ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 1 of 67
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
FOR THE PROPOSED
RESTAURANT BUSINESS AT
2635 ASHBY AVENUE, BERKELEY, CA
November 18, 2013
Prepared by:
Omni-Means, Ltd.
Engineers & Planners
1901 Olympic Blvd., Suite 120
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
R1735TIA006 / 35-3246-02
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 2 of 67
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
FOR THE PROPOSED
RESTAURANT BUSINESS AT
2635 ASHBY AVENUE, BERKELEY, CA
NOVEMBER 18, 2013
Prepared For:
GORDON COMMERCIAL SERVICES
At The Request Of:
THE CITY OF BERKELEY
Prepared By
OMNI-MEANS, LTD.
ENGINEERS & PLANNERS
1901 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 120
Walnut Creek, CA 94549
(925) 935-2230
35-3246-02
(R1735TIA006.DOC)
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 3 of 67
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 4 of 67
1. INTRODUCTION
Executive Summary
This report presents the findings of a traffic analysis conducted for the proposed restaurant business at 2635
Ashby Avenue (Use Permit # 2013-0033) in the City of Berkeley, California. (A project vicinity map is
shown in Figure 1.) The study evaluated existing and future conditions without the project and with the
project’s calculated trips included. The study evaluated weekday and weekend Saturday conditions during
the mid-day lunch period, pm commute period, and the later evening period which corresponds with the
project’s peak time of trip generation.
Traffic conditions at the study intersection of Ashby Avenue/College Avenue without the project were
evaluated. Existing conditions range from level of service ‘C’ during the restaurant evening peak period to
‘E’ during the weekday pm commute period. Traffic conditions in the near term future (Year 2015)
reflecting approved development trips and intersection control improvements were also evaluated. Levels of
service would range from LOS ‘B’ to LOS ‘E’ on weekdays and LOS ‘D’ on Saturdays. Traffic operations
were analyzed for cumulative (Year 2035) conditions based on transportation model forecasts and historical
volume data. Conditions would range from LOS ‘C’ at night to LOS ‘F’ during the pm commute period.
The project’s trips were calculated based on published trip data in combination with local transit mode
information. The project was calculated to generate 205-215 daily trips, with 21-25 peak hour trips during
the restaurant’s peak period of trip generation at night and 17-20 trips during the earlier pm commute hour.
With the project trips added to the background traffic volumes, levels of service would remain unchanged
during all surveyed periods, with delays or v/c ratios not resulting in any significant impacts based on City of
Berkeley’s criteria for existing, near term, and cumulative scenarios. The dispersion of street parking spaces
surrounding the project site would reduce the number of project trips in any one area.
The project site is located in a retail/commercial area popular with pedestrians and bicyclists. Pedestrian
access to the project site is available via sidewalks from every street in the study area. Bikeways in the
vicinity include designated “bicycle boulevards” located one block from the project site. Public transit bus
stops are located nearby at the Ashby Avenue/College Avenue intersection. New traffic signals with
intersection control upgrades are scheduled to be installed at the Ashby Avenue/College Avenue intersection
in order to manage traffic flows more efficiently in the area.
2635 Ashby Ave. Restaurant Project Traffic Impact Study
City of Berkeley
Page 1
R1735TIA006.DOC
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 5 of 67
PROJECT SITE
LOCATION
Project Vicinity Map
means
North
figure 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 6 of 67
2. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Site Location
The proposed project would occupy a 3,500 square foot space within an existing building located on the north
side of Ashby Avenue just west of College Avenue in the Elmwood district of Berkeley. This area consists
of a mix of commercial businesses on Ashby Avenue and College Avenue one block to the north and south of
the Ashby Avenue/College Avenue intersection surrounded by residential homes and the Alta Bates hospital
facility located further to the west. Customer vehicle access to the commercial businesses is typical of urban
settings and is limited primarily to on-street parking spaces and, to a lesser extent, off-street parking spaces.
These areas typically experience a higher proportion of pedestrian and transit customer trips, resulting in a
lower number of private vehicle customer trips than more suburban locales.
Roadway Network
Ashby Avenue (State Route 13) extends across the City in an east-west direction between Interstates 80/580
to the west and State Route 24 to the east. It is classified as a principal arterial in the California Roadway
System map.1 In addition to carrying through trips, it serves retail and commercial businesses along its
length as well as the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Within the project vicinity, Ashby Avenue
consists of two travel lanes and on-street parking spaces (pay or free) with posted time limits unless the
vehicle possesses a residential parking permit.
College Avenue is oriented in a north-south direction and extends south from the University of California,
Berkeley, campus through the City of Berkeley into the City of Oakland. It is a minor arterial street and,
similar to Ashby Avenue, serves through trips as well as commercial businesses and residential areas along
its length.
Regional access to the proposed project site is provided by Interstates 80 and 580 (I-80 & I-580) and State
Route 24 (SR-24). I-80 and I-580 are combined into a single highway through the City of Berkeley,
which is located approximately two miles west of the project vicinity with access via Ashby Avenue. SR24 is located approximately one mile south with primary access via Tunnel Road, College Avenue, or
Telegraph Avenue to/from the project vicinity.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian facilities are served by sidewalks which front the project site and are present on both sides of
Ashby Avenue, College Avenue, and the surrounding residential streets. The signalized intersection at Ashby
Avenue/College Avenue has striped crosswalks across all four approaches. Pedestrian “Walk/Don’t Walk”
electronic signs are integrated into the traffic signal controls. There is a sign on the east side of College
Avenue stating “Pedestrians Wait For Walk Signal”. Striped crosswalks are located at the unsignalized
intersections on Ashby Avenue at the Benvenue Avenue, Hillegass Avenue, and Regent Street intersections.
The Berkeley Master Pedestrian Plan is a City policy document intended to inventory pedestrian facilities and
recommend pedestrian improvements.2 Potential improvements to the Ashby Avenue/College Avenue
intersection include installing advance stop bars, installing perpendicular pedestrian ramps, installing
enhanced lighting, and changing the southbound left turn from a leading phase to a lagging phase.
On College Avenue, there are striped crosswalks at all of the intersections within three blocks of Ashby
Avenue. There is also a striped mid-block crosswalk on College Avenue to the north between Ashby Avenue
and Russell Street. To further facilitate pedestrian travel, the City has a number of pathways as well as
sections of roads where vehicle travel is prohibited, but pedestrians and bicycles can travel through.
Examples include Russell Street south of College Avenue between Benvenue Avenue and College Avenue,
and north of College Avenue between Piedmont Avenue and Kelsey Street.
2635 Ashby Ave. Restaurant Project Traffic Impact Study
City of Berkeley
Page 3
R1735TIA006.DOC
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 7 of 67
Bicycle travel is allowed on all of the streets in the project vicinity, but to enhance bicycle travel the City has
established a network of streets that consist of bicycle facilities of various classifications as outlined in the
Berkeley Bicycle Plan and Bicycle Plan Update of the General Plan.3,4 Bicycle facilities are generally
categorized into three different classifications as defined by California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices. 5
Bike Path (Class 1): A dedicated off-road bicycle and/or pedestrian path (typically multi-use path) which
provides for bicycle travel completely separated from any street or highway.
Bike Lane (Class 2): A striped lane on a roadway for the exclusive use of bicyclists in order to provide
additional width for bicycle travel.
Bike Route (Class 3): Bike Routes are roads that are signed as bikeways, but do not have separate bicycle
lane striping. Typically, bike routes are used to provide continuity in the overall bikeway network or
identify a route that is preferable to other nearby streets.
The City of Berkeley also categorizes two additional classifications of bikeway types:
Class 2.5 Bikeway - Shared Roadways: A shared roadway is signed and improved as a bikeway, but
where bike lanes are typically not feasible. Specific improvements vary, but include removal of unsafe
surfaces (such as drainage grates), repaving to smoother surfaces, and pavement stencils.
Bicycle Boulevard: Bicycle Boulevards are intended to serve as Berkeley’s primary bikeways or “bike
arterials” and represent streets that have been selected and/or modified to enhance bicycle travel over
longer distances.
Two bicycle boulevards are located near the project site. Hillegass Avenue provides north-south travel
and Russell Street provides east-west travel. These roads provide connections to other designated
bikeways including a class 2.5 Route on Tunnel Road connecting to Russell Street and a bicycle
boulevard on Channing Way connecting to Hillegass Avenue via Bowditch Street. Bicycle parking racks
are located on Ashby Avenue fronting the project site and elsewhere near the Ashby Avenue/College
Avenue intersection.
Transit Facilities
Public transit service in the project area is provided by the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (ACTransit) via scheduled bus service. The buses also provide connections to regional transit services such as
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Bus stops near the project site are located at the intersection of Ashby
Avenue/College Avenue. On College Avenue, a southbound bus stop (Routes 51B, 851, & 605) is
located on the south side of Ashby Avenue. A northbound bus stop (Routes 51B, 851, 604, & 605)
is located on the north side of the intersection. An eastbound bus stop on Ashby Avenue (Route 604) is
located on the east side of the intersection. The service routes are described as follows:
AC Transit Route 51B: This route extends between the Berkeley Amtrak station and the Rockridge
BART station via University Avenue, Bancroft Way/Durant Avenue, and College Avenue. On weekdays,
Route 51B operates between 5:30 a.m. and 12:25 a.m. with 10-15 minute headways. On weekends,
service is from 5:33 a.m. to 12:21 a.m. with 15-20 minute headways.
AC Transit Route 851: This is an overnight route that extends between the downtown Berkeley BART
station and the Fruitvale BART station via the city of Alameda. It traverses Bancroft Way/Durant
Avenue, College Avenue, Broadway, Webster Street, and Santa Clara Avenue. The route operates daily
between 12:14 a.m. and 5:04 a.m. with headways every 60 minutes.
2635 Ashby Ave. Restaurant Project Traffic Impact Study
City of Berkeley
Page 4
R1735TIA006.DOC
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 8 of 67
AC Transit Route 604: This is a supplemental route with limited operating times. It provides service in
the morning and afternoon between the Downtown Berkeley BART station and several local schools,
including the College Preparatory School and the Head Royce School. There are two morning buses
between 7:30 and 8:15 a.m. and two afternoon buses between 3:30 and 4:38 p.m. on weekdays.
AC Transit Route 605: This is also a supplemental route with limited operating times. It provides service
in the morning and afternoon between the North Berkeley BART station and schools, including the Head
Royce School and Oakland Hebrew School. There is one morning bus which operates between 7:25 and
8:11 a.m., and one afternoon bus between 3:30 and 4:07 p.m. on weekdays.
The City also provides additional transit services, including service to senior citizens (Social Service
Transport) and disabled (Paratransit Program). There are also transit incentive programs which can
provide low cost or free transit for eligible employees or students.
The BART rail transit system provides regional transit services throughout the greater Bay Area including
airport service to Oakland and San Francisco Airports. BART is generally in service 4:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.
on weekdays, 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Saturdays, and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Sundays, with headways of 15-20
minutes. All of the bus routes near the project site connect with a BART station along their service route.
Collision History
The study evaluated the collision history for the five year period from 2008-2012. The accident data was
derived from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). The recorded
accident history is the source used by transportation engineers in assessing accident history. A location
may have unrecorded accidents in addition to the recorded ones. However, unrecorded accidents cannot
be scientifically evaluated.
At the Ashby Avenue/College Avenue intersection, there were six total accidents over the five year
period. There were two recorded accidents in 2008, zero in 2009, one in 2010, two in 2011, and one in
2012. There were three broadside type accidents, two side-swipes, and one rear-end accident. Two of the
accidents involved bicyclists; one involved a southbound bicyclist side-swiping a stopped left turning
vehicle and one involved a left turning vehicle not yielding right-of-way to a bicyclist. The rear-end
accident occurred in rainy conditions.
The intersection accident rate was calculated and compared to statewide average rates. The rate reflects
accidents per million vehicles entering the intersection and is stated as “accidents per million vehicles”
(a.m.v.). The accident rates are based on the number of accidents and average daily traffic volumes. The
average number of accidents per year over the five year period was used in calculating the accident rate.
The intersection had a calculated accident rate of 0.12 accidents per million vehicles.
The calculated accident rate was compared with statewide average rates compiled by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 6 The statewide average rate is 0.27 a.m.v. for signalized urban
intersections. The intersection’s accident rate (0.12 a.v.m.) is below the statewide average rate, which
indicates the intersection is not experiencing more accidents than other intersections with similar
characteristics and volumes.
As noted, the intersection has been earmarked for potential improvements in the future. In addition to
new actuated traffic signals, other potential improvements as outlined in the Berkeley Pedestrian Master
Plan include stop bar pavement markings, changing diagonal accessibility ramps to perpendicular at the
intersection corners, and changing the signal phasing. A designated bike boulevard is located one block
west on Benvenue Avenue. Bicyclists using Benvenue Avenue through the commercial area would be
removed from the higher volumes and frequent parking maneuvers that occur on College Avenue.
2635 Ashby Ave. Restaurant Project Traffic Impact Study
City of Berkeley
Page 5
R1735TIA006.DOC
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 9 of 67
Existing Traffic Operations
In consultation with City staff, the parameters of the study were determined. The study analyzed operating
conditions at the Ashby Avenue/College Avenue intersection for weekday and weekend Saturday conditions
during the lunch period, PM commute period, and evening dining period (the peak hour of restaurant trip
generation). The site location’s proximity to the Ashby Avenue/College Avenue intersection would result in
this intersection experiencing the most project trips. However, the parking supply of street spaces
encompasses the surrounding area which would reduce the number of trips at one location. The number of
project trips would be increasingly lower at intersections further away from the site. Traffic counts of
vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles were conducted at the Ashby Avenue/College Avenue intersection during
the analyzed time periods for this study.7 The counts were conducted at a time of year when UC Berkeley
and local grade schools were in session. The existing vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle volumes are shown in
Figure 2.
The College Avenue/Ashby Avenue intersection is a signalized intersection with a protected/permitted
left turn phase for the southbound College Avenue approach and permitted left turn phasing for the other
approaches. (Left turns are prohibited on the Ashby Avenue approaches weekdays from 7:00-9:00 a.m.
and 4:00-6:00 p.m.) The intersection is in the center of the commercial area with retail businesses along
the frontages and on-street parking spaces located on both sides of the street (parking is prohibited on all
approaches within 50 feet of the intersection). The westbound approach widens to two lanes about 100
feet long. The other approaches are striped as single lanes (but can function like two lanes when vehicles
traveling straight and turning right are able to pass on the right side of a left turning vehicle).
Level of Service Conditions
Traffic conditions are measured by Level of Service (LOS), which applies a letter ranking to successive
levels of intersection performance. LOS ‘A’ represents optimum conditions with free-flow travel and no
congestion. LOS ‘F’ represents severe congestion with long delays at the approaches. For signalized
intersections the LOS is measured in seconds of delay and vehicle-to-capacity (v/c) ratio. (LOS
definitions and calculation worksheets are provided in the Appendix.)
The intersection has weekday calculated conditions of LOS ‘D’ (35.2” delay) during the lunch period,
LOS ‘E’ (63.2” delay) during the pm commute peak hour, and LOS ‘C’ (24.4” delay) during the evening
restaurant peak hour. The intersection has weekend Saturday calculated conditions of LOS ‘D’ (40.2”
delay) during the lunch period, LOS ‘D’ (46.8” delay) during the pm commute peak hour, and LOS ‘C’
(28.3” delay) during the evening restaurant peak hour.
Ashby Avenue near the project site has average annual daily volumes of approximately 19,000-23,200 trips
based on Caltrans records.8 College Avenue daily volumes are approximately 10,300-12,000 trips near the
project site.9 The daily volumes are approximately thirteen times the peak hour volumes. The weekend
Saturday volumes are approximately 15,400-16,300 trips on Ashby Avenue and 9,500-10,900 on College
Avenue.
Pedestrian & bicycle counts were conducted at the Ashby Avenue/College Avenue intersection during all
of the surveyed periods. Pedestrian volumes are highest along College Avenue and crossing the
signalized Ashby Avenue/College Avenue intersection. The highest pedestrian volumes were observed
on Saturday, with 300-400 crossing Ashby Avenue along College Avenue. Weekday volumes were
lower, ranging from 100-200 pedestrians crossing at the Ashby Avenue/College Avenue intersection.
Bicycle volumes ranged from approximately 2-10 on most approaches, but increased to 25-30 on
southbound College Avenue during the weekday commute period.
2635 Ashby Ave. Restaurant Project Traffic Impact Study
City of Berkeley
Page 6
R1735TIA006.DOC
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 10 of 67
TABLE 1
EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) AND SECONDS OF DELAY
Ashby Ave. / College Ave.
Intersection
Existing Weekday
LOS Delay
Existing Weekend
LOS Delay
Mid-day Lunch Peak Hour
D 35.2”
D 40.2”
PM Commute Peak Hour
E 63.2”
D 46.8”
Evening Restaurant Peak Hour
C 24.4”
C 28.3”
2635 Ashby Ave. Restaurant Project Traffic Impact Study
City of Berkeley
Page 7
R1735TIA006.DOC
74 (45) [50]
155 (228) [198]
74 (144) [89]
EXISTING WEEKDAY VOLUMES:
12,000 ADT
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 11 of 67
Signalized
72 (105) [83]
415 (422) [402]
38 (14) [24]
ASHBY AVE.
[45] (27) 56
[391] (699) 466
[72] (69) 87
[52] (59) 41
[391] (458) 437
[76] (93) 85
10,300 ADT
[103]
(65)
75
[6]
(3)
2
Pedestrian & Bicycle Volumes
[51] (55) 69
[214] (213) 243
[57] (72) 54
9,500 ADT
COLLEGE AVE.
16,300 ADT
[153] [2]
(114) (8)
235 7
[321] [3]
(363) (17)
282 12
[348] [5]
(437) (20)
337
17
[136] [2]
(173) (5)
199
2
Pedestrian & Bicycle Volumes
Existing Weekday and Saturday Peak Hour Volumes
Mid-day, (PM Commute), [Restaurant Night]
means
[140] [9]
(164) (9)
128 15
[188] [25]
(185) (31)
173
9
136 (119) [98]
470 (409) [357]
25 (36) [28]
ASHBY AVE.
15,400 ADT
[109] [2]
(111) (2)
81
5
10,900 ADT
81 (70) [63]
284 (232) [248]
105 (111) [100]
EXISTING SATURDAY VOLUMES:
[58] (56) 80
[193] (207) 215
[53] (60) 47
23,200 ADT
COLLEGE AVE.
19,000 ADT
GEOMETRIES / CONTROLS
Existing geometries assumed for
all future volume scenarios.
North
figure 2
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 12 of 67
3. PROPOSED PROJECT
Project Description
The proposed project would consist of a 3,500 square foot restaurant business occupying a currently vacant
space within an existing building located at 2635 Ashby Avenue. The proposed restaurant characteristics
reflect the category of a Quality Restaurant as defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for
vehicle trip generation purposes.10 Although the project’s primary emphasis is dinner service, the business
may also provide service during the lunch hour. To account for this possibility, the weekday and weekend
lunch periods were evaluated in addition to the evening period and assumed to be equal to the restaurant’s
peak evening trip generation. A project site plan is provided in Figure 3.
Project Trips Generation
Vehicle trip generation rates based on square footage and on the number of seats were compared. The
highest number of trips was associated with square footage, therefore they were used for the analysis in order
to remain conservative. The project vehicle trips were calculated from the ITE trip rates and specific travel
mode information for the Elmwood district obtained for the “GoBerkeley” pilot parking program. The ITE
data reflect restaurants from a variety of land use settings. Urban restaurants typically have a higher
proportion of customers within walking distance and a lower proportion of vehicle trips compared to
suburban locations. As part of the GoBerkeley parking program, surveys were conducted of customers,
employees, and business owners in the Elmwood district regarding their mode of travel to the area.11 The
surveys identified a range of 37%-54% of respondents saying they used non-driving modes (walking, transit,
bicycle, etc.). To account for the higher proportion of non-driving travel modes to the area, but still remain
conservatively lower than the survey findings, the base vehicle trips were reduced 35% to reflect the nondriving trip modes. References to “project trips” refer to vehicle trips as far as project impacts are concerned.
For this type of restaurant business, the peak trips typically occur later in the evening (7:00 pm) than the
commute period on adjacent streets (4:00-6:00 pm). Weekend trip generation is also typically higher than
weekdays. The project’s vehicle trip generation is shown in Table 2. The project is calculated to generate
25 trips (15 in, 10 out) during the Saturday evening restaurant peak hour and 21 trips (13 in, 8 out) during
the weekday restaurant peak hour. The restaurant is calculated to generate 20 trips (13 in, 7 out) during
the earlier pm peak hour of adjacent street traffic (“commute” hour) on a Saturday and 17 trips (11 in, 6
out) on a weekday. Although lunch time demand is typically 75%-85% percent of dinner demand, the
evening peak hour of restaurant trips was also assumed to occur during the lunch period in order to
remain conservative.
The project trip totals represent volumes generated on the highest days of the week. The ITE data indicates
volumes on other days of the week can be 10%-40% lower than the peak day. The calculated project trips
are also likely conservatively high because no reduction was made for pass-by trips or shared purpose
trips and no trip reduction for the previous site use trip generation was taken.
Project Trips Assignment
Regional access to the project vicinity would primarily be via Ashby Avenue to/from the east and west
and College Avenue to/from the north and south. Closer to the project site, the dispersion of parking
spaces in the area would serve to lower the number of project trips from the main arterial roads. The trip
distribution was assigned onto the street network based on existing traffic flow patterns of volumes on
Ashby Avenue and College Avenue, freeway access points, and likely trip origination locations.
2635 Ashby Ave. Restaurant Project Traffic Impact Study
City of Berkeley
Page 9
R1735TIA006.DOC
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 13 of 67
Based on these factors, the project trips were assigned as follows:
Ashby Avenue
to/from the west: 30%
to/from the east: 30%
College Avenue
to/from the north: 20%
to/from the south: 20%
As noted, near the project site some customers will begin to look for parking spaces before reaching the
studied intersection of Ashby Avenue/College Avenue and will park in an available street space on Ashby
Avenue, College Avenue, a nearby adjacent street, or in the off-street parking lot on Russell Street. A
separate parking study for this project was conducted describing the parking locations and associated
parking space availability around the project site (see Updated Parking & Trip Generation Study for the
Proposed Restaurant Business at 2635 Ashby Avenue, Berkeley, CA, October 17, 2013, submitted with
permit application).
Assuming only one vehicle per approach on Ashby Avenue and College Avenue seeks a parking space
before reaching the intersection, the number of project trips at the intersection would decrease 40%.
However, to remain conservative, it was assumed 20% (the equivalent of two vehicles or 3-4 trips) of the
project trips would seek parking before reaching the intersection and the remainder were distributed
through the intersection. The weekday and Saturday peak hour project trips are shown in Figure 4.
TABLE 2
PROJECT VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION
3,500 sq.
ft
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Time Period
Trip Rate
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
NEW TRIPS
Daily:
PM Pk. Hr. of Restaurant:
PM Pk. Hr. Adjacent Streets:
Mid-day Lunch Pk. Hr.:
89.95 trips/ksf x 65% =
9.02 trips/ksf (62% in, 38% out) x 65% =
7.49 trips/ksf (67% in, 33% out) x 65% =
9.02 trips/ksf (62% in, 38% out) x 65% =
205
21 (13 in, 8 out)
17 (11 in, 6 out)
21 (13 in, 8 out)
Daily:
PM Pk. Hr. of Restaurant:
PM Pk. Hr. Adjacent Streets:
Mid-day Lunch Pk. Hr.:
94.36 trips/ksf x 65% =
10.82 trips/ksf (59% in, 41% out) x 65% =
8.98 trips/ksf (64% in, 36% out) x 65% =
10.82 trips/ksf (59% in, 41% out) x 65% =
215
25 (15 in, 10 out)
20 (13 in, 7 out)
25 (15 in, 10 out)
72.16 trips/ksf x 65% =
8.38 trips/ksf (63% in, 37% out) x 65% =
165
19 (12 in, 7 out)
Daily:
PM Pk. Hr. of Restaurant:
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 9th Edition, average rates for Quality Restaurant, land use #931, 2012.
Base trips reduced 35% based on travel mode surveys of Elmwood district in GoBerkeley report.
Lunch trips assumed to be equal to peak evening trips.
2635 Ashby Ave. Restaurant Project Traffic Impact Study
City of Berkeley
Page 10
R1735TIA006.DOC
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 14 of 67
Project Site Plan
means
North
figure 3
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 15 of 67
50 ADT
WEEKDAY PROJECT TRIPS:
RESTAURANT EVENING AND LUNCH PEAK HOUR: 21 (13 in, 8 out)
2 (2) [2]
1 (1) [2]
1 (1) [1]
PM COMMUTE PEAK HOUR: 17 (11 in, 6 out)
1 (1) [1]
2 (2) [2]
1 (0) [1]
ASHBY AVE.
[2] (0) 2
[1] (1) 1
[2] (2) 2
50 ADT
[1] (1) 1
[1] (2) 1
[1] (1) 1
60 ADT
COLLEGE AVE.
60 ADT
SATURDAY PROJECT TRIPS:
50 ADT
RESTAURANT EVENING AND LUNCH PEAK HOUR: 25 (15 in, 10 out)
2 (2) [2]
2 (1) [2]
1 (1) [1]
PM COMMUTE PEAK HOUR: 20 (13 in, 7 out)
1 (1) [1]
4 (3) [4]
1 (0) [1]
ASHBY AVE.
[2] (2) 2
[1] (1) 1
[3] (2) 3
50 ADT
[1] (1) 1
[2] (1) 2
[1] (1) 1
60 ADT
COLLEGE AVE.
60 ADT
Project Trips Reduced 20% At Intersection To Account
For Vehicles Parking Before Reaching Intersection.
Weekday and Saturday Peak Hour Project Trips
Mid-day, (PM Commute), [Restaurant Night]
means
North
figure 4
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 16 of 67
City of Berkeley Significance Criteria
The City of Berkeley outlines significance criteria for traffic operations in the Circulation Element of the
General Plan.12 The following criteria were applied to assess significance criteria relative to the
intersection operation:
•
•
•
If a signalized intersection operating at LOS ‘D’ without the project degrades to LOS ‘E’ or
worse with a greater than two second increase in delay with the project;
If a signalized intersection operating at LOS ‘E’ without the project experiences more than a three
second increase in delay with the project;
If a signalized intersection operating at LOS ‘F’ without the project experiences a change in the
volume-to-capacity ratio of more than 0.01 with the project.
4. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Existing Plus Project Operating Conditions
The project trips were added to the existing volumes and the peak hour intersection levels of service were
evaluated. The existing plus project volumes are shown in Figure 5. The level of service with the project
trips are shown in Table 3. On weekdays , the Ashby Avenue/College Avenue intersection would have
calculated operating conditions of LOS ‘D’ (36.4” delay) during the lunch period, LOS ‘E’ (63.5” delay)
during the PM commute period, and LOS ‘C’ (25.0” delay) during the restaurant evening peak dining period.
On weekends, the Ashby Avenue/College Avenue intersection would have calculated operating conditions of
LOS ‘D’ (42.8” delay) during the lunch period, LOS ‘D’ (49.0” delay) during the pm commute period, and
LOS ‘C’ (29.3” delay) during the evening peak period. The levels of service would be unchanged with the
added project trips and the delay increases would be less than significant based on the City threshold
standards.
The project would be expected to add approximately 100-120 daily trips divided to the east and west on
Ashby Avenue and 80-100 trips divided to the north and south on College Avenue near the project site. The
project would add approximately 0.5% percent or less to the daily volumes. Existing plus project weekday
volumes on Ashby Avenue would be approximately 19,060-23,260 trips and 10,350-12,050 on College
Avenue. Saturday volumes would be approximately 15,460-16,360 trips on Ashby Avenue and 9,550-10,950
trips on College Avenue.
TABLE 3
EXISTING AND EXISTING + PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) AND SECONDS OF DELAY
Weekday
Weekend
Existing
LOS Delay
Existing
+Project
LOS Delay
Existing
LOS Delay
Existing
+Project
LOS Delay
Mid-day Lunch Peak Hour
D 35.2”
D 36.4”
D 40.2”
D 42.8”
PM Commute Peak Hour
E 63.2”
E 63.5”
D 46.8”
D 49.0”
Evening Restaurant Peak Hour
C 24.4”
C 25.0”
C 28.3”
C 29.3”
Ashby Ave. / College Ave.
Intersection
2635 Ashby Ave. Restaurant Project Traffic Impact Study
City of Berkeley
Page 13
R1735TIA006.DOC
76 (47) [52]
156 (229) [199]
75 (145) [90]
EXISTING + PROJECT WEEKDAY VOLUMES:
12,050 ADT
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 17 of 67
73 (106) [84]
417 (424) [404]
39 (14) [25]
ASHBY AVE.
[47] (27) 58
[392] (700) 467
[74] (71) 89
10,350 ADT
10,950 ADT
83 (72) [65]
286 (233) [250]
106 (112) [101]
EXISTING + PROJECT SATURDAY VOLUMES:
[59] (57) 81
[194] (20) 216
[54] (61) 48
23,260 ADT
COLLEGE AVE.
19,060 ADT
137 (120) [99]
474 (412) [361]
26 (36) [29]
ASHBY AVE.
[54] (61) 43
[392] (459) 438
[79] (95) 88
9,550 ADT
[52] (56) 70
[216] (214) 245
[58] (73) 55
16,360 ADT
COLLEGE AVE.
15,460 ADT
Existing + Project Weekday and Saturday Peak Hour Volumes
Mid-day, (PM Commute), [Restaurant Night]
means
North
figure 5
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 18 of 67
5. NEAR TERM (YEAR 2015) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Near Term Traffic Volumes
Near term traffic conditions represent existing traffic plus approved and pending traffic expected to be
generated in the near term by Year 2015. Approved developments include structures that are built but not
fully occupied or are not yet built but are expected to be within the near term future. The base near term
volumes were derived from the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) transportation
model.13 The model provides traffic volume projections for select years compared to the model’s base
volumes. The annualized difference between the base year volume and the model’s selected future year
volume was calculated and applied to the existing traffic counts conducted for this study. The model’s short
term horizon year (Year 2020) indicates little to no growth on Ashby Avenue and College Avenue in the near
term timeframe. This corresponds with a review of historic traffic volumes on Ashby Avenue, which show
volumes have been declining.14 This may be in part due to the lagging economy. To remain conservative,
the annualized growth from the model’s base year to Year 2035, which is a positive 0.71% per year increase,
was used to derive the near term background volume growth. Applying the annualized growth rate for two
years between Year 2013 and Year 2015 results in a net increase of 1.42% to the existing volumes. The
calculated growth rate was also applied to the pedestrian and bicycle volumes.
In addition to general traffic growth, specific traffic trips identified from the approved Claremont Safeway
grocery store expansion and retail project, located at the corner of Claremont Avenue and College Avenue,
were also added to the base near term volumes.15 The existing Safeway store was already closed for
renovations when the traffic counts for this study were conducted. Therefore the total trips (existing Safeway
store trips plus the new trips from the expansion) were added to the near term volumes. The Safeway traffic
study identified 92 weekday peak hour trips and 91 weekend peak hour trips through the Ashby
Avenue/College Avenue intersection. The combined near term growth and Safeway volumes likely represent
a conservative projection since the transportation model theoretically already accounts for anticipated
development trips.
The near term analysis also incorporated expected roadway infrastructure improvements. As a result of the
Caldecott Tunnel Improvement Project Settlement Agreement., funding has been provided to the City of
Berkeley and other communities in the western corridor of the Caldecott Tunnel to improve circulation. The
City of Berkeley is considering several traffic control improvement alternatives for the Ashby
Avenue/College Avenue intersection..16 At the time of this study, the City had determined it will install new
traffic signals with actuation control in the year 2014. The new signals will provide more efficient allocation
of green time to the intersection approach volumes, resulting in better traffic flow through the intersection.
Actuated signal control was applied to the level of service calculations for the 2015 and 2035 scenarios.
Near Term Operating Conditions
The near term volumes are shown in Figure 6. For near term conditions on weekdays, the Ashby
Avenue/College Avenue intersection has calculated conditions of LOS ‘C’ (26.8” delay) during the lunch
period, LOS ‘E’ (67.5” delay) during the pm commute period, and LOS ‘B’ (17.6” delay) during the
restaurant evening peak dining period. On weekend Saturdays, the intersection would operate at LOS ‘D’
(39.9” delay) during the lunch period, LOS ‘D’ (43.6” delay) during the pm commute period, and LOS ‘C’
(23.4” delay) during the evening restaurant peak period. The near term LOS are shown in Table 4.
Near term weekday daily volumes close to the project site would be approximately 19,300-23,500 trips on
Ashby Avenue and 10,500-12,100 trips on College Avenue. Weekend Saturday volumes would be
approximately 15,700-16,500 trips on Ashby Avenue and 9,600-11,000 on College Avenue.
2635 Ashby Ave. Restaurant Project Traffic Impact Study
City of Berkeley
Page 15
R1735TIA006.DOC
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 19 of 67
Near Term Plus Project Operating Conditions
The project trips were added to the near term volumes and the levels of service were calculated. The near
term plus project volumes are shown in Figure 7. The operating conditions are shown in Table 4. During the
weekday lunch period, the intersection would operate at LOS ‘C’ (27.3” delay). The PM commute period
would operate at LOS ‘E’ (68.7” delay). The restaurant evening peak period would operate at LOS ‘B’
(18.4” delay). On weekend Saturdays, the intersection would continue to operate at LOS ‘D’ (40.0” delay)
during the mid-day lunch period, LOS ‘D’ (44.3” delay) during the pm commute period, and LOS ‘C’ (24.5”
delay) during the restaurant evening peak period.
Levels of service with the project trips would remain unchanged from conditions without the project trips and
delay increases would be less than significant based on the City of Berkeley significance standards with the
added project traffic.
With project trips the weekday volumes on Ashby Avenue would be approximately 19,360-23,560 trips and
10,550-12,150 on College Avenue. Saturday volumes would be approximately 15,760-16,560 trips on Ashby
Avenue and 9,650-11,050 trips on College Avenue.
TABLE 4
NEAR TERM (YEAR 2015)AND NEAR TERM + PROJECT
PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) AND SECONDS OF DELAY
Weekday
Weekend
Near Term
LOS Delay
Near Term
+Project
LOS Delay
Near Term
LOS Delay
Near Term
+Project
LOS Delay
Mid-day Lunch Peak Hour
C 26.8”
C 27.3”
D 39.9”
D 40.0”
PM Commute Peak Hour
E 67.5”
E 68.7”
D 43.6”
D 44.3”
Evening Restaurant Peak Hour
B 17.6”
B 18.4”
C 23.4”
C 24.5”
Ashby Ave. / College Ave.
Intersection
2635 Ashby Ave. Restaurant Project Traffic Impact Study
City of Berkeley
Page 16
R1735TIA006.DOC
75 (46) [51]
183 (257) [227]
75 (146) [90]
NEAR TERM YEAR 2015 WEEKDAY VOLUMES:
12,100 ADT
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 20 of 67
73 (106) [84]
421 (439) [408]
50 (14) [35]
ASHBY AVE.
[46] (27) 57
[397] (709) 473
[84] (81) 99
10,500 ADT
[68] (66) 90
[222] (236) 244
[63] (70) 57
23,500 ADT
COLLEGE AVE.
19,300 ADT
11,000 ADT
82 (71) [64]
314 (261) [278]
106 (113) [101]
NEAR TERM YEAR 2015 SATURDAY VOLUMES:
138 (121) [99]
477 (415) [362]
35 (47) [38]
ASHBY AVE.
[53] (60) 42
[397] (465) 443
[77] (104) 96
9,600 ADT
[62] (66) 80
[242] (241) 271
[68] (83) 65
16,500 ADT
COLLEGE AVE.
15,700 ADT
Near Term Year 2015 Weekday and Saturday Peak Hour Volumes
Mid-day, (PM Commute), [Restaurant Night]
means
North
figure 6
77 (48) [53]
184 (258) [228]
76 (147) [91]
NEAR TERM YEAR 2015 PLUS PROJECT
WEEKDAY VOLUMES:
12,150 ADT
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 21 of 67
74 (107) [85]
423 (441) [410]
51 (14) [36]
ASHBY AVE.
[48] (27) 59
[398] (710) 474
[86] (83) 101
10,550 ADT
11,050 ADT
84 (73) [66]
316 (262) [280]
107 (114) [102]
NEAR TERM YEAR 2015 PLUS PROJECT
SATURDAY VOLUMES:
[69] (67) 91
[223] (238) 245
[64] (71) 58
23,560 ADT
COLLEGE AVE.
19,360 ADT
139 (122) [100]
481 (418) [366]
36 (47) [39]
ASHBY AVE.
[55] (62) 44
[398] (466) 444
[80] (106) 99
means
9,650 ADT
[63] (67) 81
[244] (242) 273
[69] (84) 66
16,560 ADT
COLLEGE AVE.
15,760 ADT
Near Term Year 2015 Plus Project
Weekday and Saturday Peak Hour Volumes
Mid-day, (PM Commute), [Restaurant Night]
North
figure 7
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 22 of 67
6. CUMULATIVE (YEAR 2035) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Cumulative Traffic Volumes
Forecasts for Cumulative (Year 2035) volumes were derived from the ACTC transportation model
volume growth projections. The annual percentage increase in volumes from the model’s base Year 2000
volumes to Year 2035 volumes on the Ashby Avenue and College Avenue approaches to the intersection
were calculated and applied to the existing traffic counts. The net change in the model volumes equates
to an annual increase of 0.71% per year above the base volume. The annual increase was applied to the
22 year timeframe between the existing Year 2013 counts and Year 2035 to derive the cumulative base
volumes. The growth rate was also applied to the pedestrian and bicycle volumes.
In addition to the model traffic growth, the vehicle trips from the approved Claremont Safeway grocery store
expansion and retail project were added to the base cumulative volumes. The existing Safeway store was
closed for renovations when the traffic counts for this study were conducted, therefore the total trips (existing
Safeway store trips plus new project trips) were added to the cumulative volumes. The Safeway traffic study
identified 92 weekday peak hour trips and 91 weekend peak hour trips through the Ashby Avenue/College
Avenue intersection.
The cumulative analysis incorporates the known traffic control improvements consisting of new traffic
signals with actuation control at the Ashby Avenue/College Avenue intersection. The Caldecott Tunnel
Improvement Project Settlement Agreement also allocates funding for future improvements to other
intersections outside of the study area, therefore overall traffic operations may be further enhanced beyond
what is assumed for this study.
Cumulative Operating Conditions
The cumulative traffic volumes are shown in Figure 8. The level of service operating conditions are shown in
Table 5. For cumulative without project conditions, the Ashby Avenue/College Avenue intersection on
weekdays has calculated operating conditions of LOS ‘D’ (48.4” delay) during the lunch period, LOS ‘F’
(1.32 v/c ratio) during the pm commute period, and LOS ‘C’ (28.8” delay) during the restaurant evening peak
dining period. On weekend Saturdays, the Ashby Avenue/College Avenue intersection has calculated
operating conditions of LOS ‘E’ (74.9” delay) during the lunch period, LOS ‘F’ (1.21 v/c ratio) during the pm
commute period, and LOS ‘D’ (44.7” delay) during the evening dinner period.
Cumulative weekday daily volumes near the project site would be approximately 22,000-26,800 trips on
Ashby Avenue and 12,000-13,800 trips on College Avenue. Weekend Saturday volumes would be
approximately 17,800-18,800 trips on Ashby Avenue and 11,000-12,500 on College Avenue.
Cumulative Plus Project Operating Conditions
The project trips were added to the base cumulative volumes and are shown in Figure 9. The level of service
operating conditions are shown in Table 5. During the weekday lunch period, the intersection would
continue to have calculated conditions of LOS D’ (51.1” delay). The pm commute period would continue to
operate at LOS ‘F’ with no change in v/c ratios (1.32). The restaurant evening peak period would continue to
operate at LOS ‘C’ (31.3” delay) under cumulative with project conditions.
On weekends, the intersection would continue to operate at LOS ‘E’ (75.1” delay) during the lunch period.
The intersection would continue to operate at LOS ‘F’ with no change in v/c ratio (1.21 v/c ratio) during the
pm commute period. The restaurant evening peak period would continue to operate at LOS ‘D’ (47.7” delay)
with the added project trips.
2635 Ashby Ave. Restaurant Project Traffic Impact Study
City of Berkeley
Page 19
R1735TIA006.DOC
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 23 of 67
The intersection operation would not be impacted based on the City of Berkeley significance standards under
cumulative plus project conditions.
With project trips the weekday volumes on Ashby Avenue would be approximately 22,060-26,860 trips and
12,050-13,850 on College Avenue. Saturday volumes would be approximately 17,860-18,860 trips on Ashby
Avenue and 11,050-12,550 trips on College Avenue.
TABLE 5
CUMULATIVE (YEAR 2035)AND CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) AND SECONDS OF DELAY
Weekday
Weekend
Cumulative
LOS Delay
Cumulative
+Project
LOS Delay
Cumulative
LOS Delay
Cumulative
+Project
LOS Delay
Mid-day Lunch Peak Hour
D 48.4”
D 51.1”
E 74.9”
E 75.1”
PM Commute Peak Hour
F 113.6”
V/C = 1.32
F 115.6”
V/C = 1.32
F 80.6”
V/C = 1.21
F 83.6”
V/C = 1.21
Evening Restaurant Peak Hour
C 28.8”
C 31.3”
D 44.7”
D 47.7”
Ashby Ave. / College Ave.
Intersection
2635 Ashby Ave. Restaurant Project Traffic Impact Study
City of Berkeley
Page 20
R1735TIA006.DOC
86 (52) [58]
205 (290) [255]
86 (166) [103]
CUMULATIVE YEAR 2035 WEEKDAY VOLUMES:
13,800 ADT
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 24 of 67
83 (121) [96]
480 (499) [465]
55 (16) [39]
ASHBY AVE.
[52] (31) 65
[452] (808) 539
[94] (89) 112
12,000 ADT
[76] (74) 101
[249] (265) 275
[70] (78) 63
26,800 ADT
COLLEGE AVE.
22,000 ADT
12,500 ADT
94 (81) [73]
354 (294) [313]
121 (128) [116]
CUMULATIVE YEAR 2035 SATURDAY VOLUMES:
157 (138) [113]
543 (473) [413]
39 (52) [42]
ASHBY AVE.
[60] (68) 47
[452] (529) 505
[98] (118) 108
means
11,000 ADT
[69] (74) 90
[272] (271) 306
[76] (93) 72
18,800 ADT
COLLEGE AVE.
17,800 ADT
Cumulative Year 2035
Weekday and Saturday Peak Hour Volumes
Mid-day, (PM Commute), [Restaurant Night]
North
figure 8
88 (54) [60]
206 (291) [256]
87 (167) [104]
CUMULATIVE YEAR 2035 PLUS PROJECT
WEEKDAY VOLUMES:
13,850 ADT
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 25 of 67
84 (122) [97]
482 (501) [467]
56 (16) [40]
ASHBY AVE.
[54] (31) 67
[453] (810) 540
[96] (93) 114
12,050 ADT
12,550 ADT
96 (83) [75]
356 (295) [315]
122 (129) [117]
CUMULATIVE YEAR 2035 PLUS PROJECT
SATURDAY VOLUMES:
[77] (75) 102
[250] (267) 276
[71] (79) 64
26,860 ADT
COLLEGE AVE.
22,060 ADT
158 (139) [114]
547 (476) [417]
40 (52) [43]
ASHBY AVE.
[62] (70) 49
[453] (530) 506
[101] (120) 111
means
11,050 ADT
[70] (75) 91
[274] (272) 308
[77] (94) 73
18,860 ADT
COLLEGE AVE.
17,860 ADT
Cumulative Year 2035 Plus Project
Weekday and Saturday Peak Hour Volumes
Mid-day, (PM Commute), [Restaurant Night]
North
figure 9
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 26 of 67
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Traffic conditions for the proposed restaurant project were analyzed for existing and future traffic conditions.
The study evaluated weekday and weekend Saturday conditions during the mid-day lunch period, pm
commute period, and the later evening period corresponding with the restaurant’s peak period of trip
generation. Existing traffic conditions at the study intersection of Ashby Avenue/College Avenue without the
project range from level of service ‘C’ to ‘E’. Near term (Year 2015) conditions reflecting anticipated short
term growth with approved developments and intersection control improvements were also evaluated. Levels
of service would range from LOS ‘B’ to LOS ‘E’ on weekdays and LOS ‘D’ on Saturdays.
Traffic operations were also analyzed for cumulative (Year 2035) conditions based on transportation model
forecasts and historical volume data. Conditions without the project would range from LOS ‘C’ at night to
LOS ‘F’ during the pm commute period based on the growth projections.
The restaurant project trips were calculated using Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation rates in
combination with local travel mode information for the study area. The project was calculated to generate
21-25 peak hour trips during the restaurant’s peak period at night and 17-20 trips during the earlier pm
commute hour.
The project trips were added to the existing, near term, and cumulative without project volumes and the
operating conditions were analyzed. Levels of service would not change during any of the surveyed periods
and the calculated delays or v/c ratios would not have a significant impact based on City of Berkeley’s
criteria for the existing, near term, and cumulative conditions. Parking is dispersed around the project site
which would reduce the number of project trips located in one particular area.
The project site is located in a retail/commercial area that is popular with pedestrians and bicyclists.
Pedestrian access to the project site is available on sidewalks from every street in the study area. There are
two designated bicycle boulevards near the project site for bicyclists and bicycle racks are located near the
project site. Bus stops are located nearby at the Ashby Avenue/College Avenue intersection. New traffic
signals with actuated control upgrades are scheduled to be installed at the Ashby Avenue/College Avenue
intersection which will facilitate the flow of traffic more efficiently than current conditions.
2635 Ashby Ave. Restaurant Project Traffic Impact Study
City of Berkeley
Page 23
R1735TIA006.DOC
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 27 of 67
References:
(1)
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Road System Maps, (on-line data
base).
(2)
City of Berkeley, Pedestrian Master Plan, Final Draft, January, 2010.
(3)
City of Berkeley, Berkeley Bicycle Plan, Draft For Inclusion in the General Plan, December,
31,1998.
(4)
City of Berkeley, Berkeley Bicycle Plan Update, February, 2005.
(5)
Caltrans, California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2012.
(6)
Caltrans, 2010 Collision Data on California State Highways, Division of Traffic Operations,
Sacramento, CA.
(7)
Omni-Means Engineers & Planners, traffic counts, October 26 & 30, 2013.
(8)
Caltrans, Volumes on the California State Highway System, (on-line data base).
(9)
City of Berkeley, Daily Traffic Counts, April 17, 2010.
(10)
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 9th Edition, Average Rates for Quality
Restaurant, Land Use #931, 2012.
(11)
City of Berkeley, GoBerkeley pilot program, “Parking Rate and Time Limit Options” report, Work
Session 01, submitted to City Council. Report date June 11, 2013.
(12)
City of Berkeley, General Plan: A Guide for Public Decision Making, 2003.
(13)
Alameda County Transportation Commission, Countywide Travel Demand Model, updated August
2011.
(14)
Caltrans, ibid.
(15)
City of Oakland, Safeway Shopping Center – College and Claremont Avenues, Draft Environmental
Impact Report, July 1, 2011, and Final Environmental Impact Report, July 2012.
(16)
City of Berkeley, Department of Public Works.
2635 Ashby Ave. Restaurant Project Traffic Impact Study
City of Berkeley
Page 24
R1735TIA006.DOC
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 28 of 67
APPENDIX
•
Level of Service Definitions
•
Level of Service Calculations
Existing
Existing + Project
Near Term
Near Term + Project
Cumulative
Cumulative + Project
•
Existing Volume Counts
2635 Ashby Ave. Restaurant Project Traffic Impact Study
City of Berkeley
Page 25
R1735TIA006.DOC
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 29 of 67
LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
TYPE OF FLOW
A
Stable Flow
B
C
D
E
F
Stable Flow
Stable Flow
Approaching
Unstable Flow
Unstable Flow
Forced Flow
DELAY
MANEUVERABILITY
CONTROL DELAY (SECONDS/VEHICLE)
SIGNALIZED
UNSIGNALIZED
ALL-WAY STOP
Very slight delay. Progression is very favorable, with
most vehicles arriving during the green phase not
stopping at all.
Turning movements are easily
made, and nearly all drivers find
freedom of operation.
< 10.0 secs.
Good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More
vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of
average delay.
Vehicle platoons are formed.
Many drivers begin to feel
somewhat restricted within
groups of vehicles.
>10 and < 20.0
secs.
Higher delays resulting from fair progression and/or
longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may
begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles
stopping is significant, although many still pass through
the intersection without stopping.
Back-ups may develop behind
turning vehicles. Most drivers
feel somewhat restricted
>20 and < 35.0
secs.
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable.
Longer delays may result from some combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high
volume-to-capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the
proportion of vehicles of stopping declines. Individual
cycle failures are noticeable.
Maneuverability is severely
limited during short periods due
to temporary back-ups.
Generally considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.
Indicative of poor progression, long cycle lengths, and
high volume-to-capacity ratios. Individual cycle
failures are frequent occurrences.
There are typically long queues
of vehicles waiting upstream of
the intersection.
Generally considered to be unacceptable to most
drivers. Often occurs with over saturation. May also
occur at high volume-to-capacity ratios. There are
many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and
long cycle lengths may also be major contributing
factors.
Jammed conditions. Back-ups
from other locations restrict or
prevent movement. Volumes
may vary widely, depending
principally on the downstream
back-up conditions.
< 10.0
< 10.0
>10 and < 15.0
>10 and < 15.0
>15 and < 25.0
>15 and < 25.0
>25 and < 35.0
>25 and < 35.0
>35 and < 50.0
>35 and < 50.0
> 50.0
> 50.0
< 0.60 v/c
0.61 – 0.70 v/c
0.71 – 0.80 v/c
>35 and < 55.0
secs.
0.81 – 0.90 v/c
>55 and < 80.0
secs.
0.91 – 1.00 v/c
> 80.0 secs.
> 1.00 v/c
References: 1. Highway Capacity Manual, Fourth Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2000, Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), Technical Procedures Update, Final, July 9,
2006. For the purposes of this study, CCTA intersection methodology has been used for signalized intersections yielding an LOS and v/c ratio.
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Weekday
Existing
Page 30 of
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1536
Flt Permitted
0.91
Satd. Flow (perm)
1403
Volume (vph)
56
466
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
59
491
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
7
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
635
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
81
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
42.0
Effective Green, g (s)
42.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.49
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
693
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.45
v/c Ratio
0.92
Uniform Delay, d1
19.9
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
18.9
Delay (s)
38.8
Level of Service
D
Approach Delay (s)
38.8
Approach LOS
D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Mid-day Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
72
0.95
76
0
0
81
5
80
0.95
84
0
0
173
47
0.95
49
0
0
128
15
74
0.95
78
0
0
128
1900
4.0
1.00
0.94
0.98
0.97
0.99
1434
0.78
1128
155
0.95
163
14
305
1900
38
0.95
40
0
0
75
1900
4.0
1.00
0.96
0.96
0.98
0.99
1455
0.84
1239
215
0.95
226
6
353
1900
87
0.95
92
0
0
75
2
1900
4.0
0.95
0.97
1.00
0.98
1.00
3344
0.88
2964
415
0.95
437
15
538
5
Perm
6
35.2
0.92
85.0
84.6%
15
5
Perm
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
42.0
42.0
0.49
4.0
1465
25.0
25.0
0.29
4.0
364
0.18
0.37
13.3
1.00
0.7
14.0
B
14.0
B
c0.28
0.97
29.6
1.00
39.9
69.6
E
69.6
E
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
74
0.95
78
0
0
173
9
4
35.0
35.0
0.41
4.0
486
c0.04
0.21
0.63
19.8
1.00
6.0
25.9
C
25.9
C
D
12.0
E
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Weekday
Existing
Page 31 of
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes
1.00
Frt
0.99
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1576
Flt Permitted
0.97
Satd. Flow (perm)
1532
Volume (vph)
27
699
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
28
736
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
4
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
833
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
111
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
46.0
Effective Green, g (s)
46.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.48
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
742
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.54
v/c Ratio
1.12
Uniform Delay, d1
24.5
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
72.4
Delay (s)
96.9
Level of Service
F
Approach Delay (s)
96.9
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
PM Commute Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
105
0.95
111
0
0
111
3
56
0.95
59
0
0
185
60
0.95
63
0
0
164
9
144
0.95
152
0
0
164
1900
4.0
1.00
0.97
0.97
0.99
0.98
1485
0.61
916
228
0.95
240
5
434
1900
14
0.95
15
0
0
65
1900
4.0
1.00
0.92
0.97
0.97
0.99
1406
0.86
1223
207
0.95
218
8
332
1900
69
0.95
73
0
0
65
2
1900
4.0
0.95
0.94
1.00
0.97
1.00
3225
0.93
2999
422
0.95
444
22
548
63.2
1.05
95.0
111.8%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
46.0
46.0
0.48
4.0
1452
29.0
29.0
0.31
4.0
373
0.18
0.38
15.5
1.00
0.7
16.2
B
16.2
B
0.27
0.89
31.5
1.00
25.6
57.1
E
57.1
E
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
45
0.95
47
0
0
185
31
4
41.0
41.0
0.43
4.0
443
c0.08
c0.34
0.98
26.6
1.00
38.2
64.8
E
64.8
E
E
8.0
H
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Weekday
Existing
Page 32 of
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1529
Flt Permitted
0.92
Satd. Flow (perm)
1417
Volume (vph)
45
391
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
47
412
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
9
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
526
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
109
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
30.0
Effective Green, g (s)
30.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.43
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
607
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.37
v/c Ratio
0.87
Uniform Delay, d1
18.2
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
15.4
Delay (s)
33.6
Level of Service
C
Approach Delay (s)
33.6
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Restaurant Night Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
83
0.95
87
0
0
109
2
58
0.95
61
0
0
188
53
0.95
56
0
0
140
9
89
0.95
94
0
0
140
1900
4.0
1.00
0.96
0.98
0.98
0.99
1486
0.80
1201
198
0.95
208
9
346
1900
24
0.95
25
0
0
103
1900
4.0
1.00
0.95
0.97
0.98
0.99
1457
0.87
1287
193
0.95
203
11
309
1900
72
0.95
76
0
0
103
6
1900
4.0
0.95
0.96
1.00
0.98
1.00
3307
0.92
3053
402
0.95
423
23
512
5
Perm
6
24.4
0.80
70.0
82.8%
15
5
Perm
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
30.0
30.0
0.43
4.0
1308
23.0
23.0
0.33
4.0
423
0.17
0.39
13.7
1.00
0.9
14.6
B
14.6
B
c0.24
0.73
20.8
1.00
10.6
31.4
C
31.4
C
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
50
0.95
53
0
0
188
25
4
32.0
32.0
0.46
4.0
569
c0.04
0.23
0.61
14.3
1.00
4.8
19.1
B
19.1
B
C
12.0
E
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Saturday
Existing
Page
33 of
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.94
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1479
Flt Permitted
0.92
Satd. Flow (perm)
1369
Volume (vph)
41
437
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
43
460
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
9
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
583
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
235
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
30.0
Effective Green, g (s)
30.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.43
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
587
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.43
v/c Ratio
0.99
Uniform Delay, d1
19.9
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
35.5
Delay (s)
55.4
Level of Service
E
Approach Delay (s)
55.4
Approach LOS
E
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Mid-day Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
136
0.95
143
0
0
235
7
69
0.95
73
0
0
337
54
0.95
57
0
0
282
12
105
0.95
111
0
0
282
1900
4.0
1.00
0.94
0.97
0.98
0.99
1442
0.76
1112
284
0.95
299
11
484
1900
25
0.95
26
0
0
199
1900
4.0
1.00
0.92
0.97
0.98
0.99
1417
0.84
1198
243
0.95
256
9
377
1900
85
0.95
89
0
0
199
2
1900
4.0
0.95
0.90
1.00
0.97
1.00
3059
0.92
2829
470
0.95
495
35
629
5
Perm
6
40.2
0.95
70.0
99.5%
15
5
Perm
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
30.0
30.0
0.43
4.0
1212
23.0
23.0
0.33
4.0
394
0.22
0.52
14.7
1.00
1.6
16.3
B
16.3
B
0.32
0.96
23.0
1.00
35.8
58.9
E
58.9
E
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
81
0.95
85
0
0
337
17
4
32.0
32.0
0.46
4.0
532
c0.06
c0.35
0.91
17.7
1.00
22.1
39.8
D
39.8
D
D
8.0
F
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Saturday
Existing
Page
34 of
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.95
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1491
Flt Permitted
0.90
Satd. Flow (perm)
1347
Volume (vph)
59
458
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
62
482
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
9
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
633
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
114
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
30.0
Effective Green, g (s)
30.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.43
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
577
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.47
v/c Ratio
1.10
Uniform Delay, d1
20.0
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
66.7
Delay (s)
86.7
Level of Service
F
Approach Delay (s)
86.7
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
PM Commute Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
119
0.95
125
0
0
114
8
55
0.95
58
0
0
437
72
0.95
76
0
0
363
17
111
0.95
117
0
0
363
1900
4.0
1.00
0.94
0.96
0.98
0.99
1421
0.73
1054
232
0.95
244
10
425
1900
36
0.95
38
0
0
173
1900
4.0
1.00
0.88
0.97
0.97
0.99
1342
0.88
1187
213
0.95
224
14
344
1900
93
0.95
98
0
0
173
5
1900
4.0
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.97
1.00
3225
0.89
2896
409
0.95
431
34
560
46.8
0.96
70.0
100.4%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
30.0
30.0
0.43
4.0
1241
23.0
23.0
0.33
4.0
390
0.19
0.45
14.2
1.00
1.2
15.4
B
15.4
B
0.29
0.88
22.2
1.00
23.8
46.0
D
46.0
D
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
70
0.95
74
0
0
437
20
4
32.0
32.0
0.46
4.0
508
c0.06
c0.32
0.84
16.7
1.00
15.0
31.7
C
31.7
C
D
8.0
G
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Saturday
Existing
Page
35 of
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1504
Flt Permitted
0.91
Satd. Flow (perm)
1380
Volume (vph)
52
391
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph)
54
407
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
9
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
531
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
153
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
30.0
Effective Green, g (s)
30.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.43
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
591
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.39
v/c Ratio
0.90
Uniform Delay, d1
18.6
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
19.1
Delay (s)
37.7
Level of Service
D
Approach Delay (s)
37.7
Approach LOS
D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Restaurant Night Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
98
0.96
102
0
0
153
2
51
0.96
53
0
0
348
57
0.96
59
0
0
321
3
100
0.96
104
0
0
321
1900
4.0
1.00
0.95
0.96
0.98
0.99
1439
0.78
1137
248
0.96
258
9
419
1900
28
0.96
29
0
0
136
1900
4.0
1.00
0.91
0.97
0.98
0.99
1390
0.88
1238
214
0.96
223
11
324
1900
76
0.96
79
0
0
136
2
1900
4.0
0.95
0.94
1.00
0.97
1.00
3190
0.91
2914
357
0.96
372
32
471
5
Perm
6
28.3
0.83
70.0
91.1%
15
5
Perm
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
30.0
30.0
0.43
4.0
1249
23.0
23.0
0.33
4.0
407
0.16
0.38
13.6
1.00
0.9
14.5
B
14.5
B
0.26
0.80
21.4
1.00
14.9
36.3
D
36.3
D
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
63
0.96
66
0
0
348
5
4
32.0
32.0
0.46
4.0
541
c0.06
c0.30
0.77
16.0
1.00
10.3
26.3
C
26.3
C
C
8.0
F
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Weekday Page
Existing
36 +ofProject
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1534
Flt Permitted
0.91
Satd. Flow (perm)
1397
Volume (vph)
58
467
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
61
492
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
7
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
640
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
81
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
42.0
Effective Green, g (s)
42.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.49
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
690
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.46
v/c Ratio
0.93
Uniform Delay, d1
20.1
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
20.5
Delay (s)
40.6
Level of Service
D
Approach Delay (s)
40.6
Approach LOS
D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Mid-day Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
73
0.95
77
0
0
81
5
81
0.95
85
0
0
173
48
0.95
51
0
0
128
15
75
0.95
79
0
0
128
1900
4.0
1.00
0.94
0.98
0.97
0.99
1433
0.77
1121
156
0.95
164
14
309
1900
39
0.95
41
0
0
75
1900
4.0
1.00
0.95
0.96
0.98
0.99
1452
0.84
1234
216
0.95
227
7
356
1900
89
0.95
94
0
0
75
2
1900
4.0
0.95
0.97
1.00
0.98
1.00
3342
0.88
2957
417
0.95
439
15
542
5
Perm
6
36.4
0.93
85.0
85.3%
15
5
Perm
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
42.0
42.0
0.49
4.0
1461
25.0
25.0
0.29
4.0
363
0.18
0.37
13.3
1.00
0.7
14.0
B
14.0
B
c0.29
0.98
29.8
1.00
42.6
72.4
E
72.4
E
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
76
0.95
80
0
0
173
9
4
35.0
35.0
0.41
4.0
484
c0.05
0.22
0.64
19.9
1.00
6.3
26.3
C
26.3
C
D
12.0
E
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Weekday Page
Existing
37 +ofProject
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes
1.00
Frt
0.99
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1575
Flt Permitted
0.97
Satd. Flow (perm)
1531
Volume (vph)
27
700
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
28
737
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
4
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
836
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
111
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
46.0
Effective Green, g (s)
46.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.48
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
741
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.55
v/c Ratio
1.13
Uniform Delay, d1
24.5
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
74.5
Delay (s)
99.0
Level of Service
F
Approach Delay (s)
99.0
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
PM Commute Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
106
0.95
112
0
0
111
3
57
0.95
60
0
0
185
61
0.95
64
0
0
164
9
145
0.95
153
0
0
164
1900
4.0
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.99
0.98
1525
0.60
936
229
0.95
241
5
438
1900
14
0.95
15
0
0
65
1900
4.0
1.00
0.92
0.97
0.97
0.99
1405
0.86
1220
209
0.95
220
8
336
1900
71
0.95
75
0
0
65
2
1900
4.0
0.95
0.94
1.00
0.97
1.00
3224
0.93
2998
424
0.95
446
22
551
63.5
1.05
95.0
112.3%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
46.0
46.0
0.48
4.0
1452
29.0
29.0
0.31
4.0
372
0.18
0.38
15.5
1.00
0.8
16.2
B
16.2
B
0.28
0.90
31.6
1.00
27.5
59.1
E
59.1
E
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
47
0.95
49
0
0
185
31
4
41.0
41.0
0.43
4.0
454
c0.08
c0.34
0.97
26.3
1.00
34.5
60.8
E
60.8
E
E
8.0
H
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Weekday Page
Existing
38 +ofProject
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1528
Flt Permitted
0.92
Satd. Flow (perm)
1409
Volume (vph)
47
392
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
49
413
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
9
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
531
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
109
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
30.0
Effective Green, g (s)
30.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.43
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
604
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.38
v/c Ratio
0.88
Uniform Delay, d1
18.3
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
16.7
Delay (s)
35.0
Level of Service
D
Approach Delay (s)
35.0
Approach LOS
D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Restaurant Night Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
84
0.95
88
0
0
109
2
59
0.95
62
0
0
188
54
0.95
57
0
0
140
9
90
0.95
95
0
0
140
1900
4.0
1.00
0.96
0.98
0.98
0.99
1484
0.79
1195
199
0.95
209
9
350
1900
25
0.95
26
0
0
103
1900
4.0
1.00
0.95
0.97
0.98
0.99
1456
0.87
1282
194
0.95
204
11
312
1900
74
0.95
78
0
0
103
6
1900
4.0
0.95
0.96
1.00
0.98
1.00
3305
0.92
3046
404
0.95
425
23
516
5
Perm
6
25.0
0.82
70.0
83.5%
15
5
Perm
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
30.0
30.0
0.43
4.0
1305
23.0
23.0
0.33
4.0
421
0.17
0.40
13.8
1.00
0.9
14.7
B
14.7
B
c0.24
0.74
20.9
1.00
11.2
32.1
C
32.1
C
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
52
0.95
55
0
0
188
25
4
32.0
32.0
0.46
4.0
567
c0.04
0.24
0.62
14.4
1.00
5.0
19.3
B
19.3
B
C
12.0
E
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Saturday Page
Existing
39 +ofProject
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.94
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1474
Flt Permitted
0.92
Satd. Flow (perm)
1359
Volume (vph)
43
438
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
45
461
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
10
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
589
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
235
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
30.0
Effective Green, g (s)
30.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.43
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
582
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.43
v/c Ratio
1.01
Uniform Delay, d1
20.0
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
40.5
Delay (s)
60.5
Level of Service
E
Approach Delay (s)
60.5
Approach LOS
E
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Mid-day Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
137
0.95
144
0
0
235
7
70
0.95
74
0
0
337
55
0.95
58
0
0
282
12
106
0.95
112
0
0
282
1900
4.0
1.00
0.94
0.97
0.98
0.99
1442
0.76
1107
286
0.95
301
11
489
1900
26
0.95
27
0
0
199
1900
4.0
1.00
0.92
0.97
0.98
0.99
1416
0.83
1194
245
0.95
258
9
381
1900
88
0.95
93
0
0
199
2
1900
4.0
0.95
0.90
1.00
0.97
1.00
3059
0.92
2828
474
0.95
499
35
635
42.8
0.96
70.0
100.4%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
30.0
30.0
0.43
4.0
1212
23.0
23.0
0.33
4.0
392
0.22
0.52
14.7
1.00
1.6
16.4
B
16.4
B
0.32
0.97
23.2
1.00
39.1
62.3
E
62.3
E
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
83
0.95
87
0
0
337
17
4
32.0
32.0
0.46
4.0
530
c0.07
c0.36
0.92
17.8
1.00
24.0
41.9
D
41.9
D
D
8.0
G
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Saturday Page
Existing
40 +ofProject
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.95
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1489
Flt Permitted
0.90
Satd. Flow (perm)
1340
Volume (vph)
61
459
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
64
483
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
9
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
638
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
114
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
30.0
Effective Green, g (s)
30.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.43
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
574
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.48
v/c Ratio
1.11
Uniform Delay, d1
20.0
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
71.9
Delay (s)
91.9
Level of Service
F
Approach Delay (s)
91.9
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
PM Commute Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
120
0.95
126
0
0
114
8
56
0.95
59
0
0
437
73
0.95
77
0
0
363
17
112
0.95
118
0
0
363
1900
4.0
1.00
0.94
0.96
0.98
0.99
1419
0.73
1049
233
0.95
245
11
428
1900
36
0.95
38
0
0
173
1900
4.0
1.00
0.88
0.97
0.97
0.99
1341
0.87
1183
214
0.95
225
14
347
1900
95
0.95
100
0
0
173
5
1900
4.0
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.97
1.00
3225
0.89
2895
412
0.95
434
34
564
49.0
0.97
70.0
101.1%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
30.0
30.0
0.43
4.0
1241
23.0
23.0
0.33
4.0
389
0.19
0.45
14.2
1.00
1.2
15.4
B
15.4
B
0.29
0.89
22.3
1.00
25.1
47.5
D
47.5
D
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
72
0.95
76
0
0
437
20
4
32.0
32.0
0.46
4.0
506
c0.06
c0.33
0.85
16.8
1.00
15.9
32.7
C
32.7
C
D
8.0
G
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Saturday Page
Existing
41 +ofProject
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
0.99
Satd. Flow (prot)
1501
Flt Permitted
0.91
Satd. Flow (perm)
1372
Volume (vph)
54
392
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph)
56
408
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
9
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
537
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
153
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
30.0
Effective Green, g (s)
30.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.43
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
588
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.39
v/c Ratio
0.91
Uniform Delay, d1
18.8
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
20.9
Delay (s)
39.7
Level of Service
D
Approach Delay (s)
39.7
Approach LOS
D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Restaurant Night Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
99
0.96
103
0
0
153
2
52
0.96
54
0
0
348
58
0.96
60
0
0
321
3
101
0.96
105
0
0
321
1900
4.0
1.00
0.95
0.96
0.98
0.99
1439
0.78
1132
250
0.96
260
10
423
1900
29
0.96
30
0
0
136
1900
4.0
1.00
0.91
0.97
0.98
0.99
1389
0.88
1235
216
0.96
225
11
328
1900
79
0.96
82
0
0
136
2
1900
4.0
0.95
0.94
1.00
0.97
1.00
3190
0.91
2909
361
0.96
376
32
477
5
Perm
6
29.3
0.84
70.0
92.0%
15
5
Perm
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
30.0
30.0
0.43
4.0
1247
23.0
23.0
0.33
4.0
406
0.16
0.38
13.7
1.00
0.9
14.6
B
14.6
B
0.27
0.81
21.5
1.00
15.8
37.3
D
37.3
D
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
65
0.96
68
0
0
348
5
4
32.0
32.0
0.46
4.0
539
c0.06
c0.30
0.79
16.1
1.00
11.0
27.1
C
27.1
C
C
8.0
F
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Weekday Near Term
2015)
Page (Year
42 of 67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1532
Flt Permitted
0.91
Satd. Flow (perm)
1399
Volume (vph)
57
473
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
60
498
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
7
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
655
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
82
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
40.1
Effective Green, g (s)
40.1
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.51
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
711
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.47
v/c Ratio
0.92
Uniform Delay, d1
17.9
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
17.3
Delay (s)
35.2
Level of Service
D
Approach Delay (s)
35.2
Approach LOS
D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Mid-day Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
73
0.95
77
0
0
82
5
90
0.95
95
0
0
175
57
0.95
60
0
0
130
15
75
0.95
79
0
0
130
1900
4.0
1.00
0.95
0.98
0.97
0.99
1442
0.82
1200
183
0.95
193
13
338
1900
50
0.95
53
0
0
76
1900
4.0
1.00
0.95
0.98
0.98
0.99
1473
0.83
1233
244
0.95
257
7
405
1900
99
0.95
104
0
0
76
2
1900
4.0
0.95
0.97
1.00
0.98
1.00
3347
0.86
2882
421
0.95
443
13
560
5
Perm
6
26.8
0.89
78.9
90.7%
15
5
Perm
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
40.1
40.1
0.51
4.0
3.0
1465
30.8
30.8
0.39
4.0
3.0
481
30.8
30.8
0.39
4.0
3.0
468
0.19
0.38
11.8
1.00
0.2
12.0
B
12.0
B
c0.33
0.84
21.8
1.00
12.6
34.5
C
34.5
C
0.28
0.72
20.4
1.00
5.4
25.8
C
25.8
C
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
75
0.95
79
0
0
175
9
C
8.0
E
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Weekday Near Term
2015)
Page (Year
43 of 67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes
1.00
Frt
0.99
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1569
Flt Permitted
0.97
Satd. Flow (perm)
1526
Volume (vph)
27
709
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
28
746
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
4
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
855
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
113
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
46.0
Effective Green, g (s)
46.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.48
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
739
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.56
v/c Ratio
1.16
Uniform Delay, d1
24.5
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
85.4
Delay (s)
109.9
Level of Service
F
Approach Delay (s)
109.9
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
PM Commute Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
106
0.95
112
0
0
113
2
66
0.95
69
0
0
188
70
0.95
74
0
0
166
9
146
0.95
154
0
0
166
1900
4.0
1.00
0.97
0.94
0.99
0.98
1447
0.69
1020
257
0.95
271
5
468
1900
14
0.95
15
0
0
66
1900
4.0
1.00
0.91
0.98
0.97
0.99
1416
0.85
1219
236
0.95
248
7
384
1900
81
0.95
85
0
0
66
3
1900
4.0
0.95
0.94
1.00
0.97
1.00
3229
0.93
3003
439
0.95
462
22
567
67.5
1.11
95.0
114.6%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
46.0
46.0
0.48
4.0
3.0
1454
41.0
41.0
0.43
4.0
3.0
526
41.0
41.0
0.43
4.0
3.0
440
0.19
0.39
15.6
1.00
0.2
15.8
B
15.8
B
0.31
0.73
22.4
1.00
5.0
27.4
C
27.4
C
c0.46
1.06
27.0
1.00
61.2
88.2
F
88.2
F
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
46
0.95
48
0
0
188
31
E
8.0
H
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Weekday Near Term
2015)
Page (Year
44 of 67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1531
Flt Permitted
0.92
Satd. Flow (perm)
1420
Volume (vph)
46
397
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
48
418
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
9
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
545
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
111
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
26.1
Effective Green, g (s)
26.1
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.46
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
649
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.38
v/c Ratio
0.84
Uniform Delay, d1
13.7
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
9.3
Delay (s)
23.0
Level of Service
C
Approach Delay (s)
23.0
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Restaurant Night Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
84
0.95
88
0
0
111
2
68
0.95
72
0
0
191
63
0.95
66
0
0
142
9
90
0.95
95
0
0
142
1900
4.0
1.00
0.97
0.97
0.98
0.99
1495
0.84
1273
227
0.95
239
9
379
1900
35
0.95
37
0
0
104
1900
4.0
1.00
0.96
0.98
0.98
0.99
1482
0.88
1319
222
0.95
234
10
362
1900
84
0.95
88
0
0
104
6
1900
4.0
0.95
0.97
1.00
0.98
1.00
3325
0.90
3008
408
0.95
429
21
533
5
Perm
6
17.6
0.79
57.1
85.9%
15
5
Perm
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
26.1
26.1
0.46
4.0
3.0
1375
23.0
23.0
0.40
4.0
3.0
531
23.0
23.0
0.40
4.0
3.0
513
0.18
0.39
10.2
1.00
0.2
10.4
B
10.4
B
0.27
0.68
14.0
1.00
3.6
17.6
B
17.6
B
c0.30
0.74
14.5
1.00
5.5
20.0
C
20.0
C
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
51
0.95
54
0
0
191
25
B
8.0
E
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Saturday Near Term
2015)
Page (Year
45 of 67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.93
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1468
Flt Permitted
0.92
Satd. Flow (perm)
1358
Volume (vph)
42
443
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
44
466
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
10
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
601
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
235
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
32.2
Effective Green, g (s)
32.2
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.47
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
632
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.44
v/c Ratio
0.95
Uniform Delay, d1
17.7
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
24.2
Delay (s)
41.9
Level of Service
D
Approach Delay (s)
41.9
Approach LOS
D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Mid-day Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
138
0.95
145
0
0
235
7
80
0.95
84
0
0
337
65
0.95
68
0
0
282
12
106
0.95
112
0
0
282
1900
4.0
1.00
0.95
0.96
0.98
0.99
1430
0.81
1169
314
0.95
331
10
519
1900
35
0.95
37
0
0
199
1900
4.0
1.00
0.92
0.98
0.98
0.99
1424
0.82
1176
271
0.95
285
8
429
1900
96
0.95
101
0
0
199
2
1900
4.0
0.95
0.90
0.99
0.97
1.00
3062
0.91
2780
477
0.95
502
35
649
39.9
1.00
69.2
102.4%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
32.2
32.2
0.47
4.0
3.0
1294
29.0
29.0
0.42
4.0
3.0
493
29.0
29.0
0.42
4.0
3.0
490
0.23
0.50
12.9
1.00
0.3
13.2
B
13.2
B
0.36
0.87
18.4
1.00
15.1
33.4
C
33.4
C
c0.44
1.06
20.1
1.00
57.3
77.4
E
77.4
E
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
82
0.95
86
0
0
337
17
D
8.0
G
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Saturday Near Term
2015)
Page (Year
46 of 67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.94
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1482
Flt Permitted
0.90
Satd. Flow (perm)
1337
Volume (vph)
60
465
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
63
489
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
10
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
651
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
114
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
31.0
Effective Green, g (s)
31.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.44
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
592
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.49
v/c Ratio
1.10
Uniform Delay, d1
19.5
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
67.2
Delay (s)
86.7
Level of Service
F
Approach Delay (s)
86.7
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
PM Commute Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
121
0.95
127
0
0
114
8
66
0.95
69
0
0
437
83
0.95
87
0
0
363
17
113
0.95
119
0
0
363
1900
4.0
1.00
0.94
0.94
0.98
0.99
1399
0.80
1127
261
0.95
275
10
459
1900
47
0.95
49
0
0
173
1900
4.0
1.00
0.88
0.98
0.97
0.99
1355
0.88
1198
241
0.95
254
12
398
1900
104
0.95
109
0
0
173
5
1900
4.0
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.97
1.00
3223
0.87
2803
415
0.95
437
33
580
43.6
1.01
70.0
103.0%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
31.0
31.0
0.44
4.0
3.0
1241
31.0
31.0
0.44
4.0
3.0
531
31.0
31.0
0.44
4.0
3.0
499
0.21
0.47
13.7
1.00
0.3
14.0
B
14.0
B
0.33
0.75
16.3
1.00
5.9
22.2
C
22.2
C
c0.41
0.92
18.3
1.00
22.0
40.3
D
40.3
D
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
71
0.95
75
0
0
437
20
D
8.0
G
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Saturday Near Term
2015)
Page (Year
47 of 67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1508
Flt Permitted
0.91
Satd. Flow (perm)
1382
Volume (vph)
53
397
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph)
55
414
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
9
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
540
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
155
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
29.2
Effective Green, g (s)
29.2
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.45
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
616
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.39
v/c Ratio
0.88
Uniform Delay, d1
16.5
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
13.2
Delay (s)
29.7
Level of Service
C
Approach Delay (s)
29.7
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Restaurant Night Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
99
0.96
103
0
0
155
2
62
0.96
65
0
0
353
68
0.96
71
0
0
326
3
101
0.96
105
0
0
326
1900
4.0
1.00
0.95
0.95
0.98
0.99
1425
0.84
1204
278
0.96
290
9
453
1900
38
0.96
40
0
0
138
1900
4.0
1.00
0.90
0.98
0.98
0.99
1395
0.88
1242
242
0.96
252
9
379
1900
77
0.96
80
0
0
138
2
1900
4.0
0.95
0.94
0.99
0.97
1.00
3199
0.89
2874
362
0.96
377
33
487
5
Perm
6
23.4
0.87
65.5
92.8%
15
5
Perm
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
29.2
29.2
0.45
4.0
3.0
1281
28.3
28.3
0.43
4.0
3.0
537
28.3
28.3
0.43
4.0
3.0
520
0.17
0.38
12.1
1.00
0.2
12.3
B
12.3
B
0.30
0.71
15.2
1.00
4.2
19.4
B
19.4
B
c0.38
0.87
17.0
1.00
14.9
31.8
C
31.8
C
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
64
0.96
67
0
0
353
5
C
8.0
F
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Weekday Near Term (Year
2015)
Page
48 +ofProject
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1531
Flt Permitted
0.91
Satd. Flow (perm)
1394
Volume (vph)
59
474
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
62
499
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
8
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
659
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
82
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
40.0
Effective Green, g (s)
40.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.52
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
719
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.47
v/c Ratio
0.92
Uniform Delay, d1
17.3
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
16.4
Delay (s)
33.7
Level of Service
C
Approach Delay (s)
33.7
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Mid-day Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
74
0.95
78
0
0
82
5
91
0.95
96
0
0
175
58
0.95
61
0
0
130
15
76
0.95
80
0
0
130
1900
4.0
1.00
0.95
0.98
0.97
0.99
1442
0.82
1192
184
0.95
194
13
342
1900
51
0.95
54
0
0
76
1900
4.0
1.00
0.96
0.98
0.98
0.99
1474
0.82
1225
245
0.95
258
6
409
1900
101
0.95
106
0
0
76
2
1900
4.0
0.95
0.97
1.00
0.98
1.00
3347
0.86
2878
423
0.95
445
14
563
5
Perm
6
27.3
0.90
77.6
91.3%
15
5
Perm
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
40.0
40.0
0.52
4.0
3.0
1484
29.6
29.6
0.38
4.0
3.0
467
29.6
29.6
0.38
4.0
3.0
455
0.20
0.38
11.3
1.00
0.2
11.5
B
11.5
B
c0.33
0.88
22.3
1.00
16.6
38.8
D
38.8
D
0.29
0.75
20.8
1.00
6.9
27.7
C
27.7
C
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
77
0.95
81
0
0
175
9
C
8.0
F
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Weekday Near Term (Year
2015)
Page
49 +ofProject
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes
1.00
Frt
0.99
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1568
Flt Permitted
0.97
Satd. Flow (perm)
1525
Volume (vph)
27
710
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
28
747
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
4
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
858
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
113
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
49.0
Effective Green, g (s)
49.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.52
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
787
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.56
v/c Ratio
1.09
Uniform Delay, d1
23.0
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
59.3
Delay (s)
82.3
Level of Service
F
Approach Delay (s)
82.3
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
PM Commute Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
107
0.95
113
0
0
113
2
67
0.95
71
0
0
188
71
0.95
75
0
0
166
9
147
0.95
155
0
0
166
1900
4.0
1.00
0.97
0.95
0.99
0.98
1449
0.67
987
258
0.95
272
5
473
1900
14
0.95
15
0
0
66
1900
4.0
1.00
0.91
0.98
0.97
0.99
1417
0.84
1201
238
0.95
251
8
389
1900
83
0.95
87
0
0
66
3
1900
4.0
0.95
0.94
1.00
0.97
1.00
3228
0.93
3003
441
0.95
464
21
571
68.7
1.14
95.0
115.2%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
49.0
49.0
0.52
4.0
3.0
1549
38.0
38.0
0.40
4.0
3.0
480
38.0
38.0
0.40
4.0
3.0
395
0.19
0.37
13.7
1.00
0.1
13.9
B
13.9
B
0.32
0.81
25.3
1.00
10.0
35.3
D
35.3
D
c0.48
1.20
28.5
1.00
111.2
139.7
F
139.7
F
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
48
0.95
51
0
0
188
31
E
8.0
H
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Weekday Near Term (Year
2015)
Page
50 +ofProject
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1527
Flt Permitted
0.92
Satd. Flow (perm)
1408
Volume (vph)
48
398
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
51
419
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
9
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
552
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
111
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
26.9
Effective Green, g (s)
26.9
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.46
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
649
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.39
v/c Ratio
0.85
Uniform Delay, d1
14.0
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
10.4
Delay (s)
24.3
Level of Service
C
Approach Delay (s)
24.3
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Restaurant Night Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
85
0.95
89
0
0
111
2
69
0.95
73
0
0
191
64
0.95
67
0
0
142
9
91
0.95
96
0
0
142
1900
4.0
1.00
0.97
0.97
0.98
0.99
1492
0.84
1264
228
0.95
240
10
382
1900
36
0.95
38
0
0
104
1900
4.0
1.00
0.95
0.98
0.98
0.99
1479
0.88
1313
223
0.95
235
10
365
1900
86
0.95
91
0
0
104
6
1900
4.0
0.95
0.97
1.00
0.98
1.00
3322
0.90
2998
410
0.95
432
21
538
5
Perm
6
18.4
0.80
58.4
86.6%
15
5
Perm
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
26.9
26.9
0.46
4.0
3.0
1381
23.5
23.5
0.40
4.0
3.0
528
23.5
23.5
0.40
4.0
3.0
509
0.18
0.39
10.4
1.00
0.2
10.5
B
10.5
B
0.28
0.69
14.4
1.00
3.9
18.3
B
18.3
B
c0.30
0.75
14.9
1.00
6.2
21.1
C
21.1
C
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
53
0.95
56
0
0
191
25
B
8.0
E
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Saturday Near Term (Year
2015)
Page
51 +ofProject
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.93
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1464
Flt Permitted
0.92
Satd. Flow (perm)
1347
Volume (vph)
44
444
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
46
467
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
11
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
606
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
235
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
31.0
Effective Green, g (s)
31.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.44
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
597
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.45
v/c Ratio
1.02
Uniform Delay, d1
19.5
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
40.8
Delay (s)
60.3
Level of Service
E
Approach Delay (s)
60.3
Approach LOS
E
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Mid-day Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
139
0.95
146
0
0
235
7
81
0.95
85
0
0
337
66
0.95
69
0
0
282
12
107
0.95
113
0
0
282
1900
4.0
1.00
0.95
0.96
0.98
0.99
1428
0.82
1178
316
0.95
333
10
524
1900
36
0.95
38
0
0
199
1900
4.0
1.00
0.92
0.98
0.98
0.99
1422
0.82
1185
273
0.95
287
8
433
1900
99
0.95
104
0
0
199
2
1900
4.0
0.95
0.90
0.99
0.97
1.00
3060
0.91
2779
481
0.95
506
35
655
40.0
1.01
70.0
103.3%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
31.0
31.0
0.44
4.0
3.0
1231
31.0
31.0
0.44
4.0
3.0
525
31.0
31.0
0.44
4.0
3.0
522
0.24
0.53
14.2
1.00
0.4
14.7
B
14.7
B
0.37
0.83
17.1
1.00
10.2
27.3
C
27.3
C
c0.44
1.00
19.5
1.00
40.3
59.8
E
59.8
E
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
84
0.95
88
0
0
337
17
D
8.0
G
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Saturday Near Term (Year
2015)
Page
52 +ofProject
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.94
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1480
Flt Permitted
0.90
Satd. Flow (perm)
1331
Volume (vph)
62
466
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
65
491
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
11
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
657
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
114
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
33.0
Effective Green, g (s)
33.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.47
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
627
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.49
v/c Ratio
1.05
Uniform Delay, d1
18.5
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
49.3
Delay (s)
67.8
Level of Service
E
Approach Delay (s)
67.8
Approach LOS
E
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
PM Commute Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
122
0.95
128
0
0
114
8
67
0.95
71
0
0
437
84
0.95
88
0
0
363
17
114
0.95
120
0
0
363
1900
4.0
1.00
0.94
0.94
0.98
0.99
1400
0.78
1102
262
0.95
276
10
463
1900
47
0.95
49
0
0
173
1900
4.0
1.00
0.88
0.98
0.97
0.99
1355
0.87
1182
242
0.95
255
12
402
1900
106
0.95
112
0
0
173
5
1900
4.0
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.97
1.00
3223
0.87
2824
418
0.95
440
33
584
44.3
1.03
70.0
103.7%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
33.0
33.0
0.47
4.0
3.0
1331
29.0
29.0
0.41
4.0
3.0
490
29.0
29.0
0.41
4.0
3.0
457
0.21
0.44
12.3
1.00
0.2
12.6
B
12.6
B
0.34
0.82
18.2
1.00
10.6
28.8
C
28.8
C
c0.42
1.01
20.5
1.00
45.5
66.0
E
66.0
E
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
73
0.95
77
0
0
437
20
D
8.0
G
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Saturday Near Term (Year
2015)
Page
53 +ofProject
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
0.99
Satd. Flow (prot)
1505
Flt Permitted
0.91
Satd. Flow (perm)
1374
Volume (vph)
55
398
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph)
57
415
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
10
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
545
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
155
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
29.5
Effective Green, g (s)
29.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.45
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
616
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.40
v/c Ratio
0.88
Uniform Delay, d1
16.6
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
14.2
Delay (s)
30.8
Level of Service
C
Approach Delay (s)
30.8
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Restaurant Night Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
100
0.96
104
0
0
155
2
63
0.96
66
0
0
353
69
0.96
72
0
0
326
3
102
0.96
106
0
0
326
1900
4.0
1.00
0.95
0.95
0.98
0.99
1424
0.83
1198
280
0.96
292
9
458
1900
39
0.96
41
0
0
138
1900
4.0
1.00
0.90
0.98
0.98
0.99
1394
0.88
1238
244
0.96
254
9
383
1900
80
0.96
83
0
0
138
2
1900
4.0
0.95
0.94
0.99
0.97
1.00
3199
0.89
2869
366
0.96
381
33
493
5
Perm
6
24.5
0.89
65.8
93.7%
15
5
Perm
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
29.5
29.5
0.45
4.0
3.0
1286
28.3
28.3
0.43
4.0
3.0
532
28.3
28.3
0.43
4.0
3.0
515
0.17
0.38
12.1
1.00
0.2
12.3
B
12.3
B
0.31
0.72
15.5
1.00
4.6
20.1
C
20.1
C
c0.38
0.89
17.3
1.00
17.3
34.6
C
34.6
C
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
66
0.96
69
0
0
353
5
C
8.0
F
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Weekday Cumulative
2035)
Page (Year
54 of 67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1525
Flt Permitted
0.89
Satd. Flow (perm)
1369
Volume (vph)
65
539
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
68
567
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
7
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
746
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
94
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
41.1
Effective Green, g (s)
41.1
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.50
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
688
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.54
v/c Ratio
1.08
Uniform Delay, d1
20.3
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
59.2
Delay (s)
79.5
Level of Service
E
Approach Delay (s)
79.5
Approach LOS
E
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Mid-day Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
83
0.95
87
0
0
94
6
101
0.95
106
0
0
200
63
0.95
66
0
0
148
17
86
0.95
91
0
0
148
1900
4.0
1.00
0.94
0.97
0.97
0.99
1423
0.79
1133
205
0.95
216
13
385
1900
55
0.95
58
0
0
87
1900
4.0
1.00
0.95
0.98
0.98
0.99
1462
0.80
1179
275
0.95
289
7
454
1900
112
0.95
118
0
0
87
2
1900
4.0
0.95
0.97
1.00
0.98
1.00
3334
0.83
2783
480
0.95
505
14
636
48.4
1.03
81.8
101.0%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
41.1
41.1
0.50
4.0
3.0
1398
32.7
32.7
0.40
4.0
3.0
471
32.7
32.7
0.40
4.0
3.0
453
0.23
0.45
13.1
1.00
1.1
14.2
B
14.2
B
c0.39
0.96
24.0
1.00
32.3
56.3
E
56.3
E
0.34
0.85
22.3
1.00
13.8
36.2
D
36.2
D
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
86
0.95
91
0
0
200
10
D
8.0
G
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Weekday Cumulative
2035)
Page (Year
55 of 67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes
1.00
Frt
0.99
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1567
Flt Permitted
0.96
Satd. Flow (perm)
1513
Volume (vph)
31
808
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
33
851
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
4
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
974
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
128
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
48.0
Effective Green, g (s)
48.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.51
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
764
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.64
v/c Ratio
1.27
Uniform Delay, d1
23.5
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
133.8
Delay (s)
157.3
Level of Service
F
Approach Delay (s)
157.3
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
PM Commute Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
121
0.95
127
0
0
128
2
74
0.95
78
0
0
214
78
0.95
82
0
0
190
10
166
0.95
175
0
0
190
1900
4.0
1.00
0.97
0.95
0.99
0.98
1447
0.64
940
290
0.95
305
4
531
1900
16
0.95
17
0
0
75
1900
4.0
1.00
0.90
0.99
0.97
0.99
1404
0.82
1166
265
0.95
279
8
431
1900
89
0.95
94
0
0
75
3
1900
4.0
0.95
0.93
1.00
0.97
1.00
3205
0.92
2960
499
0.95
525
21
648
113.6
1.32
95.0
128.6%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
48.0
48.0
0.51
4.0
3.0
1496
39.0
39.0
0.41
4.0
3.0
479
39.0
39.0
0.41
4.0
3.0
386
0.22
0.43
14.9
1.00
0.2
15.1
B
15.1
B
0.37
0.90
26.2
1.00
19.8
46.0
D
46.0
D
c0.56
1.38
28.0
1.00
184.5
212.5
F
212.5
F
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
52
0.95
55
0
0
214
36
F
8.0
H
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Weekday Cumulative
2035)
Page (Year
56 of 67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1516
Flt Permitted
0.91
Satd. Flow (perm)
1382
Volume (vph)
52
452
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
55
476
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
9
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
621
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
126
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
31.1
Effective Green, g (s)
31.1
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.46
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
634
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.45
v/c Ratio
0.98
Uniform Delay, d1
18.0
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
30.1
Delay (s)
48.2
Level of Service
D
Approach Delay (s)
48.2
Approach LOS
D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Restaurant Night Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
96
0.95
101
0
0
126
2
76
0.95
80
0
0
217
70
0.95
74
0
0
162
10
103
0.95
108
0
0
162
1900
4.0
1.00
0.96
0.97
0.98
0.99
1474
0.80
1197
255
0.95
268
9
428
1900
39
0.95
41
0
0
119
1900
4.0
1.00
0.94
0.98
0.98
0.99
1457
0.86
1262
249
0.95
262
10
406
1900
94
0.95
99
0
0
119
7
1900
4.0
0.95
0.96
1.00
0.98
1.00
3290
0.90
2959
465
0.95
489
22
609
5
Perm
6
28.8
0.92
67.8
95.9%
15
5
Perm
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
31.1
31.1
0.46
4.0
3.0
1357
28.7
28.7
0.42
4.0
3.0
534
28.7
28.7
0.42
4.0
3.0
507
0.21
0.45
12.5
1.00
0.2
12.7
B
12.7
B
0.32
0.76
16.6
1.00
6.3
22.9
C
22.9
C
c0.36
0.84
17.6
1.00
12.2
29.8
C
29.8
C
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
58
0.95
61
0
0
217
29
C
8.0
F
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Saturday Cumulative
2035)
Page (Year
57 of 67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.92
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1454
Flt Permitted
0.91
Satd. Flow (perm)
1327
Volume (vph)
47
505
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
49
532
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
10
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
685
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
272
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
32.0
Effective Green, g (s)
32.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.46
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
607
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.52
v/c Ratio
1.13
Uniform Delay, d1
19.0
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
77.1
Delay (s)
96.1
Level of Service
F
Approach Delay (s)
96.1
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Mid-day Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
157
0.95
165
0
0
272
8
90
0.95
95
0
0
390
72
0.95
76
0
0
326
14
121
0.95
127
0
0
326
1900
4.0
1.00
0.94
0.96
0.98
0.99
1430
0.78
1121
354
0.95
373
10
589
1900
39
0.95
41
0
0
230
1900
4.0
1.00
0.92
0.98
0.98
0.99
1424
0.79
1129
306
0.95
322
8
485
1900
108
0.95
114
0
0
230
2
1900
4.0
0.95
0.89
0.99
0.97
1.00
3025
0.90
2726
543
0.95
572
35
743
74.9
1.18
70.0
114.6%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
32.0
32.0
0.46
4.0
3.0
1246
30.0
30.0
0.43
4.0
3.0
484
30.0
30.0
0.43
4.0
3.0
480
0.27
0.60
14.2
1.00
0.8
15.0
B
15.0
B
0.43
1.00
20.0
1.00
41.4
61.4
E
61.4
E
c0.53
1.23
20.0
1.00
119.3
139.3
F
139.3
F
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
94
0.95
99
0
0
390
20
E
8.0
H
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Saturday Cumulative
2035)
Page (Year
58 of 67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.93
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1469
Flt Permitted
0.88
Satd. Flow (perm)
1300
Volume (vph)
68
529
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
72
557
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
7
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
746
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
132
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
33.0
Effective Green, g (s)
33.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.47
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
613
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.57
v/c Ratio
1.22
Uniform Delay, d1
18.5
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
111.7
Delay (s)
130.2
Level of Service
F
Approach Delay (s)
130.2
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
PM Commute Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
138
0.95
145
0
0
132
9
74
0.95
78
0
0
505
93
0.95
98
0
0
420
20
128
0.95
135
0
0
420
1900
4.0
1.00
0.94
0.95
0.98
0.99
1403
0.74
1049
294
0.95
309
10
519
1900
52
0.95
55
0
0
200
1900
4.0
1.00
0.88
0.98
0.97
0.99
1350
0.84
1148
271
0.95
285
12
449
1900
118
0.95
124
0
0
200
6
1900
4.0
0.95
0.94
0.99
0.97
1.00
3199
0.85
2729
473
0.95
498
34
664
80.6
1.21
70.0
115.2%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
33.0
33.0
0.47
4.0
3.0
1287
29.0
29.0
0.41
4.0
3.0
476
29.0
29.0
0.41
4.0
3.0
435
0.24
0.52
12.9
1.00
0.4
13.3
B
13.3
B
0.39
0.94
19.7
1.00
27.5
47.2
D
47.2
D
c0.49
1.19
20.5
1.00
107.6
128.1
F
128.1
F
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
81
0.95
85
0
0
505
23
F
8.0
H
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Saturday Cumulative
2035)
Page (Year
59 of 67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.95
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1486
Flt Permitted
0.90
Satd. Flow (perm)
1341
Volume (vph)
60
452
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph)
62
471
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
10
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
625
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
177
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
30.0
Effective Green, g (s)
30.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.43
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
575
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.47
v/c Ratio
1.09
Uniform Delay, d1
20.0
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
63.5
Delay (s)
83.5
Level of Service
F
Approach Delay (s)
83.5
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Restaurant Night Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
113
0.96
118
0
0
177
2
69
0.96
72
0
0
402
76
0.96
79
0
0
371
3
116
0.96
121
0
0
371
1900
4.0
1.00
0.95
0.95
0.98
0.99
1424
0.80
1158
313
0.96
326
9
514
1900
42
0.96
44
0
0
157
1900
4.0
1.00
0.90
0.98
0.98
0.99
1391
0.87
1214
272
0.96
283
9
425
1900
98
0.96
102
0
0
157
2
1900
4.0
0.95
0.93
0.99
0.97
1.00
3159
0.88
2787
413
0.96
430
31
561
44.7
1.03
70.0
104.8%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
30.0
30.0
0.43
4.0
3.0
1194
32.0
32.0
0.46
4.0
3.0
555
32.0
32.0
0.46
4.0
3.0
529
0.20
0.47
14.3
1.00
0.3
14.6
B
14.6
B
0.35
0.77
15.9
1.00
6.2
22.1
C
22.1
C
c0.44
0.97
18.6
1.00
31.9
50.5
D
50.5
D
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
73
0.96
76
0
0
402
6
D
8.0
G
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Weekday Cumulative (Year
2035)
Page
60 +ofProject
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1523
Flt Permitted
0.89
Satd. Flow (perm)
1360
Volume (vph)
67
540
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
71
568
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
8
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
751
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
94
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
42.1
Effective Green, g (s)
42.1
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.51
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
692
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.55
v/c Ratio
1.09
Uniform Delay, d1
20.3
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
59.7
Delay (s)
80.0
Level of Service
F
Approach Delay (s)
80.0
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Mid-day Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
84
0.95
88
0
0
94
6
102
0.95
107
0
0
200
64
0.95
67
0
0
148
17
87
0.95
92
0
0
148
1900
4.0
1.00
0.93
0.97
0.97
0.99
1421
0.78
1121
206
0.95
217
13
389
1900
56
0.95
59
0
0
87
1900
4.0
1.00
0.95
0.98
0.98
0.99
1461
0.79
1168
276
0.95
291
6
459
1900
114
0.95
120
0
0
87
2
1900
4.0
0.95
0.97
1.00
0.98
1.00
3332
0.83
2772
482
0.95
507
14
640
51.1
1.05
82.7
101.7%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
42.1
42.1
0.51
4.0
3.0
1411
32.6
32.6
0.39
4.0
3.0
460
32.6
32.6
0.39
4.0
3.0
442
0.23
0.45
13.0
1.00
0.2
13.2
B
13.2
B
c0.39
1.00
25.0
1.00
41.1
66.1
E
66.1
E
0.35
0.88
23.2
1.00
17.7
40.9
D
40.9
D
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
88
0.95
93
0
0
200
10
D
8.0
G
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Weekday Cumulative (Year
2035)
Page
61 +ofProject
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes
1.00
Frt
0.99
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1566
Flt Permitted
0.96
Satd. Flow (perm)
1512
Volume (vph)
31
809
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
33
852
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
4
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
977
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
128
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
46.0
Effective Green, g (s)
46.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.48
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
732
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.65
v/c Ratio
1.33
Uniform Delay, d1
24.5
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
159.8
Delay (s)
184.3
Level of Service
F
Approach Delay (s)
184.3
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
PM Commute Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
122
0.95
128
0
0
128
2
75
0.95
79
0
0
214
79
0.95
83
0
0
190
10
167
0.95
176
0
0
190
1900
4.0
1.00
0.97
0.95
0.99
0.98
1443
0.65
955
291
0.95
306
5
534
1900
16
0.95
17
0
0
75
1900
4.0
1.00
0.90
0.99
0.97
0.99
1403
0.83
1169
267
0.95
281
7
436
1900
91
0.95
96
0
0
75
3
1900
4.0
0.95
0.93
1.00
0.97
1.00
3204
0.92
2965
501
0.95
527
22
650
115.6
1.32
95.0
129.2%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
46.0
46.0
0.48
4.0
3.0
1436
41.0
41.0
0.43
4.0
3.0
505
41.0
41.0
0.43
4.0
3.0
412
0.22
0.45
16.2
1.00
0.2
16.4
B
16.4
B
0.37
0.86
24.4
1.00
14.1
38.6
D
38.6
D
c0.56
1.30
27.0
1.00
150.7
177.7
F
177.7
F
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
54
0.95
57
0
0
214
36
F
8.0
H
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Weekday Cumulative (Year
2035)
Page
62 +ofProject
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1515
Flt Permitted
0.90
Satd. Flow (perm)
1375
Volume (vph)
54
453
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
57
477
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
9
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
626
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
126
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
30.1
Effective Green, g (s)
30.1
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.45
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
617
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.46
v/c Ratio
1.01
Uniform Delay, d1
18.5
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
39.8
Delay (s)
58.3
Level of Service
E
Approach Delay (s)
58.3
Approach LOS
E
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Restaurant Night Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
97
0.95
102
0
0
126
2
77
0.95
81
0
0
217
71
0.95
75
0
0
162
10
104
0.95
109
0
0
162
1900
4.0
1.00
0.96
0.97
0.98
0.99
1473
0.81
1201
256
0.95
269
9
432
1900
40
0.95
42
0
0
119
1900
4.0
1.00
0.94
0.98
0.98
0.99
1457
0.86
1263
250
0.95
263
10
409
1900
96
0.95
101
0
0
119
7
1900
4.0
0.95
0.96
1.00
0.98
1.00
3291
0.89
2952
467
0.95
492
22
614
5
Perm
6
31.3
0.92
67.1
96.6%
15
5
Perm
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
30.1
30.1
0.45
4.0
3.0
1324
29.0
29.0
0.43
4.0
3.0
546
29.0
29.0
0.43
4.0
3.0
519
0.21
0.46
12.9
1.00
0.3
13.1
B
13.1
B
0.32
0.75
16.0
1.00
5.6
21.6
C
21.6
C
c0.36
0.83
16.9
1.00
10.9
27.8
C
27.8
C
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
60
0.95
63
0
0
217
29
C
8.0
F
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Saturday Cumulative (Year
2035)
Page
63 +ofProject
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.92
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1452
Flt Permitted
0.90
Satd. Flow (perm)
1313
Volume (vph)
49
506
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
52
533
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
11
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
691
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
272
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
29.0
Effective Green, g (s)
29.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.41
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
544
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.53
v/c Ratio
1.27
Uniform Delay, d1
20.5
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
135.9
Delay (s)
156.4
Level of Service
F
Approach Delay (s)
156.4
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Mid-day Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
158
0.95
166
0
0
272
8
91
0.95
96
0
0
390
73
0.95
77
0
0
326
14
122
0.95
128
0
0
326
1900
4.0
1.00
0.94
0.96
0.98
0.99
1427
0.79
1146
356
0.95
375
11
593
1900
40
0.95
42
0
0
230
1900
4.0
1.00
0.92
0.98
0.98
0.99
1422
0.80
1152
308
0.95
324
7
490
1900
111
0.95
117
0
0
230
2
1900
4.0
0.95
0.89
1.00
0.97
1.00
3027
0.88
2682
547
0.95
576
35
749
75.1
1.18
70.0
115.5%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
29.0
29.0
0.41
4.0
3.0
1111
33.0
33.0
0.47
4.0
3.0
543
33.0
33.0
0.47
4.0
3.0
540
0.28
0.67
16.7
1.00
1.6
18.3
B
18.3
B
0.43
0.90
17.0
1.00
18.1
35.1
D
35.1
D
c0.52
1.10
18.5
1.00
68.6
87.1
F
87.1
F
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
96
0.95
101
0
0
390
20
E
8.0
H
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Saturday Cumulative (Year
2035)
Page
64 +ofProject
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.93
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1467
Flt Permitted
0.88
Satd. Flow (perm)
1292
Volume (vph)
70
530
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)
74
558
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
10
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
748
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
132
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
31.0
Effective Green, g (s)
31.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.44
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
572
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.58
v/c Ratio
1.31
Uniform Delay, d1
19.5
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
150.7
Delay (s)
170.2
Level of Service
F
Approach Delay (s)
170.2
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
PM Commute Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
139
0.95
146
0
0
132
9
75
0.95
79
0
0
505
94
0.95
99
0
0
420
20
129
0.95
136
0
0
420
1900
4.0
1.00
0.94
0.95
0.98
0.99
1400
0.75
1069
295
0.95
311
10
524
1900
52
0.95
55
0
0
200
1900
4.0
1.00
0.88
0.98
0.97
0.99
1349
0.85
1156
272
0.95
286
11
453
1900
120
0.95
126
0
0
200
6
1900
4.0
0.95
0.94
0.99
0.97
1.00
3200
0.84
2690
476
0.95
501
33
669
83.6
1.21
70.0
115.9%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
31.0
31.0
0.44
4.0
3.0
1191
31.0
31.0
0.44
4.0
3.0
512
31.0
31.0
0.44
4.0
3.0
473
0.25
0.56
14.5
1.00
0.6
15.1
B
15.1
B
0.39
0.88
17.9
1.00
16.5
34.4
C
34.4
C
c0.49
1.11
19.5
1.00
74.1
93.6
F
93.6
F
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
83
0.95
87
0
0
505
23
F
8.0
H
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Saturday Cumulative (Year
2035)
Page
65 +ofProject
67
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Ashby Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
EBL EBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes
0.95
Flpb, ped/bikes
0.99
Frt
0.98
Flt Protected
0.99
Satd. Flow (prot)
1483
Flt Permitted
0.89
Satd. Flow (perm)
1331
Volume (vph)
62
453
Peak-hour factor, PHF
0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph)
65
472
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
10
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
632
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
177
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Parking (#/hr)
5
Turn Type
Perm
Protected Phases
6
Permitted Phases
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
30.0
Effective Green, g (s)
30.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.43
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
570
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.47
v/c Ratio
1.11
Uniform Delay, d1
20.0
Progression Factor
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
70.9
Delay (s)
90.9
Level of Service
F
Approach Delay (s)
90.9
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Omni-Means
Restaurant Night Peak Hour
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
114
0.96
119
0
0
177
2
70
0.96
73
0
0
402
77
0.96
80
0
0
371
3
117
0.96
122
0
0
371
1900
4.0
1.00
0.95
0.95
0.98
0.99
1423
0.80
1154
315
0.96
328
9
519
1900
43
0.96
45
0
0
157
1900
4.0
1.00
0.90
0.98
0.98
0.99
1391
0.86
1210
274
0.96
285
9
429
1900
101
0.96
105
0
0
157
2
1900
4.0
0.95
0.93
0.99
0.97
1.00
3159
0.88
2776
417
0.96
434
31
567
47.7
1.04
70.0
105.7%
15
5
Perm
5
Perm
6
6
pm+pt
7
4
8
8
4
30.0
30.0
0.43
4.0
3.0
1190
32.0
32.0
0.46
4.0
3.0
553
32.0
32.0
0.46
4.0
3.0
528
0.20
0.48
14.4
1.00
0.3
14.7
B
14.7
B
0.35
0.78
16.0
1.00
6.7
22.7
C
22.7
C
c0.45
0.98
18.7
1.00
34.7
53.4
D
53.4
D
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
75
0.96
78
0
0
402
6
D
8.0
G
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 66 of 67
College Ave.
Intersection Volume Worksheet
N
1 2 3
Ashby Avenue / College Avenue
12
11
10
c
d
b
Ashby Ave.
9 8 7
Weekday Mid-day
1
11:30-11:45
9
11:45-12:00
17
12:00-12:15
18
12:15-12:30
20
12:30-12:45
19
12:45-1:00
14
1:00-1:15
21
1:15-1:30
18
PeakHour:
11:45-12:45
74
College Ave.
Counts: October 30, 2013, Wednesday
Weather: Clear
Ashby Ave.
4
5
6
a
2
30
36
30
49
40
64
47
48
3
7
25
16
16
17
18
20
20
4
13
23
10
21
18
18
25
24
5
68
108
99
95
113
103
80
95
6
10
9
10
10
9
6
5
14
7
5
11
15
12
9
16
20
16
8
29
60
48
55
52
53
44
52
9
11
20
24
25
11
23
14
21
10
22
20
21
29
17
21
14
17
11
58
120
120
107
119
112
112
122
12
13
18
15
12
11
16
8
10
15 MIN.
275
467
426
451
435
464
410
457
155
74
72
415
38
47
215
80
87
466
56
1779
phf: 0.95
1
10
9
10
17
11
8
9
17
2
41
61
47
62
47
53
68
60
3
34
36
41
35
35
41
37
31
4
25
30
28
28
27
22
27
29
5
88
90
104
75
87
106
116
113
6
3
2
3
0
5
2
1
6
7
9
16
19
11
15
14
19
12
8
43
39
52
54
52
53
52
50
9
10
7
9
15
11
12
15
18
10
11
20
7
23
18
18
17
16
11
141
160
175
171
181
183
181
154
12
5
3
3
7
13
10
3
1
15 MIN.
420
473
498
498
502
522
545
507
45
228
144
105
422
14
60
207
56
69
699
27
2076
phf: 0.95
1
14
13
13
10
2
53
41
53
51
3
25
22
27
15
4
25
25
21
12
5
98
90
116
98
6
4
12
2
6
7
22
10
6
15
8
40
64
48
41
9
15
14
18
11
10
24
17
17
14
11
103
113
82
93
12
14
12
9
10
15 MIN.
437
433
412
376
50
198
89
83
402
24
53
193
58
72
391
45
1658
phf: 0.95
mid-day in
pm in
night in
303
417
337
mid-day out
pm out
night out
343
339
321
Weekday PM
4:00-4:15
4:15-4:30
4:30-4:45
4:45-5:00
5:00-5:15
5:15-5:30
5:30-5:45
5:45-6:00
PeakHour:
5:00-6:00
7:00-7:15
7:15-7:30
7:30-7:45
7:45 8:00
7:45-8:00
PeakHour:
7:00-8:00
50
45
74
N
609 mid-day in
795 pm in
508 night in
569 mid-day out
523 pm out
510 night out
45
391
72
27
699
69
198
228
155
89
144
74
Peak Hour
Volumes
56
466
87
72
415
38
Mid-day
PM
Ashby Ave.
215
207
193
mid-day in
pm in
night in
342
323
304
mid-day out
pm out
night out
280
311
294
47
60
53
College Ave.
Ashby Ave.
OMNI-MEANS
105
422
14
Night
80
56
58
1619
1779
1776
1760
1766
17 - 5 / 28 - 23
0-0/1-1
0-0/1-2
29 - 24 / 48 - 49
1-0/2-1
18 - 16 / 38 - 33
2-1/2-3
18 - 19 / 42 - 20
2-1/4-9
19 - 6 / 34 - 27
0-0/1-2
24 - 26 / 39 - 26
0-1/2-2
17 - 19 / 39 - 32
1-0/3-1
1779 81 - 75 / 173 - 128
Pedestrians
60 MIN. a - b / c - d
1889
1971
2020
2067
2076
83
402
24
Bicycles
a-b/c-d
16 - 16 / 45 - 26
5 - 2 / 9 - 15
Bicycles
a-b/c-d
31 - 11 / 56 - 46
0-0/2-1
20 - 12 / 38 - 34
0-0/4-2
20 - 10 / 43 - 49
0- 1 / 5 - 2
14 - 14 / 50 - 45
1-1/3-2
27 - 17 / 41 - 52
0-0/7-1
24 - 10 / 44 - 34
0-1/6-3
25 - 19 / 40 - 41
1-1/8-3
35 - 19 / 60 - 37
1 - 1 / 10 - 2
2076 111 - 65 / 185 - 164
Pedestrians
60 MIN. a - b / c - d
2 - 3 / 31 - 9
Bicycles
a-b/c-d
31 - 32 / 52 - 33
0-0/9-2
33 - 24 / 48 - 37
1-2/6-3
30 - 29 / 50 - 35
1-2/5-2
1658 15 - 18 / 38 - 35
0-2/5-2
1658 109 - 103 / 188 - 140
2 - 6 / 25 - 9
College Ave.
Weekday Night
Pedestrians
60 MIN. a - b / c - d
mid-day in
pm in
night in
525
541
509
mid-day out
pm out
night out
587
903
533
ATTACHMENT 6
ZAB 12-12-13
Page 67 of 67
College Ave.
Intersection Volume Worksheet
N
1 2 3
Ashby Avenue / College Avenue
12
11
10
c
d
b
Ashby Ave.
9 8 7
Saturday Mid-day
1
11:30-11:45
17
11:45-12:00
20
12:00-12:15
21
12:15-12:30
16
12:30-12:45
18
12:45-1:00
22
1:00-1:15
20
1:15-1:30
21
PeakHour:
12:30-1:30
81
College Ave.
Counts: October 26, 2013, Saturday
Weather: Clear
Ashby Ave.
4
5
6
a
2
61
69
73
75
72
63
79
70
3
32
27
25
29
26
29
23
27
4
25
20
29
24
31
37
39
29
5
105
97
108
116
107
102
115
146
6
9
7
4
8
7
6
4
8
7
12
17
13
16
15
10
11
18
8
54
63
59
70
61
67
54
61
9
15
17
11
14
19
18
15
17
10
23
17
28
20
21
18
26
20
11
109
97
111
117
103
107
123
104
12
13
9
7
8
10
12
8
11
15 MIN.
475
460
489
513
490
491
517
532
284
105
136
470
25
54
243
69
85
437
41
2030
phf: 0.95
1
12
19
15
11
16
19
20
15
2
48
55
53
49
59
54
59
60
3
25
21
20
25
24
27
30
30
4
25
32
19
27
27
31
24
37
5
90
99
107
89
103
95
100
111
6
5
7
9
6
7
11
9
9
7
19
25
24
20
18
22
16
16
8
59
51
48
60
51
49
52
61
9
11
13
10
14
13
15
11
16
10
29
20
18
26
22
22
28
21
11
109
111
119
105
114
103
123
118
12
15
18
16
12
18
13
17
11
15 MIN.
447
471
458
444
472
461
489
505
70
232
111
119
409
36
72
213
55
93
458
59
1927
phf: 0.95
1
13
17
21
12
2
65
62
54
67
3
24
20
31
25
4
21
23
30
24
5
86
103
95
73
6
8
6
9
5
7
13
19
10
15
8
68
42
52
52
9
9
12
16
14
10
10
22
25
19
11
87
112
92
100
12
13
9
15
15
15 MIN.
417
447
450
421
63
248
100
98
357
28
57
214
51
76
391
52
1735
phf: 0.96
mid-day in
pm in
night in
470
413
411
mid-day out
pm out
night out
420
391
364
Saturday PM
4:00-4:15
4:15-4:30
4:30-4:45
4:45-5:00
5:00-5:15
5:15-5:30
5:30-5:45
5:45-6:00
PeakHour:
5:00-6:00
7:00-7:15
7:15-7:30
7:30-7:45
7:45 8:00
7:45-8:00
PeakHour:
7:00-8:00
63
70
81
N
563 mid-day in
610 pm in
519 night in
620 mid-day out
534 pm out
471 night out
52
391
76
59
458
93
248
232
284
100
111
105
Peak Hour
Volumes
41
437
85
136
470
25
Mid-day
PM
Ashby Ave.
243
213
214
mid-day in
pm in
night in
366
340
322
mid-day out
pm out
night out
394
361
352
54
72
57
College Ave.
Ashby Ave.
OMNI-MEANS
119
409
36
Night
69
55
51
1937
1952
1983
2011
2030
59 - 41 / 75 - 52
0-0/1-1
0-0/2-0
62 - 58 / 85 - 56
1-0/4-1
68 - 55 / 83 - 49
0-1/3-2
76 - 46 / 92 - 63
0-0/2-3
54 - 60 / 89 - 80
1-1/5-3
48 - 54 / 83 - 70
3-1/6-4
57 - 39 / 73 -69
3-0/4-2
2030 235 - 199 / 337 - 282
Pedestrians
60 MIN. a - b / c - d
1820
1845
1835
1866
1927
98
357
28
Bicycles
a-b/c-d
48 - 39 / 68 - 74
7 - 2 / 17 - 12
Bicycles
a-b/c-d
31 - 35 / 81 - 76
0-0/1-0
22 - 30 - 77 - 69
0-1/3-2
38 - 42 / 95 - 57
1-0/2-4
39 - 28 / 81 - 72
0-0/1-2
27 - 39 / 103 - 81
1-0/3-2
37 - 47 / 91 - 88
2-0/5-4
30 - 54 / 132 - 101
4-3/7-5
24 - 33 / 111 - 93
1-2/5-6
1927 114 - 173 / 437 - 363
Pedestrians
60 MIN. a - b / c - d
8 - 5 / 20 -17
Bicycles
a-b/c-d
46 - 32 / 89 - 75
0 -0 / 1 - 0
37 - 40 / 98 - 82
0-2/2-1
41 - 28 / 90 - 98
1-0/1-2
1735 29 - 38 / 71 - 66
1-0/1-0
1735 153 - 136 / 348 - 321
2-2/5-3
College Ave.
Saturday Night
Pedestrians
60 MIN. a - b / c - d
mid-day in
pm in
night in
631
564
483
mid-day out
pm out
night out
596
641
548