The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/15/2009, B5 - BIENNIAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS REPORT council ~"im0W 09/15/2009 jl aGEnba uepoin C I T Y O F S A N L U I S 0 B 1 S P 0 FROM: Jay D.Walter,Public Works Director Prepared By: Timothy Scott Bochum,Deputy Director Public Works Jake Hudson,Senior Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: BIENNIAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS REPORT RECOMMENDATION Approve the 2009 Biennial Traffic Operations Report and associated mitigation strategies. DISCUSSION Background The City has been focusing on improving the operations and safety of City streets, roads and circulation infrastructure for the last ten years.. Part of this focus has been the establishment of the City's Annual Traffic Safety Report and its measured progress towards improving traffic safety on City streets. Congestion and operations is the parallel field of traffic engineering that strives to improve efficiency of the roadway system for all users and tie improvements to measured results. Congestion relief has been a major Council goal in many of the previous Financial Plans developed after significant public input. In an effort to implement this goal, the 2009/11 Financial Plan specifically identifies the completion of the first bi-biennial Traffic Operations Report (TOR). As a component of a transportation congestion relief program, the primary purpose of the TOR is to: I. Identify and track traffic volume and congestion trends on City streets. 2. Determine the locations within the City that have the highest levels of congestion in comparison to similar locations. 3. Identify if mitigation strategies should be considered for these congested locations, and if so, what the strategies should be. 4. Evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures implemented in the previous 24 month period. Traffic Operations Report(TOR) Overview The TOR evaluates operations during the period from 2006 to 2008. Congestion and operational data along with the corresponding analysis for the initial TOR report was compiled and completed by the Public Works Department. Because this was the first operations report developed in quite some time, the effort was significant due to the need to compile large amounts of historic data, sift that data into similar data sets that could be compared and then identify understandable measures of effectiveness for reporting and tracking purposes. The TOR analyzes and concludes that citywide average daily traffic has risen by approximately 2% and citywide average peak hour traffic has risen by approximately 9% in the last two years. CAR Biennial Traffic Operations Report Page 2 Citywide average delay, the primary measure of traffic congestion, has also risen by approximately 9%for peak hour periods and by approximately 4% for daily periods. Similar to the Traffic Safety Report, the TOR makes recommendations for altering or continuing to monitoring the five most critical locations of each intersection and street segment classification. Some of the locations are listed here (Higuera & Los Osos Valley, Madonna & Los Osos Valley, Foothill & California, Osos &Buchon, Higuera& Pismo, California (Campus—Taft), Osos (Marsh —South), and Los Osos Valley(Higuera—Madonna)),and are more fully explained in the TOR. Future Efforts Since this is the first ever Traffic Operations Report developed by the City there are a lot of issues that will need future focus to improve the report to be an effective tool for establishing congestion mitigations and projects. One will be establishing citywide objectives for congestion levels, which will be a significant future effort as we gain additional experience in the tracking and reporting of operational benchmarks for the City. Another will be comparing operating statistics to congestion management goals and objectives. State controlled (Caltrans) intersections and segments were not included in this initial TOR, but the intent is to incorporate those facilities into the report as staff continues to refine the process of evaluation and work along the State facilities can be identified and coordinated. FISCAL IMPACT All of the mitigation strategies identified the TOR will either be funded from the 2009-11 Financial Plan through the one time allocation of$165,000 SHA grant dollars or as part of other improvement projects which already have allocated funding. It is however important to note that funding for this program is made possible through a one time grant allocation and once these dollars are exhausted other funding sources will need to be secured in order to sustain the program. In order to be successful, a prolonged commitment both financially and through staff resources is necessary to properly implement operational improvements and reduce congestion. Continued annual expenditure commitments will be necessary (even in difficult financial times) if it is the goal of the City and community to reduce vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle congestion along our roadways. These projects will be brought forward for Council to approve as they are identified. ATTACHMENT 2009 Biennial Traffic Operations Report NOTE: The 2009 Biennial Traffic Safety Report is also available for public review at the Public Works Department(919 Palm Street), and online at www.slocitv.org. - - J ATTACHMENT -. CA 93401-3208 2008/09 Blennut tRA f f is opeRAtions RepoRt J rs* on nm ra ermcs aa.� i� �� -- --�jF ca-s6edre•.rortn.C� city o} San Luis OBISPO MAJ41C manAcement system Curcnrnx> w e 0 Alarms /�s ., e„ ��•t?�� I `. � V>r 11oW11uY.1.ln.nu wM1YY Wibw I nY3. (1• • .9 1. .? aP T t.1 I � � .-w.u�r3=^-rr=r-r�3=rr dON'11tOWfT - �, •..� 0 I � ,a n�,orr(�I+r3-Fi�Iii"f'"I$' y 1� C-� i b� '� F° �� t/� � vir .o wona YSJ'(e S"6n (,';S'd"fuT l�o{T • � r I � G .fl w.kUnrG'G'(l0 r1U (P3'(3 flu� _ �' 6 jr��yt, ,- .. �c cmn tu-R r+rv-fo ri'F'" r i�`�j� � �`iar��' I�V �� ,A.wa,N- � .. Lr-(!"•N` m,vnlowPr-N-'S"Z-P-;T- J- r�' "l:�uai.�►.._"~ ,�•, ',.wa.ar a.�J ,uaaurrl3- a, P-@•r-Jo Fr f'i",T T-��" .o,FtparavGr ( Ga('u 1"rri..n r.r fru (i ✓"i 7' .'}' ,� rau u fie"{.'i' uu(ii fir x11116 a ,o r +1 in,ar r f.T to � jj � T "i City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department Traffic Engineering Division September 2009 B� -3 ATTACHMENT taste of contents a messace Fuom the puslic works oepautment....................................................1 executivesummauY.........................................................................................................2 section1...............................................................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3 1.1 How to Use this Report..............................................................................................................................3 section2..............................................................................................................................5 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................5 2.1 Study Objectives.........................................................................................................................................5 2.2 Study Methodology.....................................................................................................................................5 section3..............................................................................................................................8 CITY-WIDE OPERATIONS STATISTICS ........................................................................................8 3.1 City-wide Operations Trends.....................................................................................................................8 3.2 Comparison with Other Agencies.............................................................................................................11 3.3 Economic Analysis...................................................................................................................................12 section4.............................................................................................................................14 CITY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ....................................................................................14 4.1 QuicNei Traffic Management System.......................................................................................................14 4.1 Traffic Signal Inventory...........................................................................................................................15 section5.............................................................................................................................16 OPERATIONS IMPROVEMENTS ..................................................................................................16 5.1 Completed Operations Projects, 2009..................................................................................................... 16 section6.............................................................................................................................17 2009 OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS..........................................................................................17 6.1 Intersection Prioritization Methodology..................................................................................................17 6.2 Corridor Prioritization Methodology.......................................................................................................28 appendix1..........................................................................................................................34 ARTERIAL/ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS......................................................................................34 appendlX2..........................................................................................................................41 ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR INTERSECTIONS...................................................................................41 appenOIX3.........................................................................................................................48 ARTERIAL CORRIDORS.............................................................................................................48 1 'F ATTACHMENT taBles ana pGuRes r...._, TABLE 2.2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE RATING SYSTEM........................................................................:.6 EQUATION 2.2.2-CORRIDOR DELAY CALCULATIONS ..................................................................6 TABLE 2.2.3 INTERSECTION&SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE ........................................................7 FIGURE 3.1.1 -2008/09 CITY-WIDE INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE ......................................8 FIGURE 3.1.2-CITY-WIDE AVERAGE INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME .................................8 FIGURE 3.1.2-CITY-WIDE AVERAGE INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME .................................9 FIGURE 3.2.3-CITY-WIDE AVERAGE INTERSECTION CONTROL DELAY........................................9 FIGURE 3.2.4-CITY-WIDE AVERAGE DAILY CORRIDOR VOLUME..............................................10 FIGURE 3.2.5-CITY-WIDE CORRIDOR DELAY PER MILE.............................................................1 I EQUATION 3.3.1 -HOURLY COST OF DELAY CALCULATION.......................................................12 EQUATION 3.3.2-ANNUAL COST OF PEAK HOUR DELAY CALCULATION...................................12 TABLE 3.3.3-CUMULATIVE ANNUAL PEAK HOUR DELAY COST................................................13 TABLE 5.1.1 -COMPLETED CONGESTION RELIEF PROJECTS,08'/09' .........................................16 TABLE 6.1.1 -ARTERIAL/ARTERIAL INTERSECTION RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................18 TABLE 6.1.2-ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR INTERSECTION RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................23 TABLE 6.2.1 -ARTERIAL CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................29 11 13 ATTACHMENT `! 2008/09 uepoRt Acknowleociements City Council Dave Romero, Mayor Allen Settle, Vice Mayor Andrew Carter Jan Howell Marx John Ashbaugh City Administration Ken Hampian, City Manager Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Manager Public Works Department Jay Walter, Public Works Director Timothy S. Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works Jake Hudson, Senior Traffic Engineer Chris Overby, Engineer II—Traffic Matt Crisp, Engineer II - Traffic Bryan Wheeler—Transportation Assistant Mateo Echabame—Transportation Intern Jessie Holzer—Transportation Intern Contributing Staff Peggy Mandeville, Senior Transportation Planner Kevin Christian, Bicycle Coordinator Robert Horch, Parking Services Manager B� _ 6 ATTACHMENT A messace fRom the puBUc woRks aepaatment Welcome to the inaugural edition of the City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works Department's Biennial Traffic Operations Report. Traffic congestion relief continues to be a priority of the community and in 2009 this goal was once again adopted as a major Council Goal. This biennial traffic operations program will become one of the City's primary tools for identifying highly congested locations and pursuing corrective measures that will reduce traffic congestion and improve the overall quality of life for our citizens. Much like the annual Traffic Safety Report the intent of the Biennial traffic operations report is to analyze the City's primary intersections and corridors, identifying and ranking the highest congested locations, implement measures to relieve congestion, and improving traffic flow and quality of life for the general public. Unfortunately, little historical data has been recorded for City wide congestion levels. The first year an average citywide intersection delay was calculated was in 2006 which was 13.6 seconds. From 2006/07 to 2008/09 citywide intersection delay increased overall by approximately 9%. Historical citywide traffic volumes on the other hand have been documented quite well, from 1999 to 2007 average peak hour volumes have increased by approximately 4.5% per year. Through this new program the City hopes to slow or reverse this congestion trend. I would like to thank Tim Bochum, Jake Hudson, Chris Overby, Matt Crisp, Bryan Wheeler, Mateo Echabarne, Jessie Holzer and other members of the Public Works Department for their initiative and efforts in compiling the necessary information and preparing this report. Sincerely, Jay Walter Public Works Director 1 ATTACHMENT executive SUMMARY In December 2008, the City initiated its first comprehensive traffic operations program aimed at reducing traffic congestion at the most congested locations in the City. The intent of the program is to biennially review City Streets and intersections to establish benchmarks for efficiency and to determine what locations should receive priority for improvements. The program concentrates on identifying intersections and roadway segments which are experiencing high levels of delay and then prioritizing these locations based upon vehicle delay during peak hour periods. Intersection and segment operations are then evaluated using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies in conjunction with operations simulation utilizing Synchro/SimTraffic. These analyses will occur biennially based on traffic counts, the City-wide traffic model, and other studies. It is hoped that annual report cards ca be developed to inform the council and community on effectiveness of our traffic system and what can be done to improve it. Mitigation measures for problematic locations for calendar years.2008/09 has been identified and is summarized in this report. The Biennial Traff c Operations Report will be prepared every other year following a biennial City-wide data collection project. The report will review and report on City traffic operations in order to reduce traffic delay, improve traffic safety, and maintain adequate levels of service for our City residents, business owners and visitors. This report does not include an analysis of State Highways within the City (Hwy 101, Hwy 1, & Hwy 227) at this time. Depending on the cooperation of CalTrans, an analysis of these facilities are planned to be included in future reports. Although traffic volume trends differ from area to area within the City (with some corridors experiencing volume reductions while others are experiencing volume increases) overall city wide traffic volumes and congestion levels have risen over the years as development within and adjacent to the City occurs or vehicle miles traveled was increased. In order to put our new tracking criteria into terms the public can relate to we have focused on three statistics: peak hour volumes, citywide daily volumes, and peak hour intersection delay. These values are calculated by averaging benchmark intersections and segments throughout the City. In 2006 the average peak hour volume (APHV) for arterial intersections was approximately 1,715. From 2006 that average citywide peak hour volume increased by 9% to 1,863 in 2008. The average citywide daily volume (ADV)for arterial segments was 15,976 in 2006, which rose by 2% to 16,315 in 2008. The primary measure of congestion, average citywide peak hour delay (APHD) for intersections was approximately 13.6 seconds in 2006, which rose by 8% to 14.8 seconds in 2008. On average citywide peak hour traffic has been increasing by approximately 4.5% annually and citywide daily traffic has been increasing by approximately 1% annually. Traffic congestion has been increasing by approximately 4% annually. 2 13S ' 8 ATTACHMENT. Section l intRoauction I A How to Use this Report Every two years the City of San Luis Obispo will prepare a Biennial Traffic Operations Report for the previous 24 month period in order to: ➢ Identify and track traffic volume and congestion trends, ➢ Determine the locations within the City that have the highest levels of congestion in comparison to similar locations, and ➢ Identify if mitigation strategies should be considered for these congested locations, and if so, what the strategies should be, and ➢ Evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures implemented in the previous 24 month period. This report is generated in conjunction with the City's Biennial City-wide traffic count program, which typically occurs in the fall and winter every other year. The specific values identified in this report are a function of various factors which are intended to provide guidance for implementing congestion reduction measures. Some of these factors are often beyond the ability of the engineer to change or control, however the City's mitigation program attempts to identify elements that can be modified to make travel within the City more efficient. Congestion patterns may fluctuate annually as infrastructure construction, development, transportation system improvements, and changing transportation demands result in different transportation patterns. This report will identify locations that fall above other similar City locations and propose mitigation measures, if necessary to improve traffic flow. It is expected some locations within the City will continually experience higher or lower levels of congestion in comparison to others based on surrounding land uses and/or their function within the City's circulation system. This report looks to identify and rank improvements at locations compared with other similar locations. For example intersections of two arterial segments will be ranked relative to each other for improvements. The intersections of two collector streets will be ranked relative to each other for improvements. Overall, since this is the first ever Traffic Operations Report developed by the City there are a lot of issues that will need future focus to improve the report to be an effective tool for establishing congestion mitigations and projects. The primary objectives of a congestion management program are to: • Identify how much congestion we experience • How bad is the congestion and where dowe want to be in the future • How doe we Achieve the appropriate levels of congestion, Establishing the Citywide objectives for congfestion levels will be a significant future effort as we gain additional experience in the tracking and reporting of operational benchmarks for the City. While the Circulation Element establishes Level Of Service thresholds for intersection 3 b6- - 9 ATTACHMENT monitoring and program determination (this report has a summarizes LOS for City intersections) additional congestion factors should be developed as the program gains momentum and roads under Caltrans jurisdiction is added to the report. The concept of intersection delay and corridor travel time delay are understandable to most members of the public, but establishing the actual benchmark goal for the City of San Luis Obispo will be difficult since overall congestion levels in the City are relatively low when compared to larger, more urban locations. A significant issue that will be undertaken as we prepare the next Traffic Operations Report will be to recommend appropriate delay level benchmarks that we can then use to report systemwide performance and respond to citizen requests. These undertakings will likely coindide with the strategic update of the Circulation Element that would then be able to incorporate these objectives as measuring tools for the circulation system. 4 �3s - !0 ATTACHMENT section 2 sackquounOo 2.1 Study Objectives The objective of the Biennial Traffic Operations Report is to identify congested areas in the City and track the improvements made through annual operations improvements. This report .along with the Annual Traffic Safety Report will be used to improve the safety and efficiency of the City's transportation network. The specific objectives of the 2008 Biennial Traffic Operations Report are as follows: • Establish a baseline for comparing future intersections and roadway segments, • Identify the intersections and segments with the most congestion and thoroughly analyze the traffic data so effective mitigation strategies can be developed to reduce congestion at the five most impacted locations, and • Report on the operational improvements made during the previous twelve-month period based on improvements identified by both City staff and the general public. 2.2 Study Methodology Operations reports, such as the Annual Traffic Operations Report, have typically been the product of state departments of transportation (DOTS) and major metropolitan areas. However, as congestion increases, small and mid-sized public agencies are looking for ways to effectively and efficiently improve their transportation system. Because of its relatively small size, the City of San Luis Obispo has different infrastructure and facilities compared to the larger agencies that have been producing operations reports. Therefore, methods for effectively measuring, evaluating, and comparing traffic operations had to be identified. This section describes how traffic congestion will be measured, evaluated, and locations compared to each other to determine the most congested areas and subsequently those requiring mitigation. Ranking System A series of Traffic Operations Performance Measures have been identified to evaluate congestion in San Luis Obispo. The various performance measures will allow intersections and roadway segments to be evaluated individually and compared to other similar facilities in the City. The following is a brief description of each performance and how it will be measured: Average Intersection Control Delay Average intersection control delay is the primary value for measuring the performance of an intersection. Average intersection control delay identifies the average delay resulting from traffic control (i.e. a traffic signal or stop sign) a motorist experiences while traversing an intersection. The average control delay provides a good measure for comparing intersections because in calculating the average intersection control delay the volume of traffic is factored into the equation. Therefore, locations where more vehicles experience significant delay will score higher than locations where fewer vehicles experience delay. 5 ATTACHMENT HCM methodology and the Synchro/SimTraffic traffic operations simulation software package will be used to calculate average intersection control delay. Intersection Level of Service(LOS) Intersection Level of Service is the standard measure used by most agencies to evaluate intersection operations. Level of service is a letter rating system corresponding to intersection delay—LOS A corresponds to free flow traffic and LOS F indicates extreme congestion. The typical methodology for measuring LOS is from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The City uses Synchro software to calculate LOS using the HCM method. Table 2.1 summarizes the LOS letter rating system based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Table 2.2.1 Level of Service Rating System LOS Signalized Intersections LOS Un-Signalized Intersections LOS Control Delay per LOS Average Control Delay Vehicle s/veh s/veh A < 10 A 0-10 B > 10-20 B > 10-15 C >20-35 C > 15-25 D >35-55 D >25-35 E >55-80 E >35-50 F > 80 F >50 Corridor Travel Time and Delay Corridor delay per mile is the primary value for measuring the performance of a corridor. Corridor delay per mile identifies the amount of delay a motorist experiences while traversing a corridor. Corridor travel time and delay provide good measures of how much congestion impacts travel around San Luis Obispo. This performance measure evaluates how long it typically takes drivers to travel along a corridor during peak periods. Peak period travel times will be compared to free-flow travel times along the corridor to evaluate the delay for specific pre- defined corridor segments. Corridor travel times will be directly measured biennially during the am and pm peak periods in addition to free flow conditions. Corridor travel times during peak periods are compared to free-flow conditions, the difference between the peak period(s) travel time and the free-flow travel time is the peak period corridor delay. In order to compare corridor delay to other corridors, the corridor delay will be divided by the length of the corridor to establish a measure of the delay per mile traveled along the corridor. Locations with more delay per mile traveled will be identified as requiring mitigation before locations with less delay per mile traveled along the corridor. Equation 2.2.2 shows the corridor delay calculations. These results will be analyzed using the traffic operations simulation software package Synchro/SimTraffic and evaluated for potential congestion relief measures. Equation 2.2.2–Corridor Delay Calculations 6 ATTACHMENT Peak Period Travel Time—Free Flow Travel Time=Average Corridor Delay Average Corridor Delay/Corridor Length (Miles) = Average Corridor Delay/Mile Corridor Level of Service(LOS) Corridor Level of Service is the standard measure used by most agencies to evaluate corridor operations. Level of service is a letter rating system corresponding to the percent capacity of the corridor — LOS A corresponds to free flow traffic and LOS F indicates extreme congestion. The typical methodology for measuring LOS is from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The City uses Synchro software to calculate LOS using the HCM method. Table 2.2.3 summarizes the LOS letter rating system based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Table 2.23 Segment Level of Service LOS Street Segments LOS Volume per Capacity (V/Q A 0-.5 B .5-.749 C .750-.999 D 1-1.249 E 1.250-1.599 F 1.600+ Volume/Capacity Ratio Volume/capacity (v/c) ratio measures how close an intersection or intersection approach is to capacity. In addition to being an effective tool to compare locations, this measure also provides insight to what type of improvements should be considered and what their benefit might be to the transportation system. Volume/capacity ratios will be evaluated with observed traffic volumes and roadway conditions using the HCM methodology. The intersection v/c ratios will be compared to other similar intersections to determine which locations are most suited for improvements. Locations with a higher v/c ratio will be identified as requiring mitigation before those with lower v/c ratios. The approach v/c ratios will be used to help identify mitigation strategies. Establishing Benchmarks for Svstem Performance For this initial report, Level Of Service calculations as outlined in the existing Circulation Elelement have been used primarily as a system reporting tool. As discussed previously, it will be important to establish specific delay objectives for our circulation system, in tandem with other congestion reduction techniques to appropriate track congestion levels and mitigation program recommendations. 7 13� - t3 ATTACHMENT section 3 city-wide opeuations statistics 3.1 City-wide Operations Trends Overall traffic operations are most easily summed up by identifying the number or percentage of facilities operating within each level of service classification. Other measures such as overall travel time or delay may not accurately account for varied speed limits, different operating parameters in certain areas of the City, such as downtown, or trip lengths. Figure 3.1 summarizes the levels of service for all of the intersections evaluated as part of this report (Appendices 1-2). Intersections were included in the analysis based on their functional classification. City-wide average intersection control delay data is presented in Figure 3.3. Figure 3.1.1 —2008/09 City-wide Intersection Levels of Service 1% �s Z 0 p E F C 16% A 47% B 30% NOTE: Approximately 6%of the intersections fall below City Circulation Element Thresholds 8 3� _ ' q ATTACHMENT Figure 3.1.2—City-wide Average Peak Hour Intersection Volume ® 2000 E j 1900 -----1863 C 0 COD 1800 1715 1700 S m 1600 - IL m a 1500 2006 2008 Year Figure 3.1.2 summarizes average City-wide peak hour volume trends. Peak hour intersection volumes are averaged across benchmark intersections to provide a comparative number to consider for overall use of available capacity. The average peak hour intersection volume in 2006/07 was 1715, in 2008/09 the average intersection volume increased by 9%to 1863. While these numbers are quantitative, they can not be used as a pure system benchmark since the addition of new intersections, developments, or streets could effect the average calculations and not reflect changes at individual locations. They should be considered only as an overall system summary tool and not and indicator of congestion conditions on City streets. Figure 3.2.3—City-wide Average Peak Hour Intersection Delay 15 - 14.8 - _ 14.75 14.6 14.4 14.2 14 - 13.8 13.57 13.6 13.4 - 13.2 13 12.8 . - 2006 2008 Average Control Delay (Sec) 9 B5 � � � A6 TACHMENT Figure 3.2.3 summarizes average City-wide intersection control delay. Control delay is estimated based on intersection volumes and operational parameters then validated with field observations. The control delay estimates are averaged across benchmark intersections to provide the value in Figure 3.2.3. The average intersection control delay in 2006/07 was 13.57 seconds, in 2008/09 the average intersection control delay increased by 9% to 14.75 seconds. Unlike the intersection average calculations, the average delay of all intersections gives us a good idea of the operations of all intersectiuons within the City with an overall average delay of 14.75 seconds reflecting most intersections operate at or better than LOS C. Figure 3.2.4—City-wide Average Daily Corridor Volume 17000 m 16500 0 16315 D 15976 16000 - 0 T is G 15500 m a 15000 2006 2008 Year Figure 3.2.4 summarizes average City-wide corridor volume trends. Corridor volumes are averaged across benchmark segments to provide the values indicated in Figure 3.2.4. The average city-wide daily corridor volume in 2006/07 was 15,976, in 2008/09 the average intersection volume increased by 2% to 16,315. Similar to average intersection volumes, the average daily corridor volumes should only be used as an overall summary tool when comparing annual trends. The creation of new roadways or developments could effect these averages and not actually represent physical deficiencies in the roadway corridsors or operational effectiveness. 10 S t6 ATTACHMENT Figure 3.2.5—City-wide Average Daily Corridor Delay 41.2 - 41.0 41.0 - 40.8 - 40.6 - 40.4 - 40.2 1.040.840.640.440.2 m 40.2 D 40.0 39.8 39.6 2006 2008 Figure 3.2.5 summarizes average City-wide corridor delay per mile. Corridor delay per miles is averaged across benchmark corridors to provide the value in Figure 3.2.5. The average corridor delay per mile in 2006/07 was 40.2 seconds, in 2008/09 the average corridor delay per mile increased by 4%to 41.0 seconds. To understand these delays, one should understand that the ideal flow would be an "off peak" time that someone uses an intersection or corridor and what that running time would be. When you compare this ideal time to the peak times, you can establish the overall delay (congestion) that one experiences in the peak times. While these delays may seem innocuous at first, when comparing them to free flow conditions, they represent a 10-15 MPH reduction in running speed for motorists along the circulation system and if perceived as too much, drivers may choose to seek alternative routes that include neighborhood intrusion or cut through. Finally, when State controlled intersections and corridors are added to the TOR it is likely that this average delay will change since these corridors represent the highest daily volumes streets and yet highest speed corridors in the City. 3.2 Comparison with Other Agencies The City of San Luis Obispo is one of the few small city agencies (under 100,000 population) that are proactively analyzing their traffic congestion statistics. The only other agencies found to be conducting similar studies were state departments of transportation (DOTs) and major municipalities. These large agencies primarily focus on operations of highways and freeways; therefore it is difficult to compare the operation of San Luis Obispo's roadways to these other agencies. Annually, the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) releases an Annual Urban Mobility Report that medium, large and very large urban areas that have populations that range from 100,000 to 11 �� - 17 ATTACHMENT over 1,000,000. Therefore, it is highly difficult to do a direct comparison of our City statistics .. to other comparable agencies. We can report at the individual project or intersection location level very similar to what all agencies do. However, trying to map our system statistics to other larger agencies, or similar agencies that only estimate their operational styatistics, could give false comparisons. As part of the next Traffic Operations Report, additional effort will be spent trying to establish a comparable jurisdictional pool that we can measure our effectiveness in both operations and congestion. 3.3 Economic Analysis An economic analysis can be used to identify the fiscal impact of congestion to the City of San Luis Obispo. This information can also be used to evaluate the potential benefits of proposed congestion mitigation strategies versus the cost to implement the mitigation. Two primary factors were identified as being relevant to calculating the cost of delay: lost productivity and additional fuel costs. In order to establish an average cost of delay, the average salary of San Luis Obispo residents and the average cost of gas were identified for the evaluation year. For 2008/09, the average annual salary in San Luis Obispo was $35,000, which equates to approximately $16.85/hour. An idling car consumes approximately one gallon of gasoline per hour. For 2008 the average cost of a gallon of gas was $3.50/gallon. This translates to an average cost of$3.50/hour for an idling car. Based on these figures the cumulative cost of congestion related delay for 2008/09 is approximately $20.35/hour. Equation 3.3.1 displays the calculation for the hourly cost of delay. Equation 3.3.1 —Hourly Cost of Delay Calculation Average Hourly Salary+ Hourly Cost of Idling Car=Hourly Cost of Delay $16.85/hour+ $3.50/hour= $20.35/hour This hourly cost is comparable to numbers used by other agencies around the state and is slightly higher than other areas of the country primarily due to the price of fuel. In order to compute the cost of delay for a corridor, it is necessary to identify the average delay motorist experiences along a corridor then calculate the cumulative delay experienced by all motorists daily and annually. Equation 3.3.2 shows how the annual cost of delay is calculated for a corridor. Table 3.3.3 summarizes the cumulative annual cost trends experienced by San Luis Obispo motorists along the City's major corridors. Equation 33.2—Annual Cost of Peak Hour Delay Calculation 250 (approximate number of working days/year) * $20.35/hour (hourly cost of delay) Average Delay/vehicle/day (hours) * Average Peak Hour Traffic Volume = Annual Cost of Peak Hour Delay. 12 3s _� s J ATTACHMENT Table 3.3.3—Cumulative Annual Peak Hour Delay Cost $2.0 - 0 2.0 _o E o _ _ w0 $1.8 ---- _ $1.5 g $1.5 -- p1 to m v $1.3 m $1.3 7 D E U $1.0 2006 2008 Year Note:All years adjusted to 2008 Dollars 2006 Calculation:250x 20.35 x AD/V/D x APHV=AC=$1.3 Million 2008 Calculation:250 x 20.35 x AD/V/D x APHV=AC=$1.5 Million While the dollar amounts identified in Table 3.3.3 do not equate to tangible monetary cost, this value does represent an order of magnitude for impacts to quality of life. It is important to note that this amount only reflects costs associated with one peak and only City controlled intersections. The total cost to City roadways users is likely quite a bit higher when calculated for the full day and when the State controlled roadways are included. As shown, the cumulative economic cost associated with citywide peak hour delay in 2006/07 was approximately 1.3 million dollars and rose by 15%to 1.5 million dollars in 2008/09. 13 `J ATTACHMENT section 4 city WAffic manacement system 4.1 QuicNet Traffic Management System The City Public Works Department currently manages, operates, & maintains 57 traffic signals, 3 actuated lighted crosswalks, 2 flashing beacon systems, and 4 active speed feed back display signs in addition to the computer systems and communications networks necessary to operate them. All 57 traffic signals are currently operated from an advanced traffic management system (ATMS) called QuicNet, which allows for the City's entire traffic signal system to be monitored and optimized from a central site. The essential functions of QuicNet are maintaining and implementing signal timing and operational parameters, emergency vehicle access provisions, equipment failure alarms, remote monitoring, and logging of operations. In 2009 a major upgrade to the system was completed to ensure compatibility with newer signal equipment and to provide a higher level of service from a maintenance and operations standpoint. LLurcl@t NU6 Wt UtY N San Lim Ub6pe —__—_ _ �.'i '6'a Ett .+e., rp fee-�s IY-Imx L� Rcea-s LAS d l � /i Cl:>D4G� AOGiY.46�' tvcu[tbnRMn city of san Luis oeispo tnaEpc minacement system rr 1, O AlamoPIC 44n.Iu.Vllx4♦.W.n.._.Y..xYw. _.. �. Oowntowln u _ U F, W a f_. I!sartnl:. •n�t: ate, rc.. i S' i .. _� 0. 6 Also in 2009 the City began installing equipment which would allow remote monitoring of video vehicle detection feeds from within the QuicNet system. Remote monitoring of these video feeds facilitates a higher level of efficiency in signal maintenance, timing, operations, and incident management. Future improvements to the system may include incorporation of lighted crosswalks, flashing beacon systems, and active speed feedback signs for the purposes of remote operations &monitoring. 14 ATTACHMENT 4.2 Traffic Signal Inventory LOCATION AGENCY I LOCATION AGENCY LOCATION AGENCY Califomia&Foothill SLO City Osos&Pismo SLO City LOUR&US 101 NB Carrrans Broad/Chcrro&Foothill SLO City Buchon&Osos SLO City LOVR&HvVY 101 SB Carman, Foothill&Tassajam SLO City Johnson&San Luis SLO Ck Hi uera&Madonna 22 Carrraris Foothill &Patri cia SLO City Johnson&L®e SLO City Hi era&South 22 Carrrans Califomi a&M II SLO City Bishop&Johnson SLO C' ]South&Broad 22 CalTrans MII&Santa Rosa SLO City Johnson&Laurel SLO City Ora.2&Broad 22 Carrrans Palm&Santa Rosa SLO Citv Hi MPismo&Hi h SLO City Tank Farm&Brad Carrrans Chorro&Palm SLO City Fi uera&Marsh SLO cRY7 Aero vista&Broad 22 Carrrans Grand&Monterey SLO City El Mercado&Madonna SLO City Buckley&Broad Carrrans Califomia&Monterey SLS atv Dalidio&Madonna SLO City Highland&Santa Rosa 1 Carrrans Johnson&Monterey SLO Citv Madonna&Ocearaire SLOCityl Foothill&Santa Rosa 1 Carrrans Monterey&Santa Rosa SLO City LOVR&Madonna SLOCityl lMurray&Santa Rosa 1 Carrrans rvbnterey&Osos SLO City LOUR&Royal SLO C ( ire&Santa Rosa 1 C,alTrans Nbnterey&Morro SLO City LOVR&Laguna SLO C4 Walnut&Santa Rosa(1) Cafrrans Chorro&Monterey SLO City LOUR&Descanso SLO City Fligiera&Santa Rosa SLO City Fi uera&Margarita SLO City Hqjera&Osos SLO atv Fi uera&Prado SLO City ftera&Morro SLO City Fi uera&Tank Farm SLO City Flicuera&Suburban SLO City Hi uera&LOVR SLO City Chorro&Hi era SLO City I jSarta Barbara&Upham SLO City I Broad&Hi uera SLO City Broad&Pismo SLO City Fiquera&Nipomo SLO(S Broad&Buchon SLO City Johnson&Marsh SLO City Broad&Pacific SLO C' Marsh&Santa Rosa SLO City Calle Joaquin&LOVR SLO City Marsh&Osos SLO City Hi uera&Granada SLO CitV Marsh&Morro SLO City Johnson&Ell a SLO City Chorro&Marsh SLO CStv Laireal&OraA. SLO City Broad&Marsh SLO 0 lGrand&HWY 101 NB Carrrans Marsh&Ni mo SLO C1I Madonna&HWY 101 NB Carrrans Froom&LOVR I Madonna&HW(101 SB Carrrans; 15 / ATTACHMENT section 5 opeRAtlons Impuovements 5.1 Completed Operations Projects, 2008/09 Every year the City implements traffic operation improvement projects funded from the CIP. Some of these projects origionalte in the traffic safety program but also serve as operational improvements for the circulation system. These projects have been completed independently or as part of another City project. Table 5.1.1 summarizes notable traffic operations projects completed in between 2008 and early 2009. Table 5.1.1 —Completed Congestion Relief& Safety Projects,2008/09 TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING Year Location Improvement Cost/Method 2008 Johnson (Bishop-San Luis Drive) Optimized Cooridor Coordination Staff Time 2008 Johnson & Bishop Optimized Cycle Lengths &Splits Staff Time 2008 Johnson & Ella New Cycle Length &Splits Staff Time 2008 Johnson & Lizzie Optimized Cycle Lengths& Splits Staff Time 2008 Johnson &San Luis Drive Optimized Cycle Lengths &Splits Staff Time 2008 Johnson (Marsh -Monterey) Converted from Coordination to Free Staff Time 2008 Johnson & Monterey Optimized Cycle Lengths&Splits Staff Time 2008 Morro& Upham New Bicycle Phase Timing Staff Time 2008 Madonna & LOVR Optimized Cycle Lengths&Splits Staff Time 2008 LOVR & Calle Joaquin New Cycle Length, Splits, &Coordination Staff Time 2008 Higuera &Granada New Cycle Length &Splits Staff Time 2008 Broad & Buchon New Detection Timing Staff Time 2008 Broad & Pismo New Detection Timing Staff Time 2009 Madonna (LOVR - EI Mercado) Improved Ped Clearance Timing Staff Time 2009 LOVR (Descanso- Higuera) Improved Ped Clearance Timing Staff Time 2009 Marsh &Santa Rosa New Detection Timing Staff Time 2009 Marsh &Osos New Detection Timing Staff Time 2009 California & Foothill Optimized Cycle Lengths&Splits Staff Time 2009 Madonna & LOVR Optimized Cycle Lengths& Splits Staff Time TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS &UPGRADES Year Location Improvement Cost/Method 2008 Johnson & Ella New Signal Installation $200,000 2008 Higuera & Granada New Signal Installation $140,000 2008 Marsh & Santa Rosa Complete Signal Reconstruction $165,000 2008 Johnson & Marsh Video Detection Installation $25,000 2008 Higuera & Nipomo Pedestrian Indication Installation $9,000 2008 Marsh & Nipomo Pedestrian Indication Installation $9,000 2009 Marsh &Osos Complete Signal Reconstruction $177,000 CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS Year Location Improvement Cost/Method 2008 LOVR (101 SB Ramp- 101 NB Ramp) Lane Reconfig. -added#2 WB lane Co-Op CT 2009 Monterey& Buena Vista/Garfield Reconfigured Inter. as part of safety project $362,450 DEMAND REDUCTION PROJECTS Year Location Improvement Cost/Method 2008 Morro & Upham Bicycle Detection & Indication Installation $15,000 2009 Marsh Street/Hwy 101 Interchange Installed New Ped. Connection Grant 2009 Citywide Completed Phases of RR Safety Trail Grant 16 3s' —aa- ATTACHMENT section 6 2008/09 opeRatlonal evaluations 6.1 Intersection Prioritization Methodology Intersection level of service designations (i.e. LOS C, LOS D, LOS E, and LOS F) are a function of an intersection's control delay. Intersections will be prioritized based on their LOS and subsequently their average intersection control delay. It is likely several intersections will have the same LOS; however an intersection's control delay is a more accurate measure of performance. Intersections will be evaluated in the following functional classification categories: • Arterial/Arterial • Arterial./Collector The five most congested intersections in each category will be identified and prioritized for mitigation. The first screening will involve evaluation of intersection control delay. If there are intersections within the top five of any category which are currently operating at maximum capacity under optimum operational parameters and all feasible operational improvements are in place, the next ranked intersections will be considered. Intersection control delay will be used to determine the prioritization of locations, in addition v/c ratios will be considered during ranking and prioritization. Tables 6.1.1 through 6.1.2 summarize the most congested five intersection locations in each of the functional classification categories identified above. The appendices contain the specific intersection information as follows: • (Appendix 1) -Arterial/Arterial Intersections • (Appendix 2) -Arterial/Collector Intersections 17 ATTACHMENT Table 6.1.1 -Arterial/Arterial Intersection Recommendations HIGUERA & LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD RANK CONTROL TYPE —` -•`+- - - - -- 1 SIGNAL PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION DELAY Seconds YEAR NB SB WB EB 110VERALL11 LOS 2008 25s 105s 0 31s 72s E '> ' 2006 15s 85s 0 23s 61s Ei�-_ % 7 rpt PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUME ��'�, �•,'�, �' . '"`� YEAR NB SB WB EB TOTAL TIMEL 2008 1 370 1658 0 929 2957 5-6PM =`; A � 2006 211 1335 0 647 2193 45 P M " i• 1 DAILY INTERSECTION VOLUME YEAR NB SB WB EB TOTAL f ' 2008 2896 12058 0 10532 25485 2006 2770 9265 0 1100511 23041 tom`r`hs COMMENTS EB LOVR left turn onto NB Higuera volume exceeds current storage capacity and causes excessive delay. The #2 EB left turn lane queues beyond the #1 EB Left tum lane occluding it from access. SB right turn lane from Higuera queues back from intersection. There is a lack of bicycle channelization thru intersection, without bike slots. RECOMMENDATIONS NEAR TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: 67%- LOS C Reconfigure EB LOVR approach striping to accommodate two EB lanes both terminating into left turn pockets with a separate right turn pocket and bicyle slot and adjust overall signal cycle lenth and green times for new configuration and to provide gaps for improved access to Los Verdes Park driveways. Install bike slot on SB approach. Continue to monitor. MID TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: 5% -LOS C As part of LOVR Interchange Project, reduce the LOVR median width at Higuera Street to accommodate a longer left turn lane and modify the two LOVR approach lanes such that they terminate into the dual left turn lanes. Continue to monitor. LONG TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: N/A Continue to monitor. 18 �� —a 4 MADONNA & LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD RANK CONTROL TYPE – —— ��_• 2 SIGNAL :_ . ✓' PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION DELAY Seconds YEAR NB SB WB EB OVERALL LOS 2008 66s 89s 64s 47s 71s 11 E 2006 56s 80s 63s 42s 66s E f PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUME i YEAR NB SB WB EB TOTAL I I TIME 2008 228 853 1059 95511 3095 11 5-6 PM -'. 2006 193 767 1047 852 11 2859 11 4-5 P M DAILY INTERSECTION VOLUME YEAR NB SB1NB EB11 TOTAL 2008 3000 10659 11825 11105 36589 2006 2778 9740 12151 1449611 39166 � :11 ' COMMENTS SB Madonna peak hour volume is near capacity. WB & EB Los Osos Valley Road peak hour volumes are currently at capacity causing excessive delay. The EB Los Osos Valley Road departure lane configuration contributes to a minor lane imbalance for the SB Madonna left turn lanes. RECOMMENDATIONS NEAR TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: 9% -LOS E Modify EB Los Osos Valley departure lanes such that lanes #1 & #2 transition into lanes#2 & #3 where third lane becomes available. Continue to monitor. MID TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: 20% -LOS D As part of the Prefiuno Creek Commons project mitigation widen WB Los Osos Valley along of Fire Station property frontage and modify WB Los Osos Valley road departure lanes to accommodate three WB thru lanes and allocate additional green time back to SB Madonna approach in front of Laguna Village Shopping Center. Continue to monitor. LONG TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: 30%- LOS C Complete Froom Ranch Way connection to Dalidio and as part of Circulation Element update evaluate widening of SB Madonna along Fire Station property frontage to accommodate dual left, single thru, and dual right turn lanes. Continue to monitor. 19 ATTACHMENT HIGUERA & TANK FARM RANK CONTROL TYPE 3 SIGNAL '? PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION DELAY Seconds r �v YEAR NB SB WB EB 110VERALL11 LOS 2008 26s 30s 38s 57s 11 31s C 2006 24s 24s 34s 56s 28s C PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUME YEAR I NB SB WB EB TOTAL TIME 2008 11024 1006 1056 45 3131 5-6 PM Jr � - -- _ 2006 919 808 933 28 11 2688 5-6 P DAILY INTERSECTION VOLUME fI ! w YEAR NB SB WB EB TOTAL 2008 10289 8596 9333 350 28568 2006 10665 9104 10170 350 30289 COMMENTS Intersection level of service is within City thresholds. Signal cycle length is longer than necessary for total intersection volume causing a moderate level of delay for EB vehicles exiting Creek Side Mobile Home Park & NB left turning vehicle entering Creek Side Mobile Home Park. Minor signal timing adjustments should be made. RECOMMENDATIONS NEAR TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: 10% - LOS C Reduce overall traffic signal cycle length and optimize green times to be consistent with the current volume of traffic. Continue to monitor. MID TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD Continue to monitor. LONG TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD Continue to monitor. 20 ATTAciiMENT MONTEREY& CALIFORNIA RANK CONTROL TYPE ��-- 4 SIGNAL e_ PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION DELAY Seconds s ;y YEAR NB SB WB EB 110VERALL11 LOS 2008 28s 19s 44s 31s 32s C IAL_ 2006 26s 16s 43s 28s 28s C Ab PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUME ' YEAR NB SB WB EB TOTAL TIME 2008 667 597 627 841 2732 8-9 AM Y 2006 610 470 607 780 2467 8-9 AM DAILY INTERSECTION VOLUME YEAR NB SB WB EB TOTAL i* 2008 1 5969 5520 7111 6948 25548 i 2006 6413 4336 7370 6381 245M COMMENTS Intersection level of service is within City thresholds. Signal timing is not optimized for current volumes and AM peak hour EB & WB thru volume exceeds current lane capacity. Traffic generated by San Luis High School contributes to a significant 10-15 min volume spike within the AM peak hour, which is the primary cause for AM congestion. Signal timing should be adjusted to be consistent with peak hour volumes. RECOMMENDATIONS NEAR TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: 15%-LOS C Optimize traffic signal cycle length and green times for AM peak hour and initiate discussions and negotiations with San Luis High School and San Luis Unified School District to pursue some form of travel demand reduction strategy. Continue to monitor. MID TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD Continue to monitor. LONG TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD As part of Circulation element update conduct assessment of potential on-street parking removal needs along the WB & EB Monterey approaches inorder to accommodate additional lane capacity. Continue to monitor. 21 �!)�-a7 ATTACHMENT J FOOTHILL & CALIFORNIA RANK CONTROL TYPE 5 SIGNAL • : ` PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION DELAY Seconds YEAR NB SB WB EB 110VERALL11 LOS 2008 30s 30s 47s 17s 27s C 2006 17s 15s 38s 13s 21s C PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUME YEAR NB SB WB EB TOTAL TIME 2008 647 489 272 817 2225 11 4-5 P M M"+ 2006 461 188 222 655 1526 4-5 PM ~• . DAILY INTERSECTION VOLUME • J YEAR NB SB WB EB TOTAL 2008 972D 5748 5010 9787 30266 2006 5252 4336 4120 9480 23188 COMMENTS Intersection level of service is within City thresholds. Traffic volume increases from 2006 to 2008 are primarily attributed to Cal Poly completing the California connection to Highland. NB California volumes exceed current lane capacity during PM peak hour. The NB & SB lane configuration forces the signal to operate in split phasing which increases overall cycle length. There is no advanced Railroad preempt to accommodate pedestrian clearance interval and existing Railroad preempt sequencing allows permissive movements towards tracks. RECOMMENDATIONS NEAR TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: 25%-LOS C (65%during RR preemption) As part of the Railroad Safety Trail phase 4a project, widen the NB approach to accommodate two left turn lanes & two thru lanes. Also widen the SB approach to accommodate one left turn lane, one thru lane, and one right turn lane. Reconstruction signal in coordination with roadway widening to accommodate bicycle phasing, eliminate split phasing, and allow for appropriate railroad preemption phasing. Continue to monitor. MID TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD Initiate communications with railroad to install advance preemption for appropriate pedestrian clearance during preemption. Continue to Monitor. LONG TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD As part of Circulation Element update evaluate long term potential for railroad grade separation. Continue to monitor. 22 ATTACHMENT Table 6.1.2—Arterial/Cotlector Intersection Recommendations OSOS & BUCHON RANK CONTROLTYPE 1 SIGNAL PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION DELAY Seconds }� z, YEAR I NB SB WB EB 11OVERALL11 LOS 2008 1127s 40s 13s 63s 77s E �^ '`,.� A�► 2006 88s 42s 13s 64s 54s E �. PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUME ' YEAR NB SB WB EB TOTAL TIME ` • 2008 889 726 457 191 2263 4-5 P M10 j 2006 540 900 445 195 2080 4-5 PM DAILY INTERSECTION VOLUMEj` YEAR NB SB M EB TOTAL 2008 5170 6315 1771 1459 14715 t ' 2006 3444 7844 1719 1491 14498 COMMENTS NB Osos volume exceeds current lane capacity during PM peak hour. Left turn from WB & EB Buchon occlude thru and right turn movements. Signal cycle not long enough for total intersection volume causing a excessive delay. RECOMMENDATIONS NEAR TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: 145% -LOS C Remove approximately 50'-75' of parking area on WB & EB Buchon approaches to accommodate one left turn lane and one shared thru/right tum lane. Optimize signal cycle length and green times to be consistent with current volume of traffic. Continue to monitor. MID TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD Continue to monitor. LONG TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD As part of Circulation element update conduct assessment of potential on-street parking removal needs along the NB & SB Osos approaches inorder to accommodate additional lane capacity. Continue to monitor. 23 AMCHMENT HIGUERA& PISMO/HIGH RANK CONTROL TYPE- --- -i 2 SIGNAL PEAKHOUR INTERSECTICN DELAY Seconds _ R YEAR NB SB M(HSMo) M(HGro DA/ERALL LOS 2008 25s 24s 84s 90s 45s D h r 2006 24s 25s 83s 90S 44S D PEAK HOUR NTERSECTION VOLUME r 1 t t YEAR I NB SB VO(Psrm) V1B(HGH)I I TOTAL TIME ` 2008 747 656 367 301 2071 4-5 PM 2006 730 716 406 239 2091 45 PM r• DAILY INTERSECTION VOE �., YEAR ( NB SB VVB(Pisan) \ NitroLUMTAL OTAL 2008 6461 6147 2409 2915 17932 2006 6315 6715 2669 2279 17978 ' Y _ c' COMMENTS Intersection level of service is within City thresholds. NB & SB Higuera volumes are near current lane capacity during the peak hour. WB High volume exceeds current lane capacity during PM peak hour. Private driveway approach requires significant setback of SB Higuera resulting in lost time for intersection clearance. Secondary phase for private driveway approach operates exclusively increasing overall cycle length and delay. RECOMMENDATIONS NEAR TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: 25% -LOS C Reconfigure striping to allow for one thru left and one right turn lane on WB High Street. Optimize signal cycle length and green times to reflect new configuration. Continue to monitor. MID TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: 63% -LOS C As part of Mid-Higuera Project upgrade signal equipment, controller, and timing to improve efficiency. If funding exisits, widen Higuera to accommodate 2 NB & SB lanes. LONG TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: 38% -LOS A As part of Circulation element update conduct assessment of area for potential of creating one-way couplet between High & Pismo inorder to eliminate minor sidestreet approach. 24 3G ATTACHMENT FOOTHILL & CHORRO RANK CONTROL TYPE 3 SIGNAL - tp _ PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION DELAY Seconds YEAR NB SB WB EB 110VERALL11 LOS 2008 28s 21s 46s 16s 11 31s 11 C - t 2006 26s 18s 48s 16s 29s C a _ PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUME: YEAR NB SB WB EB TOTAL TIME 2008 348 193 857 660 11 2068 4,45-5:45P 2006 1402 249 762 752 11 2165 4:45.5:45P e DAILY INTERSECTION VOLUME 4�^ ? YEAR NB SB WB EB TOTAL ' vZ�"' 2008 3988 1052 10062 10357 25459 2006 3956 3649 10848 8705 27158 COMMENTS Intersection level of service is within City thresholds. NB & SB Chorro volumes declined and WB Foothill volumes increased from 2006 to 2008 due to the installation of a median and left turn restriction at Highland & Chorro. This Intersection is operating at an acceptable level of service with a minor to moderate level of delay for EB Foothill left onto Chorro. Conditions do not warrant any specific improvements to this at this time. RECOMMENDATIONS NEAR TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD Continue to monitor EB Foothill left turn volumes and delays, make adjustments in signal timing as necessary. MID TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD Continue to monitor. LONG TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD Continue to monitor. 25 t3S_ 3d ATTACHMENT HIGUERA & SUBURBAN RANK CONTROL TYPE -Y � — , � �� 4 SIGNAL 4 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION DELAY Seconds ti :^: 0"* YEAR NB SB WB EB 11OVERALL11 LOS " 2008 1 10s 11s 66s NA 24s C 4 ? 2006 9s 10s 48s NA 19s C .' OTIN i PEAK HOUR WTERSECIION VOLUME , YEAR NB SB M EB TOTAL TIME 2008 11038 12M 742 NA 11 3013 56 2006 1892 1021 454 NA 2367 T 4:45.5:45P DAILY INTERSECTION VOLUME YEAR I NB SB WB EB TOTAL 2008 111282 10064 7000 NA 28346 2006 12016 9592 4000 NA 25608 COMMENTS WB Suburban volumes have increased due to new development along suburban road outside City limits. There is a moderate to high level of delay for the WB suburban approach. This delay is primarily due to the traffic signal cycle length being longer than necessary for total intersection volume. RECOMMENDATIONS NEAR TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: 40%-LOS B Reduce overall traffic signal cycle length and adjust green times as appropriate. Continue to monitor. MID TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD Continue to monitor. LONG TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD Continue to monitor. 26 �s_ 31 ATTACHMENT MADONNA & OCEANAIRE RANK CONTROLTYPE T� 5 SIGNAL100 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION DELAY Secornis YEAR I NB SB WB EB 110VERALL11 LOSS �' ,p ., t•, 2008 1 2s 12s 24s 25s I I C I I 23s 2006 2s 11s 20s 26s C 20s PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUME YEAR NB SB WB EB TOTAL TIME 2008 931 1404 173 52 2560 5.6 PM 2006 702 1294 140 64 2200 4:30-5:30P DAILY INTERSECTION VOLUME YEAR NB SB WB EB TOTAL 2008 11214 13166 1050 394 25824 r ' -r 2006 110858 12092 1226 403 24579 COMMENTS This intersection is operating at an acceptable level of service with a minor to moderate level of delay for EB & WB Madonna lefts onto Oceanaire. Delay is largely due to the configuration of the intersection which requires signalization of Madonna Frontage Road, ultimately increasing the overall cycle length. RECOMMENDATIONS NEAR TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD Continue to monitor EB & WB Madonna approaches, make adjustments in signal timing as necessary. MID TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD Continue to monitor. LONG TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD As part of circulation element update investigate neighborhood support and opporunities to implement a full closure one or both of the frontage roads at Oceanaire Drive to better serve the neighborhoods. Continue to monitor. 27 3s - 33 ATTACHMENT 6.2 Corridor Prioritization Methodology Corridors will be prioritized based on their delay per mile. The top five corridors in the arterial functional classification will be identified and subsequently considered for mitigation. The corridors will be prioritized based on the average vehicle delay per mile as identified in the Study Methodology section of this report. Table 6.2.1 summarizes the five most congested arterial corridors. 28 r35 - 3 '1 ATTACHMENT Table 6.2.1 —Arterial Corridor Recommendations CALIFORNIA (CAMPUS—TAFT) RANK CORRIDOR LENGTH FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION 1 0.46 MILES RESIDENTIAL ARTERIAL -6c 4i6 VTAF 7� A i�,AAJ Q 91 A E 0 PEAK HOUR SEGMENT TRAVEL TIME (Seconds) PEAK SEGMENT VOLUME YEAR INBIWBSB/EB DELAY/M111 V/C I LOS YEAR NI3/WB SB/EB 11 TOTAL TIME 2008 1 85s; 11 97s; 82s 11 0.781 C 2008 998 843 1841 4-5 pm 2006 65s 11 75s 6Bs 11 0.441 A 2006 471 567 11 1038 11 45 n— DAILY SEGMENT VOLUME YEAR NRIM SE1/E8 ,�TOTAL 1 2008 10844 8791 19635 2006 6259 5539 11798 COMMENTS Corridor currently operates within City thresholds. Corridor volumes have increased from 2006 to 2008 due to CalPoly completing the California connection to Highland Drive. California & Foothill Intersection volumes currently exceed lane capacity in PM peak, and lane configuration forces inefficient signal operations. Railroad preemption causes queuing along entire length of corridor and corridor capacity is currently at approximately 80% in peak hours. RECOMMENDATIONS NEAR TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: 10% (30%during RR preemption) As part of the Railroad Safety Trail phase 4a project, widen the NB approach to accommodate two left turn lanes & two thru lanes. Also widen the SB approach to accommodate one left turn lane, one thru lane, and one right turn lane. Reconstruction signal in coordination with roadway widening to accommodate bicycle phasing, eliminate split phasing, and allow for appropriate railroad preemption phasing. Continue to monitor. MID TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: 20% Assess potential for on-street parking removal along NB California to extend#2 NB travel lane from Hathway to Foothill, return to council with recorridnation if found necessary. Continue to Monitor. LONG TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD As part of Circulation Element update evaluate long term potential for railroad grade separation at Foothill & California. Continue to monitor. 29 B 5" ATTACHMENT 'I. M11 SANTA ROSA (WALNUT— PISMO) RANK CORRIDOR LENGTH FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION 2 0.53 MILES ARTERIAL _ T WALNUT r a r MON ERFY— — AR yn i� ? A��.� � _�� . w t _ �,� I�. C +- o 1 SANTA,ROSA ,'�3^ .R 1-`•" y""tT° 4R� *pro.: a, ' J �. HI tJ.E%v Y PEAK HOUR SEGMENT TRAVEL TIME Second PEAK SEGMENT VOLUME YEAR I NB/WB 11 SB/EB I DELAY/MI V/C I LOS YEAR NB WB SB/EB TOTAL TIME 2008 101s 82s 75s 0.46 A 2008 900 777 1677 45 Pm 2006 103s 11 80s I 70s 0.47 A 2006 938 1 769 11 1707 11 45 om DAILY SEGMENT VOLUME YEAR NBM+B SB/EB TOTAL 2008 9379 9737 19216 2006 9829 11251 21080 COMMENTS Corridor currently operates within City thresholds. Santa Rosa traffic signal coordination favors SB traffic in off-peak hours, however from 2006 to 2008 daily volume has become more balanced. RECOMMENDATIONS NEAR TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: 10% Adjust traffic signal coordination to accommodate balanced off-peak volumes. Continue to monitor. MID TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD Continue to monitor. LONG TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD Continue to monitor. 30 - 36 J ATTACHMENT OSOS (MARSH- SOUTH) RANK I CORRIDOR LENGTH FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION 3 1 0.63 MILES ARTERIAL LEFF MARSI _ ,. 1 '�, e .--` ,,; ' a+!' -- {� OSOS s e > AV►+► 7 - 'M r .�.► . tel. �°s� .� i OSOS /' ♦�' VA! Y SOUTH PEAK HOUR SEGMENT TRAVEL TIME Seconds PEAK SEGMENT VOLUME YEAR NB/WB SB/EB 11 DELAY/MI V/C LOS YEAR N3/WB SBtEB TOTAL 11ME 2008 84s 196s 11 67s 0.62 B 2008 654 521 1175 45 Pm 2006 87s 11 197s 11 68s 11 0.631 B 2006 682 1 498 11 1180 11 45 Drn DAILY SEGMENT VOLUME YEAR NBNVB SB/EB TOTAL 2008 5667 6476 12143 2006 7844 3444 11288 COMMENTS Corridor currently operates within City thresholds. Congestion along this is corridor primarily due to lack of intersection capacity at Osos & Buchon with secondary capacity issues at Osos & Pismo. WB left turn volume at Osos & Buchon exceeds current lane capacity. Left turn from WB & EB Buchon to Osos block thru and right turn movements and reduce overall green time allocated to Osos. RECOMMENDATIONS NEAR TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: 85% Remove approximately 50'-75' of parking area on WB & EB Buchon approaches to accommodate one left turn lane and one shared thru/right turn lane and reallocate green time to Osos. Remove approximately 50% 75' of parking area on Osos at Pismo to accommodate one left turn lane and one shared thru/right turn lane. Continue to monitor. MID TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD Continue to monitor. LONG TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: 127% As part of Circulation element update conduct assessment of potential on-street parking removal needs along the NB & SB Osos inorder to accommodate a second NB lane. Continue to monitor. 31 ATrACHMENT MONTEREY (CHORRO-HWY 10 1) RANK CORRIDOR LENGTH FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION 4 1.10 MILES ARTERIAL C14ORRO �-�- E SANTA ROSA , � - ►' r�� , ' 1 CALIFORNIA or s MONTEREY O�OS u r j t t JOI-NSON y . ' GRAND : r .' r • 'a 1.3 YJ3•: �.y` d� MONTEREY , _i.e.i 1 �; _ S 1 -rw - . . t • y � # � Ute.•t t' i � .._,. _ _ I CALIFORNIA , i�+ 1 t ! `. y*' X 6 , . HWIV IQ I PEAK HOUR SEGMENT TRAVEL TI ME Seconds PEAK SEGMENT VOLUME YEAR NB/WB SB/EB 11 DELAY/MI 11 V/C I LOS YEAR NB/WB SBIEB TOTAL TIME 2008 111s 277s 50s 11 0.22 1 A 2008 600 540 11 1140 4 5 m 2006 109s 277s 49s 0.22 A 2006 541 1 591 11 1132 45 m DAILY SEGMENT VOLUME YEAR NBMB SBIEB TOTAL 2008 7111 6157 13268 2006 7404 6381 13785 COMMENTS Corridor congestion is primarily due to signal timing at Monterey & California not optimized for current volumes and intersection volumes exceeding current lane capacity. Traffic generated by San Luis High School also contributes to a significant 5-10 min. volume spike within the AM peak hour. RECOMMENDATIONS NEAR TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: 5% Optimize traffic signal cycle length and green times for AM peak hour at Monterey and California. Initiate discussions and negotiations with San Luis High School and San Luis Unified School District to pursue some form of travel demand reduction strategy. Continue to monitor. MID TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD Continue to monitor. LONG TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD As part of Circulation element update conduct assessment of potential on-street parking removal needs along the WB & EB Monterey approaches inorder to accommodate additional lane capacity. Continue to monitor. 32 ATTACHMENT LOS OSOS VALLEY (HIGUERA-MADONNA) RANK CORRIDOR LENGTH FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION 5 1.36 MILES PARKWAY ARTERIAL r MADONNA AUTO PARK,,,i too ♦ - - -� r -_ • _ LOS OSOS VALLEY � .. FROOM - AUTO._EARK _: _ a;4JN t HIGUERA — LOS OSOS VALLEY _ - . `' ,• . `AM ~� HWY 10r,SB, ,r ,.CY PEAK HOUR SEGMENT TRAVEL TI ME Seconds PEAK SEGMENT VOLUME YEAR NBMIB SB/EB DELAY/MI V/C I LOS YEAR NBIVa SBEBIJ TOTAL I I TIME 2008 180s 11 198s 1 50s 11 0.381 A 2008 1 1445 1142 2587 45 prn 2006 168s 11 182s I 47s 11 0.351 A 2006 1 1068 103411 2102 1175 prn DAILY SEGMENT VOLUME YEAR NBMIB SB/EB 11 TOTAL 2008 13459 13541 11 27000 2006 1 12692 1 12278 11 24970 COMMENTS Corridor congestion is primarily due to lack of segment capacity on Hwy 101 overpass and lack of intersection capacity at Madonna & Los Osos Valley Road. Additional capacity should be provided on Hwy 101 overpass. Additional intersection capacity should be provided at Madonna& Los Osos Valley Road. RECOMMENDATIONS NEAR TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD Continue to monitor. MID TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: 35% As part of the Prefumo Creek Commons project mitigation widen WB Los Osos Valley along of Fire Station property frontage and modify WB Los Osos Valley & Madonna road departure lanes to accommodate three WB thru lanes. As part of Los Osos Valley Road / Hwy 101 interchange project, widen bridge to accommodate two lanes in each direction. Continue to monitor. LONG TERM: Expected Delay Reduction: TBD Continue to monitor. 33 B�r - 39 ATTACHMENT appendix i aateRial/aRteRiat inteRsections 34 T3 �_ y0 ATTACHMENT Z3Higuera TERSECTION LOS INT DELAY uera o onna LOVR SIG 4-5 PM 3052 124% E 70.3 Tank Farm SIG 5-6 PM 3131 76% C 33.5tere California SIG 8-9 AM 2732 90% C 28.1 thill California SIG 4-5 PM 2225 75% C 25.2onna Dalidio 0 c 24.2 7 Froom LOVR SIG 5-6 PM 3075 84% C 22.8 8 Hi uera Marsh SIG 5-6 PM 2315 82% C 21.3 9 Marsh Johnson SIG 5-6 PM 1356 73% C 20.5 10 Marsh Santa Rosa SIG 5-6 PM 1821 70% B 19.6 11 San Luis Johnson SIG 5-6 PM 2370 83% B 19.5 12 Orcutt Tank Farm 1-STOP 4=5 PM 763 48% B 17.4 13 Hi uera Broad SIG 5-6 PM 1500 46% B 15.2 14 Laurel Johnson SIG 5-6 PM 1418 83% B 14.4 15 Orcutt Johnson 3-STOP 4-5 PM 837 68% B 14 16 Monterey Santa Rosa SIG 5-6 PM 2449 67% B 13.4 17 Monterey Johnson SIG 5-6 PM 1664 58% B 13.3 18 Marsh Niporno SIG 5-6 PM 1570 50% B 12.4 19 Hi uera Osos SIG 4-5 PM 1145 33% B 10.6 20 Hi uera Niporno SIG 4-5 PM 1269 48% A 9.7 21 Monterey Chorro SIG 5-6 PM 828 37% A 9.7 22 Hi uera Chorro SIG 4-5 PM 1838 35% A 9.4 23 Monterey Grand SIG 5-6 PM 1455 69% A 8.8 24 Marsh Chorro SIG 4-5 PM 1796 50% A 8.4 25 Marsh Broad SIG 5-6 PM 1366 45% A 7.6 26 Hi uera Santa Rosa SIG 5-6 PM 2392 58% A 7.5 27 Marsh Osos SIG 5-6 PM 1550 70% A 5.8 28 Marsh Osos SIG 5-6 PM 1728 45% A 5.7 29 Marsh I California 1-STOP 4-5 PM 1503 50% A 2.5 30 Hipera Johnson 1-STOP 4-5 PM 956 28% A 1.4 NIA Orcutt Laurel SIG SIGNAL UNDER CONSTRUCTION 35 ATTACHMENT HCM Signalized I nterseclion Capacity Analysis 4: Los Osos Valley Rd &Higuera St 4n 52009 4N t 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations M IF I ? t r Volume(vph) 843 78 102 262 831 827 Ideal Row(vphp1) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Losttime(s) 6.5 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.5 Lane Util.Factor 097 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fd 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 Fft Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Said.Flow Orot) 3433 1583 1770 1863 1863 1683 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 095 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow(bemi) 3433 1583 1770 1863 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 0.92 Adj Flow(vph) 916 85 111 285 903 899 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 59 0 0 0 74 Lane Group Flow(vph) 916 26 111 285 903 825 Tum Type custom Prot custom Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 46 Actuated Green,G(S) 20.1 20.1 4.6 34.0 23.1 49.5 Effective Green,g(s) 20.1 20.1 4.6 34.0 23.1 432 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.07 0.51 0.35 0.65 Clearance Time(s) 6.5 6.5 6.3 6.3 6.3 Vehicle Mansion(s) 5.5 5.5 1.5 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1031 476 122 947 643 1022 vls Ratio Prot c0.27 0.02 c0.06 0.15 c0.48 vls Ratio Perm 0.52 We Ratio 0.89 0.05 0.91 0.30 1 AO 0.81 Uniform Delay,d1 22.3 16.6 30.9 9.6 21.9 8.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 10.3 0.1 53.0 0.2 191.2 5.5 Delays) 32.7 16.8 83.9 9.8 213.1 14.3 Level of Service C B F A F B Approach Delay(s) 31.3 30.5 113.9 Approach LOS C C F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 77.8 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.14 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 66.9 Sum of lost time(s) 19.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(Inin) 15 c Criticat Lane Group San Luis Obispo 1262009 Zone 6 Synchro 7- Report 0Auser_name% Page 1 36 13 ,J --11 cz ATTACHMENT HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Madonna Rd &Los Osos Valley Rd * 14n52o09 7 ~ ` I t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SET SBR Lane Configurations I j. 4 re }+ r M 0 Volume(,ph) 60 125 40 361 181 307 84 734 241 359 560 31 Ideal Flow(uphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1700 1700 1700 1700 1800 1900 1700 1800 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.5 55 5.5 5.0 65 6.5 5.0 6.5 Lane UGI.Factor 1.00 1.00 "0.75 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00 097 095 Fit 1.00 097 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 FG Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 095 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said.Flow Q1rot) 1593 1620 1069 1406 2244 1425 3018 1425 2765 2991 Ft Pemnitted 095 1.00 0.95 099 1.00 095 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said.Flow$)arm) 1593 1620 1069 1406 2244 1425 3018 1425 2765 2991 Peals-hour factor,PHF 0.64 0.82 090 096 0.81 0.91 0.63 0.89 092 0.85 0.89 0.77 Adj Flom"h) 94 152 44 376 223 337 133 825 262 422 629 40 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 9 0 0 0 263 0 0 174 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 94 187 0 293 306 74 133 825 88 422 666 0 Tum Type Spit split Perm Prot Pemi Prot Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green,G(s) 18.1 18.1 27.5 27.5 275 13.0 34A 34.4 22.7 44.1 Effective Green,g 0) 18.1 18.1 27.5 27.5 27.5 13.0 34.4 34.4 22.7 44.1 Actuated giC Ratio 0.15 0.15 022 022 022 0.10 0.28 028 0.18 0.36 Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.0 6.5 6.5 5.0 6.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.5 2.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 7.0 7.0 2.0 7.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 231 235 236 310 496 149 833 393 503 1058 vis Ratio Prot 0.06 cO.12 c027 022 0.09 c0.27 00.15 022 vis Ratio Perm 0.03 0.06 vic Ratio 0.41 0.80 124 099 0.15 0.89 0.99 022 0.84 0.63 Uniform Delay,dl 48.4 51.5 48.6 48.4 39.2 55.2 45.0 34.9 492 33.5 Progression Factor 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental flay,d2 09 16.5 139.3 47.7 0.4 42.7 28.9 1.0 112 2.3 Delay(s) 49.3 680 187.9 96.1 39.6 97.9 739 36.9 60.4 35.9 Level of Service D E F F D F E D F D Approach Delay(s) 61.9 104.5 68.4 46.4 j Approach LOS E F E D Intersection Summari HCM Average Control Delay 70.3 HCM Level of Service E HCkd Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 124.7 Sum of lost time(s) 22.0 intersection Capacity Utilization 832% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period Qpin) 15 c Critical Lane Group San Luis Obispo 1261_009 Zone 5 Synchro7- Report 'huser_name% Page 1 37 � s -13 ATTACHMENT HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Tank Farm Rd& Higuera St 4n 52009 et �► 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL BBT WBR NRIL NOT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r tt r 0 Volume(vph) 13 13 13 673 30 446 41 531 445 262 692 300 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 3.6 4.5 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Fd 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 Fit Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said.Flow Oral) 1817 1583 1681 1694 1583 1770 3639 1583 1770 3379 Fit Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said.Flow therm) 1817 1583 1681 1694 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3379 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 0.92 0.92 Ad] Flow(vph) 14 14 14 623 33 485 45 577 484 285 752 326 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 14 0 0 342 0 0 181 0 26 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 28 0 330 326 143 45 577 303 285 1052 0 Tum Type Split Perm Split Perm Prot Penn Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 4.0 4.0 28.8 28.8 28.8 62 36.9 36.9 26.9 57.6 Effective Green,g(s) 4.0 4.0 28.8 28.8 28.8 6.2 36.9 36.9 26.9 57.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.32 0.32 0.24 0.51 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 Vehicle E)dension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 64 56 426 429 401 97 1150 514 419 1713 vis Ratio Prot c0.02 cO.20 0.19 003 0.16 c0.16 c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.09 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.01 0.77 0.76 0.36 0.46 0.50 0.59 0.68 0.61 Uniform Delay,d1 53.7 529 39.4 39.2 34.8 52.1 30.9 32.0 39.4 20.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.7 0.0 7.8 6.7 02 1.3 0.7 2.7 4.7 1.0 Delay(s) 55.4 52.9 47.2 46.0 35.0 53.4 31.7 34.7 44.1 21.0 Level of Service E D D D C D C C D C Approach Delay(s) 54.6 41.7 33.9 25.8 Approach LOS D D C C Intersection Summary - HCM Average Control Delay 33.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 113.6 Sum of lost time(s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period Quin) 15 c Critical Lane Group San Luis Obispo 1262009 Zone 6 Synchro7- Report %user name% Page 1 38 BS '` ATTACHMENT HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Monterey St& California Blvd 4/152009 t r ti 1 !Movement EBL EBT EBR WL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + r + r j. '* Volume(vph) 106 392 92 167 557 70 23 425 153 46 383 140 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fd 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 Fft Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Sald.Flow Prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1789 1770 1788 FIt Permitted 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said.Flow 03erm) 366 1863 1583 567 1863 1583 1770 1789 1770 1788 Peak-hour factor,PHF 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj.Flow(tph) 115 426 100 182 605 76 25 462 166 50 416 152 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 33 0 0 18 0 17 0 0 16 0 Lane Group Flow(tph) 115 426 67 182 605 58 25 6111 0 50 562 0 Tum Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 Actuated Green,G(s) 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 2.4 24.0 4.1 26.7 Effective Green,g(s) 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 2.4 24.0 4.1 25.7 Actuated gtCRatio 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.41 0.07 0.44 Clearance Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 127 650 552 198 650 552 73 734 124 785 vls Ratio Prot 0.23 c0.32 0.01 c0.34 c0.03 0.31 vls Ratio Perm 0.31 0.04 0.32 0.04 vlc Ratio 091 0.66 0.12 0.92 093 0.11 0.34 0.83 0.40 0.70 Uniform Delay,dl 18.1 16.1 13.0 18.3 18.4 12.9 27.3 15.4 26.0 13.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 51.4 2.1 0.1 41.3 20.1 0.1 1.8 7.8 1.4 2.6 Delay(s) 69.5 18.2 13.0 59.5 38.4 12.9 29.1 23.3 27.4 15.9 Level of Service E B S E D B C C C B Approach Delay(s) 26.6 40.6 23.5 16.8 Approach LOS C D C B Intersection Summary I HCM Average Control Delay 28.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 58.5 Sum of lost time(s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group San Lis Obispo 1262009 Zone 3 Synchro 7- Report 96user name% Page 1 39 T3 -� ATTACHMENT HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: Foothill Blvd&California Blvd 4A 5J2009 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER t4WL NWT-wk Lane Configurations Mi 4 r I A ET r 41* Volume(vph) 101 133 557 71 136 8 8 286 191 413 130 30 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total LDsttime(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lane Util.Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 Fd 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 Said.Flow Orot) 1681 1763 1583 1770 1847 1860 1583 1610 3256 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 Satd.Flow 8oerm) 1681 1763 1583 1770 1847 1860 1583 1610 3256 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj.Flow 4h) 110 145 605 77 148 9 9 311 208 449 141 33 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 177 0 2 0 0 0 113 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 99 156 428 77 155 0 0 320 95 224 393 0 Tum Type Split custom Split Split custom Split Protected Phases 6 6 26 8 8 4 4 46 2 2 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green,G(s) 16.0 16.0 44.5 11.7 11.7 20.0 39.5 25.0 25.0 Effective Green,g(s) 16.0 16.0 44.5 11.7 11.7 20.0 39.5 25.0 25.0 Actuated g!C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.51 0.13 0.13 0.23 0.46 0.29 0.29 Clearance The(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 1.8 1.8 1,8 3.3 3.3 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 310 325 812 239 249 429 721 464 939 vfs Ratio Prot 0.06 0.09 cO.27 0.04 c0.08 c0.17 0.06 0.14 0.12 vls Ratio Perm vic Ratio 0.32 0.48 0.53 0.32 0.62 0.75 0.13 0.48 0.42 Uniform Delay,d1 30.6 31.6 14.1 33.9 35.4 31.0 13.7 25.5 25.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.3 3.5 6.1 0.0 0.9 0.3 Delay(s) 312 32.7 14.8 34.2 38.9 37.1 13.7 26.4 25.3 Level of Service C C B C D D B C C Approach Delay(s) 19.9 37.3 27.9 25.7 Approach LOS B D C C inersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 252 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 86.7 Sum of lost time(s) 10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilizadan 67.6% ICU Level of Service C Analpsis Period Quin) 15 c Critical Lane Group San Luis Obispo 1 NJ2009 Zone 4 Synchro 7- Report °kuser_name% Page 1 40 - . ATTACHMENT appendix 2 AR%RIaUcottectou inteRsections I 41 L35 - 47 ATTACHMENT RANK INTERSECTION CONTROL E C LOS INT DELAY jHiguera os uc on a n-4 era Pismo/High SIG 4-5 PM 2028 105% D 42.5 hill Chorro SIG 5-6 PM 2177 86% C 29.6 Suburban SIG 5-6 PM 2630 100% C 29.5 nna Oceanaire SIG 5-6 PM 2646 71% C 23.2 nna El Mercado SIG 4-5o G 20.9 '7 Osos Pismo SIG 5-6 PM 1699 87% C 20.6 8 Monterey Morro SIG 5-6 PM 436 25% B 15.6 :9 Marsh Morro SIG 5-6 PM 1107 47% B 15.3 10 Foothill Broad SIG 5-6 PM 2126 86% B 14.3 11 Calle Joaquin LOVR SIG 5-6 PM 2941 677/. B 14.0 12 Foothill Patricia SIG 8-9 AM 1280 96% B 13.5 13 Broad Pismo SIG _4-5 PM 1220 75% B 12.9 14 Johnson Lizzie SIG 5-6 PM 2341 61% B 12.8 15 Royal LOVR SIG 5-6 PM 2885 63% B 12.0 16 Santa Rosa Pismo 4-STOP 4-5 PM 1008 39% B 11.6 17 Johnson Bishop SIG 5-6 PM 1832 55% B 11.4 18 Hi uera Prado SIG 5-6 PM 2032 59% B 11.2 19 Broad Buchon SIG 4-5 PM 1278 58% B 10.8 20 Broad Pacific SIG 5-6 PM 920 60%. B 10.6 21 LOVR Prefumo Canyon 1-STOP 5-6 PM 2237 72% A 9.8 22 Hi uera Granada SIG 5-6 PM 2269 86% A 9.8 23 Chorro Palm SIG 5-6 PM 1094 39% A 9.7 24 Laurel Southwood 4-STOP 5-6 PM 886 36% A 9.1 25 Chorro Pismo 4-STOP 4-5 PM 674 28% A 8.9 26 Laurel Augusta 4-STOP 5-6 PM 814 30% A 8.9 27 Santa Rosa Mill SIG 5-6 PM 2021 59% A 8.2 28 Laguna LOVR SIG 8-9 AM 2660 59% A 8.2 29 Santa Rosa Palm SIG 5-6 PM 1910 50% A 7.9 30 Santa Barbara Upham SIG 5-6 PM 1098 44% A 7.6 31 Hi uera Mar anta SIG 4-5 PM 1491 30% A 7.3 32 Hi uera Morro SIG 5-6 PM 829 29% A 6.9 33 California Mill SIG 8-9 AM 1270 42% A 5.7 34 Johnson Ella SIG 5-6 PM 2078 38% A 5.1 35 Foothill Tassa'ara SIG 5-6 PM 1434 33% A 4.3 36 LOVR Oceanaire 1-STOP 5-6 PM 2395 81% A 3.5 37 Descanso LOVR SIG 5-6 PM 2132 40% A 3.0 38 Broad High 2-STOP 4-5 PM 905 24% A 2.5 39 Highland Chorro 1-STOP 5-6 PM 868 16% A 1.9 40 Johnson Pismo 1-STOP 5-6 PM 1233 42% A 1.9 41 Johnson Southwood 2-STOP 5-6 PM 846 42% A 1.3 42 California Hathaway 1-STOP 5-6 PM 877 60% A 1.2 43 Grand Mill 1-STOP 5-6 PM 861 20% A 1.2 44 Grand Fredericks 1-STOP 5-6 PM 669 15% 1 A 1.1 42 ' �5 ATTACHMENT HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 46: Osos St& Buchon St 4n 5)2009 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations T* j. .+ r;, Volume(vph) 26 667 17 21 628 229 21 118 32 220 210 8 Ideal Flow(+,phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fd 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.97 1.00 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.98 Said.Flow 0rot) 1593 1670 1593 1609 1624 1631 Fit Permitted 0.14 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.93 0.77 Satd.Row d3er m) 242 1670 242 1609 1514 1285 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj.Flow(vph) 28 725 18 23 683 249 23 128 35 239 228 9 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 2 0 0 22 0 0 14 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 28 741 0 23 910 0 0 172 0 0 475 0 Tum Type Perm Perm Perm Perch Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green,G(s) 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 22.3 22.3 Effective Green,g 0) 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 22.3 22.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time(s) 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle EMension(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 35 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 112 771 112 743 563 478 v/s Ratio Prot 0.44 c0.57 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.10 0.11 cO.37 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.96 0.21 1.23 0.30 0.99 Uniform Delay,d1 9.8 15.6 9.6 162 13.4 18.8 Progression Factor 0.80 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 4.4 21.7 4.1 1132 0.1 39.1 Delay(s) 12.2 34.3 13.7 129.4 13.5 57.9 Level of Service B C B F B E Approach Delay(s) 33.5 126.6 13.5 57.9 Approach LOS C F B E .Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 74.0 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.12 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 60.0 Sum of lost time(s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.4% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period Pin) 15 c Critical Lane Group San Luis Obispo 126/2009 Zone 1 Synchro 7- Report OAuser name% Page 1 43 ATTACHMENT HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 65: High St& Higuere St 41 62009 4- t �' t `► ♦ 4 l ti Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR NBR2 SBL SBT SW L2 SW SWR- Lane WRLane Configurations V + r + I r Volume(vph) 195 72 621 0 115 75 576 10 275 66 [deal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Losttime(s) 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 (ane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fit 0.96 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow Prot) 1559 1676 1425 1593 1676 1593 1425 Ft Permitted 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said.Flow 43enn) 1559 1676 1426 349 1676 1693 1425 Peak-hourfactor,PHF 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj.Flow(vph) 212 78 675 0 125 82 626 11 299 72 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 59 Lane Group Flow(Wh) 290 0 675 0 1% 82 626 0 310 13 Tum Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 2 2 7 Permitted Phases 8 2 2 7 7 Actuated Green,G(s) 15.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 15.0 15.0 Effective Green,g(s) 15.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 15.0 15.0 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.19 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time(s) 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 289 828 704 172 828 296 264 vis Ratio Prot cO.40 0.37 vis Ratio Perm c0.19 0.08 0.23 0.19 0.01 W Ratio 1.00 0.82 0.15 0.48 0.76 1.05 0.05 Uniform Delay,dl 33.0 17.4 11.2 13.6 16.6 33.0 27.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 53.8 8.0 0.4 8.6 62 66.4 0.1 Delay(s) 86.8 25.3 11.7 22.2 22.7 99.4 27.2 Level of Service F C 8 C C F C Approach Delay(s) 86.8 23.2 22.7 85.8 Approach LOS F C C F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 42.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 81.0 Sum of lost time(s) 11.0 6ltersectlon Capacity Utilization 94.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period"in) 15 c Critical Lane Group San Luis Obispo 1262009 Zone 1 Synchro 7- Report *Auser name% Page 1 44 &S'� _!50 ATTACHMENT HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Foothill Blvd & Chorro St 4n 52009 q t r `► 1 W Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 +T* 4;+ ►� tt Volume(vph) 44 636 86 86 726 29 180 66 69 47 61 87 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total LDsttlme(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Fd 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.90 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 0.95 1.00 Said.Flow Prot) 1770 3466 1770 3519 1681 1641 1770 1686 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow 81erm) 1770 3466 1770 3519 1681 1641 1770 1686 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 A4.Flow(Th) 48 583 93 93 789 32 196 72 76 51 55 96 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 10 0 0 2 0 0 29 0 0 61 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 48 666 0 93 819 0 174 140 0 51 89 0 Tum Type Prot Prot Split Split Protected Phases 1 2 1 2 4 4 3 3 Permitted Phases Actuated Green,G(s) 16.3 58.2 16.3 $8.2 15.1 15.1 10.4 10.4 Effective Green,g(s) 16.3 58.2 16.3 58.2 15.1 15.1 10.4 10.4 Actuated 91C Ratio 0.14 0.49 0.14 0.49 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.09 Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle E)dension(s) 39 6.4 3.9 6.4 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 240 1681 240 1707 212 206 153 146 vis Ratio Prot 0.03 0.19 coo c0.23 c0.10 0.09 0.03 c0.05 vis Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.20 0.40 0.39 0.48 0.82 0.68 0.33 0.61 Uniform Delay,di 46.1 19.7 47.3 20.7 51.1 50.1 51.5 52.8 Progression Factor 1.46 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.5 0.4 1.4 0.7 22.5 9.5 1.5 7.4 Delay(s) 67.8 6.9 48.7 21.4 73.7 59.6 53.1 60.2 Level of Service E A D C E E D E Approach Delay(s) 10.9 24.2 66.7 58.4 Approach LOS B C E E Intersection summary HCM Average Control Delay 29.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volumeto Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period iinin) 15 c Critical Lane Group San Luis Obispo 1262009 Zone 4 Synchro 7- Report °.Fuser name% Page 1 45 ATTACHMENT HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6- Suburban Rd &Higuera St 7232009 4 t P - -- Movement WBL MR NBT NO SBL SBT Lane Configurations r tT+ tt Volume(vph) 442 171 832 131 68 986 Ideal Flow Ophpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane UIII.Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Fit 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said.Flow fprot) 1770 1583 3467 1770 3539 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 023 1.00 Said.Flow 8�ertn) 1770 1583 3467 433 3539 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 052 0.92 Adi Flow(vph) 480 186 904 142 74 1072 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 110 10 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 480 76 1036 0 74 1072 Tum Type Perm Penn Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green,G(s) 29.8 29.8 79.2 79.2 792 Effective Green,9(s) 29.8 29.8 79.2 79.2 79.2 Actuated gIC Ratio 025 025 0.66 0.66 0.66 Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle EMenslon(s) 2.0 2.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 440 393 2288 286 2336 Ws Ratio Prot c0.27 0.30 c0.30 vis Ratio Perm 0.05 0.17 Vic Ratio 1.09 019 0.46 0.26 0.46 Urdoin Delay,d1 45.1 35.6 95 8.4 9.9 Progression Factor 1.00 100 100 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 69.7 0.1 0.4 1 2 0.4 Delay(s) 1149 35.7 102 9.5 10.3 Level of Service F D B A B Approach Delay(s) 92.7 10.2 10.3 Approach LOS F B B Intersectwn Summary - - HCM Average Control Delay 29.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 11.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group San Luis Obispo 1262009 Zone 6 Synchro7- Report 0huser_name% Page 1 46 ATTACHMENT HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Madonna Rd &Oceanaire Dr 4n 5009 -* 1 4, 4 -, t t 1 W Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I fA I ff P 4 r 41 Volume(Th) 26 889 10 37 1065 242 12 3 40 160 6 34 Ideal Flow(uphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane UK Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fit 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 098 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 096 Said.Flow(prot) 1770 3533 1770 3539 1583 1790 1583 1748 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.76 Seld.Flow d3erm) 1770 3533 1770 3539 1583 1619 1583 1380 Peak-hour factor,PHF 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Aral Flow(vph) 28 966 11 40 1158 263 13 3 43 163 5 37 RTOR Reduction M)h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 28 977 0 40 1158 263 0 16 10 0 199 0 Tum Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Penn Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 43 47 Permitted Phases 2 6 43 43 47 Actuated Green,G(s) 42 61.3 6.0 63.1 63.1 28.3 28.3 28.5 Effective Green,g(s) 42 613 6.0 63.1 63.1 28.3 28.3 28.5 Actuated giC RaBo 0.03 0.50 0.05 0.52 0.52 023 023 023 Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle E1¢ension(s) 1.5 5.0 1.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 61 1771 87 1826 817 375 366 322 vls Rffilo Prot 0.02 028 c0.02 c0.33 vfs Ratio Perm 0.17 c0.01 0.01 cO.14 vlc Ratio 046 0.55 0.46 0.63 0.32 0.04 0.03 0.62 Uniform Delay,dl 579 21.0 56.6 21.3 172 36.5 36.4 42.0 Progression Factor 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 Incremental Delay,d2 2.0 0.6 1.4 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 2.9 Delay(s) 599 21.7 58.0 22.3 17.7 2.7 0.0 6.0 Level of Service E C E C B A A A Approach Delay(s) 217 22.4 0.8 6.0 Approach LOS C C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 122.3 Sum of lost time(s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.4% ICU Leval of Service B Analysis Period Qnin) 15 c Critical Lane Group San Luis Obispo 1!262009 Zone 5 Synchro7- Report 0kuser name% Page 1 47 ATTACHMENT appendix s ARteRIal CORR16ORS 48 ATTACHMENT Expected Actual Travel DISTANCE DELAY/ MI Travel Time (Sec.) RANK SEGMENT (Miles) ADT V/C LOS (Sec.) Time (Sec.) 1 California (Campus -Taft) 0.47 19,635 0.78 C 82 52 91 2 Santa Rosa (Walnut- Pismo) 0.53 19,216 0.46 A 74.8 52 92 3 Osos (Marsh South) 0.80 12,143 0.62 B 66.5 87 140 4 Monterey (Chorro -Hwy 101) 1.11 13,268 0.22 A 50.4 138 194 5 LOVR (Higuera- Madonna) 1.35 27,000 0.38 A 50.1 121 189 6 Broad Hi uera -South 0.77 9,8190.44 A 48.1 91 128 7 Madonna LOVR - Hi uera 1.42 36,561 0.34 A 43.4 112 174 8 Johnson (Monterey- Ella 0.69 13,099 0.53 B 40.7 79 107 9 Hi uera Johnson - Marsh 0.95 8,755 0.3 A 38 127 163 10 Marsh Hi uera- California) 1.15 10,528 0.31 A 36.7 127 169 11 LOVR Madonna- City Limits 1.14 23,651 0.47 A 32.7 91 128 12 California Taft- San Luis 0.64 13,207 0.52 B 28.5 80 98 13 Foothill (City Limits- California) 1.37 17,572 0.34 A 27.9 149 187 14 Johnson Ella- Orcutt1.40 15,964 0.31 A 27.5 147 186 15 Grand Slack- Monterey) 0.56 8,743 0.23 A 27.3 57 72 16 Hi uera Marsh - Prado 1.4 15,182 0.3 A 21.9 131 162 17 Tank Farm (City Limit- Orcutt1.18 8,803 0.21 A 17.6 99 120 18 Hi uera Prado- City Limits 1.19 20,531 0.61 B 9.7 98 110 19 Laurel Johnson -Orcutt0.56 UNDER CONSTRUCTION DURING YEAR 49