be designed so as not to exceed a maximum noise level of 45 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the unit or at the setback line of the nearest building, whichever is closer. 14 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAddendum Attachment A Noise Sensitive Receptors and Modeled Locations from February 2012 Noise and Vibration Technical Report) I LL] QLU 0 N N 3 ca 2,r F L - 71 71 I i i t p1 1: t f W e e O O P T 0 0 ph 6 m m > ; pNp 2 cR vii N m v5 in ij 7 r 1 ^ M • I Xr B mpOL, Oib .' R k4 ya 'Y to q 0.y n1.. IiAW afST . i%lr"' gZL` R m ern Z O OIV$ a r,. r _ I. III knik y r Wz' W n ax F 15 11 t 4 N N N N NItl m E 8 w 'Pi ili Q E b z z 1 2 Z Z O O a 11111,*LL{VSN Mk 1 a" I•. 1 Y 4 .w I 1 Y a O O a Z a ft t L m ay1g ymI isyf'{ Sar` a 1 Y 1 ws-vsN v, Y• E Y m S _ IJ 4 hk.•aI1Ny A 314 FI'Yen". m a 0. MIA N 1.1 l,a wc 3 z°zoo2 o Ilk- Y LI,-.<. rfi,' t T' r tr ex 1 0f1i LU y.• v. ti° i a III F f"',r.• ° l 5P LJw Y" {$ Zti i ti C3 i ,r m1g C • Y nrf a m e a Z i e azsmay, z E N z m LL LL 0. Wa ZA! 200 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAddendum Attachment B 60% Design Streetcar Alignment OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAddendum Attachment C Noise and Vibration Calculations @@ u@@ u u u@ u n E n n n n n nn n n m m E m m E E E mn0EEEEEaamaavvv@ vE30000ov0> v v>>> v> z z z z z mm m m 0 mmm m O m H ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 V ll1 ll1 ll1 w ll1 w ca/ 1 a -I N M C V1 tD n W Q1 O Z 00c 0 u` 00c a x m H ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 V ll1 ll1 ll1 w ll1 w ca/ 1 a -I N M C V1 tD n W Q1 O Z 0 txovCC v o f6 0 m O @ O u o o Ta @ v v f6 O u o Ta @ c m C Y n Y O C 6 v m W O v f6 u o c m n Y C 6 v m W O a N M M a M OD n? @ O txo D K L O H N O uu 0 0 c fa m m 3 Ta u m M 01 1 a L 00 1 n 01 01 l0 I1 W u1 V u1 f6 HLnNL Ta a -I N M O] 0) rC rC rC rC rC rC is uv N is m m 0v L V 0 a -I N M C V1 t0 n W Q1 H 3 ON 6NH n O N CZZY vv i Z N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C f6 -6 txo Q M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M C M V K [C [C [C [C [C NK a -I N M C V1 tD n W m Orl QM Z Y Q Q Q E - -- E E E EuEQNEEN— v%%% v v v is N3mooommvmmmmmmvm a > > > > 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 a m 01 V I V O 01 N W V O O Z O 00 N c N o a m N rn a U mc m O O] N O] a x a Y w O txo H ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 ll1 V ll1 ll1 ll1 w ll1 w N Cf6J N U N N M V lf1 w n W Ol I Or -I Nrl Mr -I Cr -I rl txoC Q 6Nr 6 ca/ 1Z M C V1 tD n W Ql 0 0 u u u u u u u u u m u u u m u m u m u m m m m m co m m a m a m a m a a a a a Y Ca C a a a Y flC. flC. fl. Y CC CC CC CC CCCCC a YN N N N YN a LI YR N YR LI a Y R Y R Y R YR YN C N N N N N N C C C C C C C C O Z O Z O Z 0 0 O O 0O m m m c c c o a a o a a o a a u` u` u` m m m c0 XV1V1W N C W w N w C O v v x v N N N 6 C 6 N 6 Ya m QI v a. rl rl rl rl W N a. rl rl rl rl N N a. rl rl rl rl C mm C O JO C E00xu u' m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m fa c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c E3 z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° Y v O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O vN Y6U N N N N N N N M M M N N N N N cf6J ca/ 1 a -I N M C V1 tD n W Q1 O Z cv2 @0000 72 v 0 CL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 aaaaaaaaaaa v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 yQaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa u K [C [C [C [C [C NK a -I N M C V1 tD n W m Orl QM Z cO3 n n n n O O N to OO N m O OD u1 V Z 4 j O @ TTaoc3@ h0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 1 n to l0 n n to to to f6 m6 f6 V 00 00 N> N @ W 01 01 W V V M OO O 0 p fa N N 0 N N I1 M O M t6 00 n n 01 01 l0 I1 W H ma, u N N a -I N M O] 0) N V Y0cCCCCCCO O O N O N L H ry ca -I N M ZT CO Q1 Waif O N O u Z Z 6 t6 u' m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m fa c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c E3 z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° co vJ Y vN Y ct6J ca/ 1 a -I N M W Q1 O Z WE a« 7F 7F 7F 7F 7F 7F 7F 7F 7F mwaa o m z 3 ma w c m aam s o m m a m ry o 0 0 mm 'a2 w a EE- a 01 > > > > > > > > o o N N N N N N N3 m maaa `wc mo 0 o a a a a aammmmmmmmm o aZ 3 v t; 0 0 0 0 '^ cO x u c0 0 0 o m m o aaa x i co m m n o 0 o m m m a m a o a — c_ `oan a a s aCuawum nm a OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAddendum Attachment D Recommended Noise Barrier Locations liI 11 IIII11111 III II I I I I I I CEM 1111111111 1111111111111II 1111111111111111111111111111111111777iiiiTTrr7-1 II 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111 I I I/ I I I'I 11,,,,,,,,,, ttL1I I1II 11 yl` I1_ -- 1 ox r 11 0 111111111111I y It 1 i r_- 1 r - 1 1 I-LLLLLLJI I_ I 77II jl r t_l I I I I V U 1 I IJJ_1 IJ JJJJ_ lJJ.1. OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNNoiseandVibrationTechnicalAddendum Attachment E TPSS Locations d'YUNVHU DN 0 y y} pa P y'c `6• Vi l Si 15N3WLLtlOW 15NON3tld • osoca LS NfVW O A SOAtlMOVOlIB I CO lS SSON • • U 9 CVmU 1S tl3MOl! 3 1SlOLSItlB • Q m A O U jF 00 0 CSO AA31AtlMd OC STREETCAR SANTA ANA/ GARDEN GROVE PROJECT Cultural Resources Technical Memo Update JR, Submitted by Orange County Transportation Authority 2/21/2017 OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNCulturalResourcesTechnicalMemoUpdate Memo Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 Project: OCTA Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project To: Mary Shavalier/Program Manager, OCTA From: Nina Delu /Environmental Planner - Cultural Resources Lead, HDR Subject: Cultural Resources Technical Memo Update Background In July of 2016, HDR performed a cultural resources technical analysis re-evaluation in response to advancements in engineering by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) on the Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project (Project). The purpose of that 2016 analysis was to identify whether any of the proposed minor design modifications to the adopted Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) would affect the previous findings regarding cultural resources (both historic and archaeological) within the previously -approved Area of Potential Effects (APE), and the revised APE to reflect design modifications. That updated cultural resources analysis confirmed that the proposed engineering refinements to the Project did not change the previous conclusions regarding cultural resources and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) recommended that there would be no adverse effects within the expanded APE under NEPA and a less than significant impact would remain the finding for the design modifications within the expanded APE under CEQA. The sensitivity of the area for archaeological resources and the recommendation for archaeological monitoring to be conducted for earth -disturbing activities that could encounter previously undisturbed soils remained unchanged and consistent with the 2015 EA/EIR. On October 14, 2016, the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with the findings of that Cultural Resources Technical Memo Update (OHP reference number FTA111011B, see Attachment A). In regards to the revised APE, the SHPO noted that "the APE should include the entirety of individual resources and historic properties located within it. As shown on sheet 4 of 15 of the APE, only part of the Pacific Electric Railroad Bridge (P-30-161847) is located within the APE. The APE should be expanded to include the whole property." The Project has since advanced with the completion of the 60% design. OCTA, as the agency responsible for design and implementation of the Project, is again proposing minor design modifications to the adopted LPA comprised of physical and operational improvements. This memo reviews the new design modifications and their potential to affect the previous findings regarding cultural resources (both historic and archaeological) within the previously -approved APE, and, where necessary, revises the APE to reflect these design modifications. February 8, 2017 1 1 Minor Design Modifications The following provides a description of the proposed minor design modifications that OCTA is proposing in response to advancements in the project's engineering design to 60%. Operational Improvements: Two changes to the Project's operations are proposed as part of the 2017 modifications: 1) Streetcar Maximum Operating Speed has been reduced from 45 to 44 mph in PE ROW. 2) Traffic signal priority at all traffic signals along the route including Main Street, Broadway, and Bristol Street. The TSP extends a green phase or shortens an opposing green phase by as much as 20 seconds. The two operational improvements are minor in nature and do not affect the existing cultural resources findings or necessitate any change to the APE. Physical Improvements: Design modifications would result in the following changes to the physical improvements described in the LPA: 1) Track shifted to the center of the PE ROW starting from 140 -feet east of Santa Ana River SAR) Bridge to 51 Street at -grade crossing resulting in a slight track shift to the southern side of the PE ROW between 5"' Street at -grade crossing and the MSF. No private property is required and the shift occurs within the existing APE. 2) No change to the number of TPSS or locations, with the exception of TPSS 4 slated to be built on the northeast corner of Santa Ana Boulevard and N. Garfield Street and now proposed to be built on the north side of the parking structure at the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC), adjacent to Santiago Street (Figure 1). The new location of TPSS 4 is within the limits of the previously approved APE. 3) Project footprint modifications and anticipated revised construction limits are also proposed in the advancement of 30% design to 60% design. These include: Trenching in the public right-of-way (ROW) for drainage improvements and utility connections at West 51 Street; Paving, striping, signing, curb ramp and driveway approach improvements at: N. Harbor Boulevard (Blvd.), N. Western Avenue (Ave.), N. Forest Street (St.), N. Pacific Ave., N. Hesperian St., N. Bristol St., N. Baker St., N. Spurgeon St., French St., N. Minter St., 41 St., E. Santa Ana Blvd., and Santiago St.; Temporary Construction Easements (TCE) for a maintenance road turnaround on the east side of the SAR; Sidewalk paving re -construction at Nova Academy on the corner of Ross Street and 4"' St.; and Anticipated improvements at the driveway approach to the County of Orange Sherriffs Department Complex on W. Santa Ana Blvd. Assessing Effects of the Minor Design Modifications The track shift discussed above (#1) occurs within the existing APE and there are no previously identified cultural resources in the area east of the SAR Bridge. As such, this proposed design modification does not directly or indirectly affect the existing cultural resource findings since it will not have a visible and/or audible or atmospheric impact or vibration impacts from construction on any previously identified historic property, nor necessitate a change in the APE. The change of TPSS location discussed above (#2) is to a new location within the existing APE limits (within APN 398-351-04, Sheet 15 of 15 of the APE map; also see Figure 1). The TPSS sites for the Project are small mundane utilitarian elements intended to match the existing setting within the APE. The TPSS 4 site would be visually consistent with other objects and equipment located along the sidewalks and ROW, such as generators and telecommunication equipment. Since TPSS 4 will be constructed within an existing parking lot at the modern SARTC facility, it will not have a visible and/or audible or atmospheric impact or vibration impact from construction on any previously identified historic property. Therefore this change in location does not necessitate a change in the APE. Figure 1. Proposed new location of TPSS 4 at the SARTC, just north of the parking structure. The proposed Project footprint modifications and anticipated revised construction limits described in #3 above) associated with paving, striping, signing, curb ramp and driveway approach improvements, as well as the area for trenching related to drainage improvements and utility connections are limited to areas within the public ROW. Since the work proposed is temporary in nature, and would not require acquisition or physical alterations with any surrounding historical properties, the only potential for an adverse impact to occur during construction would result from indirect vibration effects that cause physical damage to historic structures. There have been no historic -era structures identified adjacent to any of the proposed locations. As such, there is a change needed to include these newly proposed areas within the APE, but there are no additional adjacent parcels that need to be added to the APE for consideration of indirect effects as a result of this proposed work. The Proposed TCE for a maintenance road turnaround on the east side of the SAR (described in 3 above) is located within the mapped boundary of the Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge P-30-161847). The boundary of this resource is comprised of the historic Pacific Electric Bridge and the historic Pacific Electric ROW surrounding the bridge; the TCE is within the historic ROW portion of the resource boundary and approximately 100 ft. northeast of the historic bridge (Figure 2). The feature that qualifies the Old Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge as a historic property, the Pegram truss, is defined by its features of a distinguishable geometric design, with the posts arranged at increasing angles from the vertical chords from the center of the truss towards the ends. These features are most distinguishable at the top of the bridge span. The proposed TCE would be considered temporary since no permanent improvement would occur that would directly effect or physically alter the character -defining feature of the Pacific Electric Railroad Bridge resource. Given the temporary nature of the work, the views of the existing bridge would only be partially obstructed at the base of the bridge and to a limited group of viewers, and for a limited amount of time; therefore, the TCE would not substantially impair the historic bridge's activities, or views of the Pegram truss architecture. The TCE will not adversely affect the integrity or features and attributes that qualify the Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge as a historic property. Thus, there would be no adverse effects resulting from the TCE northeast of the historic Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge. The APE needs to be modified to include this newly proposed TCE within, but there are no additional adjacent parcels that need to be added to the APE for consideration of indirect effects as a result of this proposed work. Figure 2. Proposed new location of TCE at the SAR, just northeast of the location of the Pacific Electric Santa Ana River Bridge (P-30-161847). The proposed sidewalk paving re -construction at Nova Academy on the corner of Ross Street and 41 Street (described in #3 above) is temporary in nature, and would not require acquisition or physical alterations with any surrounding historical properties. The only potential for an adverse impact to occur during construction would result from indirect vibration effects that cause physical damage to historic structures. There have been no historic -era structures identified adjacent to the proposed location and the Nova Academy (APN 398-221-19) was built in 2005. There is a change needed to include APN 398-221-19 within the APE. Anticipated improvements at the driveway approach to the County of Orange Sherriffs Department Complex on W. Santa Ana Boulevard (described in #3 above), and specifically adjacent to the Orange County Coroner's Office (APN 405-201-13), are temporary in nature. They do not require acquisition or physical alterations with any surrounding historical properties. The only potential for an adverse impact to occur during construction would result from indirect vibration effects that cause physical damage to historic structures. There have been no historic - era structures identified adjacent to the driveway approach and the Orange County Coroner's Office (APN 405-201-13) was built in 1981. There is a change needed to include APN 405-201- 13 within the APE. Area of Potential Effects (APE) After reviewing the proposed project changes, the only proposed design modifications that impact the APE are those miscellaneous design modifications for anticipated revised construction limits of the Project which include trenching in public streets for drainage improvements, utility connections, paving, striping, signing, curb ramp and driveway approach improvements, the addition of a TCE for a maintenance road turnaround on the east side of the SAR, sidewalk paving re -construction to match existing at Nova Academy on the corner of Ross Street and 4th Street APN 398-221-19), and anticipated improvements at the driveway approach to the County of Orange Sherriff's Department Complex and specifically the parcel containing the Orange County Coroner's Office on W. Santa Ana Boulevard (APN 405-201-13). The following sheets of the APE map (Attachment B) have been modified to reflect the proposed project changes: Sheet 2: Street improvements proposed within the ROW on Harbor Blvd. are now included within the APE. Sheet 4: In response to the SHPO's 2016 comments regarding the inclusion of the entirety of individual resources and historic properties located within it, the entirety of the Pacific Electric Railroad Bridge (P-30-161847) resource is included within the APE. The proposed TCE is located within the mapped boundary of the Pacific Electric Railroad Bridge, which is now included within the APE, so there are no further modifications to the APE needed to include the TCE area. Sheet 6: Utility connections proposed within the ROW of W. 5"' St. are now included within the APE. Sheet 7: Street improvements proposed within the ROW on N. Western Ave., N. Forest Ave, N. Pacific Ave., N. Hesperian St., and N. Bristol St. are now included within the APE. Sheet 8: Street improvements proposed within the ROW on N. Baker St. are now included within the APE. Additionally, APN 405-201-13 has been added to the APE due to the proposed improvements at the driveway approach that front W. Santa Ana Blvd. Sheet 10: APN 398-221-19 has been added to the APE due to the proposed improvements at the driveway approach that front W. Santa Ana Blvd. Sheet 12: Street improvements proposed within the ROW on N. Spurgeon St., French St., N. Minter St., and E. 4"' St. are now included within the APE. Sheet 13: Street improvements proposed within the ROW on N. Minter St. and Santiago St. are now included within the APE. Sheet 15: Street improvements proposed within the ROW on N. Minter St. and Santiago St. are now included within the APE. Conclusion Minor updates have been made to the APE in response to comments received from the SHPO in October 14, 2016 regarding the comment to include of the entirety of the Pacific Electric Railroad Bridge (P-30-161847) within the APE of the Project, and to address expanded limits of construction for minor surface improvements and utility trenching and consideration of adjacent parcels to paving re -construction at Nova Academy and anticipated driveway approach improvements at the County of Orange Sherriffs Department Complex (and specifically on the APN containing the Orange County's Coroner Office). These changes have been made and the updated APE map set is attached, (see Sheets 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of Attachment B). The expanded 2017 APE does not include any newly identified historic properties from what has been previously reported for the Project. None of the parcels added to the expanded 2017 APE contain buildings that are 50 years of age or older: Nova Academy (APN 398-221-19) built in 2005 Orange County Coroner's Office (APN 405-201-13) built in 1981 Indirect visual and/or audible atmospheric impacts or vibration impacts from changes in construction have been considered in this assessment. There are no known archaeological resources eligible for listing in the NRHP located within the expanded 2017 APE. This current cultural resources analysis confirms that the proposed engineering refinements to the project do not change the previous conclusions regarding cultural resources. No adverse effects are expected for the design modifications under NEPA. Under CEQA, a less than significant impact would remain the finding for the design modifications. The sensitivity of the area for archaeological resources and the recommendation for archaeological monitoring to be conducted for earth -disturbing activities that could encounter previously undisturbed soils remain unchanged and will remain consistent with the 2015 EA/EIR. OCTA I Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway ProjectFNCulturalResourcesTechnicalMemoUpdate July 8, 2016 Revised APE Map July 8, 2016 111 I 1 61 Wry oerom rL U ?,ow QQ LL 1 — ZQ ow 1 wW o w vA V) L 3 a w 00 O 111 I 1 61 Wry oerom rU ?,ow QQ LL 1 — ZQ ow 1 wW o rc V) V) H O 5y.a oerom 0 sgoebo a.9" zz ae ewo s wrn 8^ t usao bgu a0. u oe R p ¢ o-uro 5 arusao erurm s aadwax zar zor $ oro m wr o` 3 aoroaro a - nor aro zw -zor aro _ z-s m O g K o lo-lsrlm €' Zr< s-lsrlm ` F Zw 3 p oz m a rcwr 0W IIIIry N o s HOW LLLo 1 am ZWw o a x O A o a rc NZZN¢ w N 0 3 9 a` w uwc r HET U Slfl ID G 41Hn9 o H%y - _ 4ffi 40 { 4sRRN 6RaIN9 6 2 d b 6 eaa4B1 'Pe ne no 2 E9n n m of S44f 404 Lfl n 12VHpH6' t pn19-o -H N p.1B bVeX J _ - 6 HH-4EJH5 ae E 3 0EoElmla g s lsrlm o Hrmo-lm lo-lsrlm €' lsrlol s-lsrlm ` F 3 eleraewra' 3 E 3 9 a` w uwc r HET U Slfl ID G 41Hn9 o H%y - _ 4ffi 40 { 4sRRN 6RaIN9 6 2 d b 6 eaa4B1 'Pe ne no 2 E9n n m of S44f 404 Lfl n 12VHpH6' t pn19-o -H N p.1B bVeX J _ - 6 HH-4EJH5 ae E 3 0EoElmla g F 9 a` w uwc r HET U Slfl ID G 41Hn9 o H%y - _ 4ffi 40 { 4sRRN 6RaIN9 6 2 d b 6 eaa4B1 'Pe ne no 2 E9n n m of S44f 404 Lfl n 12VHpH6' t pn19-o -H N p.1B bVeX J _ - 6 HH-4EJH5 ae E 3 0EoElmla 9 a` w uwc r HET U Slfl ID G 41Hn9 o H%y - _ 4ffi 40 { 4sRRN 6RaIN9 6 2 d b 6 eaa4B1 'Pe ne no 2 E9n n m of S44f 404 Lfl n 12VHpH6' t pn19-o -H N p.1B bVeX J _ - 6 HH-4EJH5 ae E 3 0EoElmla LJ -442954 rw w9e - 6' C3o m 6 ABX IM X41 Wd n91 Se. 0.a sn 6l.le'C86 6 Jy., v4ekn HP N Bevy Fm 3 O 3 K of a TE Or< Zw ozwwr owaZ ¢ LL LLFOw vV N o j a w a f A oa ? w W< Z K K N W ¢ U O o- lzl o- sl 2s4 4'"s44 4 3 less o-lzlss o-slss alas 4 less o-lzlss o-slss alas 4 llQ^ ISuryull LJ -442954 rw w9e - 6' C3o m 6 ABX IM X41 Wd n91 Se. 0.a sn 6l.le'C86 6 Jy., v4e kn HP N Bevy JJIJJII i 3' 3 3 TE JJIJJII i 6 Iwa9X 4-494 494 494 -494 I1 3 6 Iwa9X 4-494 494 494 -494 I1 e9 4nWry s% Np O NQ KOr< Zwpozama= rcwr O CZLLLL 1OW P am n W Zm oxrcOaooNNQ a O IN u Aga o T osor 3 S h z oe.a r e by ysnao sr z osor D o- yoo Q tt aei 3 3 Pei Ttoy 0'2a @Dh sre N G pSOy T ri iJnOS'T2 41£[ 3 h ya`bue sa'°y 3 sh h Tm e S h m r F P ah hryY e ti Aye 0yrq" 8 Ll 44 t, ltl%l HryR e9 4nWry s% Np NQ O P MerlesW O 15eu Aga o T3 ao-s[ss by D Q Pei tOLLr 9pp Z4-r650Y gefW`0 6 6 9p L'.$y 5445 AY n Q Ol9 i 8 6 a O4-T659Y V Wry L rUrcow o w as LL vA Z w L 3a avow wW w o rc N 11 V)a e,. H 0.i O c rozr o Pg oq a iawwmMx ZP424-Ni m-lxeoo 94Y9CN9 X424 -N9 0 0 3 lnxmo R r e o lo-¢4-rm a1-499rm 4-lsemo tOLLr 9pp Z4-r650Y gefW`0 6 6 9pL'.$y 5445 AY n Q Ol9 i 8 6 a O4-T659Y V Wry rUrcow o as LL 1Z1avow wW o rc N V)a H O e-sme rozr o ozr o m-mreoo iawwmMx ZP424-Ni m-lxeoo 94Y9CN9 X424 -N9 0 0 3 lnxmo e lo-¢4-rm a1-499rm 4-lsemo M uuxgx tOLLr 9pp Z4-r650Y gefW`0 6 6 9p L'.$y 5445 AY n Q Ol9 i 8 6 a O4-T659Y V E -J i tOLLr 9pp Z4-r650Y gefW`0 6 6 9pL'.$y 5445 AY n Q Ol9 i 8 6 a O4-T659Y V Wr r rIUIrcow Z LL LL I IIIrOW f W W K V) V) S IMeXH S 3m S A =e w L 8a 3 o u am F442P[W k H Wr r rIUIrcow Z LL LL I IIIrOW f W W K V) V) S IMeXH F442P[W k H O 3 m e- ose ur Mme 3 ISIleXH 5 - 5 98 pg cTRC[W Lm 1 19, LOO LLM LHlIll H O m e- ose ur 3 ISIleXH 5 - 5 B A& S S O 1 113 442[W K 00 - 88 Oof m a s S riZw pzorcwr ow HOW IIIIry LLLo N o 1 a x O am A o w a 8a 3 00.0 442(6 ZWw NN¢ o O o LI I— e SZI Lm 61 B 6 a aXX o 3 saoo ISIoy,B X 5 &sblS B F 3 S S 1 113 442[W 4 00 - 88 S 1 113 442[W 4 00 - 88 x® 442(6 I, LOG SZI Lm B 6 a aXX o Lam 91. 91. g91-1., b - m -6 111 a 5 o o b 6 3 3 3 av wPdsaru z9— LILLLEtIlL. 11 a 9,- LL 6 e 4ni 6RNJX tl46ajX 8 S Qr-3 dq M 0 ERS F7. LL j 2 01 W< 110 F7. LL 2 01 110 2 01 110 2 01 110 O KZr< Zw Oz wwr ow v N oaZQLLLLV Q F O w 1 WQ Q wa zw, A yyQ Z w a g} Q J0 o AesuJ N 5 Aacuie9N fl n w 0 8 N rime, se S S S S S S S i S S S ISIIa N Ml 111 1111111 111® 1 goolinglill 1111® N rime, se S S S S S S S i S S S ISIIa N Ml 111 1111111 111® goolinglill 1111® N rime, se S S S S S S S i S S S ISIIa N Ml 111 1111111 111® goolinglill 5 uauw+f M111111111117 111 111® 11111111111111110 No Lus T -F—MT- s aaisx S sz aosar z a s,ayae x O KZr< Zw hoz wwr c avow IIIIrrIIIv N o Z Uo 0 W¢fa WWZW o KO A o N W¢ Z w a? a 3 ¢ w00 0 uo e m W m g ulm x El. i IrJ LJ JfCi' Wd 15 aiwo%5 x ED cess sw 8 8 Li oe i IrJ LJ JfCi' Wd 15 aiwo%5 x ED Li oe ta-oo s.,p F m o ya sm/ i IrJ LJ JfCi' a Wd ED Li a Fm -.J -L 0 KZr< Zwooz a wwr wss (¢0W N oaa s{ Z V 0 w C ws o s o m ¢ f 0 W 1 aW K x 3m x n_ Z K W o KO a o A V) w a 8a $ 3 ¢ u 0 s s110, m 9 as o m A+ A 3 x'nA 1 a is mousy hs+s` r r w w w w w w swan w summa m m w w q w w wE oaE o m r tc ac 9PZL w w w wm o oa si F zo-z N Bash St W T V4ZVOEa4 m m A ` 9 9 cTV I /+ SVsn9Nm m oz nW< oz n ( Zm/ w E\0 OC STREETCAR SANTA ANA -GARDEN GROVE PROJECT Traffic Study Addendum is N ORAt o 3 0 Z G t Submitted by IBI GROUP February 7, 2017 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Study Purpose........................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Report Organization............................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 Analysis Methodologies.............................................................................................................................3 2.1 Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification....................................................................................................3 2.1.1 Study Area............................................................................................................................. 3 2.1.2 Traffic Volumes and Geometric Configuration......................................................................4 2.1.3 Methodology and Significance Criteria................................................................................. 4 2.2 Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation Analysis.................................................................................4 2.2.1 Study Area............................................................................................................................. 4 2.2.2 Traffic Volumes and Geometric Configuration...................................................................... 4 2.2.3 Methodology and Significance Criteria................................................................................. 5 2.3 Fairview Street Grade Crossing Analysis................................................................................................ 5 2.3.1 Study Area............................................................................................................................. 5 2.3.2 Traffic Volumes and Geometric Configuration...................................................................... 5 2.3.3 Methodology and Significance Criteria................................................................................. 5 2.4 Traffic Signal Priority Analysis................................................................................................................ 6 2.4.1 Study Area............................................................................................................................. 6 2.4.2 Traffic Volumes and Geometric Configuration...................................................................... 7 2.4.3 Methodology and Significance Criteria................................................................................. 7 2.5 Santa Ana Boulevard Revised Street Design Concept............................................................................8 2.5.1 Study Area............................................................................................................................. 8 2.5.2 Traffic Volumes and Geometric Configuration......................................................................8 2.5.3 Methodology and Significance Criteria................................................................................. 8 3.0 Impact Assessment....................................................................................................................................9 3.1 Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification Impact Analysis..........................................................................9 3.1.1 Intersection Analysis.............................................................................................................. 9 3.1.2 Roadway Segment Analysis................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation Impact Analysis...................................................................10 3.2.1 Intersection Analysis............................................................................................................10 3.3 Fairview Street Grade Crossing Impact Analysis..................................................................................11 3.3.1 Intersection HCM Analysis...................................................................................................11 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 5.0 Conclusions..............................................................................................................................................21 3.3.2 Intersection Queuing Analysis.............................................................................................12 3.4 Traffic Signal Priority Impact Analysis..................................................................................................13 3.4.1 Intersection HCM Analysis...................................................................................................13 3.4.2 Intersection ICU Analysis.....................................................................................................15 3.4.3 TSP Run Time Savings..........................................................................................................16 3.5 Santa Ana Boulevard Street Design Concept Analysis.........................................................................17 3.5.1 Intersection ICU Analysis.....................................................................................................17 3.5.2 Intersection ICU Analysis with TSP......................................................................................18 3.5.3 Intersection HCM Analysis...................................................................................................19 4.0 Mitigation Measures................................................................................................................................20 4.1 Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification Mitigation Measures................................................................20 4.2 Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation Mitigation Measures...........................................................20 4.3 Fairview Grade Crossing Mitigation Measures....................................................................................20 4.4 Transit Signal Priority Mitigation Measures.........................................................................................20 4.5 Street Design Concept Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................20 5.0 Conclusions..............................................................................................................................................21 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum List of Tables Table 3-1 Intersection LOS Summary — Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification............................................................9 Table 3-2 Roadway Segment LOS Summary ...............................................................................................................10 Table 3-3 Intersection LOS Summary — Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation......................................................10 Table 3-4 Intersection LOS Summary — Fairview Street Grade Crossing 11 Table 3-5 Intersection AM Peak Hour Queuing Summary — Fairview Street Grade Crossing..............................12 Ana Boulevard Street Design Concept Plans Table 3-6 Intersection PM Peak Hour Queuing Summary — Fairview Street Grade Crossing...............................13 Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassfication LOS Worksheets Table 3-7 Intersection LOS Summary—Transit Signal Priority HCM Method.............................................................14 Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation LOS Worksheets Table 3-8 Intersection LOS Summary—Transit Signal Priority ICU Methodology......................................................15 Transit Signal Priority LOS Worksheet (HCM Methodology) Table 3-9 Run Time Savings — All Signalized Intersections Along Route.....................................................................16 Transit Signal Priority LOS Worksheets (ICU Methodology) Table 3-10 Run Time Savings— Addition of TSP to Main/Broadway/Bristol..............................................................16 Street Design Concept LOS Worksheets (ICU Methodology) Table 3-11 LOS Summary — Street Design Concept (ICU Methodology)....................................................................17 Street Design Concept LOS Worksheets (HCM Methodology) Table 3-12 LOS Summary — Street Design Concept with TSP (ICU Methodology)......................................................18 Table 3-13 Intersection LOS Summary — Transit Signal Priority and Street Design Concept (HCM Methodology) ...19 Appendices Appendix A—Santa Ana Boulevard Street Design Concept Plans Appendix B - Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassfication LOS Worksheets Appendix C Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation LOS Worksheets Appendix D Transit Signal Priority LOS Worksheet (HCM Methodology) Appendix E Transit Signal Priority LOS Worksheets (ICU Methodology) Appendix F — Street Design Concept LOS Worksheets (ICU Methodology) Appendix G Street Design Concept LOS Worksheets (HCM Methodology) iv Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 1.0 Introduction The cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove, in cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), prepared an Environmental Assessment/Draft Environmental Impact Report (EA/DIER) in May 2014 for a fixed guideway project (Project) that would provide high frequency transit service between the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC) and a new multi -modal transportation center to be located in the city of Garden Grove. As part of the EA/DEIR, a Traffic Impact Assessment (October 2012) was conducted that analyzed a No Build Alternative, a Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative, and two Build Alternatives including Streetcar Alternative 1 and 2. The Build Alternative (Streetcar Alternative 1) was subsequently selected as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Streetcar Alternative 1 includes construction and implementation of a streetcar rail line between Harbor Boulevard and SARTC. Streetcars would follow an east -west alignment on the Pacific Electric right-of-way (PE ROW) from Harbor Boulevard to Raitt Street, then along Santa Ana Boulevard to Ross Street, then in a Santa Ana Boulevard and Fourth Street couplet configuration through the downtown area. The couplet converges on Santa Ana Boulevard at Mortimer Street, where the bi-directional tracks continue on Santa Ana Boulevard to SARTC. Streetcar Alternative 1 is approximately 4.0 miles in length with 20 directional stations spaced at approximately one-third mile intervals. 1.1 Study Purpose The purpose of this Traffic Study Addendum (Addendum) is to update the previous Traffic Impact Assessment based on proposed Project modifications and required additional analyses. The five Project modifications and additional analyses are summarized below: Reclassification of Santa Ana Boulevard —The Project includes a proposal to reclassify Santa Ana Boulevard between Raitt Street and Shelton Streetfrom a four -lane undivided roadwayto a two-lane roadway (divided with a center left turn lane or raised median with left -turn pockets). The Addendum will update both the roadway segment capacity and level of service calculations based on this reclassification. Relocation of Santa Ana Boulevard Stations — The Project proposes to relocate and modify streetcar stations between Ross Street and Main Street. The westbound Ross Street station would be relocated from the far side of Ross Street to the nearside of Ross Street. The four stations of Santa Ana/Broadway, Santa Ana/Main, 4th/Broadway, and 41h/Main would be consolidated to two stations located at Santa Ana/Sycamore and 4th/Sycamore. The intersection level of service results at these intersections will be updated as part of this Addendum to reflect the proposed relocations. Fairview Street Grade Crossing Analysis — As part of the Traffic Impact Assessment, the Fairview Street grade crossing was analyzed based on queues from the upstream Fairview Street/Civic Center Drive intersection. The analysis did not include a detailed evaluation of the interface with the downstream intersection of Fairview Street/5th Street. Due to the proximity of the proposed crossing to the two intersections of Fairview Street/Civic Center Drive and Fairview Street/5th Street, it is anticipated that the 1 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum traffic signals would need to be preempted during streetcar crossing events. The Addendum analyzes the interaction of both intersections with traffic signal preemption. Traffic Signal Priority for Streetcar — The Traffic Impact Assessment conducted for the Project did not assume any traffic signal preemption or priority (TSP) for the streetcar. The Project design concept now calls for TSP to be provided at signalized intersections along the proposed streetcar alignment. The Addendum provides a new analysis at each of the affected intersections along the alignment with TSP implementation. Street Design Concept for Santa Ana Boulevard — The project proposes to reconfigure portions of Santa Ana Boulevard between Raitt Street and SARTC to accommodate a bike lane on the north side of the street throughout the alignment as well as 14 -inch high platforms. The Addendum provides an updated level of service analysis reflecting the proposed geometric configuration. 1.2 Report Organization Chapter 1 Introduction — This chapter provides an introduction to the previous analysis conducted for the Project, the purpose of the Traffic Study Addendum (summary of Project modifications and new analysis), and an overview of the organization of the report. Chapter Analysis Methodologies -Thischapter clescribesthe methodology, analysis procedures, significance criteria, and standards utilized, to evaluate roadway and intersection traffic conditions for each analysis scenario. Chapter 3 Impact Assessment —This chapter describes traffic operational impacts of the four proposed Project modifications and additional analysis scenarios (Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification Analysis, Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation Analysis, Fairview Street Grade Crossing Analysis, Traffic Signal Priority Analysis, and the proposed Santa Ana Boulevard Design Concept). Chapter 4 Mitigation Measures — This section provides an overview of proposed mitigation measures for the Project (if applicable). Chapter 5 Summary and Conclusion —This chapter summarizes analysis presented in the preceding chapters. 2 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 2.0 Analysis Methodologies The traffic analyses prepared for this study were performed in accordance with City of Santa Ana requirements and the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) (OCTA 2015) requirements as listed in Chapter 2 of the Traffic Impact Assessment. Detailed information on specific methodologies, standards, and thresholds used as part of this Addendum are provided below for each of the analysis scenarios. 2.1 Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification 2.1.1 Study Area The reclassification of Santa Ana Boulevard between Raitt Street and Shelton Street would affect the following intersections and roadway segments: Affected Intersections 1. Santa Ana Boulevard/Raitt Street 2. Santa Ana Boulevard/Pacific Avenue 3. Santa Ana Boulevard/Bristol Street 4. Santa Ana Boulevard/Shelton Street Affected Roadway Segments on Santa Ana Boulevard A. From Raitt Street to Western Avenue B. From Western Avenue to Forest Street C. Forest Street to Pacific Avenue D. Pacific Avenue to Hesperian Street E. Hesperian Street to Bristol Street F. Bristol Street to Baker Street G. Baker Street to Shelton Street 3 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 2.1.2 Traffic Volumes and Geometric Configuration AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes and roadway average daily traffic (ADT) were referenced from the Year 2035 Streetcar Alternative 1 volumes contained in the Traffic Impact Assessment. Baseline intersection and roadway configurations were based on the geometrics assumed as part of the 2035 Streetcar Alternative 1. The reclassification of Santa Ana Boulevard would reduce the roadway from four lanes to two lanes. 2.1.3 Methodology and Significance Criteria The intersection level of service (LOS) utilizes the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method as described in Chapter 2.1 of the Traffic Impact Assessment, consistent with City of Santa Ana directives for the preparation of traffic impact studies. An impact would occur when the reclassification of Santa Ana Boulevard would cause any of the affected intersections to deteriorate from acceptable LOS D or better to unacceptable LOS E or F. Furthermore, for intersections already operating at unacceptable E or F, should the reclassification cause the ICU value to increase by 0.01 or more, the location would be considered impacted. Roadway segment LOS is determined based on the methodology presented in the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and the City of Santa Ana Circulation Element, as referenced in Chapter 2.2 of the Traffic Impact Assessment. The City of Santa Ana Circulation Element defines maximum roadway capacities and corresponding LOS by roadway classification. Level of service of the affected roadway segments will be based on reducing the capacity of the roadway from a four lane facility to a two lane facility. 2.2 Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation Analysis 2.2.1 Study Area The relocation of stations along Santa Ana Boulevard between Ross Street and Main Street would only affect the intersection of Santa Ana Boulevard/Ross Street. All other intersections and roadway segments along Santa Ana Boulevard and 4th Street in the vicinity of Broadway and Main Street are not anticipated to be affected by the proposed station location changes. 2.2.2 Traffic Volumes and Geometric Configuration AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes at Santa Ana Boulevard/Ross Street were referenced from Year 2035 Streetcar Alternative 1 volumes contained in the Traffic Impact Assessment. The proposed station relocation at Santa Ana Boulevard/Ross Street would result in closure of the existing westbound free right turn from Santa Ana Boulevard to northbound Ross Street. 4 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 2.2.3 Methodology and Significance Criteria The ICU method as described in Section 2.1.3 was used for the analysis of Santa Ana Boulevard/Ross Street. An impact would occur at this location if the closure of the westbound free right turn lane would result in the LOS to deteriorate from acceptable to unacceptable LOS. 2.3 Fairview Street Grade Crossing Analysis 2.3.1 Study Area Affected Intersections 1. Fairview Street/Civic Center Drive 2. Fairview Street/5th Street 2.3.2 Traffic Volumes and Geometric Configuration AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes were based on the Year 2035 Streetcar Alternative 1 volume growth contained in the Traffic Impact Assessment. The Traffic Impact Assessment conducted in 2014 does not include the Fairview Street and 5th Street intersection as a study intersection. To provide consistency, existing 2016 counts were conducted for both study intersections on Wednesday February 17, 2016 during the AM and PM peak periods. Annual growth rates, obtained from intersection volumes for baseline and 2035 Streetcar Alternative 1 from the 2014 Traffic Impact Assessment, were applied to existing 2016 counts to represent future year 2035 traffic volumes. Baseline intersection configurations for Fairview Street and Civic Center Drive were based on the geometrics assumed as part of the 2035 Streetcar Alternative 1. Baseline intersection configurations for Fairview Street and 5th Street include: Fairview Street Northbound and Southbound —1 left turn, 2 through, and 1 through right lane 5th Street Eastbound and Westbound —1 left turn, 1 through, and 1 through right lane The Fairview Street grade crossing will not modify intersection configurations for both study intersections. 2.3.3 Methodology and Significance Criteria The analysis of the proposed grade crossing and the operation of the intersections of Fairview Street/Civic Center Drive and Fairview Street/5th Street with signal preemption was conducted using VISSIM, Synchro and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology (based on delay) in addition to the city -approved ICU analysis methodology. The use of VISSIM as the modeling software provided the necessary detail to model streetcar operations, the grade crossing, and the adjacent signalized intersections. This analysis assessed the potential delay to be experienced at each location, with and without the Project. Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum The 2010 HCM methodology for signalized intersections evaluates LOS based on controlled delay per vehicle. Controlled delay is defined as the portion of the total delay attributed to the traffic signal operation including deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay and final acceleration delay. This methodology differs from ICU methodology which sums up volume -to -capacity ratios at critical movements. HCM methodology is the appropriate tool for the grade crossing analysis as signal timing can be adjusted to account for streetcar crossing events. Furthermore, the system interface as a whole (upstream/downstream intersections and the grade crossing) can be evaluated. 2.4 Traffic Signal Priority Analysis The requirement of transit signal priority (TSP) for all signalized intersections along the proposed streetcar alignment would affect the following locations: 2.4.1 Study Area Affected Intersections 1. Santa Ana Boulevard/Raitt Street 2. Santa Ana Boulevard/Pacific Avenue 3. Santa Ana Boulevard/Bristol Street 4. Santa Ana Boulevard/Shelton Street 5. Santa Ana Boulevard/Flower Street 6. Santa Ana Boulevard/Parton Street 7. Santa Ana Boulevard/Ross Street 8. Santa Ana Boulevard/Broadway 9. Santa Ana Boulevard/Main Street 10. Santa Ana Boulevard/Bush Street 11. Santa Ana Boulevard/French Street 12. Santa Ana Boulevard/Lacy Street 13. Santa Ana Boulevard/Santiago Street 14. 4th Street/Broadway 6 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 15. 4th Street/Main Street 16. 4th Street/Bush Street 17. 4th Street/French Street 18. 4th Street/Mortimer Street 2.4.2 Traffic Volumes and Geometric Configuration AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes were referenced from the Year 2035 Streetcar Alternative 1 volumes contained in the Traffic Impact Assessment. Baseline intersection configurations were based on the geometrics assumed as part of the 2035 Streetcar Alternative 1. 2.4.3 Methodology and Significance Criteria Since the streetcar alternative would operate in shared traffic lanes, operation of TSP for the streetcar would affect traffic flows and capacity. Implementation of TSP atthe affected intersections would permit extended green phases for streetcar movements) or shortened red phases (for all conflicting movements) by up to 20 seconds per intersection. Since the City -approved ICU methodology does not factor in signal timing or delay, the TSP analysis was first run using the HCM methodology. The HCM methodology (using the Synchro traffic software) was used to determine the increase in delays experienced by non -streetcar movements at each intersection, as well as the decrease in delays experienced by streetcar movements. The increase or decrease in delay on a movement -by -movement basis from the HCM analysis due to TSP was then utilized as the basis for a series of capacity adjustments within the ICU analysis at each intersection. Intersection movements that corresponded with streetcar movements (i.e., eastbound and westbound through movements) were given a capacity "credit" due to the increase in green time or shortened/truncated red time associated with a preemption event. The lane capacity for all other movements at the intersection during a preemption event were effectively decreased to reflect the shortened green time/increased red time given to allow the streetcar to pass. Detailed capacity adjustments are discussed in Section 3.4, Transit Signal Priority Impact Analysis. 7 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 2.5 Santa Ana Boulevard Revised Street Design Concept 2.5.1 Study Area The project is proposing a new street design concept that affects portions of the alignment on Santa Ana Boulevard from Raitt Street to SARTC. Affected Intersections 1. Santa Ana Boulevard/Raitt Street 2. Santa Ana Boulevard/Pacific Avenue 3. Santa Ana Boulevard/Shelton Street 4. Santa Ana Boulevard/Flower Street 5. Santa Ana Boulevard/Parton Street 6. Santa Ana Boulevard/Ross Street 7. Santa Ana Boulevard/Bush Street 8. Santa Ana Boulevard/French Street 9. Santa Ana Boulevard/Lacy Street 10. Santa Ana Boulevard/Santiago Street 11. Santa Ana Boulevard/Bristol Street 12. Santa Ana Boulevard/Broadway 13. Santa Ana Boulevard/Main Street 2.5.2 Traffic Volumes and Geometric Configuration AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes at Santa Ana Boulevard/Ross Street were referenced from Year 2035 Streetcar Alternative 1 volumes contained in the Traffic Impact Assessment. The geometric configuration is referenced from the new Street Design Concept Plan for Santa Ana Boulevard, provided in Appendix A. 2.5.3 Methodology and Significance Criteria The ICU method as described in Section 2.1.3 was used for the analysis of the affected intersections. An impact would occur if any of the proposed geometric modifications would result in the LOS to deteriorate from acceptable to unacceptable LOS. Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 3.0 Impact Assessment This chapter will describe and assess the impacts of the four proposed Project modifications and new analysis: Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification, Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation, Fairview Street Grade Crossing, and Traffic Signal Priority. 3.1 Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification Impact Analysis 3.1.1 Intersection Analysis Table 3-1 shows the results of the intersection LOS analysis at the four affected intersections. At each of the intersections, the approach on Santa Ana Boulevard was reduced from four lanes to two lanes, per the proposed reclassification. Table 3-1 Intersection LOS Summary - Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification Notes: ICU — intersection capacity utilization (volume -to -capacity ratio) Traffic Impact Assessment (October 2012) Reduction in eastbound/westbound approach lanes from four lanes to two lanes As shown in Table 3-1, the Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification would not cause any of the affected intersections to deteriorate to unacceptable LOS (all affected intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better). The ICU values would be expected to increase by an average of 0.28 in the AM peak hour and 0.56 in the PM peak hour. Detailed LOS worksheets for the reclassification are provided in Appendix B. 3.1.2 Roadway Segment Analysis Table 3-2 shows the results of the roadway segment LOS analysis at the seven affected roadway segments. The number of lanes was changed from four lanes to two lanes, with the corresponding target LOS E capacity. 9 Santa Ana Blvd W Previous Analysis 2035 Streetcar Conditions' Santa Ana Blvd Reclassification 2035 Streetcar Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Hour Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Main St Cross St ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Delta 1 Santa Ana Blvd Raitt St 0.60 A 0.84 D 0.61 B 0.89 D 0.01 0.05 2 Santa Ana Blvd Pacific Ave 0.25 A 0.44 A 0.33 A 0.58 A 0.08 0.12 3 Santa Ana Blvd Bristol St 0.52 A 0.64 B 0.61 B 0.84 D 0.09 0.20 4 Santa Ana Blvd Shelton St 0.36 A 0.41 A 0.46 A 0.60 B 0.10 0.19 Notes: ICU — intersection capacity utilization (volume -to -capacity ratio) Traffic Impact Assessment (October 2012) Reduction in eastbound/westbound approach lanes from four lanes to two lanes As shown in Table 3-1, the Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification would not cause any of the affected intersections to deteriorate to unacceptable LOS (all affected intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better). The ICU values would be expected to increase by an average of 0.28 in the AM peak hour and 0.56 in the PM peak hour. Detailed LOS worksheets for the reclassification are provided in Appendix B. 3.1.2 Roadway Segment Analysis Table 3-2 shows the results of the roadway segment LOS analysis at the seven affected roadway segments. The number of lanes was changed from four lanes to two lanes, with the corresponding target LOS E capacity. 9 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum Table 3-2 Roadway Segment LOS Summary Street From To 2035 Streetcar ADT' No. of Lanes LOS E Capacity LOS A Raitt St Western Ave 12,600 2D 18,750 B B Western Ave Forest St 12,100 2D 18,750 B Santa C Forest St Pacific Ave 12,600 2D 18,570 B Ana D Pacific Ave Hesperian St 12,200 2D 18,750 B Blvd. E Hesperian St Bristol St 12,200 2D 18,750 B F Bristol St Baker St 11,800 2D 18,750 B G Baker St Shelton St 11,800 2D 18,750 B Notes: ADT—average daily traffic 12035 Streetcar ADT referenced from Traffic Impact Assessment (October 2012) As shown in Table 3-2, the Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification would not cause any of the affected roadway segments to deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS (all seven roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS B). 3.2 Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation Impact Analysis 3.2.1 Intersection Analysis Table 3-3 shows the results of the intersection LOS analysis at the intersection of Santa Ana Boulevard/Ross Street. As discussed previously, the LOS reflects the removal of the existing westbound free right turn lane due to the relocation of the station at this intersection. Table 3-3 Intersection LOS Summary -Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation Notes: ICU — intersection capacity utilization (volume -to -capacity ratio) Traffic Impact Assessment (October 2012) Reduction in eastbound/westbound approach lanes from four lanes to two lanes 10 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum As shown in Table 3-3, the Santa Ana Boulevard station relocation would not cause the affected intersection to deteriorate to unacceptable LOS (the intersection is forecast to operate at acceptable LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours). The LOS worksheets for this intersection are provided in Appendix C. 3.3 Fairview Street Grade Crossing Impact Analysis 3.3.1 Intersection HCM Analysis Table 3-4 shows the results of the intersection VISSIM analysis at the intersections of Fairview Street and Civic Center Drive and Fairview Street and 5th Street. As discussed previously, the LOS reflects the addition of the at - grade street crossing. Table 3-4 Intersection LOS Summary — Fairview Street Grade Crossing Notes: Intersection analysis performed using VISSIM 7 and Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010; delay is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle; LOS — Level of Service Addition of Fairview Street at -grade street crossing As shown in Table 3-4, the Fairview Street grade crossing would not cause the affected intersections to deteriorate to unacceptable LOS. In most cases, compared to the No Build scenario, vehicle delay is shortened. This is primarily due to signal preemption taking place during streetcar crossing. Gate down times during northbound/southbound movements can create long queues. These high volume northbound/southbound traffic flows must be coordinated with gate uptimes to allow for proper traffic flow. The result of these coordinated green times in the northbound/southbound direction is an overall slight improvement over No Build conditions. Please note for Fairview Street and 5th Street, the AM peak hour street car scenario experiences an increase in delay due to higher volumes of protected left turns in the eastbound/westbound direction slightly reducing the amount of northbound/southbound green times. It is important to clear these eastbound/westbound left turns as their queues can go beyond the pocket length blocking through movement. Outside of signal timing adjustments to Fairview/5th and Fairview/Civic Center Drive, no other design modifications are required. Intersectionr 10111 2035 No Build 9 2035 Streetcar Conditions' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Main St Cross St Delay LOS I Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay I LOS 1 Fairview Street Civic Center Drive 29.7 C 29.7 C 26.7 C 25.2 C 2 Fairview Street 5th Street 47.1 D 59.0 E 50.1 D 53.6 D Notes: Intersection analysis performed using VISSIM 7 and Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010; delay is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle; LOS — Level of Service Addition of Fairview Street at -grade street crossing As shown in Table 3-4, the Fairview Street grade crossing would not cause the affected intersections to deteriorate to unacceptable LOS. In most cases, compared to the No Build scenario, vehicle delay is shortened. This is primarily due to signal preemption taking place during streetcar crossing. Gate down times during northbound/southbound movements can create long queues. These high volume northbound/southbound traffic flows must be coordinated with gate uptimes to allow for proper traffic flow. The result of these coordinated green times in the northbound/southbound direction is an overall slight improvement over No Build conditions. Please note for Fairview Street and 5th Street, the AM peak hour street car scenario experiences an increase in delay due to higher volumes of protected left turns in the eastbound/westbound direction slightly reducing the amount of northbound/southbound green times. It is important to clear these eastbound/westbound left turns as their queues can go beyond the pocket length blocking through movement. Outside of signal timing adjustments to Fairview/5th and Fairview/Civic Center Drive, no other design modifications are required. Santa Ana - Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 3.3.2 Intersection Queuing Analysis Tables 3-5 and 3-6 shows the queuing results of the intersection VISSIM analysis at the intersections of Fairview Street and Civic Center Drive, Fairview Street and 5th Street, and at the Fairview Grade Crossing. Table 3-5 Intersection AM Peak Hour Queuing Summary - Fairview Street Grade Crossing Note: Queue length reported in feet. 12 No Build AM Build AM Average Max Average MaxOOOWne::: Queue Queue Queue Queue Length Length Length Length Delt 1 Civic Center & Fairview North Bound Left 1.5 30.8 0.9 23.0 0.6 7.8 1 Civic Center & Fairview North Bound Thru 203.6 858.4 57.1 326.7 146.5 531.7 1 Civic Center & Fairview East Bound Thru 53.7 227.9 53.4 234.5 0.3 6.6 1 Civic Center & Fairview East Bound Right 1.1 63.3 1.1 62.0 0.0 1.4 1 Civic Center & Fairview South Bound Left 147.2 488.4 127.2 465.7 20.0 22.7 1 Civic Center & Fairview South Bound Thu 48.7 446.0 78.2 462.6 29.4 16.6 1 Civic Center & Fairview West Bound 8.2 73.5 9.6 77.6 1.4 4.1 2 5th & Fairview North Bound Left 83.4 510.0 135.0 564.8 51.6 54.9 2 5th & Fairview North Bound Thu 115.7 573.2 165.4 577.2 49.7 4.1 2 5th & Fairview East Bound Left 40.7 208.0 52.0 243.4 11.3 35.4 2 5th & Fairview East Bound Thru 88.6 313.1 88.3 351.9 0.3 38.8 2 5th & Fairview South Bound Left 37.5 308.0 40.7 295.2 3.2 12.8 2 5th & Fairview South Bound Thru 245.3 834.5 188.6 661.7 56.7 172.8 2 5th & Fairview West Bound Left 70.1 414.4 83.6 474.6 13.6 60.2 2 5th & Fairview West Bound Thru 122.9 454.4 122.6 510.2 0.3 55.8 3 Fairview Grade Crossing North Bound Left 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 Fairview Grade Crossing North Bound 48.0 611.5 48.0 611.5 3 Fairview Grade Crossing South Bound 15.5 200.3 15.5 200.3 Note: Queue length reported in feet. 12 Santa Ana - Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum Table 3-6 Intersection PM Peak Hour Queuing Summary - Fairview Street Grade Crossing Note: Queue length reported in feet. As shown in Tables 3-5 and 3-6, addition of the at -grade crossing at Fairview Street between Civic Center Drive and 5th Street would reduce, on average, both the average and maximum queue lengths. During the AM peak hour, the at -grade crossing would reduce the average and maximum queue lengths at Civic Center Drive and 5th Street by 4 feet and 32 feet, respectively. Similarly, during the PM peak hour, the at -grade crossing would reduce the average and maximum queue lengths at Civic Center Drive and 5th Street by four 14 and 49 feet, respectively. The most significant reductions in queue lengths were observed to occur at the north bound through movement at Fairview Street/Civic Center Drive and the south bound approach at Fairview Street/51h Street. During gate -down events, the at -grade crossing would essentially serve as a queue -cutting signal, allowing north bound and south bound vehicles to clear at the upstream and downstream intersections. 3.4 Traffic Signal Priority Impact Analysis 3.4.1 Intersection HCM Analysis A level of service analysis was conducted using the HCM methodology to compare conditions with and without transit signal priority. In the Synchro traffic software, which utilizes HCM methodology, signal timing was adjusted to reflect the following: 13 No Build PM Build PM Average Max Average Max Lane Queue Queue Queue Queue Length Length Length Length Delt 1 Civic Center & Fairview North Bound Left 0.6 22.3 0.1 20.2 0.5 2.1 1 Civic Center & Fairview North Bound Thru 174.3 736.1 54.6 323.6 119.7 412.4 1 Civic Center & Fairview East Bound Thru 69.6 311.5 69.3 321.7 0.3 10.3 1 Civic Center & Fairview East Bound Right 1.4 71.3 1.0 56.3 0.4 15.0 1 Civic Center & Fairview South Bound Left 67.2 319.8 83.1 337.9 15.8 18.0 1 Civic Center & Fairview South Bound Thru 50.6 336.3 61.8 388.6 11.2 52.4 1 Civic Center & Fairview West Bound 0.3 29.4 1.3 37.0 0.9 7.6 2 5th & Fairview North Bound Left 86.6 491.1 219.2 557.7 132.5 66.6 2 5th & Fairview North Bound Thru 128.0 566.4 148.0 578.4 20.1 12.0 2 5th & Fairview East Bound Left 51.2 357.1 55.6 484.8 4.4 127.7 2 5th & Fairview East Bound Thru 345.1 568.8 279.6 567.4 65.5 1.4 2 5th & Fairview South Bound Left 94.6 848.6 62.6 483.4 32.0 365.3 2 5th & Fairview South Bound Thru 401.5 1055.5 169.9 699.8 231.6 355.7 2 5th & Fairview West Bound Left 63.9 328.4 94.8 397.8 30.9 69.4 2 5th & Fairview West Bound Thru 74.1 328.5 95.3 386.3 21.1 57.8 3 Fairview Grade Crossing North Bound Left 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 Fairview Grade Crossing North Bound 38.0 579.4 38.01 579.4 3 Fairview Grade Crossing South Bound 24.0 312.4 24.0 312.4 Note: Queue length reported in feet. As shown in Tables 3-5 and 3-6, addition of the at -grade crossing at Fairview Street between Civic Center Drive and 5th Street would reduce, on average, both the average and maximum queue lengths. During the AM peak hour, the at -grade crossing would reduce the average and maximum queue lengths at Civic Center Drive and 5th Street by 4 feet and 32 feet, respectively. Similarly, during the PM peak hour, the at -grade crossing would reduce the average and maximum queue lengths at Civic Center Drive and 5th Street by four 14 and 49 feet, respectively. The most significant reductions in queue lengths were observed to occur at the north bound through movement at Fairview Street/Civic Center Drive and the south bound approach at Fairview Street/51h Street. During gate -down events, the at -grade crossing would essentially serve as a queue -cutting signal, allowing north bound and south bound vehicles to clear at the upstream and downstream intersections. 3.4 Traffic Signal Priority Impact Analysis 3.4.1 Intersection HCM Analysis A level of service analysis was conducted using the HCM methodology to compare conditions with and without transit signal priority. In the Synchro traffic software, which utilizes HCM methodology, signal timing was adjusted to reflect the following: 13 Santa Ana - Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum Streetcar headway of 12 per hour (frequency per cycle dependent on intersection cycle lengths) Green Extension - green interval increased by up to 20 seconds when a streetcar is detected (signal would extend the green time for that particular approach to allow the streetcar to essentially skip the red interval) Red Truncation/Early Green - effectively shortens the conflicting phases by up to 20 seconds in the event the streetcar arrives during a red interval. Table 3-7 summarizes the delay and corresponding LOS for 2035 Streetcar Conditions, with and without the transit signal priority adjustments. Table 3-7 Intersection LOS Summary - Transit Signal Priority HCM Method Notes: Delay expressed as average intersection delay (in seconds) Includes proposed Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification (reduction in eastbound and westbound through lanes from 4 lanes to 2 lanes). Traffic Impact Assessment (October 2012). Includes TSP adjustments (green extension for street preemption, red truncation for all other phases). 14 2035 Streetcar Conditions' No Transit Signal Priority 2035 Streetcar Conditionsz With Transit Signal Priority AM Peak PM Peak Hour Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Main St Cross St Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS elt 1* Santa Ana Blvd Raitt St 57.9 E 72.6 E 58.7 E 72.8 E 0.8 0.2 2* Santa Ana Blvd Pacific Ave 27.2 C 42.3 D 32.1 C 40.2 D 4.9 2.1 3* Santa Ana Blvd Bristol St 37.3 D 37.4 D 37.9 D 36.6 D 0.6 0.8 4* Santa Ana Blvd Shelton St 18.6 B 17.2 B 18.6 B 16.1 B 0.0 1.1 5 Santa Ana Blvd Flower St 33.1 C 37.1 D 33.8 C 37.1 D 0.7 0 6 Santa Ana Blvd Parton St 8.7 A 8.0 A 8.8 A 8.0 A 0.1 0 7 Santa Ana Blvd Ross St 45.9 D 58.7 F 46.9 D 56.5 E 1.0 2.2 8 Santa Ana Blvd Broadway 25.7 C 12.9 B 25.8 C 11.6 B 0.1 1.3 9 Santa Ana Blvd Main St 10.3 B 8.9 A 10.5 B 9.2 A 0.2 0.3 10 Santa Ana Blvd Bush St 21.1 C 22.5 C 21.1 C 22.8 C 0 0.3 11 Santa Ana Blvd French St 13.1 B 12.7 B 12.9 B 12.8 B 0.2 0.1 12 Santa Ana Blvd Lacy St 36.6 D 32.9 C 33.9 C 32.5 C 2.7 0.4 13 Santa Ana Blvd Santiago St 21.5 C 25.9 C 21.8 C 24.4 C 0.3 1.5 14 4" St Broadway 21.8 C 22.2 C 21.2 C 22.1 C 0.6 0.1 15 4" St Main Street 18.2 B 19.6 B 17.8 B 19.5 B 0.4 0.1 16 4" St Bush St 17.3 B 18.0 B 16.7 B 17.6 B 0.6 4 01_O 5174thStFrenchSt14.1 B 16.9 B 14.2 B 16.4 B 0.1 18 4th St Mortimer St 19.2 B 28.7 C 19.2 B 27.4 C 0 Notes: Delay expressed as average intersection delay (in seconds) Includes proposed Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification (reduction in eastbound and westbound through lanes from 4 lanes to 2 lanes). Traffic Impact Assessment (October 2012). Includes TSP adjustments (green extension for street preemption, red truncation for all other phases). 14 Santa Ana - Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum Table 3-7 reports the overall intersection delay changes with implementation of TSP. It should be noted that the delay changes on a movement -by -movement basis were documented in order to determine the appropriate capacity credits and reductions used in the subsequent ICU analysis. On average, application of TSP would increase delay in the AM peak hour by 0.24 seconds and would decrease delay by 0.61 seconds in the PM peak hour throughout the alignment. HCM level of service worksheets are provided in Appendix D. 3.4.2 Intersection ICU Analysis Based on the HCM analysis above, the average delay increase (in seconds) for all non -streetcar movements was calculated to be 15 percent. Similarly, all intersection movements that corresponded with the streetcar movements i.e., eastbound and westbound through movements at affected intersections) experienced an average delay decrease of 15 percent. In order to translate these delay increases/decreases into the ICU methodology, the capacity for each movement was adjusted accordingly. For example, at the intersection of Santa Ana Boulevard/Pacific Avenue, the eastbound and westbound through lane capacity (where the streetcar travels) was increased by 15 percent to reflect the reduction in delay due to transit signal priority. Conversely, all the other intersection movements (northbound/southbound and other turning movements) were effectively decreased by 15 percent to reflect the added delay experienced by non -streetcar movements during a preemption event. Table 3-8 Intersection LOS Summary - Transit Signal Priority ICU Methodology Pr Previous Analysis 2035 Streetcar Conditions' Transit Signal Priority 2035 Streetcar Conditions' MIDAMPeakPMPeak Hour Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Main St Cross St ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1* Santa Ana Blvd Raitt St 0.61 B 0.89 D 0.61 B 0.85 D 0.01 0.04 2* Santa Ana Blvd Pacific Ave 0.33 A 0.58 A 0.33 A 0.55 A 0.01 0.03 3* Santa Ana Blvd Bristol St 0.61 B 0.84 D 0.61 B 0.85 D 0 0.1 4* Santa Ana Blvd Shelton St 0.46 A 0.60 B 0.46 A 0.55 A 0 0.05 5 Santa Ana Blvd Flower St 0.67 B 0.63 B 0.66 B 0.61 B 0.01 0.02 6 Santa Ana Blvd Parton St 0.47 A 0.43 A 0.47 A 0.43 A 0 0 7 Santa Ana Blvd Ross St 0.61 B 0.47 A 0.59 A 0.46 A 0.02 0.01 8 Santa Ana Blvd Broadway 0.74 C 0.72 C 0.70 C 0.68 B 0.4 0.4 9 Santa Ana Blvd Main St 0.76 C 0.79 C 0.73 C 0.82 D 0.3 0.3 10 Santa Ana Blvd Bush St 0.43 A 0.55 A 0.43 A 0.55 A 0 0 11 Santa Ana Blvd French St 0.67 B 0.73 C 0.67 B 0.74 C 0 0.01 12 Santa Ana Blvd Lacy St 0.75 C 0.57 A 0.76 C 0.57 A 0.01 0 13 Santa Ana Blvd Santiago St 0.53 A 0.64 B 0.49 A 0.65 B 0.04 0.01 14 4" St Broadway 0.51 A 0.53 A 0.46 A 0.51 A 0.05 0.02 15 4th St MainStreet 0.46 A 0.49 A 0.43 A 0.47 A 0.03 0.02 16 4th St Bush St 0.39 A 0.52 A 0.39 A 0.53 A 0 0.01 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 17 4t' St French St 0.45 A 0.49 A 0.46 A 0.46 A +0.01 -0.03 18 4t' St Mortimer St 0.45 A 0.64 B 0.43 A 0.65 B -0.02 +0.01 Notes: ICU — intersection capacity utilization (volume -to -capacity ratio) * Includes proposed Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification (reduction in eastbound and westbound through lanes from 4lanes to 2 lanes). Traffic Impact Assessment (October 2012). Includes capacity adjustments (increase in capacity for streetcar movements, decrease in capacity for all other movements). As shown in Table 3-8, the application of TSP (increase in capacity by 15 percent for streetcar movements with a reduction in capacity by 15 percent for all other movements) to all the affected intersections would not result in any deterioration of LOS from acceptable to unacceptable. Throughout the streetcar alignment, TSP would result in a 0.05 decrease in ICU during the AM peak hour and 0.01 decrease during the PM peak hour. Detailed ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix E. 3.4.3 TSP Run Time Savings The following tables present the overall run time savings for all signalized intersections and at Main/Broadway/Bristol, respectively. The run time savings assume a roundtrip along the streetcar alignment. Table 3-9 Run Time Savings -All Signalized Intersections along Route on AM PM l Intersections Analyzed (sec / hr) 7TDelayReduction 3,030.4 3,112.6 vings (min./hr.) 50.5 51.9 Minutes per Streetcar) 3.9 3.7 Table 3-10 Run Time Savings -Addition of TSP to Main/Broadway/Bristol 16 Santa Ana - Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 3.5 Santa Ana Boulevard Street Design Concept Analysis 3.5.1 Intersection ICU Analysis A level of service analysis was conducted using the ICU methodology to compare results from the Traffic Impact Assessment (2012) to the new street design concept and is summarized in Table 3-11. Table 3-11 LOS Summary -Street Design Concept (ICU Methodology) llwwPeakPrevious Analysis 2035 Streetcar Conditions' Street Design Concept 2035 Streetcar Conditions' PM Peak Hour Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Main St Cross St ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1* Santa Ana Blvd Raitt St 0.61 B 0.84 D 0.66 B 0.96 E 0.05 0.12 2* Santa Ana Blvd Pacific Ave 0.33 A 0.58 A 0.33 A 0.58 A 0.00 0.00 3* Santa Ana Blvd Shelton St 0.46 A 0.60 B 0.46 A 0.60 B 0.00 0.00 4 Santa Ana Blvd Flower St 0.67 B 0.63 B 0.71 C 0.69 B 0.04 0.06 5 Santa Ana Blvd Parton St 0.47 A 0.43 A 0.55 A 0.54 A 0.08 0.11 6 Santa Ana Blvd Ross St 0.61 B 0.47 A 0.61 B 0.59 A 0.00 0.12 7 Santa Ana Blvd Bush St 0.43 A 0.55 A 0.53 A 0.65 B 0.10 0.10 8 Santa Ana Blvd French St 0.67 B 0.73 C 0.67 B 0.73 C 0.00 0.00 9 Santa Ana Blvd Lacy St 0.75 C 0.57 A 0.75 C 0.57 A 0.00 0.00 10 Santa Ana Blvd Santiago St 0.53 A 0.64 B 0.53 A 0.64 B 0.00 0.00 11 Santa Ana Blvd Bristol St 0.52 A 0.64 A 0.61 B 0.84 D 0.09 0.20 12 Santa Ana Blvd Broadway 0.65 B 0.63 B 0.74 C 0.72 C 0.09 0.09 13 Santa Ana Blvd Main St 0.69 B 0.78 C 0.76 C 0.85 D 0.07 1 0.07 Notes: ICU - intersection capacity utilization (volume -to -capacity ratio) Includes proposed Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification (reduction in eastbound and westbound through lanes from 4 lanes to 2 lanes). Configuration reflects the removal of existing WB free right -turn due to proposed station relocation. Traffic Impact Assessment (October 2012). Lane configuration based on proposed HNTB Santa Ana Boulevard Street Design Concept. As shown in Table 3-11, the implementation of the proposed Street Design Concept along Santa Ana Boulevard would cause in impact at the intersection of Santa Ana Boulevard/Raitt Street. The street design concept at this location provides one left -turn and one right -turn lane for the westbound approach, where the previous analysis provided two left -turn lanes and one right -turn lane. The reduction in westbound left -turn lanes from two to one lane would cause this location to deteriorate from acceptable LOS D to unacceptable LOS E in the PM peak hour. LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix F. 17 Santa Ana - Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 3.5.2 Intersection ICU Analysis with TSP A level of service analysis was conducted using the ICU methodology to compare results from the Traffic Impact Assessment (2012) to the new street design concept with traffic signal priority and is summarized in Table 3-12. Table 3-12 LOS Summary -Street Design Concept with TSP (ICU Methodology) Notes: ICU - intersection capacity utilization (volume -to -capacity ratio) Includes proposed Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification (reduction in eastbound and westbound through lanes from 4 lanes to 2 lanes). Configuration reflects the removal of existing WB free right -turn due to proposed station relocation. Lane configuration based on proposed HNTB Santa Ana Boulevard Street Design Concept. Includes capacity adjustments (increase in capacity for streetcar movements, decrease in capacity for all other movements). As shown in Table 3-12, the application of TSP (increase in capacity by 15 percent for streetcar movements with a reduction in capacity by 15 percent for all other movements) to all the affected intersections would not result in any deterioration of LOS from acceptable to unacceptable. Throughout the streetcar alignment, TSP would result in a 0.01 decrease in ICU during the AM peak hour and a 0.01 increase during the PM peak hour. Detailed ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix F. 18 Street Design Concept 2035 Streetcar Conditions' Street Design Concept with TSP 2035 Streetcar Conditions' AM Peak PM Peak Hour Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Main St Cross 5iA, ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 111111 1* Santa Ana Blvd Raitt St 0.66 B 0.96 E 0.67 A 0.97 E 0.01 0.01 2* Santa Ana Blvd Pacific Ave 0.33 A 0.46 A 0.33 A 0.47 A 0.00 0.01 3* Santa Ana Blvd Bristol St 0.61 B 0.84 D 0.61 A 0.85 D 0.00 0.01 4* Santa Ana Blvd Shelton St 0.46 A 0.6 B 0.46 A 0.55 A 0.00 -0.05 5 Santa Ana Blvd Flower St 0.71 C 0.69 B 0.72 C 0.70 C 0.01 0.01 6 Santa Ana Blvd Parton St 0.55 A 0.54 A 0.56 A 0.55 A 0.01 0.01 7 Santa Ana Blvd Ross St 0.61 B 0.59 A 0.59 A 0.60 A 0.02 0.01 8 Santa Ana Blvd Broadway 0.74 C 0.72 C 0.70 C 0.68 B 0.04 -0.04 9 Santa Ana Blvd Main St 0.76 C 0.85 D 0.73 C 0.82 D 0.03 -0.03 10 Santa Ana Blvd Bush St 0.53 A 0.65 B 0.54 A 0.66 B 0.01 0.01 11 Santa Ana Blvd French St 0.67 B 0.73 C 0.67 B 0.74 C 0.00 0.01 12 Santa Ana Blvd Lacy St 0.75 C 0.57 A 0.76 C 0.57 A 0.01 0.00 13 Santa Ana Blvd Santiago St 0.53 A 0.64 B 0.49 A 0.65 B 0.04 0.01 Notes: ICU - intersection capacity utilization (volume -to -capacity ratio) Includes proposed Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification (reduction in eastbound and westbound through lanes from 4 lanes to 2 lanes). Configuration reflects the removal of existing WB free right -turn due to proposed station relocation. Lane configuration based on proposed HNTB Santa Ana Boulevard Street Design Concept. Includes capacity adjustments (increase in capacity for streetcar movements, decrease in capacity for all other movements). As shown in Table 3-12, the application of TSP (increase in capacity by 15 percent for streetcar movements with a reduction in capacity by 15 percent for all other movements) to all the affected intersections would not result in any deterioration of LOS from acceptable to unacceptable. Throughout the streetcar alignment, TSP would result in a 0.01 decrease in ICU during the AM peak hour and a 0.01 increase during the PM peak hour. Detailed ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix F. 18 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 3.5.3 Intersection HCM Analysis A level of service analysis was conducted using the HCM methodology to compare conditions with and without transit signal priority and the proposed street design concept. In the Synchro traffic software, which utilizes HCM methodology, signal timing and splits were optimized. Table 3-13 summarizes the delay and corresponding LOS for 2035 Streetcar Conditions, with both the transit signal priority adjustments and the proposed street design concept. Table 3-13 also includes the westbound queue length throughout the affected alignment. As discussed previously, TSP would not affect the intersections of Santa Ana Boulevard with Bristol Street, Broadway, and Main Street. Table 3-13 Intersection LOS Summary - Transit Signal Priority and Street Design Concept (HCM Methodology) Cross StIRaitt HN ree esign Concep Westbound Queue Length' 2035 Streetcar Conditions) AM Peak Hour Delay LOS PM Peak Hour Delay LOS AM PM 1* Santa Ana Blvd St 36.5 D 66.8 E 184' 665' 2* Santa Ana Blvd Pacific Ave 27.7 C 17.9 B 184' 292' 3* Santa Ana Blvd Bristol St 37.3 D 37.4 D 123' 77' 4* Santa Ana Blvd Shelton St 15.8 B 15.8 B 170' 401' 5 Santa Ana Blvd Flower St 38.6 D 32.6 C 333' 362' 6 Santa Ana Blvd Parton St 15.7 B 17.2 B 196' 306' 7' Santa Ana Blvd Ross St 28.9 C 27.7 C 256' 318' 8 Santa Ana Blvd Broadway 15.7 B 15.8 B 191' 176' 9 Santa Ana Blvd Main St 11.3 B 11.9 B 323' 315' 10 Santa Ana Blvd Bush St 23.8 C 22.4 C 363' 367' 11 Santa Ana Blvd French St 12.9 B 12.7 B 151' 150' 12 Santa Ana Blvd Lacy St 32.1 C 25.2 C 806' 497' 13 Santa Ana Blvd Santiago St 23.1 C 25.3 C 280' 247' Notes: Delay expressed in average signal delay in seconds. All signal cycle lengths and splits were optimized. Includes proposed Santa Ana Boulevard reclassification (reduction in EB and WB through lanes from 4 lanes to 2 lanes). Configuration reflects the removal of existing WB free right -turn due to proposed station relocation. 1 Lane configuration based on proposed HNTB Santa Ana Boulevard Street Design Concept. z Reported as the 95th percentile queue forthe westbound approach. As shown in Table 3-13, implementation of the proposed street design concept plan, coupled with TSP, would cause the intersection of Santa Ana Boulevard/Raitt Street to operate at unacceptable LOS E in the PM peak hour. LOS worksheets are contained in Appendix G. 19 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 4.0 Mitigation Measures This section includes recommendations to mitigate any impacts identified from the intersection analysis presented in this report for each of the proposed project modifications and additional analysis. 4.1 Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification Mitigation Measures The results of the intersection and roadway segment LOS analysis with and without the proposed reclassification of Santa Ana Boulevard from a four -lane divided roadway to a two-lane divided roadway determined that no impacts to the affected intersections are anticipated. 4.2 Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation Mitigation Measures The results of the intersection LOS analysis with and without the proposed relocation of stations determined that no impacts are anticipated. 4.3 Fairview Grade Crossing Mitigation Measures The results of the intersection LOS analysis with and without the proposed grade crossing determined that no impacts are anticipated. The affected intersections would only require minor signal timing adjustments. No design modifications are anticipated. 4.4 Transit Signal Priority Mitigation Measures The results of the intersection LOS analysis with and without implementation of transit signal priority at the affected intersections determined that no impacts are anticipated. 4.5 Street Design Concept Mitigation Measures The results of the intersection LOS analysis with and without implementation of the new street design concept determined that a significant impact would occur at Santa Ana Boulevard/Raitt Street. Mitigation measures to improve this location would be the addition of a second westbound left -turn lane, as way analyzed in the Traffic Impact Assessment. 20 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum 5.0 Conclusions The Traffic Study Addendum to the May 2014 EA/DEIR evaluated proposed Project modifications and required additional analysis scenarios to determine if new impacts would occur. Based on the results of the Traffic Study Addendum, all proposed Project modifications (Santa Ana Boulevard Reclassification, Santa Ana Boulevard Station Relocation, Fairview Street Grade Crossing, and Transit Signal Priority) can be implemented without causing any impacts beyond those disclosed in the EA/DEIR. 21 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum APPENDIX A SANTA ANA BOULEVARD STREET DESIGN CONCEPT PLANS 22 0 II! 11 ss., 6 o0 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum APPENDIX B SANTA ANA BOULEVARD RECLASSIFICATIONWORKSHEETS 2035 AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:27:14 Page 2-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum Santa Ana Blvd Reclassification Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Raitt St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.612 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 30 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Raitt St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 445 180 120 420 0 0 0 0 195 0 25 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: 0 445 180 120 420 0 0 0 0 195 0 25 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: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 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: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.95 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.00 0.71 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.77 0.00 0.23 Final Sat.: 0 1192 482 1576 1675 0 0 0 0 2870 0 381 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.08 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:27:14 Page 3-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum Santa Ana Blvd Reclassification Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Pacific Ave/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.330 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 18 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Pacific Ave Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 65 65 40 85 15 20 255 25 50 190 70 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 65 65 40 85 15 20 255 25 50 190 70 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: 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 PHF Volume: 14 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 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 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 0.10 0.45 0.45 0.28 0.61 0.11 1.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 176 762 762 486 1032 182 1600 1548 152 1600 1700 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.10 0.04 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:27:14 Page 4-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum Santa Ana Blvd Reclassification Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Shelton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.460 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Shelton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 15 45 245 10 15 30 300 75 70 345 190 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: 5 15 45 245 10 15 30 300 75 70 345 190 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: 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 PHF Volume: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 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: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 0.08 0.23 0.69 0.96 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 131 392 1177 1633 67 1600 1600 1360 340 1600 1700 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.02 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.19 0.11 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:27:14 Page 5-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum Santa Ana Blvd Reclassification Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #14 Bristol St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.605 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Bristol St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 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: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 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: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 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: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.81 0.19 1.00 2.76 0.24 1.00 0.89 0.11 1.00 0.84 0.16 Final Sat.: 1600 4779 321 1600 4692 408 1600 1505 195 1600 1423 277 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.13 0.13 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 13:17:37 Page 2-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum Santa Ana Blvd Reclassification Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Raitt St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.892 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 82 Level Of Service: D Street Name: Raitt St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 845 80 95 445 0 0 0 0 355 0 165 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: 0 845 80 95 445 0 0 0 0 355 0 165 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: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 0 918 87 103 484 0 0 0 0 386 0 179 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 918 87 103 484 0 0 0 0 386 0 179 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: 0 918 87 103 484 0 0 0 0 386 0 179 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.94 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.37 0.00 0.63 Final Sat.: 0 1530 145 1576 1675 0 0 0 0 2188 0 1063 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.07 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 13:17:37 Page 3-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum Santa Ana Blvd Reclassification Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Pacific Ave/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.583 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 28 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Pacific Ave Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 0.05 0.63 0.32 0.49 0.49 0.02 1.00 0.84 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 89 1074 537 828 828 45 1600 1434 266 1600 1700 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.29 0.05 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 13:17:37 Page 4-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum Santa Ana Blvd Reclassification Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Shelton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.603 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Shelton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 25 95 165 30 45 20 350 85 10 760 145 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 25 95 165 30 45 20 350 85 10 760 145 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: 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 PHF Volume: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 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: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 0.11 0.19 0.70 0.85 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 189 315 1196 1438 262 1600 1600 1368 332 1600 1700 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.22 0.01 0.39 0.08 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 13:17:37 Page 5-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum Santa Ana Blvd Reclassification Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #14 Bristol St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.840 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 62 Level Of Service: D Street Name: Bristol St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 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: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 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: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 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: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.78 0.22 1.00 2.78 0.22 1.00 0.87 0.13 1.00 0.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 1600 4723 377 1600 4724 376 1600 1484 216 1600 1278 422 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.04 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.08 0.40 0.40 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum APPENDIX C SANTA ANA BOULEVARD STATION RELOCATION LOS WORKSHEETS 24 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Ross Station Relocation AM 2: Ross & Santa Ana & 5th 3;9,2016 Iq:1 q:1 q:1: 1:1 I:1 I:1:Y.9:1.9:1.9:1:S.9r01.99r1:S.99r1:YJ Lane Configurations I ft F I T F I T F I Fri Traffic Volume (vph) 85 675 30 25 310 70 70 245 120 210 700 180 Future Volume (vph) 85 675 30 25 310 70 70 245 120 210 700 180 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 2787 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.36 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 885 1863 1583 670 1863 1583 1770 2787 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 92 734 33 27 337 76 76 266 130 228 761 196 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 25 0 0 55 0 0 95 0 58 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 734 8 27 337 21 76 266 35 228 899 0 Tum Type Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 6 3 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 18.0 18.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 18.0 30.0 Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 18.0 18.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 18.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 164 910 407 240 505 429 181 505 429 455 1194 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.21 c0.18 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.11 0.02 c0.13 c0.32 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.81 0.02 0.11 0.67 0.05 0.42 0.53 0.08 0.50 0.75 Uniform Delay, d1 30.4 24.4 19.4 19.2 22.7 18.8 21.0 21.7 19.0 22.2 16.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.1 7.6 0.1 0.9 6.8 0.2 7.0 3.9 0.4 3.9 4.4 Delay (s) 43.5 32.0 19.5 20.1 29.5 19.0 28.0 25.6 19.4 26.1 21.3 Level of Service D C B C C B C C B C C Approach Delay (s) 32.7 27.1 24.3 22.2 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Ross Station Relocation PM 2: Ross & Santa Ana & 5th 3/9/2016 Iq:1 q:1 q:1: 1:1 I:1 I:1:Y.9:1.9:1.9:1:S.9r01.99r1:S.99r1:YJ Lane Configurations I ft F I T F I T F I Fri Traffic Volume (vph) 75 485 70 55 200 95 70 195 85 100 730 105 Future Volume (vph) 75 485 70 55 200 95 70 195 85 100 730 105 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 2787 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1136 1863 1583 1122 1863 1583 1770 2787 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 82 527 76 60 217 103 76 212 92 109 793 114 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 53 0 0 70 0 0 63 0 77 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 82 527 23 60 217 33 76 212 29 109 830 0 Tum Type Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 6 3 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.5 18.2 18.2 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 8.3 21.0 Effective Green, g (s) 5.5 18.2 18.2 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 8.3 21.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.30 0.30 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.14 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 162 1073 480 359 589 501 355 589 501 244 975 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.15 c0.12 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.02 c0.06 c0.30 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.49 0.05 0.17 0.37 0.07 0.21 0.36 0.06 0.45 0.85 Uniform Delay, d1 26.0 17.1 14.8 14.8 15.9 14.3 15.0 15.8 14.3 23.7 18.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.9 1.6 0.2 1.0 1.8 0.3 1.4 1.7 0.2 5.8 9.3 Delay (s) 36.8 18.7 15.0 15.8 17.6 14.6 16.4 17.5 14.5 29.6 27.4 Level of Service D B B B B B B B B C C Approach Delay (s) 20.5 16.5 16.6 27.6 Approach LOS C B B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum APPENDIX D TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY WORKSHEETS (HCM METHOLODOGY) 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Raitt & Street Car/Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations T I ft F T+ I t Traffic Volume (vph) 0 12 0 190 12 20 0 430 160 125 415 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 12 0 190 12 20 0 430 160 125 415 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1.00 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1770 3539 1583 1794 1770 1863 At Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1863 1770 3539 1583 1794 245 1863 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 13 0 207 13 22 0 467 174 136 451 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 17 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 13 0 207 13 11 0 624 0 136 451 0 Tum Type NA Prot NA custom NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 8 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.1 40.6 40.6 30.4 30.4 30.4 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.1 40.6 40.6 30.4 30.4 30.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.23 0.51 0.51 0.38 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 419 400 1796 803 681 93 707 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.12 0.00 0.01 0.35 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm c0.55 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.52 0.01 0.01 0.92 1.46 0.64 Uniform Delay, d1 24.2 27.1 9.7 9.8 23.6 24.8 20.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 4.7 0.0 0.0 19.2 257.5 4.4 Delay (s) 24.3 31.8 9.7 9.8 42.8 282.3 24.7 Level of Service C C A A D F C Approach Delay (s) 24.3 28.7 42.8 84.4 Approach LOS C C D F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 56.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Ross & Santa Ana & 5th 1/28/2016 Iq:1 q:1 q:1: 1:1 I:1 I:1:Y.9:1.9:1.9:1:S.9r01.99r1:S.99r1:Ya Lane Configurations I ft F I T F I T F I FFF F Traffic Volume (vph) 80 655 25 30 310 75 65 225 110 210 700 180 Future Volume (vph) 80 655 25 30 310 75 65 225 110 210 700 180 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3610 1583 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 226 1863 1583 1039 1863 1583 1770 3610 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 87 712 27 33 337 82 71 245 120 228 761 196 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 21 0 0 52 0 0 89 0 0 146 Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 712 6 33 337 30 71 245 31 228 761 50 Tum Type Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 2 61 61 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 61 6 61 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.5 19.0 19.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Effective Green, g (s) 19.5 19.0 19.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 383 747 334 82 683 580 265 476 404 452 922 404 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.20 c0.18 0.13 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.15 0.02 0.07 0.02 c0.21 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.95 0.02 0.40 0.49 0.05 0.27 0.51 0.08 0.50 0.83 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 29.0 35.1 28.1 21.2 22.0 18.4 26.8 28.7 25.4 28.6 31.6 25.8 Progression Factor 0.81 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.35 1.34 4.14 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 22.9 0.1 14.0 2.5 0.2 2.5 3.9 0.4 3.7 7.8 0.6 Delay (s) 24.7 52.3 28.2 35.2 24.6 18.6 29.2 32.7 25.8 42.4 50.2 107.3 Level of Service C D C D C B C C C D D F Approach Delay (s) 48.6 24.3 30.2 58.1 Approach LOS D C C E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 45.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 I Phase conflict between lane groups c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Bristol & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T'+ I TT, I M4 I TTt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 45 210 25 130 155 35 20 1050 65 55 1105 100 Future Volume (vph) 45 210 25 130 155 35 20 1050 65 55 1105 100 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3483 1770 3441 1770 5041 1770 5022 At Permitted 0.62 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1160 3483 794 3441 1770 5041 1770 5022 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 228 27 141 168 38 22 1141 71 60 1201 109 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 15 0 0 5 0 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 248 0 141 191 0 22 1207 0 60 1302 0 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.5 24.0 46.0 33.0 8.5 55.0 14.5 61.0 Effective Green, g (s) 32.5 24.0 46.0 33.0 8.5 55.0 14.5 61.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.18 0.35 0.25 0.07 0.42 0.11 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 329 643 412 873 115 2132 197 2356 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.07 c0.05 0.06 0.01 0.24 c0.03 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.39 0.34 0.22 0.19 0.57 0.30 0.55 Uniform Delay, d1 37.6 46.5 29.8 38.3 57.5 28.4 53.1 24.7 Progression Factor 2.04 1.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 1.7 2.3 0.6 3.7 1.1 4.0 0.9 Delay (s) 77.5 83.1 32.0 38.9 61.2 29.5 57.1 25.7 Level of Service E F C D E C E C Approach Delay (s) 82.2 36.1 30.1 27.0 Approach LOS F D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Shelton & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T'+ I ft F 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 30 300 80 75 325 190 5 15 50 250 10 20 Future Volume (vph) 30 300 80 75 325 190 5 15 50 250 10 20 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3427 1770 3539 1583 1676 1777 1583 At Permitted 0.54 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.68 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1007 3427 950 3539 1583 1650 1266 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 326 87 82 353 207 5 16 54 272 11 22 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 43 0 0 0 133 0 29 0 0 0 12 Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 370 0 82 353 74 0 46 0 0 283 10 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.46 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 359 1223 339 1263 565 766 587 734 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.09 0.05 0.03 c0.22 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.30 0.24 0.28 0.13 0.06 0.48 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 12.0 13.0 12.7 12.9 12.1 8.3 10.4 8.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.6 1.7 0.6 0.5 0.2 2.8 0.0 Delay (s) 12.5 13.6 14.4 13.4 12.6 8.4 13.2 8.1 Level of Service B B B B B A B A Approach Delay (s) 13.5 13.3 8.4 12.8 Approach LOS B B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Flower & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 11111 111] 11C N1:11111.0M0M0111.Sl11.1.1.4 Lane Configurations I ttt F I TT F I T F I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 80 450 70 125 435 120 75 950 70 180 890 80 Future Volume (vph) 80 450 70 125 435 120 75 950 70 180 890 80 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 621 5085 1583 533 3539 1583 441 3539 1583 271 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 87 489 76 136 473 130 82 1033 76 196 967 87 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 62 0 0 102 0 0 42 0 0 42 Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 489 14 136 473 28 82 1033 34 196 967 45 Tum Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.5 24.0 24.0 40.5 28.0 28.0 66.5 59.0 59.0 79.0 67.0 67.0 Effective Green, g (s) 32.5 24.0 24.0 40.5 28.0 28.0 66.5 59.0 59.0 79.0 67.0 67.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.18 0.18 0.31 0.22 0.22 0.51 0.45 0.45 0.61 0.52 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 230 938 292 284 762 340 302 1606 718 343 1823 815 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.10 c0.05 c0.13 0.02 c0.29 c0.07 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.12 0.02 0.28 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.52 0.05 0.48 0.62 0.08 0.27 0.64 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 38.7 47.8 43.6 33.9 46.2 40.7 16.9 27.4 19.8 16.9 21.0 15.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 2.1 0.3 5.7 3.8 0.5 2.2 2.0 0.1 6.8 1.1 0.1 Delay (s) 43.4 49.9 43.9 39.6 50.0 41.2 19.1 29.4 19.9 23.7 22.1 15.8 Level of Service D D D D D D B C B C C B Approach Delay (s) 48.3 46.5 28.1 21.9 Approach LOS D D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Parton & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I M4 I ttT+ 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 40 540 120 95 640 105 15 5 120 100 10 25 Future Volume (vph) 40 540 120 95 640 105 15 5 120 100 10 25 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 0.88 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4947 1770 4978 1638 1782 1583 At Permitted 0.31 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.97 0.69 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 568 4947 644 4978 1598 1292 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 587 130 103 696 114 16 5 130 109 11 27 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 39 0 0 25 0 0 79 0 0 0 17 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 678 0 103 785 0 0 72 0 0 120 11 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 284 2473 322 2489 621 502 615 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.16 0.04 c0.09 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.27 0.32 0.32 0.12 0.24 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 12.2 13.0 13.4 13.4 17.6 18.5 16.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.3 1.7 0.2 0.4 1.1 0.1 Delay (s) 13.3 13.3 3.5 1.3 18.0 19.7 17.0 Level of Service B B A A B B B Approach Delay (s) 13.3 1.6 18.0 19.2 Approach LOS B A B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.28 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Broadway & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I TT+ Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 20 760 55 40 565 0 0 540 185 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 20 760 55 40 565 0 0 540 185 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.96 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5029 1770 3539 3404 At Permitted 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5029 542 3539 3404 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 22 826 60 43 614 0 0 587 201 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 899 0 43 614 0 0 760 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 Effective Green, g (s) 34.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.51 0.51 0.51 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1899 277 1808 1739 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.16 0.34 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 21.2 11.7 13.0 13.8 Progression Factor 2.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.8 Delay (s) 44.1 12.9 13.5 14.6 Level of Service D B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 44.1 13.5 14.6 Approach LOS A D B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Broadway & 5th 1/28/2016 J l4\ T l d Mover EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt At Protected Satd. Flow (prot) At Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3.0 Sum of lost time (s) 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: 4th & Ross 1128/2016 4- T Is. l Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt At Protected Satd. Flow (prot) At Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3.0 Sum of lost time (s) 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: Broadway & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Satd. Flow (prot) 44 1800 1770 4 1770 j T+ 0.95 I Ti 1.00 Traffic Volume (vph) 15 50 15 25 55 15 10 430 30 15 410 70 Future Volume (vph) 15 50 15 25 55 15 10 430 30 15 410 70 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 4 1.00 8 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Fr: 0.97 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 At Protected 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1799 1800 1770 3504 1770 3462 At Permitted 0.95 0.92 0.43 1.00 0.45 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1728 1687 805 3504 829 3462 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 54 16 27 60 16 11 467 33 16 446 76 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 8 0 0 6 0 0 15 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 77 0 0 95 0 11 494 0 16 507 0 Tum Type Perm NA B Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 33.0 33.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 Effective Green, g (s) 33.0 33.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 633 618 420 1829 432 1807 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.06 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.15 0.03 0.27 0.04 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 18.9 19.1 10.4 12.0 10.5 12.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.4 Delay (s) 19.3 27.8 10.5 12.3 10.6 12.4 Level of Service B C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 19.3 27.8 12.3 12.4 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.23 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Main & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I T Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 55 670 60 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 55 670 60 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5010 1770 3539 3500 At Permitted 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5010 344 3539 3500 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 60 728 65 92 1261 0 0 1092 87 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 843 0 92 1261 0 0 1173 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Effective Green, g (s) 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.62 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1336 214 2202 2177 v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.43 0.57 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 29.1 8.8 10.0 9.7 Progression Factor 0.46 0.56 0.56 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 5.0 0.9 1.0 Delay (s) 15.5 9.9 6.5 10.6 Level of Service B A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 15.5 6.7 10.6 Approach LOS A B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Main & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 3507 1.00 1.00 T+ 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) T+ 1704 3467 ti 71 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 55 10 0 70 120 0 1110 175 0 995 65 Future Volume (vph) 0 55 10 0 70 120 0 1110 175 0 995 65 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Fr: 0.98 0.91 0.98 0.99 At Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1824 1704 3467 3507 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1824 1704 3467 3507 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 60 11 0 76 130 0 1207 190 0 1082 71 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 69 0 0 14 0 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 63 0 0 137 0 0 1383 0 0 1148 0 Tum Type NA NA NA NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 22.0 22.0 58.0 58.0 Effective Green, g (s) 22.0 22.0 58.0 58.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.64 0.64 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 445 416 2234 2260 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.08 c0.40 0.33 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.14 0.33 0.62 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 26.6 27.9 9.5 8.5 Progression Factor 0.80 0.52 1.00 0.46 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 2.1 1.3 0.7 Delay (s) 21.9 16.7 10.8 4.6 Level of Service C B B A Approach Delay (s) 21.9 16.7 10.8 4.6 Approach LOS C B B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 31: Bush & 4th 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations 44 4 1 T+ I 1 Traffic Volume (vph) 10 235 45 10 195 25 10 135 125 30 150 5 Future Volume (vph) 10 235 45 10 195 25 10 135 125 30 150 5 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 0.99 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 At Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1820 1832 1770 1728 1770 1854 At Permitted 0.99 0.98 0.65 1.00 0.53 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1802 1804 1211 1728 981 1854 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 255 49 11 212 27 11 147 136 33 163 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 5 0 0 37 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 308 0 0 245 0 11 246 0 33 167 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 39.0 39.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 Effective Green, g (s) 39.0 39.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 780 781 551 787 446 844 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm c0.17 0.14 0.01 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.31 0.02 0.31 0.07 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 17.4 16.7 13.5 15.6 13.8 14.7 Progression Factor 1.10 1.24 1.00 1.00 0.54 0.52 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 1.0 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.5 Delay (s) 20.5 21.7 13.5 16.6 7.8 8.1 Level of Service C C B B A A Approach Delay (s) 20.5 21.7 16.5 8.1 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 32: Bush & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I T F Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 35 795 90 30 140 0 0 165 35 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 35 795 90 30 140 0 0 165 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5001 1770 1863 1863 1583 At Permitted 1.00 0.62 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5001 1164 1863 1863 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 38 864 98 33 152 0 0 179 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 986 0 33 152 0 0 179 15 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2500 452 724 724 615 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.03 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.07 0.21 0.25 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 14.0 17.3 18.3 18.6 17.0 Progression Factor 1.61 0.75 0.73 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.1 Delay (s) 22.9 13.3 14.1 19.4 17.0 Level of Service C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 22.9 13.9 19.0 Approach LOS A C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.33 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 35: French & 4th 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations 41) 4 F 41) 1 1 Traffic Volume (vph) 10 370 10 55 205 45 5 20 175 90 140 20 Future Volume (vph) 10 370 10 55 205 45 5 20 175 90 140 20 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.88 1.00 0.98 At Protected 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1854 1843 1583 1641 1770 1827 At Permitted 0.99 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.57 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1839 1583 1583 1634 1063 1827 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 402 11 60 223 49 5 22 190 98 152 22 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 23 0 120 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 423 0 0 283 26 0 97 0 98 168 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 47.0 47.0 47.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Effective Green, g (s) 47.0 47.0 47.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.37 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 960 826 826 599 389 669 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm c0.23 0.18 0.02 0.06 c0.09 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.34 0.03 0.16 0.25 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 13.3 12.5 10.4 19.2 19.9 19.9 Progression Factor 0.68 0.68 0.57 1.00 1.03 1.03 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 1.0 0.1 0.6 1.6 0.9 Delay (s) 10.5 9.4 6.0 19.8 22.0 21.4 Level of Service B A A B C C Approach Delay (s) 10.5 8.9 19.8 21.6 Approach LOS B A B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 36: French & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Frt EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1.00 Lane Configurations 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3526 1564 M+ 71 49 4 0 27 1 RTOR Reduction (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 25 850 15 65 45 0 0 25 5 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 25 850 15 65 45 0 0 25 5 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 8 4.5 2 4.5 6 4.5 Permitted Phases Lane Util. Factor 8 0.95 2 1.00 1.00 Actuated Green, G (s) Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 At Protected 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3526 1809 1823 At Permitted 1.00 0.84 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3526 1564 1823 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 27 924 16 71 49 0 0 27 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 965 0 0 120 0 0 29 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1410 625 729 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 c0.08 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.19 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 11.2 8.8 8.2 Progression Factor 1.00 0.90 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.7 0.7 0.1 Delay (s) 13.9 8.6 8.3 Level of Service B A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 13.9 8.6 8.3 Approach LOS A B A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 39: Mortimer & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I 0.95 1.00 T+ 0.97 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1782 4+ 65 Traffic Volume (vph) 115 520 0 0 245 115 0 0 0 75 0 60 Future Volume (vph) 115 520 0 0 245 115 0 0 0 75 0 60 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 1.00 Fr: 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.94 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1782 1704 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1782 1704 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 125 565 0 0 266 125 0 0 0 82 0 65 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 125 565 0 0 372 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 Tum Type Prot NA NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.5 56.5 35.5 24.5 Effective Green, g (s) 16.5 56.5 35.5 24.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.63 0.39 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 324 1169 702 463 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.30 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.48 0.53 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 32.3 9.0 20.9 25.2 Progression Factor 1.22 0.87 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.3 1.4 2.9 1.0 Delay (s) 42.5 9.1 23.7 26.2 Level of Service D A C C Approach Delay (s) 15.2 23.7 0.0 26.2 Approach LOS B C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 43: Santa Ana & Santiago 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T F I T F I TT+ I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 215 185 115 30 75 65 50 405 45 125 890 330 Future Volume (vph) 215 185 115 30 75 65 50 405 45 125 890 330 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fr1 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3486 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1311 1863 1583 1135 1863 1583 1770 3486 1770 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 234 201 125 33 82 71 54 440 49 136 967 359 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 79 0 0 45 0 11 0 0 0 227 Lane Group Flow (vph) 234 201 46 33 82 26 54 478 0 136 967 132 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 5.0 22.0 11.0 27.5 27.5 Effective Green, g (s) 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 5.0 22.0 11.0 27.5 27.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.07 0.29 0.15 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 480 683 580 416 683 580 118 1022 259 1297 580 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 0.04 0.03 0.14 c0.08 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm c0.18 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.29 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.04 0.46 0.47 0.53 0.75 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 18.3 16.9 15.5 15.5 15.7 15.3 33.7 21.7 29.6 20.7 16.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.24 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.5 1.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.1 11.4 1.4 7.4 3.9 0.9 Delay (s) 21.8 18.0 15.8 15.9 16.1 15.4 53.1 15.5 37.0 24.6 17.3 Level of Service C B B B B B D B D C B Approach Delay (s) 19.1 15.8 19.3 24.0 Approach LOS B B B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 46: PAcific & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations I T'+ I ft F 44 4 Traffic Volume (vph) 15 245 25 50 180 65 15 65 70 40 85 15 Future Volume (vph) 15 245 25 50 180 65 15 65 70 40 85 15 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3490 1770 3539 1583 1737 1810 At Permitted 0.61 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.89 Satd. Flow (perm) 1139 3490 954 3539 1583 1695 1630 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 266 27 54 196 71 16 71 76 43 92 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 50 0 24 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 287 0 54 196 21 0 139 0 0 148 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 82.5 82.5 Effective Green, g (s) 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 82.5 82.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.63 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 337 1033 282 1048 468 1075 1034 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.08 c0.09 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.28 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.13 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 32.7 35.1 34.1 34.1 32.6 9.5 9.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.72 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.7 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 Delay (s) 32.9 35.8 29.3 28.2 23.7 9.7 9.8 Level of Service C D C C C A A Approach Delay (s) 35.6 27.4 9.7 9.8 Approach LOS D C A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.19 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 49: Santa Ana & Lacy 1/28/2016 y r-+ f 3 "$ '_A R. Move SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Satd. Flow (prot) 44 1810 1770 4 1770 j T+ 0.92 I 1 1.00 Traffic Volume (vph) 20 40 25 5 135 35 10 425 10 55 920 35 Future Volume (vph) 20 40 25 5 135 35 10 425 10 55 920 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 6 1.00 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fr: 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1768 1810 1770 1856 1770 1853 At Permitted 0.92 0.99 0.09 1.00 0.41 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1638 1803 175 1856 764 1853 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 43 27 5 147 38 11 462 11 60 1000 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 19 0 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 73 0 0 178 0 11 472 0 60 1036 0 Tum Type Perm NA D Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 23.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 Effective Green, g (s) 23.5 23.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 513 564 99 1051 432 1050 v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 c0.56 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.10 0.06 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.32 0.11 0.45 0.14 0.99 Uniform Delay, d1 18.5 19.6 7.5 9.4 7.6 16.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.10 2.07 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 1.5 2.3 1.4 0.5 21.0 Delay (s) 19.1 21.1 9.8 10.8 16.5 54.2 Level of Service B C A B B D Approach Delay (s) 19.1 21.1 10.8 52.1 Approach LOS B C B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Raitt & Street Car/Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations T 11 F T+ I t Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 195 0 25 0 445 180 120 420 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 195 0 25 0 445 180 120 420 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1.00 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1583 1790 1770 1863 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1583 1790 245 1863 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 212 0 27 0 484 196 130 457 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 18 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 212 0 14 0 662 0 130 457 0 Tum Type Prot Prot NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.1 40.6 30.4 30.4 30.4 Effective Green, g (s) 18.1 40.6 30.4 30.4 30.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.51 0.38 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 776 803 680 93 707 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.01 0.37 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm c0.53 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.02 0.97 1.40 0.65 Uniform Delay, d1 25.5 9.8 24.4 24.8 20.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.0 28.6 231.6 4.5 Delay (s) 26.4 9.8 53.0 256.4 24.9 Level of Service C A D F C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 24.5 53.0 76.2 Approach LOS A C D E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 57.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Ross & Santa Ana & 5th 1/28/2016 Iq:1 q:1 q:1: 1:1 I:1 I:1:Y.9:1.9:1.9:1:S.9r01.99r1:S.99r1:Ya Lane Configurations I ft F I T F I T F I FFF F Traffic Volume (vph) 85 675 30 25 310 70 70 245 120 210 700 180 Future Volume (vph) 85 675 30 25 310 70 70 245 120 210 700 180 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3610 1583 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 226 1863 1583 1039 1863 1583 1770 3610 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 92 734 33 27 337 76 76 266 130 228 761 196 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 26 0 0 48 0 0 97 0 0 146 Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 734 7 27 337 28 76 266 33 228 761 50 Tum Type Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 2 61 61 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 61 6 61 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.5 19.0 19.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Effective Green, g (s) 19.5 19.0 19.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 383 747 334 82 683 580 265 476 404 452 922 404 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.21 c0.18 0.14 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.07 0.02 c0.21 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.98 0.02 0.33 0.49 0.05 0.29 0.56 0.08 0.50 0.83 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 29.1 35.3 28.1 20.5 22.0 18.4 26.9 29.1 25.5 28.6 31.6 25.8 Progression Factor 0.76 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.35 1.34 4.14 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 28.7 0.1 10.4 2.5 0.2 2.7 4.7 0.4 3.7 7.8 0.6 Delay (s) 23.7 56.8 28.2 30.9 24.6 18.5 29.6 33.8 25.9 42.4 50.2 107.3 Level of Service C E C C C B C C C D D F Approach Delay (s) 52.1 23.9 30.9 58.1 Approach LOS D C C E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 46.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 I Phase conflict between lane groups c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Bristol & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T'+ I TT, I M4 I TTt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 45 210 25 130 155 35 20 1050 65 55 1105 100 Future Volume (vph) 45 210 25 130 155 35 20 1050 65 55 1105 100 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3483 1770 3441 1770 5041 1770 5022 At Permitted 0.62 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1160 3483 794 3441 1770 5041 1770 5022 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 228 27 141 168 38 22 1141 71 60 1201 109 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 15 0 0 5 0 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 248 0 141 191 0 22 1207 0 60 1302 0 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.5 24.0 46.0 33.0 8.5 55.0 14.5 61.0 Effective Green, g (s) 32.5 24.0 46.0 33.0 8.5 55.0 14.5 61.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.18 0.35 0.25 0.07 0.42 0.11 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 329 643 412 873 115 2132 197 2356 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.07 c0.05 0.06 0.01 0.24 c0.03 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.39 0.34 0.22 0.19 0.57 0.30 0.55 Uniform Delay, d1 37.6 46.5 29.8 38.3 57.5 28.4 53.1 24.7 Progression Factor 2.07 1.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 1.7 2.3 0.6 3.7 1.1 4.0 0.9 Delay (s) 78.7 84.0 32.0 38.9 61.2 29.5 57.1 25.7 Level of Service E F C D E C E C Approach Delay (s) 83.2 36.1 30.1 27.0 Approach LOS F D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Shelton & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T'+ I ft F 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 30 300 75 70 345 190 5 15 45 245 10 15 Future Volume (vph) 30 300 75 70 345 190 5 15 45 245 10 15 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.91 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3433 1770 3539 1583 1681 1777 1583 At Permitted 0.53 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.68 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 985 3433 954 3539 1583 1653 1273 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 326 82 76 375 207 5 16 49 266 11 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 40 0 0 0 133 0 26 0 0 0 9 Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 368 0 76 375 74 0 44 0 0 277 7 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.46 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 351 1226 340 1263 565 767 591 734 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.03 c0.22 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.30 0.22 0.30 0.13 0.06 0.47 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 12.0 13.0 12.6 12.9 12.1 8.3 10.3 8.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.6 1.5 0.6 0.5 0.1 2.7 0.0 Delay (s) 12.5 13.6 14.1 13.5 12.6 8.4 12.9 8.1 Level of Service B B B B B A B A Approach Delay (s) 13.5 13.3 8.4 12.7 Approach LOS B B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Flower & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 11111 111] 11C N1:11111.0M0M0111.Sl11.1.1.1 Lane Configurations I ttt F I TT F I T F I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 90 440 60 110 450 145 65 1005 65 215 910 90 Future Volume (vph) 90 440 60 110 450 145 65 1005 65 215 910 90 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.32 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.23 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 588 5085 1583 549 3539 1583 424 3539 1583 235 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 98 478 65 120 489 158 71 1092 71 234 989 98 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 53 0 0 124 0 0 39 0 0 47 Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 478 12 120 489 34 71 1092 32 234 989 51 Tum Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.5 24.0 24.0 40.5 28.0 28.0 66.5 59.0 59.0 79.0 67.0 67.0 Effective Green, g (s) 32.5 24.0 24.0 40.5 28.0 28.0 66.5 59.0 59.0 79.0 67.0 67.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.18 0.18 0.31 0.22 0.22 0.51 0.45 0.45 0.61 0.52 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 224 938 292 288 762 340 294 1606 718 325 1823 815 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.09 c0.04 c0.14 0.01 0.31 c0.09 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.11 0.02 c0.35 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.51 0.04 0.42 0.64 0.10 0.24 0.68 0.04 0.72 0.54 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 39.0 47.7 43.5 33.5 46.4 40.9 16.9 28.0 19.8 19.5 21.2 15.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.1 2.0 0.3 4.4 4.1 0.6 1.9 2.3 0.1 12.9 1.2 0.1 Delay (s) 45.1 49.7 43.8 37.9 50.6 41.5 18.8 30.4 19.9 32.4 22.4 15.9 Level of Service D D D D D D B C B C C B Approach Delay (s) 48.4 46.7 29.1 23.7 Approach LOS D D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Parton & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations I M4 I ttT+ 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 40 555 125 90 660 95 20 5 130 25 10 105 Future Volume (vph) 40 555 125 90 660 95 20 5 130 25 10 105 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 0.89 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4945 1770 4989 1641 1799 1583 At Permitted 0.30 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.97 0.80 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 561 4945 625 4989 1600 1494 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 603 136 98 717 103 22 5 141 27 11 114 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 41 0 0 21 0 0 86 0 0 0 70 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 699 0 98 799 0 0 82 0 0 38 44 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 280 2472 312 2494 622 581 615 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.16 c0.05 0.03 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.28 0.31 0.32 0.13 0.07 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 12.2 13.1 13.3 13.4 17.7 17.2 17.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.3 1.7 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 Delay (s) 13.3 13.4 3.6 1.5 18.1 17.5 17.5 Level of Service B B A A B B B Approach Delay (s) 13.4 1.7 18.1 17.5 Approach LOS B A B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.24 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Broadway & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I TT+ Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 20 760 55 40 565 0 0 540 185 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 20 760 55 40 565 0 0 540 185 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.96 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5029 1770 3539 3404 At Permitted 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5029 542 3539 3404 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 22 826 60 43 614 0 0 587 201 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 899 0 43 614 0 0 760 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 Effective Green, g (s) 34.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.51 0.51 0.51 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1899 277 1808 1739 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.16 0.34 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 21.2 11.7 13.0 13.8 Progression Factor 2.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.8 Delay (s) 44.1 12.9 13.5 14.6 Level of Service D B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 44.1 13.5 14.6 Approach LOS A D B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Broadway & 5th 1/28/2016 J l4\ T l d Mover EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt At Protected Satd. Flow (prot) At Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3.0 Sum of lost time (s) 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: 4th & Ross 1128/2016 4- T Is. l Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt At Protected Satd. Flow (prot) At Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3.0 Sum of lost time (s) 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: Broadway & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Satd. Flow (prot) 44 1800 1770 4 1770 j T+ 0.95 I Ti 1.00 Traffic Volume (vph) 15 50 15 25 55 15 10 430 30 15 410 70 Future Volume (vph) 15 50 15 25 55 15 10 430 30 15 410 70 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 4 1.00 8 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Fr: 0.97 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 At Protected 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1799 1800 1770 3504 1770 3462 At Permitted 0.95 0.92 0.43 1.00 0.45 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1728 1687 805 3504 829 3462 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 54 16 27 60 16 11 467 33 16 446 76 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 8 0 0 6 0 0 15 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 77 0 0 95 0 11 494 0 16 507 0 Tum Type Perm NA B Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 33.0 33.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 Effective Green, g (s) 33.0 33.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 633 618 420 1829 432 1807 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.06 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.15 0.03 0.27 0.04 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 18.9 19.1 10.4 12.0 10.5 12.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.4 Delay (s) 19.3 27.8 10.5 12.3 10.6 12.4 Level of Service B C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 19.3 27.8 12.3 12.4 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.23 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Main & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I T Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 55 670 60 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 55 670 60 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5010 1770 3539 3500 At Permitted 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5010 344 3539 3500 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 60 728 65 92 1261 0 0 1092 87 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 843 0 92 1261 0 0 1173 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Effective Green, g (s) 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.62 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1336 214 2202 2177 v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.43 0.57 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 29.1 8.8 10.0 9.7 Progression Factor 0.47 0.56 0.56 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 5.0 0.9 1.0 Delay (s) 15.8 9.9 6.5 10.6 Level of Service B A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 15.8 6.7 10.6 Approach LOS A B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Main & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 3507 1.00 1.00 T+ 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) T+ 1704 3467 ti 71 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 55 10 0 70 120 0 1110 175 0 995 65 Future Volume (vph) 0 55 10 0 70 120 0 1110 175 0 995 65 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Fr: 0.98 0.91 0.98 0.99 At Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1824 1704 3467 3507 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1824 1704 3467 3507 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 60 11 0 76 130 0 1207 190 0 1082 71 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 69 0 0 14 0 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 63 0 0 137 0 0 1383 0 0 1148 0 Tum Type NA NA NA NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 22.0 22.0 58.0 58.0 Effective Green, g (s) 22.0 22.0 58.0 58.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.64 0.64 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 445 416 2234 2260 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.08 c0.40 0.33 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.14 0.33 0.62 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 26.6 27.9 9.5 8.5 Progression Factor 0.80 0.53 1.00 0.46 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 2.1 1.3 0.7 Delay (s) 21.9 16.8 10.8 4.6 Level of Service C B B A Approach Delay (s) 21.9 16.8 10.8 4.6 Approach LOS C B B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 31: Bush & 4th 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations 44 4 1 T+ I 1 Traffic Volume (vph) 10 220 45 0 190 25 10 135 120 30 155 5 Future Volume (vph) 10 220 45 0 190 25 10 135 120 30 155 5 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 At Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1818 1834 1770 1732 1770 1855 At Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.64 1.00 0.53 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1799 1834 1201 1732 993 1855 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 239 49 0 207 27 11 147 130 33 168 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 5 0 0 35 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 291 0 0 229 0 11 242 0 33 172 0 Tum Type Perm NA NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 39.0 39.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 Effective Green, g (s) 39.0 39.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 779 794 547 789 452 845 v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.14 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.01 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.29 0.02 0.31 0.07 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 17.2 16.5 13.5 15.5 13.8 14.7 Progression Factor 1.10 1.20 1.00 1.00 0.49 0.47 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.9 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.5 Delay (s) 20.2 20.6 13.5 16.5 7.1 7.4 Level of Service C C B B A A Approach Delay (s) 20.2 20.6 16.4 7.3 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 32: Bush & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I T F Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 30 780 90 30 140 0 0 180 40 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 30 780 90 30 140 0 0 180 40 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5001 1770 1863 1863 1583 At Permitted 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5001 1124 1863 1863 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 33 848 98 33 152 0 0 196 43 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 964 0 33 152 0 0 196 17 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2500 437 724 724 615 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 0.03 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.08 0.21 0.27 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 13.9 17.3 18.3 18.8 17.0 Progression Factor 1.61 0.75 0.73 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.1 Delay (s) 22.8 13.3 14.1 19.7 17.1 Level of Service C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 22.8 13.9 19.2 Approach LOS A C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 35: French & 4th 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations 41) 4 F 41) 1 1 Traffic Volume (vph) 10 350 10 55 200 50 5 20 170 95 150 20 Future Volume (vph) 10 350 10 55 200 50 5 20 170 95 150 20 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.88 1.00 0.98 At Protected 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1853 1843 1583 1641 1770 1830 At Permitted 0.99 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.58 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1838 1587 1583 1634 1074 1830 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 380 11 60 217 54 5 22 185 103 163 22 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 26 0 117 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 401 0 0 277 28 0 95 0 103 179 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 47.0 47.0 47.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Effective Green, g (s) 47.0 47.0 47.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.37 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 959 828 826 599 393 671 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.22 0.17 0.02 0.06 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.33 0.03 0.16 0.26 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 13.1 12.4 10.5 19.2 20.0 20.0 Progression Factor 0.69 0.70 0.55 1.00 1.01 1.01 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 1.0 0.1 0.6 1.6 1.0 Delay (s) 10.3 9.7 5.8 19.7 21.8 21.2 Level of Service B A A B C C Approach Delay (s) 10.3 9.0 19.7 21.4 Approach LOS B A B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 36: French & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Frt EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1.00 Lane Configurations 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3526 1573 M+ 60 43 4 0 38 1 RTOR Reduction (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 20 840 15 55 40 0 0 35 5 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 20 840 15 55 40 0 0 35 5 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 8 4.5 2 4.5 6 4.5 Permitted Phases Lane Util. Factor 8 0.95 2 1.00 1.00 Actuated Green, G (s) Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 At Protected 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3526 1810 1834 At Permitted 1.00 0.84 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3526 1573 1834 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 22 913 16 60 43 0 0 38 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 949 0 0 103 0 0 40 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1410 629 733 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 c0.07 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.16 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 11.1 8.7 8.3 Progression Factor 1.00 0.88 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 0.6 0.1 Delay (s) 13.7 8.2 8.4 Level of Service B A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 13.7 8.2 8.4 Approach LOS A B A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 39: Mortimer & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I 0.95 1.00 T+ 0.97 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1782 4+ 76 Traffic Volume (vph) 115 500 0 0 235 110 0 0 0 85 0 70 Future Volume (vph) 115 500 0 0 235 110 0 0 0 85 0 70 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 1.00 Fr: 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.94 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1782 1702 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1782 1702 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 125 543 0 0 255 120 0 0 0 92 0 76 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 125 543 0 0 356 0 0 0 0 0 115 0 Tum Type Prot NA NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.5 56.5 35.5 24.5 Effective Green, g (s) 16.5 56.5 35.5 24.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.63 0.39 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 324 1169 702 463 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.29 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.46 0.51 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 32.3 8.8 20.6 25.6 Progression Factor 1.21 0.86 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.3 1.3 2.6 1.3 Delay (s) 42.2 8.8 23.2 26.8 Level of Service D A C C Approach Delay (s) 15.1 23.2 0.0 26.8 Approach LOS B C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 43: Santa Ana & Santiago 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T F I T F I TT+ I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 245 150 100 25 60 70 30 430 35 140 910 355 Future Volume (vph) 245 150 100 25 60 70 30 430 35 140 910 355 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fr1 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3499 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.65 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1331 1863 1583 1218 1863 1583 1770 3499 1770 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 266 163 109 27 65 76 33 467 38 152 989 386 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 69 0 0 48 0 8 0 0 0 244 Lane Group Flow (vph) 266 163 40 27 65 28 33 497 0 152 989 142 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 5.0 22.0 11.0 27.5 27.5 Effective Green, g (s) 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 5.0 22.0 11.0 27.5 27.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.07 0.29 0.15 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 488 683 580 446 683 580 118 1026 259 1297 580 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.14 c0.09 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm c0.20 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.24 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.28 0.48 0.59 0.76 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 18.8 16.5 15.4 15.4 15.6 15.3 33.3 21.8 29.9 20.9 16.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.24 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.3 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 5.4 1.5 9.4 4.3 1.0 Delay (s) 23.1 17.3 15.7 15.6 15.9 15.5 46.7 15.8 39.3 25.2 17.5 Level of Service C B B B B B D B D C B Approach Delay (s) 19.9 15.6 17.7 24.6 Approach LOS B B B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 46: PAcific & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations I T'+ I ft F 44 4 Traffic Volume (vph) 20 255 25 50 190 70 15 65 65 40 85 15 Future Volume (vph) 20 255 25 50 190 70 15 65 65 40 85 15 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3492 1770 3539 1583 1741 1810 At Permitted 0.60 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.89 Satd. Flow (perm) 1117 3492 934 3539 1583 1697 1633 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 277 27 54 207 76 16 71 71 43 92 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 53 0 23 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 298 0 54 207 23 0 135 0 0 148 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 82.5 82.5 Effective Green, g (s) 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 82.5 82.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.63 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 330 1034 276 1048 468 1076 1036 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.08 c0.09 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.29 0.20 0.20 0.05 0.13 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 32.8 35.2 34.2 34.2 32.7 9.4 9.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.71 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.7 1.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 Delay (s) 33.2 35.9 29.5 28.6 23.4 9.7 9.8 Level of Service C D C C C A A Approach Delay (s) 35.7 27.6 9.7 9.8 Approach LOS D C A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.19 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 49: Santa Ana & Lacy 1/28/2016 y r-+ f 3 "$ '_A R. Move SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Satd. Flow (prot) 44 1810 1770 4 1770 j T+ 0.92 I 1 1.00 Traffic Volume (vph) 20 45 25 5 135 35 10 420 10 55 900 35 Future Volume (vph) 20 45 25 5 135 35 10 420 10 55 900 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 4 1.00 8 1.00 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fr: 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1774 1810 1770 1856 1770 1852 At Permitted 0.92 0.99 0.09 1.00 0.41 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1651 1803 175 1856 771 1852 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 49 27 5 147 38 11 457 11 60 978 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 19 0 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 79 0 0 178 0 11 467 0 60 1014 0 Tum Type Perm NA C Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 23.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 Effective Green, g (s) 23.5 23.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 517 564 99 1051 436 1049 v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 c0.55 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.10 0.06 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.32 0.11 0.44 0.14 0.97 Uniform Delay, d1 18.6 19.6 7.5 9.4 7.6 15.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.12 2.10 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 1.5 2.3 1.4 0.5 16.8 Delay (s) 19.2 21.1 9.8 10.8 16.7 49.6 Level of Service B C A B B D Approach Delay (s) 19.2 21.1 10.7 47.7 Approach LOS B C B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Raitt & Street Car/Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations T 11 T+ I t Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 355 0 165 0 845 80 95 445 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 355 0 165 0 845 80 95 445 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1.00 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 0 1841 1770 1863 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 0 1841 148 1863 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 386 0 179 0 918 87 103 484 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 115 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 386 64 0 0 1002 0 103 484 0 Tum Type Prot NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 2 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 0.0 50.5 50.5 50.5 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 0.0 50.5 50.5 50.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 617 0 929 74 940 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.54 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm c0.70 v/c Ratio 0.63 no cap 1.08 1.39 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 37.9 Error 24.8 24.8 16.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 Error 52.9 239.9 2.0 Delay (s) 42.6 Error 77.7 264.6 18.6 Level of Service D F E F B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 Error 77.7 61.7 Approach LOS A F E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay Error HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Ross & Santa Ana & 5th 1/28/2016 Iq:1 q:1 q:1: 1:1 I:1 I:1:Y.9:1.9:1.9:1:S.9r01.99r1:S.99r1:Ya Lane Configurations I ft F I T F I T F I FFF F Traffic Volume (vph) 80 530 75 65 235 120 80 230 100 125 915 130 Future Volume (vph) 80 530 75 65 235 120 80 230 100 125 915 130 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3610 1583 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 213 1863 1583 1120 1863 1583 1770 3610 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 87 576 82 71 255 130 87 250 109 136 995 141 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 66 0 0 79 0 0 82 0 0 107 Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 576 16 71 255 51 87 250 27 136 995 34 Tum Type Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 2 61 61 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 61 6 61 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.5 18.0 18.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.5 18.0 18.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 363 707 316 82 724 615 273 455 386 432 882 386 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.16 0.14 0.13 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.33 0.03 0.08 0.02 c0.28 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.81 0.05 0.87 0.35 0.08 0.32 0.55 0.07 0.31 1.13 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 29.9 34.4 29.1 25.3 19.5 17.4 27.9 29.7 26.1 27.8 34.0 26.3 Progression Factor 0.69 0.73 0.47 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 9.8 0.3 67.1 1.3 0.3 3.1 4.7 0.3 1.9 72.0 0.5 Delay (s) 22.3 34.9 14.1 92.4 20.8 17.6 30.9 34.4 26.5 29.7 106.0 26.7 Level of Service C C B F C B C C C C F C Approach Delay (s) 31.1 31.1 31.8 89.1 Approach LOS C C C F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 56.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 I Phase conflict between lane groups c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Bristol & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 11111 111] 11C N1:11111.0M0M0111.Sl11.1.1.1 Lane Configurations I T'+ I TT, I M4 I TTt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 35 260 60 115 375 145 50 1195 100 70 1385 95 Future Volume (vph) 35 260 60 115 375 145 50 1195 100 70 1385 95 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3440 1770 3391 1770 5026 1770 5036 At Permitted 0.29 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.14 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 535 3440 588 3391 204 5026 270 5036 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 283 65 125 408 158 54 1299 109 76 1505 103 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 32 0 0 7 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 332 0 125 534 0 54 1401 0 76 1602 0 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 28.9 23.2 40.2 30.0 79.8 79.8 79.8 79.8 Effective Green, g (s) 28.9 23.2 40.2 30.0 79.8 79.8 79.8 79.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.18 0.31 0.23 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 173 613 295 782 125 3085 165 3091 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.10 c0.04 c0.16 0.28 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.54 0.42 0.68 0.43 0.45 0.46 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 40.4 48.6 34.0 45.7 13.2 13.4 13.5 14.2 Progression Factor 1.42 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.7 3.2 4.4 4.8 10.5 0.5 9.0 0.6 Delay (s) 60.0 67.9 38.4 50.5 23.7 13.9 22.5 14.8 Level of Service E E D D C B C B Approach Delay (s) 67.2 48.3 14.3 15.2 Approach LOS E D B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Shelton & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T'+ I ft F 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 20 350 85 10 760 145 15 25 95 165 30 45 Future Volume (vph) 20 350 85 10 760 145 15 25 95 165 30 45 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3436 1770 3539 1583 1676 1787 1583 At Permitted 0.25 1.00 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.68 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 466 3436 879 3539 1583 1623 1266 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 380 92 11 826 158 16 27 103 179 33 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 38 0 0 0 96 0 59 0 0 0 28 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 434 0 11 826 62 0 87 0 0 212 21 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Effective Green, g (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.43 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 183 1349 345 1390 621 695 542 678 v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.05 c0.17 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.32 0.03 0.59 0.10 0.13 0.39 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 10.8 11.8 10.5 13.5 10.7 9.7 11.0 9.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.6 0.2 1.9 0.3 0.4 2.1 0.1 Delay (s) 12.2 12.4 10.6 15.3 11.1 10.0 13.1 9.4 Level of Service B B B B B B B A Approach Delay (s) 12.4 14.6 10.0 12.4 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Flower & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I ttt F I TT F I T F I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 110 415 95 210 700 230 160 850 55 95 555 55 Future Volume (vph) 110 415 95 210 700 230 160 850 55 95 555 55 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.18 1.00 1.00 0.35 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 336 5085 1583 658 3539 1583 579 3539 1583 298 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 120 451 103 228 761 250 174 924 60 103 603 60 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 78 0 0 155 0 0 37 0 0 37 Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 451 25 228 761 95 174 924 23 103 603 23 Tum Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 43.5 31.0 31.0 54.0 37.0 37.0 62.5 50.0 50.0 60.5 49.0 49.0 Effective Green, g (s) 43.5 31.0 31.0 54.0 37.0 37.0 62.5 50.0 50.0 60.5 49.0 49.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.24 0.24 0.42 0.28 0.28 0.48 0.38 0.38 0.47 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 250 1212 377 431 1007 450 392 1361 608 268 1333 596 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.09 c0.08 c0.22 c0.04 c0.26 0.03 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.02 0.14 0.06 0.17 0.01 0.14 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.37 0.07 0.53 0.76 0.21 0.44 0.68 0.04 0.38 0.45 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 32.0 41.4 38.3 26.0 42.4 35.4 20.3 33.3 25.0 22.3 30.4 25.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.5 0.9 0.3 4.6 5.3 1.1 3.6 2.7 0.1 4.1 1.1 0.1 Delay (s) 38.5 42.2 38.6 30.6 47.7 36.5 23.9 36.1 25.1 26.5 31.5 25.7 Level of Service D D D C D D C D C C C C Approach Delay (s) 41.0 42.2 33.7 30.4 Approach LOS D D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Parton & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations I M4 I ttT+ 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 5 545 15 35 1020 25 90 5 95 45 10 30 Future Volume (vph) 5 545 15 35 1020 25 90 5 95 45 10 30 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5065 1770 5067 1697 1790 1583 At Permitted 0.18 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.83 0.72 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 344 5065 733 5067 1450 1347 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 592 16 38 1109 27 98 5 103 49 11 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 40 0 0 0 19 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 605 0 38 1133 0 0 166 0 0 60 14 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 Effective Green, g (s) 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.42 0.42 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 160 2363 342 2364 612 568 668 v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.05 c0.11 0.04 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.26 0.11 0.48 0.27 0.11 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 13.0 14.5 13.5 16.5 17.0 15.7 15.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.12 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.4 0.1 Delay (s) 13.4 14.8 1.7 2.1 18.1 16.1 15.2 Level of Service B B A A B B B Approach Delay (s) 14.8 2.1 18.1 15.8 Approach LOS B A B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Broadway & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I TT+ Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 685 80 45 685 0 0 610 125 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 685 80 45 685 0 0 610 125 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4996 1770 3539 3449 At Permitted 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4996 499 3539 3449 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 49 745 87 49 745 0 0 663 136 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 854 0 49 745 0 0 765 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Effective Green, g (s) 21.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.38 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2098 189 1344 1310 v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.26 0.55 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 10.1 10.7 12.2 12.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 3.3 1.7 1.9 Delay (s) 10.7 14.0 13.8 14.3 Level of Service B B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 10.7 13.8 14.3 Approach LOS A B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Broadway & 5th 1/28/2016 J l4\ T l d Mover EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt At Protected Satd. Flow (prot) At Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3.0 Sum of lost time (s) 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: 4th & Ross 1128/2016 4- T Is. l Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt At Protected Satd. Flow (prot) At Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3.0 Sum of lost time (s) 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: Broadway & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Satd. Flow (prot) 44 1788 1770 4 1770 j T+ 0.87 I Ti 1.00 Traffic Volume (vph) 45 100 30 70 120 45 20 535 90 25 545 25 Future Volume (vph) 45 100 30 70 120 45 20 535 90 25 545 25 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 4 1.00 8 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Fr: 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1796 1788 1770 3463 1770 3516 At Permitted 0.87 0.86 0.38 1.00 0.35 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1590 1557 714 3463 643 3516 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 109 33 76 130 49 22 582 98 27 592 27 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 17 0 0 27 0 0 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 176 0 0 238 0 22 653 0 27 612 0 Tum Type Perm NA B Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 636 622 285 1385 257 1406 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 c0.15 0.03 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.38 0.08 0.47 0.11 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 10.1 10.6 9.3 11.1 9.4 10.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 1.8 0.5 1.2 0.8 1.0 Delay (s) 11.2 12.4 9.8 12.2 10.2 11.9 Level of Service B B A B B B Approach Delay (s) 11.2 12.4 12.2 11.8 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Main & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I T Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 60 670 90 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 60 670 90 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4983 1770 3539 3500 At Permitted 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4983 344 3539 3500 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 65 728 98 92 1261 0 0 1092 87 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 874 0 92 1261 0 0 1173 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Effective Green, g (s) 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.62 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1328 214 2202 2177 v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.43 0.57 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 29.4 8.8 10.0 9.7 Progression Factor 0.32 0.42 0.41 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 5.1 0.9 1.0 Delay (s) 11.6 8.7 5.0 10.6 Level of Service B A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 11.6 5.3 10.6 Approach LOS A B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Main & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 3519 1.00 1.00 T+ 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) T+ 1808 3517 ti 54 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 130 45 0 215 60 0 1130 50 0 1240 50 Future Volume (vph) 0 130 45 0 215 60 0 1130 50 0 1240 50 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Fr: 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.99 At Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1798 1808 3517 3519 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1798 1808 3517 3519 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 141 49 0 234 65 0 1228 54 0 1348 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 11 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 176 0 0 288 0 0 1279 0 0 1399 0 Tum Type NA NA NA NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 27.0 27.0 53.0 53.0 Effective Green, g (s) 27.0 27.0 53.0 53.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.59 0.59 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 539 542 2071 2072 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.16 0.36 c0.40 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.33 0.53 0.62 0.68 Uniform Delay, d1 24.4 26.2 12.0 12.6 Progression Factor 1.00 0.76 1.00 0.54 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 3.3 1.4 1.6 Delay (s) 26.1 23.2 13.3 8.5 Level of Service C C B A Approach Delay (s) 26.1 23.2 13.3 8.5 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 31: Bush & 4th 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations 44 4 1 T+ I 1 Traffic Volume (vph) 25 145 30 0 300 90 30 315 25 40 225 15 Future Volume (vph) 25 145 30 0 300 90 30 315 25 40 225 15 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1813 1805 1770 1842 1770 1846 At Permitted 0.92 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.43 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1687 1805 1017 1842 810 1846 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 158 33 0 326 98 33 342 27 43 245 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 12 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 211 0 0 412 0 33 366 0 43 258 0 Tum Type Perm NA NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 749 802 452 818 360 820 v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 c0.20 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.03 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.51 0.07 0.45 0.12 0.31 Uniform Delay, d1 15.9 18.0 14.4 17.3 14.7 16.1 Progression Factor 0.62 1.25 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.65 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 2.0 0.3 1.8 0.7 1.0 Delay (s) 10.7 24.5 14.7 19.1 10.7 11.5 Level of Service B C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 10.7 24.5 18.7 11.4 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 32: Bush & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I T F Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 825 75 90 335 0 0 215 115 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 825 75 90 335 0 0 215 115 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5013 1770 1863 1863 1583 At Permitted 1.00 0.59 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5013 1098 1863 1863 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 49 897 82 98 364 0 0 234 125 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 1017 0 98 364 0 0 234 101 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 35.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 Effective Green, g (s) 35.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1949 549 931 931 791 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.09 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.18 0.39 0.25 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 21.1 12.4 14.0 12.9 12.0 Progression Factor 1.50 0.60 0.56 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.3 Delay (s) 32.4 8.0 9.0 13.5 12.3 Level of Service C A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 32.4 8.8 13.1 Approach LOS A C A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 35: French & 4th 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations 41) 4 F 41) 1 1 Traffic Volume (vph) 15 160 35 85 380 90 20 65 85 100 50 15 Future Volume (vph) 15 160 35 85 380 90 20 65 85 100 50 15 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 0.97 At Protected 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1814 1846 1583 1727 1770 1799 At Permitted 0.96 0.90 1.00 0.97 0.60 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1747 1670 1583 1679 1110 1799 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 174 38 92 413 98 22 71 92 109 54 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 0 42 0 39 0 0 11 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 220 0 0 505 56 0 146 0 109 59 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 51.0 51.0 51.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Effective Green, g (s) 51.0 51.0 51.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.32 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 989 946 897 541 357 579 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 c0.30 0.04 0.09 c0.10 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.53 0.06 0.27 0.31 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 9.7 12.1 8.8 22.6 22.9 21.4 Progression Factor 1.82 0.76 1.74 1.00 0.99 0.99 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 1.3 0.1 1.2 2.2 0.4 Delay (s) 18.1 10.5 15.3 23.9 24.9 21.5 Level of Service B B B C C C Approach Delay (s) 18.1 11.3 23.9 23.6 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 36: French & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Frt EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1.00 Lane Configurations 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3527 1486 M+ 120 71 4 0 43 1 RTOR Reduction (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 30 830 10 110 65 0 0 40 5 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 30 830 10 110 65 0 0 40 5 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 8 4.5 2 4.5 6 4.5 Permitted Phases Lane Util. Factor 8 0.95 2 1.00 1.00 Actuated Green, G (s) Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3527 1806 1837 At Permitted 1.00 0.80 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3527 1486 1837 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 33 902 11 120 71 0 0 43 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 944 0 0 191 0 0 45 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1410 594 734 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.32 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 11.1 9.3 8.3 Progression Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 1.4 0.2 Delay (s) 13.6 9.9 8.5 Level of Service B A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 13.6 9.9 8.5 Approach LOS A B A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 39: Mortimer & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I 0.95 1.00 T+ 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1835 4+ 33 Traffic Volume (vph) 150 195 0 0 525 65 0 0 0 110 0 30 Future Volume (vph) 150 195 0 0 525 65 0 0 0 110 0 30 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 1.00 Fr: 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.97 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1835 1740 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1835 1740 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 163 212 0 0 571 71 0 0 0 120 0 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 163 212 0 0 637 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 Tum Type Prot NA NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.5 60.5 38.5 20.5 Effective Green, g (s) 17.5 60.5 38.5 20.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.67 0.43 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 344 1252 784 396 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.11 c0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.17 0.81 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 32.2 5.5 22.6 28.4 Progression Factor 1.04 0.88 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.5 0.3 9.0 1.5 Delay (s) 37.8 5.1 31.6 29.9 Level of Service D A C C Approach Delay (s) 19.3 31.6 0.0 29.9 Approach LOS B C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 43: Santa Ana & Santiago 1/28/2016 61q 11 11 0LTA 0PDI0LTA : 01M 0111 0111SI N1 1.1 Lane Configurations I T F I T F I TT+ I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 325 185 105 40 100 80 65 765 50 125 790 340 Future Volume (vph) 325 185 105 40 100 80 65 765 50 125 790 340 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fr1 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3507 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.69 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1279 1863 1583 1170 1863 1583 1770 3507 1770 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 353 201 114 43 109 87 71 832 54 136 859 370 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 77 0 0 59 0 8 0 0 0 243 Lane Group Flow (vph) 353 201 37 43 109 28 71 878 0 136 859 127 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 5.0 18.1 8.0 20.6 20.6 Effective Green, g (s) 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 5.0 18.1 8.0 20.6 20.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.08 0.30 0.13 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 413 602 511 378 602 511 147 1057 236 1215 543 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 0.06 0.04 c0.25 c0.08 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm c0.28 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.33 0.07 0.11 0.18 0.06 0.48 0.83 0.58 0.71 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 19.0 15.4 14.1 14.3 14.6 14.0 26.3 19.5 24.4 17.1 14.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 19.7 1.5 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.2 9.7 6.8 9.9 3.5 1.0 Delay (s) 38.7 16.9 14.3 14.9 15.3 14.2 35.0 29.6 34.3 20.6 15.1 Level of Service D B B B B B C C C C B Approach Delay (s) 28.0 14.8 30.0 20.4 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 46: Pacific & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T'+ I ft F 44 4 Traffic Volume (vph) 15 135 25 110 500 85 10 120 60 185 185 10 Future Volume (vph) 15 135 25 110 500 85 10 120 60 185 185 10 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3457 1770 3539 1583 1779 1812 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.73 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 3457 1770 3539 1583 1739 1360 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 147 27 120 543 92 11 130 65 201 201 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 0 62 0 13 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 163 0 120 543 30 0 193 0 0 412 0 Tum Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.5 23.5 20.5 34.5 34.5 72.5 72.5 Effective Green, g (s) 9.5 23.5 20.5 34.5 34.5 72.5 72.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.18 0.16 0.27 0.27 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 129 624 279 939 420 969 758 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.05 c0.07 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.11 c0.30 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.26 0.43 0.58 0.07 0.20 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 56.4 45.8 49.5 41.4 35.7 14.3 18.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.29 1.15 1.95 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 1.0 4.3 2.3 0.3 0.5 2.8 Delay (s) 58.3 46.8 67.9 49.8 69.9 14.8 21.0 Level of Service E D E D E B C Approach Delay (s) 47.8 55.1 14.8 21.0 Approach LOS D E B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 39.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 49: Santa Ana & Lacy 1/28/2016 y r-+ f 3 "$ '_A R. Move SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Satd. Flow (prot) 44 1810 1770 4 1770 j T+ 0.92 I 1 1.00 Traffic Volume (vph) 20 30 15 15 65 15 20 580 5 40 690 40 Future Volume (vph) 20 30 15 15 65 15 20 580 5 40 690 40 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 6 1.00 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fr: 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.98 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1779 1810 1770 1861 1770 1848 At Permitted 0.92 0.96 0.15 1.00 0.22 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1663 1759 271 1861 410 1848 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 33 16 16 71 16 22 630 5 43 750 43 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 61 0 0 93 0 22 634 0 43 790 0 Tum Type Perm NA D Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 23.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 Effective Green, g (s) 23.5 23.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 651 688 124 852 187 847 v/s Ratio Prot 0.34 c0.43 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.05 0.08 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.14 0.18 0.74 0.23 0.93 Uniform Delay, d1 11.5 11.7 9.6 13.4 9.8 15.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.33 2.16 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.4 3.1 5.9 2.2 15.2 Delay (s) 11.8 12.1 12.7 19.2 25.2 48.5 Level of Service B B B B C D Approach Delay (s) 11.8 12.1 19.0 47.3 Approach LOS B B B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Raitt & Street Car/Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations T I T+ T+ I t Traffic Volume (vph) 0 12 0 330 12 170 0 800 75 100 400 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 12 0 330 12 170 0 800 75 100 400 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.99 1.00 1.00 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1770 1602 1841 1770 1863 At Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1770 1602 1841 148 1863 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 13 0 359 13 185 0 870 82 109 435 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 13 0 359 131 0 0 949 0 109 435 0 Tum Type NA Prot NA NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 40.5 50.5 50.5 50.5 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 40.5 50.5 50.5 50.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 335 318 648 929 74 940 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.20 c0.08 0.52 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm c0.74 v/c Ratio 0.04 1.13 0.20 1.02 1.47 0.46 Uniform Delay, d1 33.9 41.0 19.3 24.8 24.8 16.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 90.0 0.7 34.9 272.1 1.6 Delay (s) 34.1 131.0 20.0 59.7 296.8 17.6 Level of Service C F B E F B Approach Delay (s) 34.1 91.5 59.7 73.6 Approach LOS C F E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 71.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.13 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Ross & Santa Ana & 5th 1/28/2016 Iq:1 q:1 q:1: 1:1 I:1 I:1:Y.9:1.9:1.9:1:S.9r01.99r1:S.99r1:Ya Lane Configurations I ft F I T F I T F I FFF F Traffic Volume (vph) 80 540 70 65 230 105 80 235 100 115 925 130 Future Volume (vph) 80 540 70 65 230 105 80 235 100 115 925 130 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3610 1583 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 213 1863 1583 1125 1863 1583 1770 3610 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 87 587 76 71 250 114 87 255 109 125 1005 141 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 61 0 0 70 0 0 82 0 0 107 Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 587 15 71 250 44 87 255 27 125 1005 34 Tum Type Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 2 61 61 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 61 6 61 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.5 18.0 18.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.5 18.0 18.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 363 707 316 82 724 615 275 455 386 432 882 386 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.17 0.13 0.14 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.33 0.03 0.08 0.02 c0.28 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.83 0.05 0.87 0.35 0.07 0.32 0.56 0.07 0.29 1.14 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 29.9 34.5 29.1 25.3 19.4 17.3 27.8 29.8 26.1 27.6 34.0 26.3 Progression Factor 0.70 0.73 0.48 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 10.7 0.3 67.1 1.3 0.2 3.0 4.9 0.3 1.7 76.4 0.5 Delay (s) 22.4 36.0 14.2 92.4 20.7 17.5 30.8 34.7 26.5 29.3 110.4 26.7 Level of Service C D B F C B C C C C F C Approach Delay (s) 32.2 31.6 32.0 93.2 Approach LOS C C C F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 58.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 I Phase conflict between lane groups c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Bristol & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 11111 111] 11C N1:11111.0M0M0111.Sl11.1.1.1 Lane Configurations I T'+ I TT, I M4 I TTt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 35 260 60 115 375 145 50 1195 100 70 1385 95 Future Volume (vph) 35 260 60 115 375 145 50 1195 100 70 1385 95 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3440 1770 3391 1770 5026 1770 5036 At Permitted 0.29 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.14 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 535 3440 588 3391 204 5026 270 5036 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 283 65 125 408 158 54 1299 109 76 1505 103 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 32 0 0 7 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 332 0 125 534 0 54 1401 0 76 1602 0 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 28.9 23.2 40.2 30.0 79.8 79.8 79.8 79.8 Effective Green, g (s) 28.9 23.2 40.2 30.0 79.8 79.8 79.8 79.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.18 0.31 0.23 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 173 613 295 782 125 3085 165 3091 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.10 c0.04 c0.16 0.28 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.54 0.42 0.68 0.43 0.45 0.46 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 40.4 48.6 34.0 45.7 13.2 13.4 13.5 14.2 Progression Factor 1.44 1.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.7 3.2 4.4 4.8 10.5 0.5 9.0 0.6 Delay (s) 61.1 68.5 38.4 50.5 23.7 13.9 22.5 14.8 Level of Service E E D D C B C B Approach Delay (s) 67.8 48.3 14.3 15.2 Approach LOS E D B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Shelton & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T'+ I ft F 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 20 375 75 5 745 140 15 25 95 170 25 35 Future Volume (vph) 20 375 75 5 745 140 15 25 95 170 25 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3450 1770 3539 1583 1676 1785 1583 At Permitted 0.26 1.00 0.46 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.68 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 482 3450 854 3539 1583 1623 1258 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 408 82 5 810 152 16 27 103 185 27 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 30 0 0 0 92 0 59 0 0 0 22 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 460 0 5 810 60 0 87 0 0 212 16 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Effective Green, g (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.43 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 189 1355 335 1390 621 695 539 678 v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.05 c0.17 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.34 0.01 0.58 0.10 0.13 0.39 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 10.8 11.9 10.4 13.4 10.7 9.7 11.0 9.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.7 0.1 1.8 0.3 0.4 2.1 0.1 Delay (s) 12.1 12.6 10.5 15.2 11.0 10.0 13.1 9.3 Level of Service B B B B B B B A Approach Delay (s) 12.6 14.5 10.0 12.6 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Flower & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I ttt F I TT F I T F I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 110 425 105 220 695 235 150 840 50 90 560 45 Future Volume (vph) 110 425 105 220 695 235 150 840 50 90 560 45 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.18 1.00 1.00 0.35 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 343 5085 1583 644 3539 1583 572 3539 1583 307 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 120 462 114 239 755 255 163 913 54 98 609 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 87 0 0 160 0 0 33 0 0 31 Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 462 27 239 755 95 163 913 21 98 609 18 Tum Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 43.5 31.0 31.0 54.0 37.0 37.0 62.5 50.0 50.0 60.5 49.0 49.0 Effective Green, g (s) 43.5 31.0 31.0 54.0 37.0 37.0 62.5 50.0 50.0 60.5 49.0 49.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.24 0.24 0.42 0.28 0.28 0.48 0.38 0.38 0.47 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 251 1212 377 427 1007 450 390 1361 608 272 1333 596 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.09 c0.08 c0.21 c0.04 c0.26 0.03 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.02 0.15 0.06 0.16 0.01 0.14 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.38 0.07 0.56 0.75 0.21 0.42 0.67 0.03 0.36 0.46 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 32.0 41.5 38.4 26.2 42.3 35.4 20.2 33.2 24.9 22.1 30.5 25.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.4 0.9 0.4 5.2 5.1 1.1 3.3 2.6 0.1 3.7 1.1 0.1 Delay (s) 38.4 42.4 38.7 31.4 47.4 36.4 23.5 35.8 25.0 25.8 31.6 25.6 Level of Service D D D C D D C D C C C C Approach Delay (s) 41.1 42.1 33.5 30.5 Approach LOS D D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Parton & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations I M4 I ttT+ 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 5 545 15 35 1030 25 90 5 95 50 10 30 Future Volume (vph) 5 545 15 35 1030 25 90 5 95 50 10 30 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5065 1770 5067 1697 1788 1583 At Permitted 0.18 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.83 0.71 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 338 5065 733 5067 1446 1326 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 592 16 38 1120 27 98 5 103 54 11 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 40 0 0 0 19 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 605 0 38 1144 0 0 166 0 0 65 14 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 Effective Green, g (s) 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.42 0.42 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 157 2363 342 2364 610 559 668 v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.05 c0.11 0.05 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.26 0.11 0.48 0.27 0.12 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 13.0 14.5 13.5 16.5 17.0 15.8 15.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.4 0.1 Delay (s) 13.4 14.8 1.6 2.1 18.1 16.2 15.2 Level of Service B B A A B B B Approach Delay (s) 14.8 2.1 18.1 15.9 Approach LOS B A B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Broadway & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I TT+ Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 685 80 45 685 0 0 610 125 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 685 80 45 685 0 0 610 125 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4996 1770 3539 3449 At Permitted 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4996 499 3539 3449 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 49 745 87 49 745 0 0 663 136 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 854 0 49 745 0 0 765 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Effective Green, g (s) 21.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.38 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2098 189 1344 1310 v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.26 0.55 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 10.1 10.7 12.2 12.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 3.3 1.7 1.9 Delay (s) 10.7 14.0 13.8 14.3 Level of Service B B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 10.7 13.8 14.3 Approach LOS A B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Broadway & 5th 1/28/2016 J l4\ T l d Mover EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt At Protected Satd. Flow (prot) At Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3.0 Sum of lost time (s) 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: 4th & Ross 1128/2016 4- T Is. l Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt At Protected Satd. Flow (prot) At Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3.0 Sum of lost time (s) 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: Broadway & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Satd. Flow (prot) 44 1788 1770 4 1770 j T+ 0.87 I Ti 1.00 Traffic Volume (vph) 45 100 30 70 120 45 20 535 90 25 545 25 Future Volume (vph) 45 100 30 70 120 45 20 535 90 25 545 25 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 4 1.00 8 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Fr: 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1796 1788 1770 3463 1770 3516 At Permitted 0.87 0.86 0.38 1.00 0.35 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1590 1557 714 3463 643 3516 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 109 33 76 130 49 22 582 98 27 592 27 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 17 0 0 27 0 0 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 176 0 0 238 0 22 653 0 27 612 0 Tum Type Perm NA B Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 636 622 285 1385 257 1406 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 c0.15 0.03 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.38 0.08 0.47 0.11 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 10.1 10.6 9.3 11.1 9.4 10.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 1.8 0.5 1.2 0.8 1.0 Delay (s) 11.2 12.4 9.8 12.2 10.2 11.9 Level of Service B B A B B B Approach Delay (s) 11.2 12.4 12.2 11.8 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Main & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I T Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 60 670 90 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 60 670 90 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4983 1770 3539 3500 At Permitted 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4983 344 3539 3500 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 65 728 98 92 1261 0 0 1092 87 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 874 0 92 1261 0 0 1173 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Effective Green, g (s) 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.62 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1328 214 2202 2177 v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.43 0.57 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 29.4 8.8 10.0 9.7 Progression Factor 0.33 0.42 0.41 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 5.1 0.9 1.0 Delay (s) 11.9 8.7 5.0 10.6 Level of Service B A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 11.9 5.3 10.6 Approach LOS A B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Main & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 3519 1.00 1.00 T+ 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) T+ 1808 3517 ti 54 Traffic Volume (vph) 0 130 45 0 215 60 0 1130 50 0 1240 50 Future Volume (vph) 0 130 45 0 215 60 0 1130 50 0 1240 50 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Fr: 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.99 At Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1798 1808 3517 3519 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1798 1808 3517 3519 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 141 49 0 234 65 0 1228 54 0 1348 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 11 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 176 0 0 288 0 0 1279 0 0 1399 0 Tum Type NA NA NA NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 27.0 27.0 53.0 53.0 Effective Green, g (s) 27.0 27.0 53.0 53.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.59 0.59 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 539 542 2071 2072 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.16 0.36 c0.40 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.33 0.53 0.62 0.68 Uniform Delay, d1 24.4 26.2 12.0 12.6 Progression Factor 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.55 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 3.2 1.4 1.6 Delay (s) 26.1 22.1 13.3 8.5 Level of Service C C B A Approach Delay (s) 26.1 22.1 13.3 8.5 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 31: Bush & 4th 1/28/2016 EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations 44 4 1 T+ I 1 Traffic Volume (vph) 30 140 30 25 295 90 30 330 30 40 230 15 Future Volume (vph) 30 140 30 25 295 90 30 330 30 40 230 15 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1811 1802 1770 1839 1770 1846 At Permitted 0.90 0.97 0.54 1.00 0.41 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1643 1761 1007 1839 768 1846 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 152 33 27 321 98 33 359 33 43 250 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 11 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 211 0 0 435 0 33 388 0 43 263 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 730 782 447 817 341 820 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 c0.25 0.03 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.56 0.07 0.48 0.13 0.32 Uniform Delay, d1 15.9 18.4 14.4 17.6 14.7 16.2 Progression Factor 0.62 1.22 1.00 1.00 0.68 0.65 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 2.5 0.3 2.0 0.7 1.0 Delay (s) 10.7 24.9 14.7 19.6 10.8 11.5 Level of Service B C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 10.7 24.9 19.2 11.4 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 32: Bush & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations 0T+ I T F Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 40 820 75 95 335 0 0 220 120 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 40 820 75 95 335 0 0 220 120 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5013 1770 1863 1863 1583 At Permitted 1.00 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5013 1089 1863 1863 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 43 891 82 103 364 0 0 239 130 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 1004 0 103 364 0 0 239 105 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 35.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 Effective Green, g (s) 35.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1949 544 931 931 791 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.09 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.19 0.39 0.26 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 21.0 12.4 14.0 12.9 12.0 Progression Factor 1.50 0.59 0.56 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.3 Delay (s) 32.3 8.0 8.9 13.6 12.4 Level of Service C A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 32.3 8.7 13.2 Approach LOS A C A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 35: French & 4th 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations 41) 4 F 41) 1 1 Traffic Volume (vph) 15 160 35 85 375 105 20 70 100 100 45 15 Future Volume (vph) 15 160 35 85 375 105 20 70 100 100 45 15 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 0.96 At Protected 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1814 1846 1583 1721 1770 1794 At Permitted 0.96 0.90 1.00 0.97 0.57 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1748 1668 1583 1679 1055 1794 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 174 38 92 408 114 22 76 109 109 49 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 0 49 0 45 0 0 11 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 220 0 0 500 65 0 162 0 109 54 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 51.0 51.0 51.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Effective Green, g (s) 51.0 51.0 51.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.32 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 990 945 897 541 339 578 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 c0.30 0.04 0.10 c0.10 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.53 0.07 0.30 0.32 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 9.7 12.1 8.8 22.9 23.1 21.3 Progression Factor 1.79 0.81 1.94 1.00 0.99 0.99 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 1.2 0.1 1.4 2.5 0.3 Delay (s) 17.8 11.0 17.1 24.3 25.4 21.3 Level of Service B B B C C C Approach Delay (s) 17.8 12.1 24.3 23.9 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 36: French & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Frt EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1.00 Lane Configurations 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3527 1494 M+ 120 76 4 0 43 1 RTOR Reduction (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 30 820 10 110 70 0 0 40 5 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 30 820 10 110 70 0 0 40 5 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 8 4.5 2 4.5 6 4.5 Permitted Phases Lane Util. Factor 8 0.95 2 1.00 1.00 Actuated Green, G (s) Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3527 1807 1837 At Permitted 1.00 0.80 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3527 1494 1837 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 33 891 11 120 76 0 0 43 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 933 0 0 196 0 0 45 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1410 597 734 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.26 c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.33 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 11.0 9.3 8.3 Progression Factor 1.00 0.94 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 1.4 0.2 Delay (s) 13.5 10.2 8.5 Level of Service B B A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 13.5 10.2 8.5 Approach LOS A B B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 39: Mortimer & 4th 1/28/2016 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I 0.95 1.00 T+ 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1828 4+ 38 Traffic Volume (vph) 155 205 0 0 530 85 0 0 0 100 0 35 Future Volume (vph) 155 205 0 0 530 85 0 0 0 100 0 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 1.00 Fr: 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.97 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1828 1733 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1828 1733 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 168 223 0 0 576 92 0 0 0 109 0 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 223 0 0 662 0 0 0 0 0 91 0 Tum Type Prot NA NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.5 60.5 38.5 20.5 Effective Green, g (s) 17.5 60.5 38.5 20.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.67 0.43 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 344 1252 781 394 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.12 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.18 0.85 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 32.3 5.5 23.1 28.3 Progression Factor 1.02 0.90 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.8 0.3 11.0 1.4 Delay (s) 37.6 5.2 34.1 29.7 Level of Service D A C C Approach Delay (s) 19.1 34.1 0.0 29.7 Approach LOS B C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 43: Santa Ana & Santiago 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T F I T F I TT+ I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 355 185 110 35 90 90 65 755 55 145 795 345 Future Volume (vph) 355 185 110 35 90 90 65 755 55 145 795 345 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fr1 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3503 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.69 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1292 1863 1583 1170 1863 1583 1770 3503 1770 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 386 201 120 38 98 98 71 821 60 158 864 375 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 81 0 0 66 0 9 0 0 0 246 Lane Group Flow (vph) 386 201 39 38 98 32 71 872 0 158 864 129 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 5.0 18.1 8.0 20.6 20.6 Effective Green, g (s) 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 5.0 18.1 8.0 20.6 20.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.08 0.30 0.13 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 417 602 511 378 602 511 147 1056 236 1215 543 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 0.05 0.04 c0.25 c0.09 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm c0.30 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.33 0.08 0.10 0.16 0.06 0.48 0.83 0.67 0.71 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 19.6 15.4 14.1 14.2 14.5 14.0 26.3 19.5 24.7 17.1 14.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 28.9 1.5 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.2 9.7 6.6 14.1 3.5 1.0 Delay (s) 48.5 16.9 14.4 14.7 15.1 14.3 35.0 29.4 38.9 20.7 15.1 Level of Service D B B B B B D C D C B Approach Delay (s) 33.7 14.7 29.8 21.2 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 46: Pacific & Santa Ana 1/28/2016 Lane Configurations I T'+ I ft F 44 4 Traffic Volume (vph) 15 140 20 105 480 80 10 115 65 185 165 10 Future Volume (vph) 15 140 20 105 480 80 10 115 65 185 165 10 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3472 1770 3539 1583 1772 1809 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.72 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 3472 1770 3539 1583 1734 1338 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 152 22 114 522 87 11 125 71 201 179 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 0 61 0 15 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 165 0 114 522 26 0 192 0 0 390 0 Tum Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.5 23.5 20.5 34.5 34.5 72.5 72.5 Effective Green, g (s) 9.5 23.5 20.5 34.5 34.5 72.5 72.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.18 0.16 0.27 0.27 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 129 627 279 939 420 967 746 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.05 c0.06 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.11 c0.29 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.26 0.41 0.56 0.06 0.20 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 56.4 45.8 49.3 41.1 35.7 14.3 18.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.30 1.16 2.04 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 1.0 3.9 2.1 0.2 0.5 2.6 Delay (s) 58.3 46.8 68.1 49.7 73.2 14.8 20.6 Level of Service E D E D E B C Approach Delay (s) 47.8 55.4 14.8 20.6 Approach LOS D E B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 39.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 49: Santa Ana & Lacy 1/28/2016 y r-+ f 3 "$ '_A R. Move SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Satd. Flow (prot) 44 1810 1770 4 1770 j T+ 0.92 I 1 1.00 Traffic Volume (vph) 20 30 15 15 65 15 20 580 5 40 695 40 Future Volume (vph) 20 30 15 15 65 15 20 580 5 40 695 40 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 6 1.00 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fr: 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.98 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1779 1810 1770 1861 1770 1848 At Permitted 0.92 0.96 0.15 1.00 0.22 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1663 1759 271 1861 410 1848 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 33 16 16 71 16 22 630 5 43 755 43 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 61 0 0 93 0 22 634 0 43 795 0 Tum Type Perm NA D Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 23.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 Effective Green, g (s) 23.5 23.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 651 688 124 852 187 847 v/s Ratio Prot 0.34 c0.43 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.05 0.08 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.14 0.18 0.74 0.23 0.94 Uniform Delay, d1 11.5 11.7 9.6 13.4 9.8 15.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.33 2.16 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.4 3.1 5.9 2.2 15.9 Delay (s) 11.8 12.1 12.7 19.2 25.1 49.3 Level of Service B B B B C D Approach Delay (s) 11.8 12.1 19.0 48.1 Approach LOS B B B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 20 Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum APPENDIX E TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY WORKSHEETS (ICU METHOLODOGY) 26 TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:34 Page 2-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Raitt Street/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.606 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Raitt Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 445 180 120 420 0 0 0 0 195 0 25 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: 0 445 180 120 420 0 0 0 0 195 0 25 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: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 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: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 0.00 0.71 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1192 482 1576 1675 0 0 0 0 3152 0 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.08 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:34 Page 3-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Pacific Ave/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.334 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 18 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Pacific Avenue Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 65 65 40 85 15 20 255 25 50 190 70 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 65 65 40 85 15 20 255 25 50 190 70 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: 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 PHF Volume: 14 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 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 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 0.10 0.45 0.45 0.28 0.61 0.11 1.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 173 751 751 478 1017 179 1576 1780 150 1576 1955 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.13 0.15 0.03 0.09 0.04 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:34 Page 4-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Shelton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.464 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Shelton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 15 45 245 10 15 30 300 75 70 345 190 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: 5 15 45 245 10 15 30 300 75 70 345 190 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: 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 PHF Volume: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 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: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 0.08 0.23 0.69 0.96 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 129 386 1159 1609 66 1576 1576 1564 335 1576 1955 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.02 0.18 0.21 0.04 0.16 0.11 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:35 Page 5-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 Flower St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.659 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Flower St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 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: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 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: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 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: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 3349 1576 1576 3349 1576 1576 5865 1576 1576 3910 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.30 0.04 0.14 0.27 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.09 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:35 Page 6-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Parton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.473 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Parton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 5 130 105 10 25 40 555 125 90 660 95 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: 20 5 130 105 10 25 40 555 125 90 660 95 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: 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 PHF Volume: 24 6 159 128 12 30 49 677 152 110 805 116 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 24 6 159 128 12 30 49 677 152 110 805 116 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: 24 6 159 128 12 30 49 677 152 110 805 116 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.13 0.03 0.84 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.00 2.45 0.55 1.00 2.62 0.38 Final Sat.: 216 54 1404 1529 146 1576 1576 4787 923 1576 5127 632 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.14 0.17 0.07 0.16 0.18 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:35 Page 7-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Ross St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.585 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 28 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Ross St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 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: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 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: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 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: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 1576 1576 1675 1576 1576 3910 1576 1576 5865 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.19 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.17 0.02 0.13 0.12 0.11 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:35 Page 8-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Bush St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.433 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 21 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Bush St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 30 140 0 0 180 40 0 0 0 30 780 90 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: 30 140 0 0 180 40 0 0 0 30 780 90 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: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 PHF Volume: 35 163 0 0 209 47 0 0 0 35 907 105 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 35 163 0 0 209 47 0 0 0 35 907 105 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: 35 163 0 0 209 47 0 0 0 35 907 105 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 2.60 0.30 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 0 0 1370 304 0 0 0 167 5083 502 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.18 0.21 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:35 Page 9-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #8 French St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.673 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 34 Level Of Service: B Street Name: French St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 55 40 0 0 35 5 0 0 0 20 840 15 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: 55 40 0 0 35 5 0 0 0 20 840 15 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: 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 PHF Volume: 108 78 0 0 69 10 0 0 0 39 1647 29 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 108 78 0 0 69 10 0 0 0 39 1647 29 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: 108 78 0 0 69 10 0 0 0 39 1647 29 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.58 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 1.92 0.03 Final Sat.: 969 705 0 0 1465 209 0 0 0 77 3754 57 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.44 0.51 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:35 Page 10-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Lacy St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.763 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 45 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Lacy St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 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: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 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: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 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: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.03 0.77 0.20 0.22 0.50 0.28 0.02 0.96 0.02 0.06 0.91 0.03 Final Sat.: 48 1292 335 372 837 465 38 1866 38 93 1777 59 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.23 0.26 0.03 0.51 0.59 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:35 Page 11-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Santiago St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.493 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Santiago St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 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: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 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: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 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: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.85 0.15 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 1576 1576 1675 1576 1576 3616 252 1576 3910 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.16 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.12 0.14 0.09 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:35 Page 12-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #11 Bush St/4th St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.391 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 20 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Bush 4th Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 10 135 120 30 155 5 10 220 45 10 190 25 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: 10 135 120 30 155 5 10 220 45 10 190 25 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: 10 135 120 30 155 5 10 220 45 10 190 25 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 10 135 120 30 155 5 10 220 45 10 190 25 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: 10 135 120 30 155 5 10 220 45 10 190 25 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 0.53 0.47 1.00 0.97 0.03 0.04 0.80 0.16 0.04 0.85 0.11 Final Sat.: 1576 887 788 1576 1622 52 61 1564 274 74 1651 186 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.14 0.16 0.01 0.12 0.13 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:35 Page 13-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #12 French St/4th St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.460 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Street Name: French St 4th St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 20 170 95 150 20 10 350 10 55 200 50 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: 5 20 170 95 150 20 10 350 10 55 200 50 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: 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 PHF Volume: 5 19 162 90 143 19 10 333 10 52 190 48 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 19 162 90 143 19 10 333 10 52 190 48 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: 5 19 162 90 143 19 10 333 10 52 190 48 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 0.03 0.10 0.87 1.00 0.88 0.12 0.03 0.94 0.03 0.22 0.78 1.00 Final Sat.: 43 172 1460 1576 1477 197 45 1849 45 361 1533 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.18 0.21 0.03 0.12 0.03 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:16:35 Page 14-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #13 Mortimer St/4th St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.433 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 21 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Mortimer St 4th St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 85 0 70 115 500 0 0 235 110 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: 0 0 0 85 0 70 115 500 0 0 235 110 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: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 88 0 72 119 515 0 0 242 113 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 88 0 72 119 515 0 0 242 113 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: 0 0 0 88 0 72 119 515 0 0 242 113 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.45 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.32 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 918 0 756 1576 1955 0 0 1332 534 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.08 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.21 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 2-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Raitt Street/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.847 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 64 Level Of Service: D Street Name: Raitt Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 845 80 95 445 0 0 0 0 355 0 165 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: 0 845 80 95 445 0 0 0 0 355 0 165 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: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 0 929 88 104 489 0 0 0 0 390 0 181 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 929 88 104 489 0 0 0 0 390 0 181 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: 0 929 88 104 489 0 0 0 0 390 0 181 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 0.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1530 145 1576 1675 0 0 0 0 3152 0 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.07 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 3-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Pacific Ave/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.548 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Pacific Avenue Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 0.05 0.63 0.32 0.49 0.49 0.02 1.00 0.84 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 88 1058 529 815 815 44 1576 1650 262 1576 1955 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.01 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.26 0.05 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 4-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Shelton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.554 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Shelton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 25 95 165 30 45 20 350 85 10 760 145 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 25 95 165 30 45 20 350 85 10 760 145 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: 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 PHF Volume: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 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: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 0.11 0.19 0.70 0.85 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 186 310 1178 1417 258 1576 1576 1573 327 1576 1955 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.23 0.01 0.34 0.08 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 5-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 Flower St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.607 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Flower St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 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: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 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: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 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: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 3349 1576 1576 3349 1576 1576 5865 1576 1576 3910 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.25 0.03 0.06 0.17 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.13 0.18 0.15 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 6-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Parton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.432 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 21 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Parton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 5 95 45 10 30 5 545 15 35 1020 25 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: 90 5 95 45 10 30 5 545 15 35 1020 25 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: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 98 5 103 49 11 33 5 592 16 38 1109 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 98 5 103 49 11 33 5 592 16 38 1109 27 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: 98 5 103 49 11 33 5 592 16 38 1109 27 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.47 0.03 0.50 0.82 0.18 1.00 1.00 2.92 0.08 1.00 2.93 0.07 Final Sat.: 793 44 837 1370 304 1576 1576 5708 135 1576 5725 120 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.10 0.12 0.02 0.19 0.23 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 7-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Ross St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.456 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Ross St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 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: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 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: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 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: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 1576 1576 1675 1576 1576 3910 1576 1576 5865 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.14 0.06 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.08 0.16 0.08 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 8-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Bush St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.553 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Bush St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 335 0 0 215 115 0 0 0 45 825 75 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: 90 335 0 0 215 115 0 0 0 45 825 75 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: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 102 381 0 0 244 131 0 0 0 51 938 85 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 102 381 0 0 244 131 0 0 0 51 938 85 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: 102 381 0 0 244 131 0 0 0 51 938 85 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 2.62 0.24 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 0 0 1091 584 0 0 0 239 5120 399 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.18 0.21 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 9-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #8 French St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.740 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 42 Level Of Service: C Street Name: French St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 110 65 0 0 40 5 0 0 0 30 830 10 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: 110 65 0 0 40 5 0 0 0 30 830 10 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: 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 PHF Volume: 208 123 0 0 76 9 0 0 0 57 1572 19 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 208 123 0 0 76 9 0 0 0 57 1572 19 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: 208 123 0 0 76 9 0 0 0 57 1572 19 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.63 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 1.91 0.02 Final Sat.: 1053 622 0 0 1488 186 0 0 0 115 3730 38 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.42 0.49 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 10-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Lacy St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.572 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Lacy St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 65 15 20 30 15 20 580 5 45 690 40 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 65 15 20 30 15 20 580 5 45 690 40 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: 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 PHF Volume: 14 62 14 19 29 14 19 558 5 43 663 38 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 62 14 19 29 14 19 558 5 43 663 38 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 63 14 19 29 14 19 558 5 43 663 38 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.16 0.68 0.16 0.31 0.46 0.23 0.03 0.96 0.01 0.06 0.89 0.05 Final Sat.: 264 1146 264 515 773 386 55 1874 14 97 1741 86 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.30 0.35 0.03 0.38 0.45 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 11-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Santiago St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.651 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Santiago St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 40 100 80 325 185 105 65 765 50 125 790 340 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: 40 100 80 325 185 105 65 765 50 125 790 340 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: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 PHF Volume: 41 102 82 332 189 107 66 781 51 128 806 347 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 41 102 82 332 189 107 66 781 51 128 806 347 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: 41 102 82 332 189 107 66 781 51 128 806 347 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 1576 1576 1675 1576 1576 3670 205 1576 3910 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.04 0.21 0.25 0.08 0.21 0.22 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 12-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #11 Bush St/4th St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.531 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Bush 4th Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 30 315 25 40 225 15 25 145 30 25 300 90 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: 30 315 25 40 225 15 25 145 30 25 300 90 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: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 PHF Volume: 29 309 25 39 221 15 25 142 29 25 294 88 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 29 309 25 39 221 15 25 142 29 25 294 88 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: 29 309 25 39 221 15 25 142 29 25 294 88 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 0.93 0.07 1.00 0.94 0.06 0.12 0.73 0.15 0.06 0.72 0.22 Final Sat.: 1576 1551 123 1576 1570 105 209 1417 251 101 1413 363 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.20 0.20 0.02 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.21 0.24 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 13-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #12 French St/4th St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.458 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Street Name: French St 4th St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 65 85 100 50 15 15 160 35 85 380 90 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: 20 65 85 100 50 15 15 160 35 85 380 90 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: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 PHF Volume: 20 64 84 99 50 15 15 158 35 84 376 89 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 20 64 84 99 50 15 15 158 35 84 376 89 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: 20 64 84 99 50 15 15 158 35 84 376 89 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 0.12 0.38 0.50 1.00 0.77 0.23 0.07 0.76 0.17 0.18 0.82 1.00 Final Sat.: 197 640 837 1576 1288 386 120 1490 279 306 1598 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.05 0.24 0.06 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:18:07 Page 14-1 OC Streetcar Traffic Study Addendum 2035 With Transit Signal Priority ICO Results Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #13 Mortimer St/4th St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.647 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 32 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Mortimer St 4th St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 110 0 30 150 195 0 0 525 65 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: 0 0 0 110 0 30 150 195 0 0 525 65 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: 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 124 0 34 169 219 0 0 590 73 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 124 0 34 169 219 0 0 590 73 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: 0 0 0 124 0 34 169 219 0 0 590 73 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.11 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1316 0 359 1576 1955 0 0 1740 184 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.40 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum APPENDIX F STREET DESIGN CONCEPT LOS WORKSHEETS (ICU METHOLODOGY) 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 2-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Raitt Street/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.664 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 34 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Raitt Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 445 180 120 420 0 0 0 0 195 0 25 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: 0 445 180 120 420 0 0 0 0 195 0 25 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: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 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: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.71 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1210 490 1600 1700 0 0 0 0 1600 0 1700 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.08 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 3-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Pacific Ave/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.330 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 18 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Pacific Avenue Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 65 65 40 85 15 20 255 25 50 190 70 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 65 65 40 85 15 20 255 25 50 190 70 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: 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 PHF Volume: 14 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 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 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.10 0.45 0.45 0.28 0.61 0.11 1.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.46 0.54 Final Sat.: 176 762 762 486 1032 182 1600 1548 152 1600 2485 915 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.07 0.07 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 4-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Shelton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.460 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Shelton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 15 45 245 10 15 30 300 75 70 345 190 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: 5 15 45 245 10 15 30 300 75 70 345 190 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: 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 PHF Volume: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 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: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 0.08 0.23 0.69 0.96 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 131 392 1177 1633 67 1600 1600 1360 340 1600 1700 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.02 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.19 0.11 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 5-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 Flower St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.711 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Flower St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 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: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 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: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 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: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.76 0.24 1.00 1.51 0.49 Final Sat.: 1600 3400 1600 1600 3400 1600 1600 2992 408 1600 2571 829 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.30 0.04 0.13 0.27 0.06 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.18 0.17 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 6-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Parton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.549 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Parton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 5 130 105 10 25 40 555 125 90 660 95 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: 20 5 130 105 10 25 40 555 125 90 660 95 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: 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 PHF Volume: 24 6 159 128 12 30 49 677 152 110 805 116 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 24 6 159 128 12 30 49 677 152 110 805 116 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: 24 6 159 128 12 30 49 677 152 110 805 116 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.13 0.03 0.84 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.63 0.37 1.00 1.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 219 55 1426 1552 148 1600 1600 2775 625 1600 2972 428 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.24 0.24 0.07 0.27 0.27 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 7-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Ross St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.606 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Ross St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 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: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 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: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 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: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.59 0.41 Final Sat.: 1600 1700 1600 1600 1700 1600 1600 3400 1600 1600 2705 695 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.18 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.20 0.02 0.13 0.26 0.26 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 8-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Bush St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.530 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Bush St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 30 140 0 0 180 40 0 0 0 30 780 90 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: 30 140 0 0 180 40 0 0 0 30 780 90 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: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 PHF Volume: 35 163 0 0 209 47 0 0 0 35 907 105 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 35 163 0 0 209 47 0 0 0 35 907 105 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: 35 163 0 0 209 47 0 0 0 35 907 105 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 1.73 0.20 Final Sat.: 1600 1700 0 0 1391 309 0 0 0 113 2947 340 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 9-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #8 French St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.664 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 34 Level Of Service: B Street Name: French St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 55 40 0 0 35 5 0 0 0 20 840 15 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: 55 40 0 0 35 5 0 0 0 20 840 15 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: 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 PHF Volume: 108 78 0 0 69 10 0 0 0 39 1647 29 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 108 78 0 0 69 10 0 0 0 39 1647 29 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: 108 78 0 0 69 10 0 0 0 39 1647 29 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.58 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 1.92 0.03 Final Sat.: 984 716 0 0 1488 212 0 0 0 78 3264 58 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.50 0.50 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 10-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Lacy St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.753 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 44 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Lacy St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 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: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 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: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 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: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 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: 0.03 0.77 0.20 0.22 0.50 0.28 0.02 0.96 0.02 0.06 0.91 0.03 Final Sat.: 49 1311 340 378 850 472 39 1623 39 94 1545 60 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.26 0.26 0.03 0.58 0.58 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 11-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Santiago St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.525 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Santiago St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 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: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 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: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 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: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.85 0.15 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 1700 1600 1600 1700 1600 1600 3144 256 1600 3400 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.27 0.22 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 12-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #14 Bristol/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.605 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Bristol Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 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: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 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: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 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: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.81 0.19 1.00 2.76 0.24 1.00 0.89 0.11 1.00 0.84 0.16 Final Sat.: 1600 4779 321 1600 4692 408 1600 1505 195 1600 1423 277 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.13 0.13 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 13-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #15 Broadway/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.736 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 41 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Broadway Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 45 635 0 0 615 265 0 0 0 25 795 70 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: 45 635 0 0 615 265 0 0 0 25 795 70 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: 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 PHF Volume: 58 825 0 0 799 344 0 0 0 32 1032 91 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 58 825 0 0 799 344 0 0 0 32 1032 91 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: 58 825 0 0 799 344 0 0 0 32 1032 91 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 1.94 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3400 0 0 2376 1024 0 0 0 104 3296 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.31 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:19:10 Page 14-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #17 Main St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.755 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 44 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Main St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 1260 0 0 1150 80 0 0 0 65 720 65 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: 90 1260 0 0 1150 80 0 0 0 65 720 65 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: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 98 1370 0 0 1250 87 0 0 0 71 783 71 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 98 1370 0 0 1250 87 0 0 0 71 783 71 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: 98 1370 0 0 1250 87 0 0 0 71 783 71 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.87 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.83 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3400 0 0 3179 221 0 0 0 282 3118 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.25 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:50 Page 2-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Raitt Street/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.957 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 140 Level Of Service: E Street Name: Raitt Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 845 80 95 445 0 0 0 0 355 0 165 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: 0 845 80 95 445 0 0 0 0 355 0 165 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: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 0 929 88 104 489 0 0 0 0 390 0 181 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 929 88 104 489 0 0 0 0 390 0 181 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: 0 929 88 104 489 0 0 0 0 390 0 181 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1553 147 1600 1700 0 0 0 0 1600 0 1700 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.07 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:50 Page 3-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Pacific Ave/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.461 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Pacific Avenue Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.05 0.63 0.32 0.49 0.49 0.02 1.00 0.84 0.16 1.00 1.71 0.29 Final Sat.: 89 1074 537 828 828 45 1600 1434 266 1600 2906 494 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.17 0.17 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:50 Page 4-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Shelton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.603 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Shelton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 25 95 165 30 45 20 350 85 10 760 145 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 25 95 165 30 45 20 350 85 10 760 145 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: 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 PHF Volume: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 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: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 0.11 0.19 0.70 0.85 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 189 315 1196 1438 262 1600 1600 1368 332 1600 1700 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.22 0.01 0.39 0.08 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:50 Page 5-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 Flower St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.695 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Flower St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 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: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 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: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 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: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.63 0.37 1.00 1.51 0.49 Final Sat.: 1600 3400 1600 1600 3400 1600 1600 2767 633 1600 2559 841 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.25 0.03 0.06 0.16 0.03 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.27 0.27 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:50 Page 6-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Parton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.538 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Parton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 5 95 45 10 30 5 545 15 35 1020 25 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: 90 5 95 45 10 30 5 545 15 35 1020 25 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: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 98 5 103 49 11 33 5 592 16 38 1109 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 98 5 103 49 11 33 5 592 16 38 1109 27 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: 98 5 103 49 11 33 5 592 16 38 1109 27 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.47 0.03 0.50 0.82 0.18 1.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.95 0.05 Final Sat.: 805 45 850 1391 309 1600 1600 3309 91 1600 3319 81 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.02 0.33 0.33 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:50 Page 7-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Ross St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.596 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Ross St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 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: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 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: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 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: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 1600 1700 1600 1600 1700 1600 1600 3400 1600 1600 2977 423 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.14 0.06 0.05 0.16 0.05 0.08 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:50 Page 8-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Bush St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.650 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Bush St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 335 0 0 215 115 0 0 0 45 825 75 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: 90 335 0 0 215 115 0 0 0 45 825 75 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: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 102 381 0 0 244 131 0 0 0 51 938 85 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 102 381 0 0 244 131 0 0 0 51 938 85 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: 102 381 0 0 244 131 0 0 0 51 938 85 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 1.75 0.16 Final Sat.: 1600 1700 0 0 1108 592 0 0 0 162 2968 270 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.32 0.32 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:50 Page 9-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #8 French St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.730 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 41 Level Of Service: C Street Name: French St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 110 65 0 0 40 5 0 0 0 30 830 10 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: 110 65 0 0 40 5 0 0 0 30 830 10 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: 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 PHF Volume: 208 123 0 0 76 9 0 0 0 57 1572 19 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 208 123 0 0 76 9 0 0 0 57 1572 19 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: 208 123 0 0 76 9 0 0 0 57 1572 19 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.63 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 1.91 0.02 Final Sat.: 1069 631 0 0 1511 189 0 0 0 117 3244 39 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.48 0.48 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:50 Page 10-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Lacy St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.565 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Lacy St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 65 15 20 30 15 20 580 5 45 690 40 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 65 15 20 30 15 20 580 5 45 690 40 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: 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 PHF Volume: 14 62 14 19 29 14 19 558 5 43 663 38 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 62 14 19 29 14 19 558 5 43 663 38 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 63 14 19 29 14 19 558 5 43 663 38 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 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: 0.16 0.68 0.16 0.31 0.46 0.23 0.03 0.96 0.01 0.06 0.89 0.05 Final Sat.: 268 1163 268 523 785 392 56 1630 14 99 1514 88 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.34 0.34 0.03 0.44 0.44 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:51 Page 11-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Santiago St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.642 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 32 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Santiago St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 40 100 80 325 185 105 65 765 50 125 790 340 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: 40 100 80 325 185 105 65 765 50 125 790 340 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: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 PHF Volume: 41 102 82 332 189 107 66 781 51 128 806 347 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 41 102 82 332 189 107 66 781 51 128 806 347 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: 41 102 82 332 189 107 66 781 51 128 806 347 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 1700 1600 1600 1700 1600 1600 3191 209 1600 3400 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.04 0.24 0.24 0.08 0.24 0.22 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:51 Page 12-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #14 Bristol/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.840 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 62 Level Of Service: D Street Name: Bristol Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 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: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 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: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 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: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.78 0.22 1.00 2.78 0.22 1.00 0.87 0.13 1.00 0.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 1600 4723 377 1600 4724 376 1600 1484 216 1600 1278 422 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.04 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.08 0.40 0.40 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:51 Page 13-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #15 Broadway/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.722 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 40 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Broadway Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 70 770 0 0 685 130 0 0 0 70 885 85 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: 70 770 0 0 685 130 0 0 0 70 885 85 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: 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 PHF Volume: 83 917 0 0 815 155 0 0 0 83 1054 101 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 83 917 0 0 815 155 0 0 0 83 1054 101 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: 83 917 0 0 815 155 0 0 0 83 1054 101 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.68 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 1.85 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3400 0 0 2858 542 0 0 0 249 3151 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.33 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 2035 PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:22:51 Page 14-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #17 Main St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.852 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 66 Level Of Service: D Street Name: Main St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 1395 0 0 1330 95 0 0 0 65 855 110 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: 90 1395 0 0 1330 95 0 0 0 65 855 110 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: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 97 1500 0 0 1430 102 0 0 0 70 919 118 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 97 1500 0 0 1430 102 0 0 0 70 919 118 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: 97 1500 0 0 1430 102 0 0 0 70 919 118 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.87 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 1.86 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3400 0 0 3173 227 0 0 0 240 3160 1600 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.29 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 2-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Raitt Street/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.673 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 34 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Raitt Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 445 180 120 420 0 0 0 0 195 0 25 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: 0 445 180 120 420 0 0 0 0 195 0 25 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: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 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: 0 484 196 130 457 0 0 0 0 212 0 27 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.00 0.71 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1192 482 1576 1675 0 0 0 0 1576 0 1675 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.08 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 3-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Pacific Ave/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.334 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 18 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Pacific Avenue Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 65 65 40 85 15 20 255 25 50 190 70 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 65 65 40 85 15 20 255 25 50 190 70 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: 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 PHF Volume: 14 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 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 60 60 37 78 14 18 234 23 46 174 64 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.10 0.45 0.45 0.28 0.61 0.11 1.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.46 0.54 Final Sat.: 173 751 751 478 1017 179 1576 1780 150 1576 2857 902 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.13 0.15 0.03 0.06 0.07 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 4-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Shelton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.464 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Shelton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 15 45 245 10 15 30 300 75 70 345 190 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: 5 15 45 245 10 15 30 300 75 70 345 190 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: 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 PHF Volume: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 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: 5 14 41 225 9 14 28 275 69 64 317 174 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 0.08 0.23 0.69 0.96 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 129 386 1159 1609 66 1576 1576 1564 335 1576 1955 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.02 0.18 0.21 0.04 0.16 0.11 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 5-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 Flower St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.721 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 40 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Flower St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 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: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 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: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 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: 65 1005 65 215 910 90 90 440 60 110 450 145 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.76 0.24 1.00 1.51 0.49 Final Sat.: 1576 3349 1576 1576 3349 1576 1576 3441 402 1576 2957 816 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.30 0.04 0.14 0.27 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.15 0.07 0.15 0.18 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 6-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Parton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.555 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Parton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 5 130 105 10 25 40 555 125 90 660 95 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: 20 5 130 105 10 25 40 555 125 90 660 95 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: 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 PHF Volume: 24 6 159 128 12 30 49 677 152 110 805 116 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 24 6 159 128 12 30 49 677 152 110 805 116 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: 24 6 159 128 12 30 49 677 152 110 805 116 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.13 0.03 0.84 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.63 0.37 1.00 1.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 216 54 1404 1529 146 1576 1576 3191 616 1576 3418 421 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.21 0.25 0.07 0.24 0.27 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 7-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Ross St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.596 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Ross St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 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: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 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: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 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: 25 310 70 70 245 120 85 675 30 210 700 180 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.59 0.41 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 1576 1576 1675 1576 1576 3910 1576 1576 3110 685 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.19 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.17 0.02 0.13 0.23 0.26 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 8-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Bush St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.537 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Bush St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 30 140 0 0 180 40 0 0 0 30 780 90 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: 30 140 0 0 180 40 0 0 0 30 780 90 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: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 PHF Volume: 35 163 0 0 209 47 0 0 0 35 907 105 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 35 163 0 0 209 47 0 0 0 35 907 105 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: 35 163 0 0 209 47 0 0 0 35 907 105 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 1.73 0.20 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 0 0 1370 304 0 0 0 112 3389 335 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.27 0.31 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 9-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #8 French St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.673 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 34 Level Of Service: B Street Name: French St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 55 40 0 0 35 5 0 0 0 20 840 15 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: 55 40 0 0 35 5 0 0 0 20 840 15 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: 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 PHF Volume: 108 78 0 0 69 10 0 0 0 39 1647 29 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 108 78 0 0 69 10 0 0 0 39 1647 29 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: 108 78 0 0 69 10 0 0 0 39 1647 29 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.58 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 1.92 0.03 Final Sat.: 969 705 0 0 1465 209 0 0 0 77 3754 57 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.44 0.51 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 10-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Lacy St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.763 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 45 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Lacy St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 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: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 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: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 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: 5 135 35 20 45 25 10 420 10 55 900 35 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.03 0.77 0.20 0.22 0.50 0.28 0.02 0.96 0.02 0.06 0.91 0.03 Final Sat.: 48 1292 335 372 837 465 38 1866 38 93 1777 59 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.23 0.26 0.03 0.51 0.59 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 11-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Santiago St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.493 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Santiago St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 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: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 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: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 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: 25 60 70 245 150 100 30 430 35 140 910 355 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.85 0.15 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 1576 1576 1675 1576 1576 3616 252 1576 3910 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.16 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.12 0.14 0.09 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 12-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #14 Bristol/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.614 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 30 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Bristol Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 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: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 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: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 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: 20 1115 75 60 1265 110 55 270 35 150 180 35 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 2.81 0.19 1.00 2.76 0.24 1.00 0.89 0.11 1.00 0.84 0.16 Final Sat.: 1576 4707 317 1576 4622 402 1576 1731 192 1576 1637 273 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.16 0.18 0.10 0.11 0.13 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 13-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #15 Broadway/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.701 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Broadway Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 45 635 0 0 615 265 0 0 0 25 795 70 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: 45 635 0 0 615 265 0 0 0 25 795 70 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: 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 PHF Volume: 58 825 0 0 799 344 0 0 0 32 1032 91 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 58 825 0 0 799 344 0 0 0 32 1032 91 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: 58 825 0 0 799 344 0 0 0 32 1032 91 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 1.94 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 3349 0 0 2340 1009 0 0 0 102 3791 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.27 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP AM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:00 Page 14-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #17 Main St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.730 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 41 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Main St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 1260 0 0 1150 80 0 0 0 65 720 65 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: 90 1260 0 0 1150 80 0 0 0 65 720 65 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: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 98 1370 0 0 1250 87 0 0 0 71 783 71 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 98 1370 0 0 1250 87 0 0 0 71 783 71 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: 98 1370 0 0 1250 87 0 0 0 71 783 71 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.87 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.83 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 3349 0 0 3131 218 0 0 0 277 3586 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.22 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 2-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Raitt Street/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.971 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 164 Level Of Service: E Street Name: Raitt Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 845 80 95 445 0 0 0 0 355 0 165 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: 0 845 80 95 445 0 0 0 0 355 0 165 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: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 0 929 88 104 489 0 0 0 0 390 0 181 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 929 88 104 489 0 0 0 0 390 0 181 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: 0 929 88 104 489 0 0 0 0 390 0 181 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1530 145 1576 1675 0 0 0 0 1576 0 1675 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.07 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 3-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Pacific Ave/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.467 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Pacific Avenue Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 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: 10 120 60 185 185 10 15 135 25 110 500 85 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.05 0.63 0.32 0.49 0.49 0.02 1.00 0.84 0.16 1.00 1.71 0.29 Final Sat.: 88 1058 529 815 815 44 1576 1650 262 1576 3342 487 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.01 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.15 0.17 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 4-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Shelton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.554 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Shelton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 25 95 165 30 45 20 350 85 10 760 145 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 25 95 165 30 45 20 350 85 10 760 145 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: 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 PHF Volume: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 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: 13 22 83 143 26 39 17 304 74 9 661 126 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 0.11 0.19 0.70 0.85 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 186 310 1178 1417 258 1576 1576 1573 327 1576 1955 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.23 0.01 0.34 0.08 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 5-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 Flower St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.705 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Flower St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 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: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 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: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 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: 160 850 55 95 555 55 100 415 95 210 700 230 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.63 0.37 1.00 1.51 0.49 Final Sat.: 1576 3349 1576 1576 3349 1576 1576 3182 624 1576 2943 828 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.25 0.03 0.06 0.17 0.03 0.06 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.24 0.28 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 6-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Parton St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.545 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Parton St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 5 95 45 10 30 5 545 15 35 1020 25 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: 90 5 95 45 10 30 5 545 15 35 1020 25 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: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 98 5 103 49 11 33 5 592 16 38 1109 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 98 5 103 49 11 33 5 592 16 38 1109 27 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: 98 5 103 49 11 33 5 592 16 38 1109 27 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.47 0.03 0.50 0.82 0.18 1.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.95 0.05 Final Sat.: 793 44 837 1370 304 1576 1576 3805 90 1576 3816 80 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.16 0.18 0.02 0.29 0.34 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 7-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Ross St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.604 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Ross St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 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: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 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: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 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: 65 235 120 80 230 100 80 530 75 125 915 130 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 1576 1576 1675 1576 1576 3910 1576 1576 3424 417 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.14 0.06 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.08 0.27 0.31 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 8-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Bush St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.659 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Bush St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 335 0 0 215 115 0 0 0 45 825 75 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: 90 335 0 0 215 115 0 0 0 45 825 75 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: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 102 381 0 0 244 131 0 0 0 51 938 85 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 102 381 0 0 244 131 0 0 0 51 938 85 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: 102 381 0 0 244 131 0 0 0 51 938 85 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 1.75 0.16 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 0 0 1091 584 0 0 0 159 3413 266 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.27 0.32 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 9-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #8 French St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.740 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 42 Level Of Service: C Street Name: French St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 110 65 0 0 40 5 0 0 0 30 830 10 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: 110 65 0 0 40 5 0 0 0 30 830 10 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: 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 PHF Volume: 208 123 0 0 76 9 0 0 0 57 1572 19 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 208 123 0 0 76 9 0 0 0 57 1572 19 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: 208 123 0 0 76 9 0 0 0 57 1572 19 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.63 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 1.91 0.02 Final Sat.: 1053 622 0 0 1488 186 0 0 0 115 3730 38 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.42 0.49 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 10-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Lacy St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.572 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Lacy St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 65 15 20 30 15 20 580 5 45 690 40 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 65 15 20 30 15 20 580 5 45 690 40 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: 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 PHF Volume: 14 62 14 19 29 14 19 558 5 43 663 38 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 62 14 19 29 14 19 558 5 43 663 38 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 63 14 19 29 14 19 558 5 43 663 38 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 0.99 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 0.16 0.68 0.16 0.31 0.46 0.23 0.03 0.96 0.01 0.06 0.89 0.05 Final Sat.: 264 1146 264 515 773 386 55 1874 14 97 1741 86 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.30 0.35 0.03 0.38 0.45 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 11-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Santiago St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.651 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Santiago St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 40 100 80 325 185 105 65 765 50 125 790 340 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: 40 100 80 325 185 105 65 765 50 125 790 340 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: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 PHF Volume: 41 102 82 332 189 107 66 781 51 128 806 347 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 41 102 82 332 189 107 66 781 51 128 806 347 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: 41 102 82 332 189 107 66 781 51 128 806 347 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 1675 1576 1576 1675 1576 1576 3670 205 1576 3910 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.04 0.21 0.25 0.08 0.21 0.22 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 12-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #14 Bristol/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.852 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 66 Level Of Service: D Street Name: Bristol Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 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: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 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: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 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: 65 1380 110 70 1445 115 65 275 40 135 515 170 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 2.78 0.22 1.00 2.78 0.22 1.00 0.87 0.13 1.00 0.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 1576 4653 371 1576 4653 370 1576 1707 213 1576 1470 416 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.30 0.30 0.04 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.16 0.19 0.09 0.35 0.41 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 13-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #15 Broadway/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.683 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 35 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Broadway Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 70 770 0 0 685 130 0 0 0 70 885 85 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: 70 770 0 0 685 130 0 0 0 70 885 85 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: 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 PHF Volume: 83 917 0 0 815 155 0 0 0 83 1054 101 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 83 917 0 0 815 155 0 0 0 83 1054 101 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: 83 917 0 0 815 155 0 0 0 83 1054 101 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.68 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 1.85 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 3349 0 0 2815 534 0 0 0 245 3623 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.29 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA TSP PM Tue Mar 8, 2016 13:24:26 Page 14-1 OC Streetcar HNTB Street Design Concept 2035 Conditions With TSP Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #17 Main St/Santa Ana Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.822 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 57 Level Of Service: D Street Name: Main St Santa Ana Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 1395 0 0 1330 95 0 0 0 65 855 110 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: 90 1395 0 0 1330 95 0 0 0 65 855 110 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: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 97 1500 0 0 1430 102 0 0 0 70 919 118 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 97 1500 0 0 1430 102 0 0 0 70 919 118 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: 97 1500 0 0 1430 102 0 0 0 70 919 118 II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.93 1.15 0.93 0.99 1.15 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.87 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 1.86 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 3349 0 0 3126 223 0 0 0 237 3634 1576 I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.25 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA Santa Ana — Garden Grove Streetcar Project Traffic Study Addendum APPENDIX STREET DESIGN CONCEPT LOS WORKSHEETS (HCM METHOLODOGY) HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 1: Raitt & Street Car/Santa Ana AM Peak Hour EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations T I F T+ I t Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 195 0 25 0 445 180 120 420 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 195 0 25 0 445 180 120 420 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1.00 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1790 1770 1863 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1790 277 1863 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 212 0 27 0 484 196 130 457 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 16 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 212 0 12 0 664 0 130 457 0 Tum Type Prot Prot NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.1 40.6 40.4 40.4 40.4 Effective Green, g (s) 18.1 40.6 40.4 40.4 40.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 355 714 803 124 836 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 c0.01 0.37 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm c0.47 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.02 0.83 1.05 0.55 Uniform Delay, d1 32.6 13.7 21.7 24.8 18.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.2 0.0 9.5 94.4 2.6 Delay (s) 39.9 13.7 31.3 119.2 20.7 Level of Service D B C F C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 36.9 31.3 42.5 Approach LOS A D C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 2: Ross & Santa Ana & 5th AM Peak Hour Iq:1 q:1 q:1: 1:1 I:1 I:1:Y.9:1.9:1.9:1:S.9r01.99r1:S.99r1:YJ Lane Configurations I ft F I T F I T F I Fri Traffic Volume (vph) 85 675 30 25 310 70 70 245 120 210 700 180 Future Volume (vph) 85 675 30 25 310 70 70 245 120 210 700 180 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 2787 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.36 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 885 1863 1583 670 1863 1583 1770 2787 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 92 734 33 27 337 76 76 266 130 228 761 196 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 25 0 0 55 0 0 95 0 58 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 734 8 27 337 21 76 266 35 228 899 0 Tum Type Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 6 3 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 18.0 18.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 18.0 30.0 Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 18.0 18.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 18.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 164 910 407 240 505 429 181 505 429 455 1194 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.21 c0.18 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.11 0.02 c0.13 c0.32 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.81 0.02 0.11 0.67 0.05 0.42 0.53 0.08 0.50 0.75 Uniform Delay, d1 30.4 24.4 19.4 19.2 22.7 18.8 21.0 21.7 19.0 22.2 16.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.50 Incremental Delay, d2 13.1 7.6 0.1 0.9 6.8 0.2 7.0 3.9 0.4 3.5 3.9 Delay (s) 43.5 32.0 19.5 20.1 29.5 19.0 28.0 25.6 19.4 26.8 29.2 Level of Service D C B C C B C C B C C Approach Delay (s) 32.7 27.1 24.3 28.7 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 3: Bristol & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations I T+ I T+ I M4 I TTt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 45 210 25 130 155 35 20 1050 65 55 1105 100 Future Volume (vph) 45 210 25 130 155 35 20 1050 65 55 1105 100 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1833 1770 1811 1770 5041 1770 5022 At Permitted 0.63 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1171 1833 657 1811 1770 5041 1770 5022 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 228 27 141 168 38 22 1141 71 60 1201 109 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 252 0 141 200 0 22 1206 0 60 1302 0 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 39.5 33.0 53.0 42.0 7.5 50.0 12.5 55.0 Effective Green, g (s) 39.5 33.0 53.0 42.0 7.5 50.0 12.5 55.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.25 0.41 0.32 0.06 0.38 0.10 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 385 465 400 585 102 1938 170 2124 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.14 c0.04 0.11 0.01 0.24 c0.03 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.54 0.35 0.34 0.22 0.62 0.35 0.61 Uniform Delay, d1 32.4 42.0 25.8 33.5 58.4 32.4 55.0 29.2 Progression Factor 2.16 1.82 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 4.1 2.4 1.6 4.8 1.5 5.7 1.3 Delay (s) 70.5 80.6 28.3 35.1 63.2 33.9 60.6 30.5 Level of Service E F C D E C E C Approach Delay (s) 79.0 32.3 34.4 31.9 Approach LOS E C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 6: Shelton & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour EBL EBT EBR Lane Configurations I T+ I t F 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 30 300 75 70 345 190 5 15 45 245 10 15 Future Volume (vph) 30 300 75 70 345 190 5 15 45 245 10 15 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.91 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1807 1770 1863 1583 1681 1777 1583 At Permitted 0.42 1.00 0.38 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.68 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 779 1807 703 1863 1583 1653 1273 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 326 82 76 375 207 5 16 49 266 11 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 0 133 0 26 0 0 0 9 Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 392 0 76 375 74 0 44 0 0 277 7 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.46 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 278 645 251 665 565 767 591 734 v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.11 0.05 0.03 c0.22 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.61 0.30 0.56 0.13 0.06 0.47 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 12.1 14.8 13.0 14.5 12.1 8.3 10.3 8.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 4.2 3.1 3.4 0.5 0.1 2.7 0.0 Delay (s) 13.0 19.0 16.1 17.9 12.6 8.4 12.9 8.1 Level of Service B B B B B A B A Approach Delay (s) 18.5 16.0 8.4 12.7 Approach LOS B B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 9: Flower & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour 11111 111] q11:9r1111111.01:10N01:1:5.911.9:1 .9:3:1 Lane Configurations I T'+ I TT, I T F I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 90 440 60 110 450 145 65 1005 65 215 910 90 Future Volume (vph) 90 440 60 110 450 145 65 1005 65 215 910 90 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fr1 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 3476 1770 3410 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.17 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 320 3476 370 3410 461 3539 1583 176 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 98 478 65 120 489 158 71 1092 71 234 989 98 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 24 0 0 0 43 0 0 47 Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 535 0 120 623 0 71 1092 28 234 989 51 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 37.1 27.6 41.9 30.0 57.9 52.0 52.0 76.0 65.6 65.6 Effective Green, g (s) 37.1 27.6 41.9 30.0 57.9 52.0 52.0 76.0 65.6 65.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.21 0.32 0.23 0.45 0.40 0.40 0.58 0.50 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 197 737 247 786 264 1415 633 341 1785 798 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.15 c0.04 c0.18 0.01 c0.31 c0.10 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.30 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.73 0.49 0.79 0.27 0.77 0.04 0.69 0.55 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 36.3 47.7 33.3 47.1 21.1 33.8 23.8 28.7 22.1 16.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.7 6.2 6.7 8.1 2.5 4.1 0.1 10.7 1.2 0.2 Delay (s) 45.0 53.8 40.0 55.1 23.6 38.0 24.0 39.4 23.4 16.6 Level of Service D D D E C D C D C B Approach Delay (s) 52.5 52.8 36.3 25.7 Approach LOS D D D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 12: Parton & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations I T'+ I T'+ 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 40 555 125 90 660 95 20 5 130 25 10 105 Future Volume (vph) 40 555 125 90 660 95 20 5 130 25 10 105 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 0.89 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3442 1770 3473 1641 1799 1583 At Permitted 0.27 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.97 0.80 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 508 3442 577 3473 1600 1494 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 603 136 98 717 103 22 5 141 27 11 114 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 22 0 0 13 0 0 86 0 0 0 70 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 718 0 98 808 0 0 82 0 0 38 44 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 254 1721 288 1736 622 581 615 v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.17 c0.05 0.03 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.42 0.34 0.47 0.13 0.07 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 12.3 14.2 13.6 14.7 17.7 17.2 17.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.7 3.2 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.2 Delay (s) 13.7 15.0 16.7 15.6 18.1 17.5 17.5 Level of Service B B B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 14.9 15.7 18.1 17.5 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.32 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 17: Broadway & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Lane Configurations 0 F I TT+ Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 20 760 55 40 565 0 0 540 185 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 20 760 55 40 565 0 0 540 185 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.96 At Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3535 1583 1770 3539 3404 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3535 1583 505 3539 3404 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 22 826 60 43 614 0 0 587 201 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 48 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 848 26 43 614 0 0 740 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Effective Green, g (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1515 678 216 1516 1458 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.24 0.02 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.04 0.20 0.41 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 15.0 11.6 12.5 13.8 14.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 0.1 2.1 0.8 1.3 Delay (s) 16.5 11.7 14.6 14.6 15.9 Level of Service B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 16.2 14.6 15.9 Approach LOS A B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 27: Main & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Lane Configurations 0 F I T Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 55 670 60 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 55 670 60 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3526 1583 1770 3539 3500 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3526 1583 344 3539 3500 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 60 728 65 92 1261 0 0 1092 87 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 788 17 92 1261 0 0 1173 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Effective Green, g (s) 24.0 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.62 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 940 422 214 2202 2177 v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 0.01 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.04 0.43 0.57 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 31.2 24.5 8.8 10.0 9.7 Progression Factor 0.41 0.20 0.56 0.56 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.8 0.2 5.0 0.9 1.0 Delay (s) 20.6 5.1 9.9 6.5 10.6 Level of Service C A A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 19.4 6.7 10.6 Approach LOS A B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 32: Bush & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 1 T F Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 30 780 90 30 140 0 0 180 40 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 30 780 90 30 140 0 0 180 40 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3480 1770 1863 1863 1583 At Permitted 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3480 1124 1863 1863 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 33 848 98 33 152 0 0 196 43 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 970 0 33 152 0 0 196 17 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1740 437 724 724 615 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.28 0.03 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.08 0.21 0.27 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 15.6 17.3 18.3 18.8 17.0 Progression Factor 1.66 0.75 0.73 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.1 Delay (s) 26.9 13.3 14.1 19.7 17.1 Level of Service C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 26.9 13.9 19.2 Approach LOS A C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 36: French & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Frt EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1.00 Lane Configurations 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3526 1573 4T+ 60 43 4 0 38 1 RTOR Reduction (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 20 840 15 55 40 0 0 35 5 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 20 840 15 55 40 0 0 35 5 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 8 4.5 2 4.5 6 4.5 Permitted Phases Lane Util. Factor 8 0.95 2 1.00 1.00 Actuated Green, G (s) Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 At Protected 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3526 1810 1834 At Permitted 1.00 0.84 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3526 1573 1834 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 22 913 16 60 43 0 0 38 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 949 0 0 103 0 0 40 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1410 629 733 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 c0.07 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.16 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 11.1 8.7 8.3 Progression Factor 1.00 0.88 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 0.6 0.1 Delay (s) 13.7 8.2 8.4 Level of Service B A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 13.7 8.2 8.4 Approach LOS A B A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 43: Santa Ana & Santiago AM Peak Hour Lane Configurations I T F I T F I TT+ I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 245 150 100 25 60 70 30 430 35 140 910 355 Future Volume (vph) 245 150 100 25 60 70 30 430 35 140 910 355 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fr1 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3499 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.65 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1331 1863 1583 1218 1863 1583 1770 3499 1770 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 266 163 109 27 65 76 33 467 38 152 989 386 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 69 0 0 48 0 8 0 0 0 244 Lane Group Flow (vph) 266 163 40 27 65 28 33 497 0 152 989 142 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 5.0 22.0 11.0 27.5 27.5 Effective Green, g (s) 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 5.0 22.0 11.0 27.5 27.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.07 0.29 0.15 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 488 683 580 446 683 580 118 1026 259 1297 580 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.14 c0.09 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm c0.20 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.24 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.28 0.48 0.59 0.76 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 18.8 16.5 15.4 15.4 15.6 15.3 33.3 21.8 29.9 20.9 16.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.3 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 5.8 1.6 9.4 4.3 1.0 Delay (s) 23.1 17.3 15.7 15.6 15.9 15.5 39.1 23.5 39.3 25.2 17.5 Level of Service C B B B B B D C D C B Approach Delay (s) 19.9 15.6 24.4 24.6 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 46: PAcific & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour EBL EBT EBR Lane Configurations I T+ I t F 44 4 Traffic Volume (vph) 20 255 25 50 190 70 15 65 65 40 85 15 Future Volume (vph) 20 255 25 50 190 70 15 65 65 40 85 15 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1838 1770 1863 1583 1741 1810 At Permitted 0.51 1.00 0.36 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.89 Satd.Flow (perm) 946 1838 679 1863 1583 1697 1633 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 277 27 54 207 76 16 71 71 43 92 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 53 0 23 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 301 0 54 207 23 0 135 0 0 148 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 82.5 82.5 Effective Green, g (s) 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 82.5 82.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.63 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 280 544 201 551 468 1076 1036 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.08 c0.09 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.55 0.27 0.38 0.05 0.13 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 33.0 38.5 35.0 36.2 32.7 9.4 9.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.72 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 4.0 3.1 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.3 Delay (s) 33.5 42.5 32.3 32.2 23.7 9.7 9.8 Level of Service C D C C C A A Approach Delay (s) 41.9 30.3 9.7 9.8 Approach LOS D C A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.27 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 49: Santa Ana & Lacy AM Peak Hour y r-+ f 3 "$ '_A R. Move SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations 1849 44 0.92 0.99 4 0.95 Satd. Flow (berm) 44 1803 1810 4 0 Traffic Volume (vph) 20 45 25 5 135 35 10 420 10 55 900 35 Future Volume (vph) 20 45 25 5 135 35 10 420 10 55 900 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4 4.5 Permitted Phases 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 4 1.00 8 1.00 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.00 1.00 Fr: 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.00 At Protected 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1774 1810 1855 1849 At Permitted 0.92 0.99 0.97 0.95 Satd. Flow (berm) 1646 1803 1810 1765 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 49 27 5 147 38 11 457 11 60 978 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 17 0 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 81 0 0 179 0 0 478 0 0 1074 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.5 22.5 48.5 48.5 Effective Green, g (s) 22.5 22.5 48.5 48.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.61 0.61 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 462 507 1097 1070 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.10 0.26 c0.61 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.35 0.44 1.00 Uniform Delay, d1 21.7 22.9 8.4 15.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 1.9 1.3 28.5 Delay (s) 22.6 24.9 9.7 44.3 Level of Service C C A D Approach Delay (s) 22.6 24.9 9.7 44.3 Approach LOS C C A D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 13 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 1: Raitt & Street Car/Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Queues t T Is. l Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 212 27 680 130 457 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.04 0.83 1.05 0.55 Control Delay 40.6 5.6 31.5 124.5 21.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 40.6 5.6 31.5 124.5 21.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 110 0 316 81 184 Queue Length 95th (ft) 184 14 524 193 276 Internal Link Dist(ft) 492 336 Tum Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 355 728 819 124 836 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.60 0.04 0.83 1.05 0.55 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 2: Ross & Santa Ana & 5th AM Peak Hour Queues W --* --* 4\ Lane Group EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT NBR2 SBL SBT SBR SWL SWR Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 734 33 27 337 76 76 266 130 228 957 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.81 0.06 0.11 0.67 0.14 0.42 0.53 0.23 0.50 0.76 Control Delay 45.1 32.8 0.2 20.8 30.2 0.5 29.4 26.2 2.6 27.4 27.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 45.1 32.8 0.2 20.8 35.9 0.5 29.4 26.2 2.6 27.4 27.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 39 155 0 9 129 0 27 97 0 91 185 Queue Length 95th (ft) 94 238 0 27 213 0 66 165 19 156 256 Internal Link Dist(ft) 629 179 316 1040 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 100 200 100 200 Base Capacity(vph) 164 910 540 240 505 560 182 505 560 455 1252 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.56 0.81 0.06 0.11 0.86 0.14 0.42 0.53 0.23 0.50 0.76 Intersection Summary 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 3: Bristol & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Queues J 4\ t Lane Group Iff EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 255 141 206 22 1212 60 1310 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.54 0.35 0.35 0.22 0.62 0.35 0.61 Control Delay 52.7 80.6 27.2 34.1 63.8 33.9 61.3 30.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 52.7 80.6 27.2 34.1 63.8 33.9 61.3 30.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 39 217 75 126 18 298 48 307 Queue Length 95th (ft) m73 309 123 196 48 349 94 357 Internal Link Dist(ft) 867 1671 1096 1040 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 390 468 403 591 102 1944 170 2133 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.54 0.35 0.35 0.22 0.62 0.35 0.61 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 6: Shelton & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Queues Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 408 76 375 207 70 277 16 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.62 0.30 0.56 0.30 0.09 0.47 0.02 Control Delay 13.5 18.8 17.1 18.5 3.6 4.5 13.6 1.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.5 18.8 17.1 18.5 3.6 4.5 13.6 1.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 102 18 98 0 4 59 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 23 181 47 170 35 20 115 4 Internal Link Dist(ft) 1671 1293 560 320 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 278 661 251 665 698 793 591 755 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.62 0.30 0.56 0.30 0.09 0.47 0.02 Intersection Summary 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 4 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 9: Flower & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Queues Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 543 120 647 71 1092 71 234 989 98 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.73 0.48 0.80 0.27 0.77 0.10 0.68 0.55 0.12 Control Delay 39.0 53.4 37.1 53.3 15.6 38.4 0.3 35.6 23.6 3.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 39.0 53.4 37.1 53.3 15.6 38.4 0.3 35.6 23.6 3.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 57 222 71 260 24 415 0 116 293 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 101 288 120 333 46 502 0 208 356 30 Internal Link Dist(ft) 1293 563 1152 1120 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 198 745 249 810 266 1415 711 342 1785 845 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.73 0.48 0.80 0.27 0.77 0.10 0.68 0.55 0.12 Intersection Summary 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 5 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 12: Parton & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Queues J --P f-- . 0--- t l Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 739 98 820 168 38 114 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.42 0.34 0.47 0.24 0.07 0.17 Control Delay 14.5 14.3 17.8 15.3 5.7 17.8 4.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.5 14.3 17.8 15.3 5.7 17.8 4.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 13 125 32 147 9 13 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 34 169 71 196 49 33 32 Internal Link Dist(ft) 563 629 360 184 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 100 Base Capacity(vph) 254 1741 288 1748 708 581 685 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.42 0.34 0.47 0.24 0.07 0.17 Intersection Summary 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 6 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 17: Broadway & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Queues 4- 4\ T Lane Group WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 848 60 43 614 788 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.08 0.20 0.41 0.52 Control Delay 16.8 4.1 15.5 14.8 14.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.6 53.9 0.0 Total Delay 16.8 4.1 16.1 68.7 14.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 138 0 11 92 111 Queue Length 95th (ft) 191 19 32 131 160 Internal Link Dist(ft) 911 87 908 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 1515 712 216 1516 1507 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 54 973 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.56 0.08 0.27 1.13 0.52 Intersection Summary 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 7 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 27: Main & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Queues 4- t 4\ T l Lane Group WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 788 65 92 1261 1179 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.14 0.43 0.57 0.54 Control Delay 21.6 2.0 10.8 6.6 10.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Delay 21.6 2.0 10.8 6.7 10.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 254 4 13 96 178 Queue Length 95th (ft) 323 m8 m23 116 230 Internal Link Dist(ft) 62 493 850 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 940 469 214 2202 2184 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 130 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.84 0.14 0.43 0.61 0.54 Intersection Summary 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 8 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 32: Bush & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Queues 0--- 4\ I i 41 Lane Group WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 979 33 152 196 43 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.08 0.21 0.27 0.07 Control Delay 26.7 13.6 14.3 20.1 6.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.7 13.6 14.3 20.1 6.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 276 8 38 75 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 363 20 62 125 20 Internal Link Dist(ft) 645 493 854 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 1749 436 724 724 641 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.56 0.08 0.21 0.27 0.07 Intersection Summary 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 9 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 36: French & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Queues Lane Group WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 951 103 43 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.16 0.06 Control Delay 14.0 8.3 8.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.0 8.3 8.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 99 24 6 Queue Length 95th (ft) 151 35 19 Internal Link Dist(ft) 843 494 453 Tum Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1412 629 736 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.67 0.16 0.06 Intersection Summary 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 10 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 43: Santa Ana & Santiago AM Peak Hour Queues Lane Group SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET SWL SWT SWR Lane Group Flow (vph) 266 163 109 27 65 76 33 505 152 989 386 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.24 0.16 0.06 0.10 0.11 0.28 0.49 0.59 0.76 0.47 Control Delay 23.9 17.7 1.2 16.0 16.2 0.3 39.6 23.3 40.1 25.6 4.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 23.9 17.7 1.2 16.0 16.2 0.3 39.6 23.3 40.1 25.6 4.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 96 51 0 8 19 0 15 98 67 208 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 169 94 9 24 44 0 41 143 128 280 52 Internal Link Dist(ft) 768 676 814 248 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 488 683 691 446 683 691 118 1034 259 1297 824 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.55 0.24 0.16 0.06 0.10 0.11 0.28 0.49 0.59 0.76 0.47 Intersection Summary 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 11 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 46: PAClflc & Santa Ana AM Peak Hour Queues k- I i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 304 54 207 76 158 151 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.56 0.27 0.38 0.15 0.14 0.15 Control Delay 34.1 42.6 33.4 32.6 5.8 6.0 9.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 34.1 42.6 33.4 32.6 5.8 6.0 9.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 13 213 24 103 4 29 45 Queue Length 95th (ft) 36 310 m55 184 m18 57 74 Internal Link Dist(ft) 1664 867 606 344 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 150 Base Capacity(vph) 280 547 200 551 522 1099 1039 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.56 0.27 0.38 0.15 0.14 0.15 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 12 Queues 2035 HNTB Street Design Concept 49: Santa Ana & Lacy AM Peak Hour Queues R Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 190 479 1076 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.37 0.44 1.00 Control Delay 18.3 23.5 9.9 46.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 18.3 23.5 9.9 46.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 69 115 494 Queue Length 95th (ft) 64 125 179 806 Internal Link Dist(ft) 647 802 990 814 Tum Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 480 518 1099 1071 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.37 0.44 1.00 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 1: Raitt & Street Car/Santa Ana PM Peak Hour EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations T I F T+ I t Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 355 0 165 0 845 80 95 445 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 355 0 165 0 845 80 95 445 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1.00 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1841 1770 1863 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1841 128 1863 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 386 0 179 0 918 87 103 484 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 2 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 386 0 80 0 1003 0 103 484 0 Tum Type Prot Prot NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.5 50.0 91.0 91.0 91.0 Effective Green, g (s) 27.5 50.0 91.0 91.0 91.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.33 0.61 0.61 0.61 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 324 527 1116 77 1130 v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 c0.05 0.54 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm c0.80 v/c Ratio 1.19 0.15 0.90 1.34 0.43 Uniform Delay, d1 61.2 35.1 25.5 29.5 15.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 112.6 0.6 11.4 216.8 1.2 Delay (s) 173.8 35.7 36.9 246.3 16.9 Level of Service F D D F B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 130.1 36.9 57.1 Approach LOS A F D E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 66.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.15 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 2: Ross & Santa Ana & 5th PM Peak Hour W t 4\ I T i 4 F t/ EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT NBR2 SBL SBT SBR SWL SWR SWRJ Lane Configurations I ft F I T F I T F I Fri Traffic Volume (vph) 80 530 75 65 235 120 80 230 100 125 915 130 Future Volume (vph) 80 530 75 65 235 120 80 230 100 125 915 130 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 2787 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.49 1.00 1.00 0.48 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 916 1863 1583 899 1863 1583 1770 2787 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 87 576 82 71 255 130 87 250 109 136 995 141 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 60 0 0 96 0 0 81 0 55 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 576 22 71 255 34 87 250 28 136 1081 0 Tum Type Prot NA custom Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 71 2 6 31 8 Permitted Phases 4 4 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.3 18.9 18.9 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.0 31.6 Effective Green, g (s) 6.3 18.9 18.9 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.0 31.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 159 955 427 236 481 409 232 481 409 455 1258 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.14 0.13 0.08 c0.39 v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.10 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.60 0.05 0.30 0.53 0.08 0.38 0.52 0.07 0.30 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 30.5 22.3 18.9 20.9 22.3 19.7 21.3 22.2 19.6 20.9 17.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.41 Incremental Delay, d2 12.9 2.8 0.2 3.2 4.1 0.4 4.6 4.0 0.3 1.6 7.4 Delay (s) 43.4 25.1 19.1 24.1 26.4 20.1 25.9 26.2 19.9 23.4 31.7 Level of Service D C B C C C C C B C C Approach Delay (s) 26.6 24.3 24.6 30.8 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 I Phase conflict between lane groups c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 3: Bristol & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Lane Configurations I T+ I T+ I M4 I TTt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 35 260 60 115 375 145 50 1195 100 70 1385 95 Future Volume (vph) 35 260 60 115 375 145 50 1195 100 70 1385 95 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1811 1770 1785 1770 5026 1770 5036 At Permitted 0.14 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 270 1811 626 1785 1770 5026 1770 5036 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 283 65 125 408 158 54 1299 109 76 1505 103 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 16 0 0 11 0 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 339 0 125 550 0 54 1397 0 76 1600 0 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.7 27.6 35.5 29.0 5.3 30.4 6.5 31.6 Effective Green, g (s) 32.7 27.6 35.5 29.0 5.3 30.4 6.5 31.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.31 0.39 0.32 0.06 0.34 0.07 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 183 555 329 575 104 1697 127 1768 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.19 c0.03 c0.31 0.03 0.28 c0.04 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.61 0.38 0.96 0.52 0.82 0.60 0.90 Uniform Delay, d1 21.3 26.6 18.6 29.9 41.1 27.3 40.5 27.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 4.9 3.3 28.3 17.3 4.7 19.1 8.1 Delay (s) 23.9 31.6 21.9 58.2 58.4 32.0 59.6 35.9 Level of Service C C C E E C E D Approach Delay (s) 30.8 51.7 33.0 37.0 Approach LOS C D C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 6: Shelton & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour EBL EBT EBR Lane Configurations I T+ I t F 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 20 350 85 10 760 145 15 25 95 165 30 45 Future Volume (vph) 20 350 85 10 760 145 15 25 95 165 30 45 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1808 1770 1863 1583 1676 1787 1583 At Permitted 0.17 1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.68 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 323 1808 788 1863 1583 1613 1266 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 380 92 11 826 158 16 27 103 179 33 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0 0 0 68 0 74 0 0 0 35 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 460 0 11 826 90 0 72 0 0 212 14 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.29 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 184 1033 450 1064 904 460 361 452 v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 c0.44 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.04 c0.17 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.44 0.02 0.78 0.10 0.16 0.59 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 6.9 8.6 6.5 11.6 6.8 18.7 21.5 18.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 1.4 0.1 5.6 0.2 0.7 6.8 0.1 Delay (s) 8.2 10.0 6.6 17.1 7.0 19.4 28.3 18.1 Level of Service A B A B A B C B Approach Delay (s) 9.9 15.4 19.4 26.4 Approach LOS A B B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 9: Flower & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Lane Configurations I T'+ I TT, I T F I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 110 415 95 210 700 230 160 850 55 95 555 55 Future Volume (vph) 110 415 95 210 700 230 160 850 55 95 555 55 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 3441 1770 3408 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.21 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 396 3441 487 3408 529 3539 1583 334 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 120 451 103 228 761 250 174 924 60 103 603 60 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 26 0 0 42 0 0 0 41 0 0 42 Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 528 0 228 969 0 174 924 19 103 603 18 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.9 18.8 30.3 22.0 30.5 23.9 23.9 27.3 22.3 22.3 Effective Green, g (s) 23.9 18.8 30.3 22.0 30.5 23.9 23.9 27.3 22.3 22.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.25 0.40 0.29 0.41 0.32 0.32 0.36 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 219 862 338 999 324 1127 504 217 1052 470 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.15 c0.07 c0.28 c0.05 c0.26 0.03 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.20 0.17 0.01 0.14 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.61 0.67 0.97 0.54 0.82 0.04 0.47 0.57 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 20.1 24.9 16.0 26.2 15.2 23.6 17.6 17.3 22.3 18.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.5 3.2 10.3 22.0 6.3 6.7 0.1 7.3 2.3 0.2 Delay (s) 29.6 28.1 26.4 48.2 21.4 30.3 17.8 24.6 24.6 18.9 Level of Service C C C D C C B C C B Approach Delay (s) 28.4 44.2 28.3 24.1 Approach LOS C D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 12: Parton & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour EBL EBT E:lana:L 11:T IT:R I1:L I1:T 1:R SBL S:T S:1 Lane Configurations I T'+ I T'+ 44 ft F Traffic Volume (vph) 5 545 15 35 1020 25 90 5 95 45 10 30 Future Volume (vph) 5 545 15 35 1020 25 90 5 95 45 10 30 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3525 1770 3527 1697 1790 1583 At Permitted 0.15 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.83 0.72 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 286 3525 703 3527 1446 1339 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 592 16 38 1109 27 98 5 103 49 11 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 40 0 0 0 20 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 606 0 38 1134 0 0 166 0 0 60 13 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 143 1762 351 1763 562 520 615 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.05 c0.11 0.04 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.34 0.11 0.64 0.30 0.12 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 11.5 13.6 11.9 16.6 19.0 17.6 16.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.8 1.3 0.5 0.1 Delay (s) 11.9 14.1 12.5 18.4 20.3 18.0 17.0 Level of Service B B B B C B B Approach Delay (s) 14.1 18.2 20.3 17.7 Approach LOS B B C B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 17: Broadway & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Lane Configurations 0 F I TT+ Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 685 80 45 685 0 0 610 125 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 685 80 45 685 0 0 610 125 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.97 At Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3528 1583 1770 3539 3449 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3528 1583 495 3539 3449 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 49 745 87 49 745 0 0 663 136 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 25 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 794 37 49 745 0 0 774 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Effective Green, g (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1512 678 212 1516 1478 v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.23 0.02 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.05 0.23 0.49 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 14.7 11.7 12.7 14.5 14.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.2 2.5 1.1 1.3 Delay (s) 16.1 11.9 15.2 15.6 16.1 Level of Service B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 15.6 15.6 16.1 Approach LOS A B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 27: Main & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Lane Configurations 0 F I T Tt+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 60 670 90 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 60 670 90 85 1160 0 0 1005 80 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3525 1583 1770 3539 3500 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3525 1583 344 3539 3500 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 65 728 98 92 1261 0 0 1092 87 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 793 44 92 1261 0 0 1173 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Effective Green, g (s) 24.0 24.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.62 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 940 422 214 2202 2177 v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 0.03 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.11 0.43 0.57 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 31.2 24.9 8.8 10.0 9.7 Progression Factor 0.51 0.17 0.53 0.53 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.1 0.4 5.3 0.9 1.0 Delay (s) 24.0 4.8 9.9 6.2 10.6 Level of Service C A A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 21.9 6.5 10.6 Approach LOS A C A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 32: Bush & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations M+ 1 T F Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 825 75 90 335 0 0 215 115 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 825 75 90 335 0 0 215 115 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3489 1770 1863 1863 1583 At Permitted 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3489 1037 1863 1863 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 49 897 82 98 364 0 0 234 125 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 1021 0 98 364 0 0 234 63 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 45.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1744 403 724 724 615 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.29 0.09 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.24 0.50 0.32 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 15.9 18.6 20.9 19.2 17.5 Progression Factor 1.61 0.65 0.62 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 1.3 2.3 1.2 0.3 Delay (s) 26.8 13.4 15.2 20.4 17.8 Level of Service C B B C B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 26.8 14.9 19.5 Approach LOS A C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 36: French & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Frt EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1.00 Lane Configurations 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3527 1486 M+ 120 71 4 0 43 1 RTOR Reduction (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 30 830 10 110 65 0 0 40 5 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 30 830 10 110 65 0 0 40 5 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 8 4.5 2 4.5 6 4.5 Permitted Phases Lane Util. Factor 8 0.95 2 1.00 1.00 Actuated Green, G (s) Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3527 1806 1837 At Permitted 1.00 0.80 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3527 1486 1837 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 33 902 11 120 71 0 0 43 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 944 0 0 191 0 0 45 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1410 594 734 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.32 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 11.1 9.3 8.3 Progression Factor 1.00 0.81 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 1.4 0.2 Delay (s) 13.6 9.0 8.5 Level of Service B A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 13.6 9.0 8.5 Approach LOS A B A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 43: Santa Ana & Santiago PM Peak Hour 61:1 11 .911 0LTA 0PDI0LTA : 01:1 0111 0111SI N1 1.1 Lane Configurations I T F I T F I TT+ I Tt F Traffic Volume (vph) 325 185 105 40 100 80 65 765 50 125 790 340 Future Volume (vph) 325 185 105 40 100 80 65 765 50 125 790 340 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fr1 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3507 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.69 1.00 1.00 0.62 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1279 1863 1583 1151 1863 1583 1770 3507 1770 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 353 201 114 43 109 87 71 832 54 136 859 370 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 68 0 0 52 0 6 0 0 0 247 Lane Group Flow (vph) 353 201 46 43 109 35 71 880 0 136 859 123 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 5.0 22.5 8.0 25.0 25.0 Effective Green, g (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 5.0 22.5 8.0 25.0 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.07 0.30 0.11 0.33 0.33 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 511 745 633 460 745 633 118 1052 188 1179 527 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 0.06 0.04 c0.25 c0.08 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm c0.28 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.27 0.07 0.09 0.15 0.05 0.60 0.84 0.72 0.73 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 18.7 15.1 13.9 14.0 14.3 13.8 34.0 24.5 32.4 22.0 18.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.23 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.5 0.9 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 19.2 7.3 21.4 4.0 1.0 Delay (s) 26.1 16.0 14.1 14.4 14.8 14.0 61.0 26.2 53.8 26.0 19.1 Level of Service C B B B B B E C D C B Approach Delay (s) 21.0 14.4 28.8 26.9 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 46: PAcific & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour EBL EBT EBR Lane Configurations I T+ I t F 44 4 Traffic Volume (vph) 15 135 25 110 500 85 10 120 60 185 185 10 Future Volume (vph) 15 135 25 110 500 85 10 120 60 185 185 10 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1819 1770 1863 1583 1779 1812 At Permitted 0.26 1.00 0.65 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.75 Satd.Flow (perm) 481 1819 1206 1863 1583 1741 1391 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 147 27 120 543 92 11 130 65 201 201 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 0 53 0 24 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 165 0 120 543 39 0 182 0 0 411 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 31.5 31.5 Effective Green, g (s) 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 31.5 31.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 202 766 508 785 667 783 625 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.10 0.02 0.10 c0.30 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.22 0.24 0.69 0.06 0.23 0.66 Uniform Delay, d1 12.1 12.9 13.0 16.5 12.0 11.8 15.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.6 1.1 5.0 0.2 0.7 5.4 Delay (s) 12.9 13.5 14.1 21.5 12.2 12.5 20.4 Level of Service B B B C B B C Approach Delay (s) 13.5 19.2 12.5 20.4 Approach LOS B B B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 HNTB Design Concept 49: Santa Ana & Lacy PM Peak Hour y r-+ f 3 "$ '_A R. Move SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations 1845 44 0.91 0.96 4 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 44 1754 1796 4+ 43 Traffic Volume (vph) 20 30 15 15 65 15 20 580 5 40 690 40 Future Volume (vph) 20 30 15 15 65 15 20 580 5 40 690 40 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 6 1.00 2 1.00 4 1.00 8 1.00 Fr: 0.97 0.98 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1779 1810 1858 1845 At Permitted 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1650 1754 1796 1753 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 33 16 16 71 16 22 630 5 43 750 43 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 60 0 0 94 0 0 657 0 0 833 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.5 22.5 43.5 43.5 Effective Green, g (s) 22.5 22.5 43.5 43.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.58 0.58 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 495 526 1041 1016 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.05 0.37 c0.48 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.18 0.63 0.82 Uniform Delay, d1 19.1 19.4 10.4 12.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.37 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.7 2.9 5.8 Delay (s) 19.6 20.2 13.3 35.7 Level of Service B C B D Approach Delay (s) 19.6 20.2 13.3 35.7 Approach LOS B C B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 20 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 1: Raitt & Street Car/Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Queues t T Is. l Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 386 179 1005 103 484 v/c Ratio 1.19 0.29 0.90 1.32 0.43 Control Delay 163.5 9.4 37.6 238.5 17.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 163.5 9.4 37.6 238.5 17.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 454 20 810 130 241 Queue Length 95th (ft) 665 78 1164 184 322 Internal Link Dist (ft) 492 336 Tum Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 324 627 1118 78 1130 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.19 0.29 0.90 1.32 0.43 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 2: Ross & Santa Ana & 5th PM Peak Hour Queues W --* --* 4\ Lane Group EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT NBR2 SBL SBT SBR SWL SWR Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 576 82 71 255 130 87 250 109 136 1136 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.60 0.15 0.30 0.53 0.24 0.38 0.52 0.20 0.30 0.87 Control Delay 44.9 25.4 0.6 25.1 27.0 2.8 27.0 26.8 1.8 23.9 30.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 44.9 25.4 0.6 25.1 28.7 2.8 27.0 26.8 1.8 23.9 30.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 37 113 0 25 94 0 31 92 0 54 224 Queue Length 95th (ft) 89 163 0 59 162 20 70 159 10 100 318 Internal Link Dist(ft) 629 179 316 1040 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 100 200 100 200 Base Capacity(vph) 159 955 558 236 481 542 232 481 542 455 1313 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.55 0.60 0.15 0.30 0.67 0.24 0.38 0.52 0.20 0.30 0.87 Intersection Summary 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 3: Bristol & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Queues J 4\ t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 348 125 566 54 1408 76 1608 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.62 0.38 0.96 0.52 0.82 0.60 0.91 Control Delay 17.7 31.3 19.2 58.8 59.6 32.0 61.1 36.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.7 31.3 19.2 58.8 59.6 32.0 61.1 36.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 12 162 42 303 30 263 43 312 Queue Length 95th (ft) 30 254 77 517 78 321 103 408 Internal Link Dist (ft) 867 1671 1096 1040 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 184 564 333 590 104 1707 127 1775 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.62 0.38 0.96 0.52 0.82 0.60 0.91 Intersection Summary 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 6: Shelton & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Queues Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 472 11 826 158 146 212 49 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.45 0.02 0.78 0.16 0.27 0.59 0.10 Control Delay 8.9 9.8 6.8 18.1 1.8 8.8 29.3 6.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 8.9 9.8 6.8 18.1 1.8 8.8 29.3 6.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 4 98 2 248 0 14 78 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 15 162 8 401 21 53 146 22 Internal Link Dist(ft) 1671 1293 560 320 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 184 1046 450 1064 972 534 361 487 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.45 0.02 0.78 0.16 0.27 0.59 0.10 Intersection Summary 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 4 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 9: Flower & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Queues Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 554 228 1011 174 924 60 103 603 60 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.62 0.67 0.97 0.53 0.82 0.10 0.47 0.57 0.10 Control Delay 23.9 26.9 25.6 48.0 19.3 31.0 0.3 19.8 24.9 0.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 23.9 26.9 25.6 48.0 19.3 31.0 0.3 19.8 24.9 0.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 33 112 67 230 47 206 0 27 124 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 65 163 126 362 85 283 0 54 175 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1293 563 1152 1120 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 222 888 341 1042 327 1127 613 219 1052 583 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.54 0.62 0.67 0.97 0.53 0.82 0.10 0.47 0.57 0.10 Intersection Summary 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 5 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 12: Parton & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Queues J --P f-- . 0--- t l Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 608 38 1136 206 60 33 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.34 0.11 0.64 0.34 0.12 0.05 Control Delay 12.4 14.2 13.0 18.7 14.9 18.5 6.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 12.4 14.2 13.0 18.7 14.9 18.5 6.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 1 104 11 238 53 21 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 142 29 306 108 48 18 Internal Link Dist(ft) 563 629 360 184 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 100 Base Capacity(vph) 143 1764 351 1764 602 520 635 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.34 0.11 0.64 0.34 0.12 0.05 Intersection Summary 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 6 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 17: Broadway & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Queues 4- 4\ T Lane Group WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 794 87 49 745 799 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.12 0.23 0.49 0.53 Control Delay 16.3 3.7 16.3 15.9 15.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.6 53.1 0.0 Total Delay 16.3 3.7 16.9 69.0 15.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 127 0 13 117 121 Queue Length 95th (ft) 176 23 37 163 171 Internal Link Dist(ft) 911 87 908 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 1512 728 212 1516 1501 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 49 925 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.53 0.12 0.30 1.26 0.53 Intersection Summary 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 7 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 27: Main & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Queues 4- t 4\ T l Lane Group WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 793 98 92 1261 1179 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.21 0.43 0.57 0.54 Control Delay 24.9 2.6 10.7 6.3 10.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 24.9 2.6 10.7 6.4 10.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 230 6 12 90 178 Queue Length 95th (ft) 315 m10 m21 98 230 Internal Link Dist(ft) 62 493 850 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 940 475 214 2202 2184 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 64 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.84 0.21 0.43 0.59 0.54 Intersection Summary 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 11 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 32: Bush & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Queues 0--- 4\ I i 41 Lane Group WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 1028 98 364 234 125 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.24 0.50 0.32 0.18 Control Delay 26.8 13.9 15.6 20.8 6.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.8 13.9 15.6 20.8 6.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 291 22 87 91 8 Queue Length 95th (ft) 367 42 124 149 43 Internal Link Dist(ft) 645 493 854 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 1752 403 724 724 677 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 0.24 0.50 0.32 0.18 Intersection Summary 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 14 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 36: French & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Queues Lane Group WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 946 191 48 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.32 0.07 Control Delay 13.9 9.2 8.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.9 9.2 8.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 98 30 6 Queue Length 95th (ft) 150 55 20 Internal Link Dist(ft) 843 494 453 Tum Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1411 594 737 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.67 0.32 0.07 Intersection Summary 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 16 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 43: Santa Ana & Santiago PM Peak Hour Queues Lane Group SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET SWL SWT SWR Lane Group Flow (vph) 353 201 114 43 109 87 71 886 136 859 370 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.27 0.16 0.09 0.15 0.13 0.60 0.84 0.72 0.73 0.48 Control Delay 27.2 16.4 3.9 14.8 15.1 3.2 62.9 27.0 56.2 26.4 4.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 27.2 16.4 3.9 14.8 15.1 3.2 62.9 27.0 56.2 26.4 4.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 132 61 0 12 31 0 35 140 62 182 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 230 107 28 32 62 20 m#67 257 146 247 54 Internal Link Dist(ft) 768 676 814 248 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 512 745 701 460 745 694 118 1058 188 1179 774 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.69 0.27 0.16 0.09 0.15 0.13 0.60 0.84 0.72 0.73 0.48 Intersection Summary 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 18 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 46: PAClflc & Santa Ana PM Peak Hour Queues k- I i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 174 120 543 92 206 413 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.22 0.24 0.69 0.13 0.26 0.66 Control Delay 13.5 12.7 14.6 22.2 3.7 10.4 21.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.5 12.7 14.6 22.2 3.7 10.4 21.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 4 41 32 184 0 41 132 Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 80 66 292 24 81 229 Internal Link Dist(ft) 1664 867 606 344 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 200 150 Base Capacity (vph) 202 776 507 785 720 806 627 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.22 0.24 0.69 0.13 0.26 0.66 Intersection Summary 7/22015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 19 Queues 2035 HNTB Design Concept 49: Santa Ana & Lacy PM Peak Hour Queues R Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT Lane Group Flow (vph) 71 103 657 836 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.19 0.63 0.82 Control Delay 16.6 18.2 13.8 37.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 16.6 18.2 13.8 37.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 31 183 362 Queue Length 95th (ft) 47 67 288 497 Internal Link Dist(ft) 647 802 990 814 Tum Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 506 535 1042 1019 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.19 0.63 0.82 Intersection Summary 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 7/2/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 20