106-Attachment 5. Traffic Study.pdfAttachment 5
HRMW TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
Prepared for:
City of Cupertino
April 5, 2011
G
Hexagon Office: 111 W. St. John Street, Suite 850
San Jose, CA 95113
Hexagon Job Number: 11GB05
Phone: 408.971.6100
Document Name: 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard.doc
San Jose • Gilroy • Pleasanton • Phoenix www.hextrans.com
C .r or u cs Pens Trafic Nandfng Plans npa�-t reel 1ntErchaage ..na.'ysis P_rki;
,.- n -.irk r _ Operations Traffic Signal Design Tr; - .and ..
1-26
0
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011
Table of Contents
Executive Summary"'
1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................................
6
2. Existing Conditions.......................................................................................................................
13
3. Existing Plus Project Conditions...................................................................................................
19
r
4. Other Transportation Issues.........................................................................................................
25
5. Cumulative Conditions..................................................................................................................30
6. Conclusions..................................................................................................................................
33
Appendices
Appendix A: Traffic Counts
Appendix B: Level of Service Calculations
Appendix C: Signal Warrants
List of Tables
Table ES 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary .................................................................................A
Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay .........................
11
Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay
..................... 12
Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service........:............................................................................
18
Table 4 Project Trip Generation Estimates...........................................................................................
21
=>
Table 5 Project Intersection Levels of Service......................................................................................
23
Table 6 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service...............................................................................
31
I
a�
i
i
uhexagon TMOSPOadtiOn GnBltd%. IDe.
P
i.__�- Page
1-27
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011
y
List of Figures
Figure 1
Site Location and Study Intersections...................................................................................
8
Figure 2
Project Conceptual Site Plan (to be included).......................................................................
9
Figure 3
Existing Lane Configurations...............................................................................................
16
Figure 4
Existing Traffic Volumes......................................................................................................
17
Figure 5
Project Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment.....................................................................
22
Figure 6
Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes..................................................................................
24
Figure 7
Recommended Improvements at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue .................
27
Figure 8
Cumulative Project Traffic Volumes.....................................................................................
32
G'
i
n �
u Wexam Transportation GnSUltantL Inc. ii Page
1-28
J
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard —Draft Traffic Analysis Report
Executive Summary
April 5, 2011
This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis conducted for the proposed Sunflower
Learning Center located at 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California. The project
as proposed would consist of a preschool and an after -school learning center that would occupy
an existing office building located in.the southwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stem
Avenue. The learning center is currently located at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard and serves a
total of 130 after -school students. The school is planning to relocate to the 18900 Stevens Creek
Boulevard facility and expects to ultimately grow to 154 students of which 72 students are
expected to be enrolled in preschool, and the remaining 82 students are expected to be after -
school students. The building is expected to be open Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00
PM for preschool students and from 2:00 PM to 6:30 PM for after -school students. Access to the
proposed project is provided on Stern Avenue
The potential traffic impacts related to the proposed development were evaluated following the
standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Cupertino, City of Santa Clara and the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The VTA administers the County Congestion
Management Program (CMP).
The traffic study includes an analysis of only the PM peak hour traffic conditions for seven
signalized intersections and one unsignalized intersection in the vicinity of the project site. No
significant traffic impacts due to the project were determined based on the PM peak hour levels of
service for the signalized intersections. The peak hour signal warrant was checked for the
unsignalized intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue to determine whether
signalization would be justified on the basis of project peak hour traffic volumes. Project impacts
on other transportation facilities, such as bicycle facilities and transit service, were determined on
the basis of engineering judgment.
Project Trip Generation
Trip generation estirr2ates for the proposed project was based on a trip generation survey that was
conducted on February 17, 2011 during the PM peak hour from 4:30 PM to 6:30 PM at the existing
facility at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard that currently has an enrollment of 130 students. The
survey results showed that the existing school's trip generation peaked at 212 trips from 5:30 PM
to 6:30 PM with 107 trips in and 105 trips out. The observed trip generation rate was 1.63 trips per
student in the PM peak hour, for an enrollment of 130 students. For an enrollment of 154 students,
the project is expected to generate a total of 251 trips in the PM peak hour with 127 trips coming
into the site and 124 trips leaving the site. These trips were added to the peak hour of the adjacent
street traffic which occurs between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM, for a conservative analysis.
uPexam f tanswation Gasultams. Inc. i i i I P a g e
J
ME
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011
As the project proposes to occupy the existing office building, the project can receive credit for
r trips generated by the existing office use. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8 edition, an
office building with 8,653 square feet is expected to generate a total of 13 peak hour trips, with 2
trips coming into the site and 11 trips leaving the site. After receiving credit for the existing office
use, the proposed project is expected to generate a total of 238 net new trips, with 125 trips
coming into the site and 113 trips leaving the site
Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
The results show that, measured against acceptable level of service standards set forth by City of
Cupertino, City of Santa Clara and VTA, all of the intersections would continue to operate
adequately. The level of service results for the study intersections under existing plus project
conditions are summarized in Table ES 1.
Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
The results show that, measured against acceptable level of service standards set forth by City of
Cupertino, City of Santa Clara and VTA, all of the study intersections would continue to operate
adequately. The level of service results for the study intersections under cumulative conditions are
summarized in Table ES 1.
Other Transportation Issues
The unsignalized intersection at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue was found to operate
at an unacceptable level of service under existing, existing plus project and cumulative conditions.
Based on the peak hour volume signal warrant analysis, this intersection was found to meet the
signal warrant under existing plus project conditions and cumulative plus project conditions. The
junacceptable delay at this intersection is because of the delay experienced by the left turning
vehicles from Stern Avenue onto westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard who have to find gaps in
the uncontrolled traffic flow on eastbound and westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard. Alternative
routes are available for the project generated traffic going westbound on Stevens Creek
Boulevard. One of the alternative routes is for project traffic to go south on Stern Avenue, west on
Loree Avenue, north on Tantau Avenue and west on Stevens Creek Boulevard at the signalized
intersection of Tantau Avenue. As an alternative to a traffic signal, the City could consider
restricting northbound left turns at Stem Avenue.
Hexagon recommends that the City consider installation of a median on Stevens Creek Boulevard
at Stern Avenue to prevent outbound left turns but allow inbound left turns (see Figure 7). The
median would result in acceptable levels of service without the necessity of signalizing this
intersection.
fi
,-1 u Pexagon T(an5pnIdtinn Consultant, Im
iv I Page
1-30
CN
0,
CD
40
ra
CL
r-q
N
't
cl
7
0
6
CD
>
U�
M
U
0
CL
0
rO
r14
I
CCS
cCJY
rT
ll�
c-3
ID
0
L)
CO
Al
2
Ln
W)
CO
C,4
CO
N
C'Q
ClJ
C)
;z
2t,
ro
>
0
2
fa -
CZ
m
0
Lo
m
2,
z
E
t5 >
ra
m
0
Ir
6
6
Cr
C:TJ
rfL
>
>
<
L)
J
-2
::i
0)
0
j-
Ca
t5
a)
m
r -�g >
0
0
Lo
3�
U
G
01)
Ca
m
M 3 J= c
L) 0
0
z
J
ID
C)
C)
C.
tm
2 COL I'm,
0
u
>
15
6
.6
TD
Tj
—6 17
1
eh
x
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
0
a)
O
LO
ui
CD
a) >
>
>
>
>
> CZ (D
i
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report
,ly;✓�=�p
April 5, 2011
1.
Introduction
This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis conducted for the proposed Sunflower
Learning Center located at 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California. The project as
proposed would consist of a preschool and an after -school learning center that would occupy an
existing office building located in the southwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern
Avenue. The Sunflower learning center is currently located in Cupertino at 19220 Stevens Creek
Boulevard. The existing center serves a total of 130 after -school students. The school is planning to
relocate to the 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard facility and expects to ultimately grow to 154
students of which 72 students are expected to be enrolled in preschool, and the remaining 82
students are expected to be after -school students. The building is expected to be open Monday
through Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM for preschool students and from 2:00 PM to 6:30 PM for
after -school students. Access to the proposed project is provided on Stern Avenue. The project site
and the surrounding study area are shown on Figure 1. A conceptual site plan is shown on Figure
2.
Scope of Study
This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential traffic impacts related to the
proposed development. The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the
standards set forth by the City of Cupertino, City of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP). The traffic analysis is
based on the PM peak hour levels of service for seven signalized intersections and one
unsignalized intersection. The AM peak hour was not analyzed as the after -school learning center
is proposed to be open only in the afternoons, and the trips in AM peak hour from the preschool are
less compared to the PM peak hour trips, which consist of trips from both the preschool and the
E after school learning center. The peak hour signal warrant was checked for the unsignalized
intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue to determine whether signalization
would be justifieg on the basis of project peak hour traffic volumes. The study in�arsections are
identified below, along with the jurisdiction they belong to.
Study Intersections
1. Stevens Creek Boulevard/North Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue (CMP, Cupertino)
2. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Finch Avenue (Cupertino)
3. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue (Cupertino)
4. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive/1-280 SB (CMP, State)
5. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Agilent Technologies Driveway Access (Santa Clara)
6. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence Expressway Southbound (CMP, Santa Clara)
7. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence Expressway Northbound (CMP, Santa Clara)
u 6 P a g e
Mexam Transportation (11115008. 1DC.
1-32
I
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report
8. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stern Avenue (unsignalized) (Cupertino)
April 5, 2011
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for the weekday PM peak hour of traffic
as the preschool/after school learning center is expected to generate maximum trips in the
afternoon on a weekday. The PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during this
period that the most congested traffic conditions occur on an average day.
Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing traffic volumes are based on traffic counts
conducted in 2010 and early 2011.
Scenario 2: Existing plus Project Conditions. Existing traffic volumes with the project
(hereafter called project traffic volumes) were estimated by adding to existing
traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Project conditions
were evaluated relative to existing conditions in order to determine potential
project impacts.
Scenario 3: Cumulative No Project Conditions. Cumulative No Project traffic volumes for the
study intersections were based upon trips generated by approved/pending
projects provided by the City of Cupertino. Trips generated by these
approved/pending projects were added to existing volumes to represent near
term cumulative no project conditions.
Scenario 4: Cumulative With Project Conditions. Cumulative traffic volumes with the project
were estimated by adding to cumulative no project traffic volumes the additional
traffic generated by the project.
Methodology
This section presents the methods used to determine the traffic conditions for each scenario
described above. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, and
the applicable level of service standards.
Data Requirements
The data required for the analysis were obtained from new traffic counts, the City of Cupertino, and
field observations. The following data were collected from these sources:
• existing traffic volumes
•. existing lane configurations
• signal timing and phasing, and
• a list of approved projects
f")
uPenoon Transportation (onsultots, loc.
v
7 Page
1-33
Sunflower Learning Center
Site Location
Study Intersection
Site Location and to Intersections
eA NkF
4
NORTH
1-34NAY: h� Scuts
It
u
tic
C
f2
1-35
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011
Level of Service Standards and Analysis Methodologies
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of
Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free -flow
conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The
various analysis methods are described below.
Signalized Intersections
The signalized study intersections are subject to the City of Cupertino level of service standards.
The City of Cupertino level of service methodology is TRAFFIX, which is based on the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 method for signalized intersections. TRAFFIX evaluates signalized
intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection.
Since TRAFFIX also is the CMP-designated intersection level of service methodology, the City of
Cupertino methodology employs the CMP default values for the analysis parameters. The City level
E of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS D or better. Table 1 shows the correlation
between delay and level of service.
Although the project site is located in the City of Cupertino, four of the study intersections are
located within the City of Santa Clara, three of which are CMP intersections. The City of Santa
Clara LOS standard is LOS E at CMP intersections and LOS D at all other intersections. The CMP
level of service methodology is the same as that used by the Cities of Cupertino and Santa Clara,
except that the CMP level of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS E or better. The
CMP intersection in Cupertino was analyzed with an acceptable LOS standard D.
Unsignalized Intersections
One of the study intersections presently is unsignalized: Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern
Avenue. The methodology used to determine the level of service for unsignalized intersections also
is TRAFFIX and the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology for unsignalized intersection
analysis. For the purpose of reporting level of service for one- and two-way stop -controlled
intersections, the delay and corresponding level of service for the stop -controlled minor street
approach with the highest delay is reported. The correlation between average control delay and
level of service for unsignalized intersections is shown in Table 2.
The level of service analysis at unsignalized intersections is supplemented with an assessment of
the need for signalization of the intersection. This assessment is made on the basis of the Peak
Hour Volume Warrant #3, as described in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets
and Highways (MUTCD), Part 4, Highway Traffic Signals, 2003. This method makes no evaluation
of intersection level of service, but simply provides an indication whether peak -hour traffic volumes
are, or would be, sufficient to justify installation of a traffic signal. This method provides an
indication of whether traffic conditions and peak -hour traffic levels are, or would be, sufficient to
justify installation of a traffic signal. Other traffic signal warrants are available, however, they cannot
be checked under future conditions (project, and cumulative) because they rely on data for which
forecasts are not available (such as accidents, pedestrian volume, and four- or eight -hour vehicle
volumes).
Pexagon Transparration Consult %. IM
10 1 Page
1-36
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report
Table I
Signalized intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay
Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green
A phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very
low vehicle delay.
Operations c;haracterized by good sigrral progi essoon ai eWor short cycle
B lenglhis, Mare vehicles stop ffic,'m with LOS A. causing higher levels, of average,
vel6de delay.
Idigher delays may result from fair signal progression arid/or longer cycle
C lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number
of vehicles stopping is significant, though rnay still pass through the, intersection
without stopping.
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable, Longer delays n-lay
D MGUlt from sorne conit)inafion of unfavorable signal progression, long cycie
lerghts, or Ngh valurne-to.-capacity (VIC,) ratios, Many vehicles stop and
individUal cycle failures are noticeable,
April 5, 2D11
110 or less
10A to 20 0
20.1 to 35.0
351 to 55,0
This is considred to be the lirralt of acceptable delay. These high delay vakies
E generally indicate poor signal progression, [Drag CyClo lengths, and high vcDlurne- 55A to 80.0
to -capacity (ViC) ratios, Individual Cycle failUreS OCCUre frequently.
This level of delay is cNisidered uracceptable by rnost drivers. 'rl�u s condifiorl
F often occurs with OVersaturation, that is, when an ival flow rate�s exceed the greater than 80,C)
capacity of the intersection. Poor pn�Qression and long cycle lengtlrs nnay also
be rnajor contributing causes of such delay levels,
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 20DO) p10-16,
CMP intersect[ons
The designated level of service methodology for the CMP is the 2000 HCM operations method for
signalized intersections, using TF�AFFIX. 'The only difference in level of service standards is that in
the City of Cupertino the standard is LOS D or better* for the V-I"'A, the CMP level of service
standard for signalized intersections is LOS E or better. For the CMP intersections in Cupertino,
LOS D was used as the acceptable LOS and for the CMP intersections in Santa Clara, LOS E was
used as the acceptable LOS.
Report Organization
The remainder of this report is divided into six chapters. Chapter 2 describes existing conditions ki
terms of the existing roadway network, transit service, and existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
Chapter 3 describes the method used to estimate project traffic and its impact on the transportatiori
systems and describes any recommended mitigation measures, Chapter 4 contains an evaluation of
other transportation -related issues, Such as site access, circi,tlation, and parking. Chapter 5
presents the traffic conditions in the study area Under cumulative conditions. Chapter 6 'includes a
surnrinary of any proposed mitigation measures and recommended improvements,
J
11 1 page
1-37
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard -- Draft Traffic Analyss Report
'Table 2
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay
A Little or no traffic delay
MO or less
B Short traffic delays
10.1 to 150
C Average traffic delays
151 to 25,0
D Long traffic c1plays
25.1 tc) 35,0
E Very long traffic delays
35.1 to 50,0
Extierne gaff c dHlays
greater than 50.0
Tr�ansportaflon Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washlngton, D,C., 2000) pl 7-2.
rFl,—q DL
9mn fiansoftalim Gnsulwts. Im
&14
April 5, 2011
12 1 page
mm
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011
L 2.
Existing Conditions
This chapter describes the existing conditions for all of the major transportation facilities near the
site, including the roadway network, transit service, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Existing Roadway Network
Stevens Creek Boulevard is a major east -west roadway in the City of Cupertino, extending from
Permanente Road in Cupertino to West San Carlos Street in San Jose. In the vicinity of the project
Stevens Creek Boulevard is a 6-lane arterial. The project is located on the southwest corner of
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue, and access to the project is provided via Stern
Avenue. The intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue is unsignalized and allows
all movements. The north leg of the intersection is a driveway into Woodcrest hotel.
Wolfe Road is a north -south roadway that extends from Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino to
Arques Avenue in Sunnyvale. South of Stevens Creek Boulevard it transitions into Miller Avenue,
which is a four lane roadway. The intersection of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard is
signalized.
L•
Finch Avenue is a two lane roadway that extends between Vallco Parkway in the north and Phil
Lane (residential road) in the south. The intersection of Finch Avenue with Stevens Creek
Boulevard is signalized. It is noted that no through movement is allowed across Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
Tantau Avenue is a two lane roadway that extends between Homestead Road and Bollinger Road
[ in Cupertino. Tantau Avenue primarily serves residential uses. The intersection of Tantau Avenue
with Stevens Creek Boulevard is signalized. It is noted that southbound through movement on
Tantau Avenue across Stevens Creek Boulevard is not permitted. V V
Stern Avenue is a two lane residential roadway that extends between Stevens Creek Boulevard
and Tilson Avenue. The intersection of Stern Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard is unsignalized
with a stop control on Stern Avenue. The proposed project is located in the southwest corner of
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue and access to the project is proposed along Stern
Avenue.
Calvert Drive is a two lane roadway that connects Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north and
Tilson Avenue to the south. The intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Calvert Drive is
signalized. The north leg of the intersection consists of the southbound off -ramp from 1-280.
uHeyaoon Tiansporidurin Consultants, Inc. 13 P a g e
1-39
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011
;. Lawrence Expressway is an eight -lane north -south expressway. South of US 101, the right -most
lane in each direction of travel is designated as a carpool lane, which is also known as a high -
occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. The HOV lane designation is in effect in both directions of travel
during both the AM and PM peak commute hours. During other times, the lane is open to all users.
Lawrence Expressway begins at its junction with SR 237 and extends southward into Saratoga,
where it transitions into Quito Road at Saratoga Avenue. Full interchanges are located at US 101
and SR 237. Lawrence Expressway provides access to the project site via Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalks are found along both sides of Stevens Creek Boulevard and along both sides of Stern
Avenue, along the project frontage.
-- The main streets in the study area include bike lanes (Class II Bikeways). Bike lanes exist along
Stevens Creek Boulevard in the vicinity of the project.
Existing Transit Service
Existing transit service to the study area is provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA). Three local bus lines serve the project area: lines 23, 101 and 182. The 23 line has
bus stops located along Stevens Creek Boulevard at Wolfe, Finch, Tantau, Calvert and Lawrence
Expressway. The 101 line has bus stops located on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Finch, Calvert,
Lawrence and Wolfe. The 182 line has bus stops on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Lawrence and
Wolfe.
Existing Intersection Lane Configurations
The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were obtained by observations in the
field. The existing intersection lane configurations are shown on Figure 3.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Existing traffic volumes were obtained from traffic counts conducted in Year 2010 and 2011. The
existing peak hour intersection volume is shown on Figure 4. The traffic count data are included in
Appendix A.
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the intersection level of service analysis under existing conditions are summarized in
E Table 3. The results show that, measured against City of Cupertino, City of Santa Clara and CMP
standards, the signalized study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service during
theyM peak hour. The level ofnervice calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.
U
Observed Existing Traffic Conditions
_ Traffic conditions in the field were observed in order to identify existing operational deficiencies and
to confirm the accuracy of calculated intersection levels of service. The purpose of this effort was
(1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to level of service, and
(2) to identify any locations where the level of service analysis does not accurately reflect existing
traffic conditions.
Overall, the study intersections operated well during the PM peak hour of traffic, and the level of
`` service analysis appears to reflect actual existing traffic conditions accurately.
uPena TNOSPDrtatign(onSUNDts.6. 14 P a g e
1-40
r
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011
The following observations were noted at the unsignalized intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard
and Stem Avenue:
• At certain times (especially after 5:30 PM) the eastbound through vehicles at the
intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive queued all the way to Stern Avenue.
As a result of this queue, even if there were gaps in the eastbound direction on Stevens
Creek Boulevard, it was hard to see the gaps in the westbound direction on Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
• At one time it was observed that a vehicle going eastbound on Stevens Creek Boulevard
that was waiting for the queue at Calvert Drive to clear waited for a vehicle on Stern
Avenue to make a left-tum by conveying (hand signs) that it was ok to make the turn.
Although the northbound left -turning vehicle on Stern Avenue managed to make the left -
turn, the vehicle was observed to be waiting in -front of the eastbound left -turn lane (taking
refuge) to find gaps in the westbound traffic flow on Stevens Creek Boulevard, which is a
dangerous situation.
• The delay was observed to vary anywhere between 15 and 350 seconds based on the
arrival time at the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stern Avenue in relation to the
traffic signal timings at Tantau Avenue and Calvert Drive.
• It was observed that most of the westbound left -turn traffic on Steven Creek Boulevard at
Stern Avenue was U-turn traffic from IHOP, which is located across Stevens Creek
Boulevard. Although there were gaps in the eastbound traffic, the northbound left turning
traffic on Stern Avenue had to wait for all the westbound left -turn traffic (most of which were
U-turns) to clear before making the left -turn. This added to the delay for the northbound left -
turns on Stern Avenue.
uHexagon Tianswation Grisultaa Inc.
15 Page
1-41
Sunflower Learninp- Center
Stevens Creek Blvd
2
Stevens Creek Blvd
4)
3
%04+
Stevens Creek Blvd a
4
Stevens Greek Blvd
+-
—T,
ID
7�1
T,
E
R
5 E
6
.2
-7
8
0
LU
F-
cr
as
U)
Stevens Creek Blvd
(+
Stevens Creek Blvd
e 4—
Stevens Creak Blvd
Stevens Deek Blvd
+
* = Site Location Signalized Intersection
001 = Study Intersection Unsignalized Intersection
VIP"
INC
Figure 3
Existing Lane Configurations
SORT
1-42
Sunflower Learning Certer
(+
Stevens Greek Nvd
508—t
4--72!8
,�-163
+1
2
4) (+
Stevens Cm�ek BW
30—f
+—BOI
104
4) (4
3
Stevens Crpek Blvd
11 0--;p
t-78
163
------ ----
4
Stevens Creek Blvd
t-- 5
4-178
26-.),
931—
!4 72
1170--+
1044---+
1287---+
ro
3 7
n
E
C.1
E
6
7
m
m
CO V)
LO
t-29
u
E
10
Cr
0
11
r
C� t-258
M
4-856
+--1907
cTJcv M
10 +-1391
z
+--898
<)
e-414
m
Stevens Creak Blvd
Stevens Greek Blvd
Stevens Greek r3fvd
Stevens Creek Blvd
44--J,
J,
364—MI
6
913--+
rya u
1299---
1514---+
1083--+
501--�,
ms
21.
. ...........
. . ........ — --- — --------
Site Location XX =g.'Mlleak-l-dc)Ljr'l"r-afflcVoltiriies
Study Intersection
VT1,
2mm
Existing Traffic Volumes
umm
NDRTH
Nr .—
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard - Draft Traffic Analysis Report
M/I
M
WU
V
31/
AJE
M R
....................
'M (15
g
Stevens C"reek Nvd, and N Wolfi.-',Road
FIM
I'l /04/10
3,1`5,5
D
Stevens Creek, Blvd. and Fnch Ave.
p M
03/01/11
21,5
C
Stevens Creek Blvd, and'Tantau Ave,.
PM
03/0 1 M '1
30,9
C
Stevens Creek B[vd, and 1-280 SB Ran-�p
PM
10/20/10
242
C;
Stevens G-ieek Blvd, and Agilent Technologies Drwy.
PNA
03/01/11
14,8
B
Stevens (.",,'reek Blvd, and I-awrence Exp. SE33
p NA
10120il 0
28,8
C
Stevens Creek Blvd. and Lawrence Exp. NB
PM
'10/20/10
27,7
C
1. Average control delay (seconds per vehicle) including all movements for intersections
controlled by a signal and the worst delay associated wuth a turning rnovement
on the minor street ap[Droach at Unsignalized intersections.
2. Level of service (based on average delay).
........ . . .
18 P a g
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report
3.
Existing Plus Project Conditions
April 5, 2011
This chapter describes traffic conditions with the project. It begins with a description of the
significance criteria used to establish what constitutes a project impact. A description of the
transportation system under existing plus project conditions and the method by which project traffic
is estimated is then described. Included in this chapter is a summary of existing plus project traffic
conditions, as well as any impacts caused by the project. Existing plus project conditions are
represented by existing traffic conditions with the addition of traffic generated by the project.
Significant Impact Criteria
Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes an impact. For this analysis, the criteria
used to determine impacts on intersections is based on the City of Cupertino level of service
standards and the Congestion Management Program (CMP) level of service standards.
City of Cupertino Definition of Significant Intersection Impacts
The project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized
intersection in the City of Cupertino if for either peak hour:
1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better under
existing conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under project conditions, or
2. The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS E or F under existing
conditions and the addition of project trips causes both the critical -movement delay at the
intersection to increase by four or more seconds and the demand -to -capacity ratio (V/C) to
increase by .01 or more.
An exception to this rule applies when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average
delay for critical movements (i.e. the change in average delay for&itical movements is negative). In
this case, the threshold of significance is an increase in the critical V/C value by .01 or more. A
significant impact by City of Cupertino standards is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when
measures are implemented that would restore intersection level of service to existing conditions or
better.
City of Santa Clara Definition of Significant Intersection Impacts
Although the project site is located in the City of Cupertino, four of the study intersections are
located within the City of Santa Clara, three of which are CMP intersections. The City of Santa
Clara LOS standard is LOS E at CMP intersections and LOS D at all other intersections. The
P""u T i ( 19 Page
u WON ianspnrtaUon onsunduls, nc. `
1-45
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard —Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011
significant impact criteria for City of Santa Clara -controlled intersections are the same as the City of
Cupertino significant impact criteria described above.
CMP Definition of Significant Intersection impacts
The definition of a significant impact at a CMP intersection is the same as for the Cities of Cupertino
and Santa Clara, except that the CMP standard for acceptable level of service is LOS E or better.
However, the acceptable LOS for the CMP intersections in Cupertino is considered as LOS D. A
significant impact by CMP standards is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are
implemented that would restore intersection conditions to existing conditions or better.
Transportation Network under Project Conditions
It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under project conditions, including
roadways and intersection lane configurations, would be the same as that described under existing
conditions.
Project Trip Estimates
The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would
- appear are estimated using a three -step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip
assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the
site is estimated for the PM peak hour. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of
the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment, the
project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described
below.
Trip Generation
I ' The project has proposed a private preschool and after -school tutoring center serving 154 students.
Most of the after -school students are expected to be picked up from their schools and dropped off
at the center by vans. Peak hour trip generation of the project is expected to occur in the evening
between 4:30 PM and 6:30 PM, when the children at the center are picked up by their parents.
The trip generation estimates for the proposed project was based on a trip generation survey that
was conducted on February 17, 2011 during the PM peak hour from 4:30 PM to 6:30 PM at the
existing facility at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard that currently has an enrollment of 130 students.
The survey results show that the existing school's trip generation peaked at 212 trips from 5:30 PM
to 6:30 PM with 107 trips in and 105 trips out. The observed trip generation rate was 1.63 trips per
student in the PM peak hour, for an enrollment of 130 students. For an enrollment of 154 students,
the project is expected to generate a total of 251 trips in the PM peak hour with 127 trips coming
into the site and 124 trips leaving the site. These trips were added to the peak hour of the adjacent
street traffic which occurs between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM, for a conservative analysis.
t
As the project proposes to occupy the existing office building, the project can receive credit for trips
generated by the existing office use. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th edition, an gffice
building with 8,653 square feet is expected to generate a total of 13 peak hour trips, with 2 trips
coming into the site and 11 trips leaving the site. After receivingcredit for the existing office use, the
proposed project is expected to generate a total of 238 net new trips, with 125 trips coming into the
site and 113 trips leaving the site (see Table 4).
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trip distribution pattern for the proposed project was estimated based on existing travel patterns
on the surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses. Vehicular
access to the site would be provided by one driveway on Stern Avenue. Figure 5 shows the project
trip distribution and assignment.
Peragon Tiansponation (onsultants. Inc. 20 ( P a g e
u
1-46
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard -- Draft Traffic Analysis Report
Table 4
Project Trip Generatlon Estimates
Proposed Use
F`Ireschooand After -,School Tutoring Center 2
Existing Use
Office' 3
April 5, 2011
154 students
1,63
127
124
251
M53 ksf
1.49
(2)
(11)
(13)
1. Rates expressed in trips per student and per 1,000 square 'feet fDr office,
2. Based on trip generaflon survey conducted at Sunflower Learriing (-,enter located at 19220 Stevens Creek
Boulevard, CA on 02/17/11 .
3. Institute of Trwisportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Sth Edition,
IP
2 1. 1 P a g e
Sunflower Learning Center
23
----- 23
51
4--- 53
Stevens Creels Blvd
� 6
Stevens Creek Blvd
2Stevrms
Crtaek Blvd
� 6
Stevens Creek Nvd
�mm 55
.s......_._.,.,..
........... .........._..... __.__....._..._.......
....--'--_.....�________..
�..�._._......
_..,,,......,.,.__.__..._......._._.....__
�
._....._..........._...„....
._..________..__.....,....
,_._.._.. ______.....__._
25 --
56 - �
59 p
an
E
m
m
Ix
E
U
L3
LO
v�
44
44
;
„ 31
21a
- 13
Stevens Creek Blvd
Steverim Creek Nvd
..�
Stevens Crreek Blvd
Stevens Creek Blvd
-
J'
34
11
23 —
11
17
23 - -
i�
c�
LEGEND �
L %;
Si4'e LOCe tion XX = PM Peak -Hour Traffic VcrIUMes Figure 5
m Study Intersection Project'TrIp Distribution and roj ' rI Assignment
_._ _.m ....... _ . _..___._._.......
m�<r kKA4fOPAISPD 1kT10 H (R � UIIAN1S.IHC.
1 ""'"" 4 8 6JCR"l"Ft
TH
ii
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011
ExIsting Plus Project'rraffic vaiumes
Project trips, as represented in the above project trip assignment, were added to existing traffic
volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic volumes; this is contrasted with the term project trips,
which is used to signify the traffic that is produced specifically by the project. The project traffic
volumes are shown on Figure 6.
ExIsUng Plus Project Intersec-Hon Leve[s, of Servfze.
The results of the intersection level of service analysis under existing PIUS project conditions are
summarized in 'Table 5. The results show that, rneasured against the Cty of Cupertino, City of
Santa Clara and CMP level of service standards, all of the intersections would continue to operate
adequately. The intersection level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.
Table 5
Project Intersection Levels of Service
Stevens Creek Blvd, and N Wolfe Road
FIM
35,5
E)
35.8
D
02
0009
Stevens Creek Blvd. and Frich Ave.
PlA
21,5
C
21.2
C
-02
0.014
Stevens Creek Blvd. arid TWI�@U Ave,
P M
309
C
30,7
C
O'l
0,02
Stevens Creek Blvd, and 1-280 SB Ramp
PM
24 2
C
24A
(.1
0 1
0014
Stevems Creek Blvd. and Agilent Technologies DnAry.
PM
14 8
B
150
B
05
M1 6
Steveris Creek Blvd, and Lawrence Exp. SB
Flf,,4
2M
C
2M
C
OA
0.014
Stevens Creek Blvd, and Lawrence Exp, NB
PM
273
C
27.9
C
0,3
Mi
1 1. Average control delay (seconds per vehicle) including all MOVerTlents for intersections controlled by as signal and
the worst delay associated with a turning movement
on the minor street approach at unsignalized intersections.
2. Level of service (based on average delay).
� uda fidnoation (Onsulwls. Inc, 2 3 1 P a g e
1-49
Sunflower Learning Center
n
171
Stevens
- 751
Creek
169
S6vd
508
956
141�
co
Lo� co
Steven
900
C.ree^kBIA
947
_
518
C5
as
s
q9
C7
re
u
PA
stevens
C rr ek
Blvd
852
._....w
.
30
—9`
_....._06
....__.._
1226
--
95
CO
to
h
ca
~ 2
29
Stevens
19951
Cry ek
ON18
55
13i_2
91
='ievc:rGs
F--- 722
Si k
169
_.1.I
1103
53
—
.
2
Stevens 1422
Creek
Blvd
1537 �
Purnerldge Ave
llm Pkwy
Stevens Creek Blvd
tila
E
a7
LEGEND
Site Location XX = PIA Peak -Hour Traffic ValUmes
°�) = Study Bntorsectfort
u.�� WEY,AGUi1 �fiACVSit Cl �ri�lkOrV{Od�4lhL11riVdS.N��.
1-50
AugBent Technology
11
Stevens
f---.17
C w..k
Blvd
26
---
1287
4W
192
—
E
x
z
258
911
Stevens
Creek
BNvd
--375
•.-
..
1094
— a
co t-- M
i
Figure
Existing Plus ProjectTraffic `raffiVoWmes
NORTI
sr�iW
V
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report
4.
Other Transportation Issues
April 5, 2011
This chapter presents other transportation issues associated with the project. These include an
analysis of:
• Unsignalized intersection analysis at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue
• Potential impacts to transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
• Site access and circulation, and
• Parking
Unlike the level of service impact methodology, which is adopted by the City Council, the analyses
in this chapter are based on professional judgment in accordance with the standards and methods
employed by the traffic engineering community.
Unsignalized Intersection Analysis
Although the City of Cupertino has not established significant impact criteria for unsignalized
intersections, an operational analysis was conducted for the Unsignalized intersection of Stevens
Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue in order to determine the vehicle queuing and delay that would
occur at this location under project conditions. The Peak Hour Volume Warrant #3, as described in
the Manual on Uniform Traffrc Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD), Part 4,
Highway Traffic Signals, 2003, is another tool for measuring the operations of an unsignalized
intersection. Intersections that meet the peak hour warrant are subject to further analysis before
determining that a traffic signal is necessary. Additional analysis may include unsignalized level of
service analysis and/or operational analysis such as an evaluation of vehicle queuing and delay.
Other options such as traffic control devices, signage, or geometric changes may be preferable
depending on existing field conditions.
The results of the unsignalized intersection analysis show that the Stevens Creek Boulevard and
Stern Avenue intersection would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour under existing, existing
plus project and cumulative conditions. The poor level of service during the PM peak hour is due
mostly to the excessive vehicle delays that would occur for the northbound left -turn movement from
Stern Avenue onto Stevens Creek Boulevard. During the PM peak commute periods, the opposing
eastbound and westbound traffic volumes on Stevens Creek Boulevard would make it difficult for
northbound vehicles to turn left onto westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard. This intersection was
also found to meet the PM peak hour volume signal warrant under project conditions. It is noted
that this intersection was found to operate at unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour under
existing conditions but does not meet the peak hour volume signal warrant under existing
conditions. '
FIN 25 I Page
u Ijezagon Transportation Consultani5.Inc.
1-51
!N
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011
Important to note is that. the excessive delays for the northbound left -turn movement would only
occur during the PM peak commute periods and would not present a problem the remainder of the
day. Also, the vehicle delay for this left -turn movement is an operational issue only and is not
considered a project impact under City of Cupertino policy or CEQA. Although the project would
add traffic to the northbound left turn movement at Stern Avenue, other alternative routes are
available for the project traffic heading westbound on Stevens Creek Boulevard. One of the
alternative routes is to head south on Stem Avenue, west on Loree Avenue, north on Tantau
Avenue and west on Stevens Creek Boulevard at the signalized intersection on Tantau Avenue and
Stevens Creek Boulevard. The other alternative route for the project traffic heading westbound on
Stevens Creek Boulevard is to make a right -turn onto Stevens Creek Boulevard at Stern Avenue
and make a U-turn at the Agilent Technologies Driveway/Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Based on field observations, the left turn from Stern Avenue onto Stevens Creek Boulevard is
difficult during the PM peak hour. To address the poor level of service for left turns from Stern
Avenue, the City could consider restricting the northbound left -turns at Stevens Creek Boulevard or
installation of a traffic signal that will permit safe turning movements for all approaches. The
following three alternatives describe the possible improvements at Stern:
1. Do Nothing - The northbound left -turn traffic from the project, aware of the delay
associated with making the left -turn at Stern Avenue would look for alternative routes to go
WB on Stevens Creek such as
• make a right turn on Stevens Creek and then make a U-turn at the Agilent technologies
driveway intersection to head west on Stevens Creek Blvd. or
• make a right on Stern Avenue (going south), turn right on Loree Ave and right on
Tantau Avenue and left at the signal at Tantau to continue WB on Stevens Creek Blvd.
The "Do nothing" option would still have some people making the left -turns.
2. Restricting left -turns onto Stevens Creek Blvd - The pros of this alternative are that it is
comparatively cheaper than. a signal and the issue of unsafe left -turns is eliminated.
However, it can result in delay at other intersections with traffic making U-turns. The
intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard/Agilent Technologies driveway was analyzed by
adding the northbound left turn volume on Stern Avenue to the eastbound left turn volume
at the Agilent Technologies driveway intersection. Under existing plus project conditions,
the Agilent Technologies Driveway intersection is expected to continue to operate at LOS B
- with 17.0 seconds of delay and LOS C with 21.1 seconds of delay under cumulative plus
project conditions during the PM peak hour with the northbound left turn volume on Stern
Avenue making a U-turn at the Agilent Technologies driveway intersection.
3. Signalization of the Stern Avenue intersection - The pros of this alternative are that full
access is provided to all movements with minimal delays. The con is that it is expensive
compared to the other alternatives.
By restricting the northbound and southbound left -turn and through movements from Stem Avenue
mito Stevens Creek Boulevard, the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue is
expected to operate at LOS C with 1 BA seconds of delay under project conditions and LOS E with
41.6 seconds of delay under cumulative conditions. This is the delay associated with the westbound
left -turns that would have to wait for gaps in the eastbound traffic flow on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
The City should consider implementing this alternative as this alternative results in acceptable
levels of service without the necessity for signalization at this intersection. A schematic illustration
of the improvements at this intersection that would restrict northbound and southbound left turns
and through movements from Stern Avenue onto Stevens Creek Boulevard but would allow the
eastbound and westbound left turns from Stevens Creek Boulevard onto Stern Avenue and
Wellesley Inn is shown on Figure 7.
ry - 26 � Page
u gexagon Transmation Gmultants, Inc.
1-52
/�� \�� � � � \\
a
No
mm
i
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011
Transit, Pedestrians and Bicycles
Sidewalks are found on both sides of Stevens Creek Boulevard and on both sides of Stern Avenue
along the project frontage.
The main streets in the study area include bike lanes (Class II Bikeways). Bike lanes exist along
Stevens Creek Boulevard.
The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on the existing transit, pedestrian, or
bicycle facilities in the study area.
Site Access and Circulation
This section describes the site access and circulation of the proposed project. This review is based
on a project site plan prepared by Shultz & Associates (see Figure 2).
Site Access
Site access was evaluated to determine the adequacy of the site's driveway with regard to the
following: corner sight distance, traffic volume, average delays, vehicle queuing, and truck access.
Vehicular access to the proposed project is. provided via one existing driveway on Stern Avenue.
Pedestrian access to the project is provided on Stevens Creek Boulevard. No vehicular access is
provided on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Corner Sight Distance
Based on the site plan and field observations, adequate sight distance is available at the driveway
on Stern Avenue to insure that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk, as well as
vehicles on Stern Avenue.
Traffic Volume
Under existing plus project conditions, the project driveway would have 65 trips inbound and 63
trips outbound during the PM peak hour.
Average Delays
Driveway delays would be short, and motorists could exit the project site easily during the PM peak
hour. Under project conditions, the driveway would experience an average outbound delay of 11.8
seconds (LOS B) during the PM peak hour.
Parkin
E Since the traffic study was completed the project size has been reduced to 142 students. The
folly wing parking analysis is based on 142 students.
Adequacy of parking for the proposed project was analyzed based upon observations at the
existing Sunflower Learning Center located at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard. At the current
location, students are usually dropped off at the after -school tutoring center by vans and picked up
by their parents. During pick-up time, parents were observed to park at the learning center and walk
into the school to pick up the child or a staff member was observed to walk the children to the car,
while the parents waited inside their cars. Based on 15-minute interval observations, the largest
number of cars parked was observed to be 11 vehicles for an enrollment of 130 students. With the
project expected to increase the enrollment to 142 students, the maximum number of parked cars is
expected to be 12 vehicles. In addition, all the staff members are expected to park on site. For an
enrollment of 142 students the number of staff is expected to be 12, based on a teacher to student
ratio of 1:12. Three vans belonging to the center were observed to be parked at the existing
uPexam Tiansuartatian consultants, Inc. 28 Page
1-54
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report
April 5, 2011
learning center. The project applicant has committed to parking the vans offsite, Thus, the
t, 'r
maximum number of cars expected to be parked on site is 24 (12 vehicles from parents and 12
vehicles from staff) on a regular weekday. Based on the site plan, the parking area for the proposed
school has a total of 24 parking spaces. It appears that the parking supply at the project site will
meet the projected parking demand. Street parking is available for at least seven vehicles along the
project frontage on Stern Avenue. However, the City parking code typically does not count street
parking. No parking is allowed on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Truck Access
C
An analysis was conducted to determine the adequacy of driveway access for the truck category
SU 30, which includes small buses, fire trucks, garbage trucks, and other single unit trucks.
According to this analysis, trucks would be able to negotiate the driveways, but would require the
use of the entire drive aisle width. Given the infrequency of truck trips, the existing design would be
adequate to handle the anticipated level of truck traffic.
On -Site Circulation
The onsite circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering
standards. The existing office building has 90-degree angled parking and the existing drive aisle is
approximately 25 feet in width. Based on review of the site plan, it appears that cars backing out of
the handicapped parking stall and the northern most compact stall would have difficulty turning
around to exit. Also, there appears to be interference between these two parking spaces so that
they cannot both be occupied at the same time.
V
►tee Peka9onTianswa[ionGnsultd%.Inc. 29 I P a g e
1-55
1&
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011
5.
Cumulative Conditions
This chapter presents a summary of the traffic conditions that would occur under cumulative
conditions both with and without the proposed project.
Roadway Network and Traffic Volumes
The intersection lane configurations under cumulative conditions were assumed to be the same as
described under existing conditions.
., Cumulative no project traffic volumes for the study intersections were generated by adding all the
approved/pending projects in the vicinity of the project to existing traffic volumes. The following
approved/pending projects were considered in developing the traffic volumes for the cumulative no
project condition.
• Vallco Mall expansion
• 19770 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Marketplace Building C)
Vallco Hotel
• Main Street Cupertino
10100 N. Tantau Avenue
5301 Stevens Creek Boulevard (HP/Agilent Site)
The project trip estimates were then added to the cumulative no project traffic volumes to derive
cumulative with project yaffic; volumes. Figure 7 shows f,)e intersection turning -movement volumes
under cumulative plus project conditions.
Intersection Levels of Service Under Cumulative Conditions
The level of service results for the study intersections under all cumulative conditions are
summarized in Table 6. The results show that, measured against the City of Cupertino, City of
Santa Clara and CMP level of service standards, all signalized intersections would operate at
acceptable LOS D or better under cumulative no project and cumulative with project conditions.
.a.
30 I Page
uUexapTra0sporta00n(a0sulm05.IN.
1-56
1.8900 Stevens Creel< Boulevard — Draft Traffic AnaBysis Report April 5, 2011
TaWe 6
Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service
Stevens (.':reek Blwi and rJ Wolfe Road
PM
39,0
1 )
40.0
D
1 8
0 0
Stevens Creek Blvd, and Finch AvP,
PKA
24.3
'
24,0
C
-0,2
0,0
Stevens Cyr" ek Blvd. and 'f antau Avc:a.
PM
31 9
C
32,0
C
04
0 0
Stevens Creek Blvd, and 1-280 SB Ram[:�
FIM
23,0
C
231
C
0,3
M
Stevens Deek Blvd. and ABile nt Techrrologicns Drvvy,
PM
186
B
18.9
B
06
M
Stevens Cieek Bhvd, and Laanrrence Exp, SB
PM
292
C
2 9 (3
C
cl. 7
0,0
Stevens Creek Blvd, and Lawrer,rce Exp, NB
PM
282
C
28,5
C
03
0.0
1. Average control delay (sec:;onds per veNcle) including all movernents for intersections controlled by a signal and
the worst delay associated with a turning nioveni(ant
on the minor street approach eat unsignaHzed intersections.
2. Level of service (based on average deay).
r" Pawn Gilsulldf)ts� 11c 31. 1 Page
b-d
gum
Sunflower Learning Center
IN
2 3 4
MMOO 5UO) cuo') c�'r4 257 'Z-2" 86 cc RO 120
sleventevens (fvd+ 4— 1324
1037 Stevenssievns 1256 Steve 1182 Creek
Creek Greek 5 234
227 Blvd Rv
A 188 1)', d" 175
575 130 172 26
1221 T 1544 1458 T 1791
1�0 95 —4, 00 M 68 r.- �—
C to
141 102
M 0
15 E
U) a
E 6 7 E
R
L��m Z
LO CO U
CO 12' 2 6 3
Stevens 4-- 1407 :9 ZE 48 Stevens 1894 12,30
Creek 2432 Creek
Blvd 414 Stevens B
Creek Wvd_ Stevens Creek Blvd Blvd 3 . 87
1286 83
683 1657 1915 1490
M C"
ta
Site LocatiDn XX = PM Peak-HOur Traffic Volurnes
Study Intprst-f-flon
�[KA(,o TP A i(PUT AT I Dh (OhM 10 IS, I HC
Ow
9MM
Cumulative Phis Project Traffic Volumes
N
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011
6.
Conclusions
This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential traffic impacts related to the
proposed Sunflower preschool and after -school learning center. The impacts of the project were
evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Cupertino, City of
Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The VTA administers the
county Congestion Management Program (CMP). Project impacts on other transportation
categories, such as site access and circulation, were determined on the basis of engineering
judgment.
Signalized Intersections
All signalized intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service based on LOS
standards set forth by the City of Cupertino, City of Santa Clara and VTA. The project is not
expected to have any significant impact at any of the study intersections.
Unsignalized Intersections
The unsignalized intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stem Avenue was found to operate
at unacceptable LOS under existing conditions but not satisfy the peak hour volume signal warrant.
Under project conditions, this unsignalized intersection is expected to continue to operate at LOS F
and also meet the peak hour volume signal warrant. The City can consider restricting the
northbound left-tums from Stern onto Stevens Creek Boulevard or signalizing this intersection to
improve traffic operations.
The following three alternatives describe the possible improvements at Stern Avenue:
J 0 J
Do Nothing — The northbound left -turn traffic from the project, aware of the delay
associated with making the left -turn at Stern Avenue will look for alternative routes to go
WB on Stevens Creek such as
• make a right turn on Stevens Creek and then make a U-turn at the Agilent technologies
driveway intersection to head west on Stevens Creek Blvd. or
• make a right on Stern Avenue (going south), turn right on Loree Ave and right on
Tantau Avenue and left at the signal at Tantau to continue WB on Stevens Creek Blvd.
The "Do nothing" option will still have some people making left -turns.
ugexagon Transportation (anWN1111s, lnc. 33 P a g e
1-59
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard — Draft Traffic Analysis Report April 5, 2011
2. Restricting NB left-tums on Stevens Creek Blvd — The pros of this alternative are that it is
comparatively cheaper than a signal and the issue of left -turns is eliminated. However it
can result in delay at other intersections with traffic making U-turns. The intersection of
Stevens Creek Boulevard/Agilent Technologies driveway was analyzed by adding the
northbound left turn volume on Stern Avenue to the eastbound left turn volume at the
Agilent Technologies driveway intersection. Under existing plus project conditions, the
Agilent Technologies Driveway intersection is expected to continue to operate at LOS B
with 17.0 seconds of delay and LOS C with 21.1 seconds of delay under cumulative plus
project conditions during the PM peak hour period with the northbound left turn volume on
Stern Avenue making a U-turn at the Agilent Technologies driveway intersection.
3. Signalization of the Stern Avenue intersection —The pros of this alternative are that it would
provide full access to all movements with minimal delay. The con is it is expensive
compared to the other alternatives.
"- By restricting the northbound and southbound left -turn and through movements from Stern
Avenue onto Stevens Creek Boulevard, the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stem
Avenue is expected to operate at LOS C with 18.4 seconds of delay under project conditions
and LOS E with 41.6 seconds of delay under cumulative conditions. This is the delay
associated with the westbound left -turns that would have to wait for gaps in the eastbound
traffic flow on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The City should consider implementing this alternative
as this alternative results in acceptable levels of service without the necessity for signalization
at this intersection. A schematic illustration of the improvements at this intersection that would
restrict northbound and southbound left turns and through movements from Stern Avenue onto
Stevens Creek Boulevard but would allow the eastbound and westbound left turns from
Stevens Creek Boulevard onto Stern Avenue and Wellesley Inn is shown on Figure 7.
� y �
uPewonfianswation(onsultants.Inc. 3 4 1 P a g e
H
L2 P
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Technical Appendices
April 5, 2011
1-61
t'f
A
v
Appendix A
Traffic Counts
UMA
Traffic Data Service
Canipbell, CA
(408) 377-2988
tdsbay@cs.com
Amine Printpd_ Vahir_lac
File Name
: 1 PM FINAL
Site Code
: 00000001
Start Date
: 11/4/2010
Page No
: 1
N. WOLFE
RD
STEVENS
CREEK BLVD
MILLER
AVE
STEVENS
CREEK BLVD
Southbound
Westbound
Northbound
Eastbound
Start Time
Right I
Thru I
Left I
Pads
I Am. Tow
Right I
Thru I
Left
Peds
App.Total
Right I
Thru I
Left
Peds
App.Total
Right I
Thru I
Left I
Peds
I App.Trnei
intTntal
04:00 PM
67
109
69
3
248
16
118
22
5
161
14
71
38
2
125
30
170
101
0
301
835
04:15 PM
75
104
65
3
247
35
137
24
2
198
13
54
34
4
105
41
190
91
3
325
875
04:30 PM
83
121
57
6
267
35
116
28
3
182
16
69
31
0
116
26
193
106
10
335
900
04:45 PM
100
171
42
3
316
38
139
25
3
205
17
88
28
0
133
36
188
102
6
332
986
Total
325
505
233
15
1078
124
510
99
13
746
60
282
131
6
479
133
741
400
19
1293
3596
05:00 PM
107
168
63
1
339
35
171
52
4
262
25
80
36
2
143
36
199
107
0
342
1086
05:15 PM
114
169
76
2
361
33
169
50
3
255
17
74
30
1
122
39
244
135
3
421
1159
05:30 PM
144
208.
88
7
447
34
203
51
3
296
14
89
32
2
137
33
263
130
3
429
1309
05:45 PM
123
199
92
2
416
50
173
37
1
261
8
97
50
3
158
42
221
118
8
389
1224
Total
488
744
319
12
1563
152
721
190
11
1074
64
340
148
8
560
150
927
490
14
1581
4778
06:00 PM
126
228
80
1
435
31
178
25
0
234
14
100
33
5
152
27
203
125
5
360
1181
06:15 PM
104
178
65
3
350
40
199
37
1
277
11
69
34
0
114
31
223
102
1
357
1098
06:30 PM
95
200
105
2
402
33
167
41
0
241
16
84
29
0
129
40
225
139
1
405
1177
06:45 PM
95
214
130
0
439
33
133
36
0
202
14
79
35
0
128
37
224
113
0
374
1143
Total
420
820
380
6
1626
137
677
139
1
954
55
332
131
5
523
135
875
479
7
1496
4599
Grand Total
1233
2069
932
33
4267
413
1908
428
25
2774
179
954
410
19
1562
418
2543
1369
40
4370
12973
Apprch %
28.9
48.5
21.8
0.8
14.9
68.8
15.4
0.9
11.5
61.1
26.2
1.2
9.6
58.2
31.3
0.9
Total % 1
9.5
15.9
7.2
0.3
32.9
3.2
14.7
3.3
0.2
21.4
1.4
7.4
3.2
0.1
12
3.2
19.6
10.6
0.3
33.7
N. WOLFE RD
Southbound
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
Westbound
MILLER AVE
Northbound
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
Eastbound
Start Time
Right
Thru
Left
Peds
App.T.wi
Right
Thru
Left
Peds
App.Totai
Right
Thru
Left
Peds
App.Total
Right
Thru
Left
Peds
App.Total
ixrrnai
teak Hour Analysis 1-1-01711 U4:UU FM to UbAb I'M - F'eaK 1 oT 1
Ppak Hrn it fnr Pnfirp IniPme Linn Ronine at n5.15 PM
05:15 PM
114
169
76
2
361
33
169
50
3
255
17
74
30
1
122
39
244
135
3
421
1159
05:30 PM
144
208
88
7
447
34
208
51
3
296
14
89
32
2
137
33
263
130
3
429
1309
05:45 PM
123
199
92
2
416
50
173
37
1
261
8
97
50
3
158
42
221
118
8
389
1224
06:00 PM
126
228
80
1
435
31
178
25
0
234
14
100
33
5
152
27
203
125
5
360
1181
Total Volume
507
804
336
12
1659
148
728
163
7
1046
53
360
145
11
569
141
931
508
19
1599
4873
% App. Total
30.6
48.5
20.3
0.7
14.1
69.6
15.6
0.7
9.3
63.3
25.5
1.9
8.8
58.2
31.8
1.2
PHF
.880
.882
.913
.429
.928
.740
.875
.799
.583
.8B3
.779
.900
.725
.550
.900
.839
.885
.941
.594
.932
.931
VV
1-63
Traffic Data Service
Campbell, CA
(408) 377-2988
tdsbay@cs.com
File Name
: 1 PM FINAL
Site Code
: 00000001
Start Date
: 11/4/2010
Page No
: 2
Out In TotEd
1016 1 1659 2675
507 8041 3361 12
Right Thru Leit Peds
ff I L+
Peak Hour Data
�
J F N
�0s
j
^ m
o
Nrr
m
W W
M L_,
Northrr
4-J V
C N
v
~
Peak Hour Begins at 05:15 PM
a
o
VehidesUj
m
w
rr
rT
�
!ilU)
m
d
N V
Mac
r
Left Thu Ri M Peds
1451 3601 53 11
1106 569 16-7
Out In Total
MILLER AVE
v 0
1-64
I
Ln
cr,
... .
......
......
... .
........ ..... .
CI, cl
C-1 0
M
10
pl-
m
ro
0
In
In to
N
M
-4- 4c
I- M
7E
cc, m
r,
U)
0
TC11
�cl
0 cl
...... ... ...
0
..
0
n
CC?CO
-.— —
r-
cz
IC5
Pw.
CO M
ID
r-
N
U
0
CL
w
>
a
m N
Lr)
n
LO
c Lo
IN 0
N
Lo
I
LM
Lu
r'. In
I-
m
o
c
0
V)
10
. .. .......
0
CL
L)
E
m
OW
co M
0
0
c
t�
2
w
0
OL
m It
CQ era
W
0
1.0
N
. .....
.... . ...
>Pam.
CC
.2 .2'
c
CII
11
1.."
M (n
0
E
0 L1 cl u'> 0 U7 0 In 0
0 m
N ,-� m CD
0 cn N
It
co 61)
L", 0
C, 01~•ti 0 M en
a, 0 1-1 11 "1 flcd
mm
uD cl, rl. (ZI, X, W,
M Ili M I. r It
C14 `4 In 0
CC
CO
Lu
LU
ul
V)
Cfi
tmm
wow
Stevens
Creek
M,9aJ') SUaAaJS
z
V
0
U
>
12 0 s g
j cl; 0
0 L: 6 as
L:
L)
7i m m = 7� -Lo :!7 � C:,
- G L", c,Lk al m
m a,
... . ... ......
ti
Ln ID
C n F —r- 3,
c,4 �, ll�
-ro m m rC, "I 1� a,
n, U,
M.,
. . .... ..... . .. .. .... .
17 v" C0
m < LC? T CV c.,
v Q v lrY r- m cr,
o
... . .... .. ....
rZ lo LD 0
C� vQ M M �l
Ln -,t
an 4
tl
> 21
Lu
Lq LN Llo
N 1 N
7;
C, e z" C, c o
Co 'm m = =
r N N
L
10 CD M
co m a)
c Co f? = 'n 0
%a
Irl IT
m
ID 0
co C, a, c7l r-
cq
M o
L
w
Irl 16
M
u
m
"no
z
Ul
CrCJ Ca c) o o
C3 cc,
-j
LU I cl
N CA V) Lt7 m
o o c) o n pm
C, C'7 C, rD C'
o I C, [ c B o 1 C7 1 (:{ c" I C', I a, g I m n c, 0 0 C.,
0 U7 0 � C,
7� 7�
"T 't aC IX) Ln IS) 11) 1.D 0 0 n C,
I
Stevens Crck
MBJO SU9ABIS
b)
1-66
r.
CN N
. . ..........................
ch
rl
Ln M
,ro
M 0 0 CD C., o 0 CD C.1 0
M�� M�m
tu o c, o o m cn� 0
a W.
CL
0 CL
z
CO
-----
-----
u
a) C)
C
(D
0 0
C�
0
C,� C)
0
>
0
N
0
a,
a, o
u
0
0 o
>
... . .. ......
......
.......
CIS
0 I=
4a
al
W v
11
0
0
IN
M
ll�
W7
0
2
Ti
0
>
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 o
-j
1=71,
> CID
tm C,
N
M Irl
eCA
0 IN
V) u
.........
. ....
T
0
L2
0
0
L�,
c�
m
'o 0
1: ID
CL
U
J6,
.6, U—
In U� �o d.
0 Cr Cl C) 0 0
IT M N
.0
M It w m
m C. 0 0 Cl 0
1- 0 m m m CJJ
M 0) -
C,
9D CJ M U"I W
_j N rq N N IN
0 0 0 ID 1.o) 1c, I I M 1 0
E3 �
41
CL
4 4 .6
TL
Stevens Creek
MMEMMMM
In
6 m N 0 co w
ro H r; vi r�
CL
.0
N I.0
x
IN ll! M
10
-0 m ID
C,4 n, It, M
10 c� It
Ir V, �t
In 0 rj
>
c-, m
(.,I 'n
2�
c,Q c�
rj
In, c^.,
0
It C,
M M,
I'l C',
0 IN In I'll ID I'D
M
CN
Ic,
zl n, ID 0 ID,
CIL',
—M
c
cl cl,
c, 0
0 C.",
r, C, 0 0 CD n-
m
M
M
V" ILI
0 C,
In If
Ln
qua N-.
(D
V a)
'll In!
0 cz
4,
ay
o
IN
In m
lm
0>, <11
61, 'N 1,20 1.-
va
ca LO
V� C4
CT c,5
ID
04
IN ul) �; r- IT, M
tm
0 M
Lr7
IN
IN M
1:
INN cli IN N
Ca rq
czt4
c,4 v
Ell
a n ri r,4
m Irl
,D
M c,
0
n
GC,N�
� 7�,
1� M rl
0-
10
C",
o c,
11 U.
C-1
0 "I I-D 0
co
>
Z
cc
cn c-,
o o
0 N WT t-
ID ".
m
"'2
"I In
M V
c� N 4 r4
z
KV
c-LO L�
:3
E
0 In It 0
6�
C:,l Lf5
ID
Lr) 0
*t C,
Ill 0
": "I
U) o
C7
In li s,5 .6
C? I.
4
In
4,
4 6�'
U7 10
7'
n LO
a.
Stevens Creek
5199JO 9UOAa4q
am
c Q In
rl C, 0 rx,
CD IN cli c)
In CD m
f- ISO In
M = I -
CDC r., C0
IF&
m
IN
CL
v
r:
Stevens Creek
�aajo SUDAIIS
am
Nacli = z
0 M r) N
IN N IN N
CL
2
�2- ILQ. P..
IN rlt N
M LD LO I'-
"Ir
CY
0 If) In LkF-
'6 "0 C, Cr IQ
R In u7p In vl
j
0
In p- a) "o
co It �o Lo
In .- - r- M
16 VC,4 rQ rq ( 4
mwmIll
aA
C, 112 C, 4 0 0 In 0
, M 1,4: f,� � Cl.3
Ti •'3' 4i In In In In L�
IN
0
a�qajo suamqs
m
E
W
M
mm
ry
0 LO Ln Cz7 0
N 't U) M
ro 0
In c, 2
0 CL ------
lz Cd
LO
N Ca In ILI 1- 0)
CC
C', QD W., D 10 N
c� N
'S 22 �r M
N
u 4g Cl
m R
M rL
�7 <
z I'M
0
co.. . .... ................
(l CD It I'M
A IN ?I— m
..... ....... ........... ..........
LO Co , N cc
m 0 n m
> 2 m to A, cR
0 a 0
hi
"t N
GC
In ".1 0
Loy LO 0
ID co
----- ---- -------
�o M c7l lll� 1"ll
cn
In CID In N V� r�
IN M Ln
CL
CL...... ......
14,
0
E
as aV: 6i In fti lii L;
Ub
0 M N GN N 12 GY
U�
= 0 N "i S� I,,
� C4
CL
CID m
r M In N N
10 10
2
=
F-
Cc C0 t,
o 0
CO ,A Ol ID
T -4 C71
lJ 14 n
111 1�21 IG"5
C) 'o C.)
0
ul aD
'T
11
I
Stevens Creek
MOBJ:3 SUOABIS
17T
I
Appendix 6
Intersection Level of Service Calculations
1-72
COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:23:06 2011 Page 3-1
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Repoli
2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1: Stevens Creek Blvd/N Wolfe Road
Si gnat=P mtecVRights=Overlap
Final Vol:
507 BD4- 336
Lanes:
1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include
Vol Cnt Date: 11/4/2010
Signal=Protect
Rights=lnciude Lanes: Final Vol:
508- 2
Cycle Time (sec): 110
IA- 0 148
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
'4 1
931 3
Critical V/C: 0.687
i q-�-- - 2 72B*"
0
Avg Crit Del (sedveh): 39.7
� 0
141 1
Avg Delay (seaveh): 35.5
2 163
LOS: D
I t t
Lanes:
1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol:
145** 350 53
Signal=Pmtect1Rig hts=l ncluds
Street Name: N Wolfe Road Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Min. Green: 0 0 0 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Volume Module: >> Count Date: 4 Nov 2010 <<
Base Vol: 145 360 53 336 804 507 508 931 141 163 728 148
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 145 360 53 336 604 507 508 931 141 163 728 148
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 145 360 53 336 804 507 508 931 141 163 728 148
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 145 360 53 336 804 507 508 931 141 163 728 148
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 145 360 53 336 804 507 508 931 141 163 728 148
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 2.60 0.40 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.47 0.53
Final Sat.: 1750 4880 719 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4653 946
------------ 1--------------- II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------I
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sa62: 0.�Q8 0.07 0.07 0tl9 0.21 0.29 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.05 0.16 0.16
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 13.3 13.1 13.1 34.1 33.9 59.7 25.8 36.6 36.6 14.3 25.D 25.0
Volume/Cap: 0.69 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.69 0.53 0.69 0.49 0.24 0.40 0.69 0.69
Delay/Veh: 55.5 47.9 47.9 34.7 35.1 16.8 41.1 29.5 26.8 44.6 40.5 40.5
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 55.5 47.9 47.9 34.7 35.1 16.8 41.1 29.5 26.8 44.6 40.5 40.5
LOS by Move: E D D C D B D C C D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 6 6 6 11 13 12 11 9 4 3 10 10
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 20 Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:23:06 2011 Page 3-3
Sunflower Learning Carter
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
20DD HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative)
Project (PM)
Intersection #1: Stevens Creek Blvd(N Wolfe Road
S inal=P rotect/Rights=Overlap
Final
Vol: 507
804-
361
Lanes:
1 0
2
0
1
14
14ir
it
1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include
Vol Cnt Date:
Cycle Time (sec):
n/a Rights=Include
110
Lanes:
Final Vol:
508"' 2
0
171
Loss
Time (sec):
12
956 3
Critical V/C:
0.696
2
i
751-
0
Avg Grit
Del (sedveh):
39.9
0
141 1
Avg Delay (sealveh):
35.8
2
169
LOS:
D
14)
Lanes:
1 0
2
1
0
Final
Vol: 145"
360
59
Sig n al=ProtecVRi ghts=l nclude
Street Name:
N
Wolfe Road
Stevens
Creek
Blvd
Approach: North
Bound
South
Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L -
T -
R
L -
T
- R
L - T -
R
L -
T
- R
---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------
Min. Green: 0
0
0
7
10
10
7 10
10
7
10
10
Y+R: 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Volume. Module:
Base Vol: 145
360
59
361
804
507
508 956
141
169
751
171
Growth Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial Bse: 145
360
59
361
804
507
508 956
141
169
751
171
User Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Volume: 145
360
59
361
804
507
508 956
141
169
751
171
Reduct Vol: 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Reduced Vol: 145
360
59
361
804
507
508 956
141
169
751
171
PCE Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.0Q
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume: 145
360
59
361
604
507
508 956
141
169
751
171
------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment: 0.92
0.99
0.95
0.92
1.00
0.92
0.83 1.00
0.92
0.83
0.99
0.95
Lanes: 1.00
2.56
0.44
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00 3.00
1.00
2.00
2.42
0.58
Final Sat.: 1750
4810
788
1750
3600
1750
3150 5700
-
1750
---II---------------I
3150
4560
1038
------------ I---------------II---------------II
Capacity Analysis
VI;51/Sat: 0.08
Module:
0.07
0.07
0.21
0.21�
0.29
0.16 0.17
0.08
0.05
0.16
0.1'(
Crit Moves: ****
****
****
****
Green Time: 13.1
12.4
12.4
34.1
33.4
58.9
25.5 37.3
37.3
14.2
26.0
26.0
Volume/Cap: 0.70
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.70
0.54
0.70 0.49
0.24
0.42
0.70
0.70
Delay/Veh: 56.4
49.5
49.5
36.1
35.7
17.4
41.7 29.0
26.3
44.8
40.0
40.0
User DelAdj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 56.4
49.5
49.5
36.1
35.7
17.4
41.7 29.0
26.3
44.B
40.0
40.0
LOS by Move: E
D
D
D
D
B
D C
C
D
D
D
HCM2kAvgQ: 7
6
6
12
13
12
11 9
4
4
11
11
Note: Queue reported
is
the number
of cars per
lane.
Traffx 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 21F"2741 Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE Tue Mar 2214:23:06 2011 Page 3-4
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
20DO HCM Operations (Base Volume Altemative)
Fxisting (PM)
Intersection #2: Stevens Creek Blvd/Finch Ave
Signal=S plil/Ri ghts=Include
Final
Vol: 391-
0
19
Lanes:
1 0
0
0
2
j
III
41,
1*
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include
Cycle
Vol Cnt Date: 3/1/2011
Time (sec):
Rights=Include
110
Lanes: Final Vol:
30 1 �
I 0
6
Loss
Tme
(sec):
12
I
0
1
1170- 2
Critical
V/C: 0.394
lam_ _ 2
i
801
1
Avg Crit
Del (serdveh):
20.6
0
95 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh):
21.5
1
104-
LOS:
C
Lanes: 1 0
0
0
1
Final
Vol: 108
0
76-
Signal=S pliVRights=Include
Street Name:
Finch
Ave
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Approach: North
Bound
South
Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L -
T - R
L
- T
- R
L - T -
R
L -
---------------
T
- R
------------ I---------------
Min. Green: 7
II---------------
10 10
7
10
II---------------
10
7 10
II
10
7
10
10
Y+R: 4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
II--------
4.0
4.0
4.0
I
------------ I---------------
Volume Module: >>
II---------------
Count Date:
1 Mar
II---------------
2011 <<
Base Vol: 108
0 76
19
0
39
30 1170
95
104
801
6
Growth Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial Bse: 108
0 76
19
0
39
30 1170
95
104
801
6
User Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Volume: 108
0 76
19
0
39
30 1170
95
104
801
6
Reduct Vol: 0
0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Reduced Vol: 108
0 76
19
0
39
30 1170
95
104
801
6
PCE Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume: 108
0 76
19
0
39
II---------------
30 1170
95
II
104
---------------I
801
6
------------ I---------------
Saturation Flow Module:
II---------------
Sat/Lane: 1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment: 0.92
1.00 0.92
0.83
1.00
0.92
0.92 0.99
0.95
0.92
0.98
0.95
Lanes: 1.00
0.00 1.00
2.00
0.00
1.00
1.00 2.77
0.23
1.00
2.98
0.02
Final Sat.: 1750
0 1750
3150
0
1750
1750 5179
421
1750
5558
42
------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Capacity Analysis
Vol/Sat: 0.06
Module:
0.00'-�-'0.04
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.02 0.23
0.23
;>
0.06
0.14
0.14
Crit Moves
****
****
****
****
Green Time: 15.6
0.0 15.6
10.0
0.0
10.0
22.2 57.3
57.3
15.1
50.2
50.2
Volume/Cap: 0.43
0.00 0.31
0.07
0.00
0.25
0.09 0.43
0.43
0.43
0.32
0.32
Delay/Veh: 44.3
0.0 43.0
45.8
0.0
47.3
35.8 16.4
16.4
44.8
19.1
19.1
User DelAdj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 44.3
0.0 43.0
45.8
0.0
47.3
35.8 16.4
16.4
44.8
19.1
19.1
LOS by Move: D
A D
D
A
D
D B
B
D
B
B
HCM2kAvgQ: 4
0 3
0
0
2
1 9
9
4
6
6
Note: Queue reported
is the number
of cars per
lane.
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 20111e4lb Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE Tua Mar 22 14:23:06 2011 Page 3-6
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative)
Project (PM)
Intersection #2: Stevens Creek Blvd/Finch Ave
Signal=S plit/Rig fits=l nclude
Final
Vol: 39-
0
19
Lanes: I- J
1 0
0 0
2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Volt Lanes: Rights=Include
Vol Cnt Date:
n!a Rights=Include Lanes:
Final Vol:
�
Cycle Time (sec):
110
30 1
0
6
Loss
Time (sec):
12
1226- 2
Critical V/C: 0.408
i
2
i
852
1
Avg Crit
Del (seclveh):
20.4
0
95 0
Avg Delay (seolveh):
21.2
1
106-
LOS:
C
Lanes:
1 0
0 0
1
Final
Vol: 108
0
79"'
Signal=SpliVRights=l nclude
Street Name:
Finch
Ave
Stevens
Creek Blvd
Approach: North
Bound
South Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L -
T -
R
L - T
- R
L - T -
R
L -
T
- R
------------ I---------------
Min. Green: 7
10
II---------------
10
7 10
II---------------
10
7 10
11---------------I
10
7
10
10
Y+R: 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
II---------------
4.0 4.0
4.0
II
4.0
---------------I
4.0
4.0
------------ I---------------
Volume Module:
II---------------
Base Vol: 108
0
79
19 0
39
30 1226
95
106
852
6
Growth Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial Bse: 108
0
79
19 0
39
30 1226
95
106
852
6
User Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Volume: 108
0
79
19 0
39
30 1226
95
106
852
6
Reduct Vol: 0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Reduced Vol: 108
0
79
19 0
39
30 1226
95
106
852
6
PCE Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume: 108
0
79
-II---------------
19 0
39
II---------------
30 1226
95
II
106
---------------I
852
6
------------I---------
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment: 0.92
1.00
0.92
D.83 1.00
0.92
0.92 0.99
0.95
0.92
0.98
0.95
Lanes: 1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00 0.00
1.00
1.00 2.78
0.22
1.00
2.98
0.02
Final Sat.: 1750
0
1750
3150 0
1750
1750 5197
403
11
1750
5561
39
----I
------------ I ---------------
Capacity Analysis Module:
II---------------
II---------------
Vol/Sat: v 0.06
0.00
0.05
0.01 0.00
0.02
0.02 0.24
0.24
0.06
f3.l5
0.15
Crit Moves
Green Time: 15.2
0.0
15.2
10.0 0.0
10.0
21.4 58.0
58.0
14.9
51.5
51.5
Volume/Cap: 0.45
0.00
0.33
0.07 0.00
0.25
0.09 0.45
0.45
0.45
0.33
0.33
Delay/Veh: 44.9
0.0
43.6
45.8 0.0
17.3
36.4 16.2
16.2
45.1
18.5
18.5
User DelAdj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.D0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 44.9
0.0
43.6
45.8 0.0
47.3
36.4 16.2
16.2
45.1
18.5
18.5
LOS by Move: D
A
D
D A
D
D B
B
D
B
B
HCM2kAvgQ: 4
0
3
0 0
2
1 9
9
4
6
6
Note: Queue reported is
the number of cars per
lane.
v
Traffiz 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 20PUi7lo Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE Tue Mar 2214:23:06 2011 Page 3-7
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Or Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Altemative)
Existing (PM)
Intersection #3: Stevens Creek Blvd/Tantau Ave
Signal=S plit/Rights=l nclude
Final Vol:
151
6
359••'
Lanes:
1
0 0 0
2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap
110 1 J,
Vol Cni Date:
Cycle Time (sec):
n(a
110
Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:
1 78
0
Loss Time (sac);
12
0
1044- 2
Critical V/C: 0.525
I#i,y�� 3 669
i
1
Avg Crit Del (seclveh):
33.3
0
53 0
Avg Delay (serdveh):
30.9
1 163-
LOS:
C
Lanes:
0
0 11 0
0
Final Vol:
50
61-
25
Signal=S plit/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Ave Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Volume Module:3/1/11
Base Vol: 50 61 25 359 6 151 110 1044 53 163 669 78
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 50 61 25 359 6 151 110 1C44 53 163 669 78
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 50 61 25 359 6 151 110 1044 53 163 669 78
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 50 61 25 359 6 151 110 1044 53 163 669 78
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 50 61 25 359 6 151 110 1044 53 163 669 78
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 190D 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.37 0.45 0.18 2.00 0.04 0.96 1.00 2.85 0.15 1.00 3.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 643 785 322 3552 69 1731 1750 5329 271 1750 5700 1350
------------ I ------ -11--------II---------------II---------------I
Capacity Analysis�Module:
Vol/Sat: C2 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.20`" 0.20 0.09 0.12 0.04
Crit Moves **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 16.3 16.3 16.3 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.3 41.0 57.3 19.5 39.3 60.4
Volume/Cap: 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.45 0.45 0.32 0.53 0.38 0.53 0.33 0.08
Delay/Veh: 45.3 45.3 45.3 40.4 39.6 39.6 38.7 27.1 15.9 42.7 25.9 11.7
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 45.3 45.3 45.3 40.4 39.6 39.6 38.7 27.1 15.8 42.7 25.9 11.7
LOS by Move: D D D D D D D C B D C B
HCM2kAvgQ: 5 5 5 6 5 5 4 10 7 5 5 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Tratfix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 20tzov7li3 Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:23:D6 2011 Page 3-9
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative)
Project (PM)
Intersection #3: Stevens Creek BivdlTantau Ave
Signal=S plit/Rig hts=Include
Final
Vol: 151
6
359-
Lanes:
1 0
0
0
2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Prolect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap
Cycle
Vol Crit Date:
Time (sec):
nta Rights=Overap Lanes:
110
Final Vol:
110 1� .�
1
78
Loss
Time (sec):
12
I
0
0
1103- 2 *
Critical
VIC:
0.545
L*- 3
i
722
1
Avg Crit
Del (seclveh):
33.4
0
53 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh):
30.7
1
169-
LOS:
C
I 1
1 I
it
r*
Lanes:
0 0
11
0
0
Final
Vol: 50
61-
31
Signal=S pl it/Rights=l nclude
Street Name:
Tantau Ave
Stevens
Creek
Blvd
Approach: North Bound
South
Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L -
T -
R
L
- T
- R
L - T -
R
L -
---------------I
T
- R
------------ I---------------
Min. Green: 7
10
II---------------
10
7
10
II---------------
10
7 10
II
10
7
10
10
Y+R: 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 50
61
31
359
6
151
110 1103
53
169
722
78
Growth Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial Bse: 50
61
31
359
6
151
110 1103
53
169
722
76
User Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Volume: 50
61
31
359
6
151
110 1103
53
169
722
78
Reduct Vol: 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Reduced Vol: 50
61
31
359
6
151
110 1103
53
169
722
78
PCE Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume: 50
61
31
359
6
151
110 1103
---------II---------------I
53
169
722
78
---------------------------II---------------II-
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment: 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.93
0.95
0.95
0.92 0.98
0.95
0.92
1.00
0.92
Lanes: 0.35
0.43
0.22
2.00
0.04
0.96
1.00 2.86
0.14
1.00
3.00
1.00
Final Sat.: 616
752
382
3552
69
1731
1750 5343
257
II
1750
---------------I
5700
1750
------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.08 0208
0.08
0.10
V
0.09
0.09
0.06 0.21"
0.21
0.10
0.13
0.04
Crit Moves
Green Time: 16.4
16.4
16.4
20.4
20.4
20.4
20.5 41.7
58.1
19.5
40.7
61.1
Volume/Cap: 0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.47
0.47
0.34 0.54
0.39
0.54
0.34
0.08
Delay/Veh: 45.7
45.7
45.7
41.2
40.3
'40.3
39.5 27.0
15.5
43.2
25.1
11.4
User DelAdj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 45.7
45.7
45.7
41.2
40.3
40.3
39.5 27.0
15.5
43.2
25.1
11.4
LOS by Move: D
D
D
D
D
D
D C
B
D
C
B
HCM2kAvgQ: 5
5
5
6
5
5
4 11
8
6
6
1
Note: Queue reported is
the number
of cars per
lane.
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2001 Dn"Asswiates. Inc. Licensed 10 Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE Tue Mar22 14:23:06 2011 Page 3-10
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Leval Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Bass Volume Alternative)
Existing (PM)
Intersection #4: Stevens Creek Blvd/Stern Ave
Signal =Stop/Rights=lnclu de
Final Vol:
9
0
2
Lanes:
0
0 1! 0
0
Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rs=Include
Vol Cnt Date: 3/1/2011
Signal=Uncontrol
Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
26 1
Cycle Time (sec):
100
Loss Time (sec):
D
0 5
1287 2 ---*
Critical V/C: 0.454
_ 2 817
i
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):
3.2
0
37 0
Avg Delay (sacfveh):
3.2
1 178
LOS:
F
1
I I
Lanes:
0
0 11 0
0
Final Vol:
12
0
55
Signal=Slop/Rights=Include
Street Name: Stern Ave Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------ I --------------- II ----------II---------------II---------------I
Volume Module: >> Count Date: 1 Mar 2011 <<
Base Vol: 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1287 37 178 817 5
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1287 37 176 817 5
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1287 37 178 817 5
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1287 37 178 817 5
------------ I--------------- II ----II---------------II---------------I
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx
------------ 1--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 1986 2536 448 1657 2552 275 822 xxxx xxxxx 1324 xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 37 28 564 66 27 729 816 xxxx xxxxx 528 xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 26 18 564 43 17 729 816 xxxx xxxxx 528 xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: 0.45 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.03 xxxx xxxx 0.34 xxxx xxxx
------------ 1= -------------- II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx 1.5 xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.6 xxxx xxxxx 15.2 xxxx xxxxx J w'
LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * * C
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx 122 xxxxx xxxx 186 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx 2.7 xxxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx 66.1 xxxxx xxxxx 25.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * F * * D
ApproachDel: 66.1 25.6 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: F D
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
********************************************************************************
Intersection #4 Stevens Creek Blvd/Stern Ave
********************************************************************************
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------ I --------------- II --------------- II---------------II---------------I
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
Traffx 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2001 Bew n ssociates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
V
COMPARE Tue Mar 2214:23:05 2011 Page 3-11
------------ I --------------- II --------------- II ---------------II----------- --I
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0
Initial Vol: 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1287 37 17B 817 5
ApproachDel: 66.1 25.6 xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------ I --------------- II --------------- II---------------II---------------I
Approach[northbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=1.2]
FAIL - Vehicle -hours less than 4 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=671
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=24283
SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 800 for intersection
with four or more approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approach[southbcund][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1]
FAIL - Vehicle -hours less than 4 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=ll]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=24281
SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 800 for intersection
with four or more approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 6-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Considera-pion of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
Intersection #4 Stevens Creek Blvd/Stern Ave
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 l! 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0
Initial Vol: 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1287 37 178 817 5
---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Major Street Volume: 2350
Minor Approach Volume: 67
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: -10 [less than minimum of 100]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting V
a traffic signal in the futEre. Intersections that exceed this warrant V
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 480g Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
P
COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:23:06 2011 Page 3-14
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Base Volume Altemat!ve)
Project (PM)
Intersection #4: Stevens Creek Blvd/Stem Ave
Signal=Stop/Rights=l nclude
Final Vol: 9 0 2
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Uncontml Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n(a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Cycle Time (sac): 100
26 1
0 5
Loss Time (sec): 0
I
0
1
1287 2 � Critical V/C: 4.037
L q-' 2 817
i
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 111.8
0
102 o Avg Delay (sedveh): 111.8
1 234
LOS: F
I I I I 11
Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0
Final Vol: 71 0 106
Signal=Stop/Rig hts=Include
Street Name: Stern Ave
Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R
------------I---------------II---------------II---------------
L - T - R
L - T - R
Volume Module:
II
---------------I
Base Vol: 71 0 106 2 0 9
26 1287 102
234 817 5
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial B3e: 71 0 106 2 0 9
26 1287 102
234 817 5
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 71 0 106 2 0 9
26 1287 102
234 817 5
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
FinalVolume: 71 0 106 2 0 9
26 1287 102
234 817 5
---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9
4.1 xxxx xxxxx
4.1 xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
------------ ---------------
2.2 xxxx xxxxx
2.2 xxxx xxxxx
II--------------- II---------------
Capacity Module:
11---------------I
Cnflict Vol: 2130 26BO 480 1769 2729 275
822 xxxx xxxxx
1389 xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 29 22 537 54 21 729
316 xxxx xxxxx
499 xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 18 11 537 27 11 729
816 xxxx xxxxx
499 xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: 4.04 0.00 0.20 0.07 0.00 0.01
0.03 xxxx xxxx
0.47 xxxx xxxx
------------ I --------------- II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
0.1 xxxx xxxxx
2.5 xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xx>vzx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
9.6 xxxx xxxx
18.4 xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * *
A * *
C
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
LT - LTR - RT
LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx 42 xxxxx xxxx 127 xxxxx
xxxx xxxx xxxxx
xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx 20.2 xxxxx xxxxx 0.3 xxxxx
xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx 1652 xxxxx xxxxx 36.1 xxxxx
xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * F * * E
ApproachDel: 1651.6 36.1
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: F E
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per
lane.
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant
Report
Intersection #4 Stevens Creek Blvd/Stern Ave
********************************************************************************
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------ I --------------- II --------------- 11
Approach: North Bound South Bound
--------------- II
East Bound
---------------I
West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R
L - T - R
L - T - R
Traffx 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 200
Associates, Inc.
Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:23:06 2011 Page 3-15
------------ I -------- II---------------II---------------II---------------
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 l! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0
Initial Vol: 71 0 106 2 0 9 26 1287 102 234 817 5
ApproachDel: 1651.6 36.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------ I --------------- II --------------- II---------------II---------------I
Approach[northbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=81.2]
SUCCEED - Vehicle -hours greater than or equal to 4 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=177]
SUCCEED - Approach volume greater than or equal to 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=2659]
SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 800 for intersection
with four or more approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approach[southbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1]
FAIL - Vehicle -hours less than 4 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=ll]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=26591
SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 800 for intersection
with four or more approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
Intersection #4 Stevens Creek Blvd/Stern Ave
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0
Initial Vol: 71 0 106 2 0 9 26 1287 102 234 817 5
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II---------------II---------------I
Major Street Volume: 2471
Minor Approach Volume: 177
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: -27 [less than minimum of 1003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
�'a traffic signal in the futuipe. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Traffx 8.0.0715 copyright (c) 20D8_pc ff 2 Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE
Tus Mar 22 14:23:06 2011
Page 3-16
Sunflower Learning Canter
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000
HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative)
Existing (PM)
Intersection #5: Stevens Creek Blvd/Calvert Drive/I 280 SB off ramp
Signal=Split/Ri ghts=ln
clu de
Final
Vol: 45-
435
280
Lanes:
0 1
0
1
1
1 114
1*
. Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: lanes: Rights=Overlap
Vol Cnt
Date: 10/20/2010
Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol:
Cycle
Time
(sec):
100
0 0
0
0
Loss
Time
(sec):
12
I j
0
-- 0
jj���i
913 2
al V/C:
Critical�r
0.636
3
i
855
1
Avg Crit
Del (seclveh):
28.4
�41V 0
501- 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh):
24.2
2
414-
LOS:
C
Lanes: 1 0
0
0
1
Final
Vol: 29
0
53-
Signal=Split/Rights=lnclu
de
Street Name: Calvert Drive/I 280
SB
off
ramp
Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound
South
Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L
- T - R
L
- T
- R
L - T
- R
L
- T
- R
------------ I---------------
Min. Green: 0
II---------------
0 0
0
0
0
II---------------
0 0
II
0
---------------I
0
0
0
Y+R: 4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
------------ I---------------
Volume Module: >>
II---------------
Count Date:
20 Oct
2010 <<
II---------------
II
---------------I
Base Vol: 29
0 53
280
435
45
0 913
501
414
856
0
Growth Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial Bse: 29
0 53
280
435
45
0 913
501
414
856
0
User Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Volume: 29
0 53
280
435
45
0 913
501
414
856
0
Reduct Vol: 0
0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Reduced Vol: 29
0 53
230
435
45
0 913
501
414
856
0
PCE Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume: 29
0 53
280
435
45
0 913
501
414
856
0
---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment: 0.92
1.00 0.92
0.92
0.95
0.95
0.92 1.00
0.92
0.83
1.00
0.92
Lanes: 1.00
0.00 1.00
1.12
1.70
0.18
0.00 2.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.00
Final Sat.: 1750
0 1750
1971
3062
317
0 3800
1750
3150
5700
0
------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------
Capacity Analysis Module:
VOlAat: 0.02 0.00 0.03
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.00 0.24
0.29
0.13
0.15
I
0.00
Crit Moves:
****
****
****
****
Green Time: 4.8
0.0 4.8
22.3
22.3
22.3
0.0 42.4
47.2
20.7
63.1
0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.35
0.00 0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.00 0.57
0.61
0.64
0.24
0.00
Delay/Veh: 48.6
0.0 61.9
36.3
36.3
36.3
0.0 22.1
20.0
38.3
8.1
0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 43.6
0.0 61.9
36.3
36.3
36.3
0.0 22.1
20.0
38.3
8.1
0.0
LOS by Move: D
A E
D
D
D
A C
C
D
A
A
HCM2kAvgQ: 1
0 3
8
8
8
0 10
12
8
4
0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Traffx 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 204Peffiv5sociates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE
Tue Mar 22 14:23:05 2011
Page 3-18
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative)
Project (PM)
Intersection #5: Stevens Creek Blvd/Calvert Drive/I 280 SB off ramp
Signal=SpEVRi g htsA nclude
Final
Vol:
58
435
280-
Lanes:
0 1
0 1
1
14)
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Ovedap
J,
Vol Cnt Date:
Cycle Time (sec):
his Rights=Include
100
Lanes:
Final Vol:
0 0
0
D
Loss
Time (sec):
12
,*,
0
0
947 2
Critical V/C:
0.650
i
3
i
900
1
Avg Crit
Del (sec/veh):
28.5
� 0
518- 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh):
24.1
2
414-
LOSj♦:
C
I!�I
Lanes:
1 0
0 0
1
Final
Vol:
29
0
53-
Signal=S plit/Rights=ln clude
Street Name: Calvert
Drive/I 280 SB off
ramp
Stevens
Creek
Blvd
Approach: North
Bound
South Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L -
T
- R
L - T
- R
L - T -
R
L -
---------------I
T
- R
------------ I---------------
Min. Green: 0
0
II---------------
0
0 0
II---------------
0
0 0
II
0
0
0
0
Y+R: 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
II---------------
4.0 4.0
4.0
II
4.0
---------------I
4.0
4.0
------------ I---------------
Volume Module:
II---------------
Base Vol: 29
0
53
280 435
58
0 947
518
414
900
0
Growth Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial Bse: 29
0
53
280 435
58
0 947
518
414
900
0
User Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Volume: 29
0
53
280 435
58
0 947
518
414
900
0
Reduct Vol: 0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Reduced Vol: 29
0
53
280 435
58
0 947
518
414
900
0
PCE.Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume: 29
0
53
280 435
58
0 947
518
414
900
0
--------=---I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I.
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment: 0.92
1.00
0.92
0.92 0.95
.0.95
0.92 1.00
0.92
0.83
1.00
0.92
Lanes: 1.00
0.00
1.00
1.10 1.68
0.22
0.00 2.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.00
Final Sat.: 1750
0
1750
1938 3010
401
0 3800
1750
3150
5700
0
------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Capacity Analysis
Vol/Sat: 0.02
Module:
0.00 0.03
0.14 OF14
0.14
0.00 0.25
0.30
0.13
0.16
0.00
Crit Moves:
****
****
****
****
Green Time: 4.7
0.0
4.7
22.2 22.2
22.2
0.0 43.0
47.7
20.2
63.2
0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.36
0.00
0.65
0.65 0.65
0.65
0.00 0.58
0.62
0.65
0.25
0.00
Delay/Veh: 48.9
0.0
63.9
36.6 36.6
36.6
0.0 22.0
20.0
39.0
8.1
0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 48.9
0.0
63.9
36.6 36.6
36.6
0.0 22.0
20.0
39.D
8.1
0.0
LOS by Move: D
A
E
D D
D
A C
B
D
A
A
HCM2kAvgQ: 1
0
3
9 9
9
0 11
13
8
4
0
Note: Queue reported is
the number of cars per
lane.
L'o7
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 21108.0$vll#ig Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:23:06 2011 Page 3-19
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Altemative)
Intersection #6: Stevens Creek Blvd/Agilent Technologies Driveway Access
Signal=S pl!VR i ghts=l n cl u d e
Final Vol:
275-
0
106
Lanes:
1
0 1! 0
1
-T�
L-
114 41,,
1*
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap
Vol Cot Date: 3/1/2011
Rights=Ovedap Lanes: Final Vol:
�
Cycle Time (sec):
100
44"' 1
1 29
Loss Time (sec):
12
0 0
1299 2 _y_ Critical V/C: 0.549 !fig-� 3 1907-
i
1 Avg Crit Del (sadvah): 17.9 0
0 0 Avg Delay (sedveh): 14.6 1 18
LOS: 6
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 46- 0 14
Signal=S pl it/R i g hts=1 n clu d e
Street Name:Agilent Technologies Driveway Acc Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L T - R L - T - R
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
----I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Volume Module: >> Count Date: 1 Mar 2011 <<
Base Vol: 46 0 14 106 0 275 44 1299 0 18 1907 29
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 46 0 14 106 0 275 44 1299 0 18 1907 29
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 46 0 14 106 0 275 44 1299 0 18 1907 29
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 46 0 14 106 0 275 44 1299 0 18 1907 29
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 46 0 14 106 0 275 44 1299 0 18 1907 29
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.77 0.00 0.23 1.28 0.00 1.72 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 1342 0 408 2247 0 30B9 1750 5600 0 1750 5700 1750
------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Capacity Analysis Module: t?
Vol/Sat: 6.03 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.03 0.23 0.00 0.01 0.33 0.02
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 6.2 0.0 6.2 16.2 0.0 16.2 4.6 62.8 0.0 2.8 61.0 77.2
Volume/Cap: 0.55 0.00 0.55 0.29 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.55 0.02
Delay/Veh: 51.3 0.0 51.3 37.0 0.0 39.5 54.5 9.1 0.0 52.4 11.6 2.7
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 51.3 0.0 51.3 37.0 0.0 39.5 54.5 9.1 0.0 52.4 11.6 2.7
LOS by Move: D A D D A D D A A D B A
HCM2kAvgQ: 3 0 3 3 0 5 2 7 0 1 11 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
v
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 20 Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE
Tue Mar 22 14:23:06 2011
Page 3-21
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative)
Project (PM)
Intersection #6: Stevens Creek Blvd/Agilent Technologies Driveway Access
Signal=Spl iURights=l n chid a
Final
Vol: 275"`
0
106
Lanes:
1 0
1I 0
1
4
Signal=Protect
Signal=Prated
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap
Cycle
Vol Cnt Date:
Time (sac):
n/a Rights=Ovedap Lanes: Final Vol:
100
55"' 1 �
1
29
Loss
Time (sec):
12
j
1322 2
Critical V/C:
0.555
3
i
1951-
1
Avg Cdt
Del (sec/veh):
183
V 0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh):
15.0
1
18
LCS:
B
1 I
t*
t
(-0-
Lanes:
0 0
11 0
0
Final
Vol: 46`^
0
14
Signal=Split/Rights=l nclude
Street Name:Agilent
Technologies Driveway Acc
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Approach: North
Bound
South Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L -
T -
R
L - T
- R
L - T -
R
L -
---------------I
T
- R
------------ I---------------
Min. Green: 0
0
II---------------
0
0 0
II---------------
0
0 0
II
0
0
0
0
Y+R: 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
II
4.0
---------------I
4.0
4.0
------------ I---------------
Volume Module:
II---------------
II---------------
Base Vol: 46
0
14
106 0
275
55 1322
0
18
1951
29
Growth Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial Bse: 46
0
14
106 0
275
55 1322
0
18
1951
29
User Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Volume: 46
0
14
106 0
275
55 1322
0
18
1951
29
Reduct Vol: 0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Reduced Vol: 46
0
14
106 0
275
55 1322
0
18
1951
29
PCE Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume: 46
0
14
106 0
275
II---------------
55 1322
0
II
18
---------------I
1951
29
------------ I---------------
Saturation Flow Module:
II---------------
Sat/Lane: 1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment: 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 1.00
0.95
0.92 0.98
0.92
0.92
1.00
0.92
Lanes: 0.77
0.00
0.23
1.28 0.00
1.72
1.00 3.00
0.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
Final Sat.: 1342
0
408
2247 0
3089
1750 5600
0
II
1750 5700
---------------I
1750
------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------
Capacity Analysis
Module:
rvol/Sat: 0 0.03
0.00
0.03
0.05 0.00
0.09
0.03 0.24
0.00
0.01
0.34
0.02
Crit Moves: ****
****
****
****
Green Time: 6.1
0.0
6.1
15.8 0.0
15.8
5.6 63.4
0.0
2.8
60.6
76.4
Volume/Cap: 0.56
0.00
0.56
0.30 0.00
0.56
0.56 0.37
0.00
0.37
0.56
0.02
Delay/Veh: 52.6
0.0
52.6
37.4 0..0
40.1
53.5 8.8
0.0
52.5
12.0
2.8
User DelAdj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 52.6
0.0
52.6
37.4 0.0
40.1
53.5 8.8
0.0
52.5
12.0
2.8
LOS by Move: D
A
D
D A
D
D A
A
D
B
A
HCM2kAvgQ: 3
0
3
3 0
6
3 7
0
1
11
0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2ePLDQ4B Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE
Tue Mar 221423:062011
Page 3-22
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative)
Existing (PM)
Intersection #7: Stevens Creek Blvd/Lawrence Expressway SIB
Signal=SpI IYRights=Overlap
Final
Vol: 757-
0
2S6
Lanes:
1 0
0 0
1
Signal=Permit
Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include
Vol CM Date: 10/20/2010 Rights=Include
Lanes: Final Vol:
Cycle
Time (sec):
120
*,-
0 0 -1
0
0
Loss
Time (sec):
6
�
'
0
0
�frrr�""
1514 5 y�
T
Critical VIC:
0.712
3
1391-
"
Avg Crit
Del (sadveh):
29.6
,,IV 0
0 0
Avg Delay
(seclveh):
28.8
0
0
LOS:
C
I I I 1
t*
t
(-0-
Lanes:
0 0
0 0
0
Final
Vol: 0
0
0
S i gnat=Split/Righls=Overlap
Street Name:
Lawrence Expressway SB
Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North
Bound
South Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L -
T - R
L - T
- R
L - T
- R
L
- T
- R
------------ I---------------
Min. Green: 0
II---------------
0 0
0 0
II---------------
0
0 0
II
0
---------------I
0
0
0
Y+R: 4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
------------ I---------------
Volume Module: >>
II---------------
Count Date:
II---------------
20 Oct 2010 <<
II
---------------I
Base Vol: 0
0 0
286 0
757
0 1514
0
0
1391
0
Growth Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial Bse: 0
0 0
286 0
757
0 1514
0
0
1391
0
User Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Volume: 0
0 0
286 0
757
0 1514
0
0
1391
0
Reduct Vol: 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Reduced Vol: 0
0 0
286 0
757
0 1514
0
0
1391
0
PCE Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume: 0
0 0
286 0
757
0 1514
0
0
---------------I
1391
0
------------ I---------------
Saturation Flow Module:
II---------------
II---------------
II
Sat/Lane: 1900
1900 1900
1900 1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment: 0.92
1.00 0.92
0.92 1.00
0.92
0.92 1.00
0.92
0.92
1.00
0.92
Lanes: 0.00
0.00 0.00
1.00 0.00
1.00
0.00 5.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
Final Sat.: 0
0 0
1750 0
1750
0 9500
0
0
5700
0
------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Capacity Analysis
Vol/Sat: 0.00
Module:
0.00" 0.00
0.16 0.00
0.43
0 '00 0.16
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.00
Crit Moves:
****
****
Green Time: 0.0
0.0 0.0
72.9 0.0
72.9
0.0 41.1
0.0
0.0
41.1
0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.27 0.00
0.71
0.00 0.47
0.00
0.00
0.71
0.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0
0.0 0.0
11.2 0.0
18.6
0.0 30.9
0.0
0.0
35.6
0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 0.0
0.0 0.0
11.2 0.0
18.6
0.0 30.9
0.0
0.0
35.6
0.0
LOS by Move: A
A A
B A
B
A C
A
A
D
A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0
0 0
5 0
21
0 8
0
0
15
0
Note: Queue reported
is the number
of cars per
lane.
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2018-94irlb Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
L'
1�
COMPARE
Tue Mar 22 14:23:06 2011 Page 3-24
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Repoli
2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Altsmative)
Project (PM)
Intersection #7: Stevens Creek Blvd/Lawrence Expressway SB
Signa I=S plit/Rights=Overlap
Final Vol:
77D-
0 286
Lanes:
1
0 0 0 1
Signal=Permit
Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include
Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Cycle Time (sec): 120
0 D
0 0
Loss Time (sec): 6
D 0
i
1537 5 * Critical V/C: 0.725 Lllo- 3 1422-
i
0 Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 30.0 0
0 0 Avg Delay (seMveh): 29.0 0 0
LOS: C
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: D 0 0
Signal=S pllURights=Ova d ap
Street Name: Lawrence Expressway SB Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
---------------------------II---------------II---------------II-------I
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 286 0 770 0 1537 0 0 1422 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 286 0 770 0 1537 0 0 1422 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 286 0 770 0 1537 0 0 1422 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 286 0 770 0 1537 0 0 1422 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 286 0 770 0 1537 0 0 1422 0
------------ I---------------II---------------II--------------- II ---------------I
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1750 0 1750 0 9500 0 0 5700 0
------------ I---------------II---------II---------------II---------------I
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:v 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00
Crit Moves: **** #***
Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.8 0.0 72.9 0.0 41.2 0.0 0.0 41.2 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 19.1 0.0 30.9 0.0 0.0 35.8 0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 19.1 0.0 30.9 0.0 0.0 35.8 0.0
LOS by Move: A A A B A B A C A A D A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 5 0 22 0 9 0 0 15 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
f9 v>
Traffx 8.0,0715 Copyright (c) 2Cf8.D$'I& Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE
Tue Mar 22 1423:06 2011
Page 3.25
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000
HCM Operations (Base Volume Altemative)
Existing (PM)
Intersection #3: Stevens Creek Blvd/Lawrence Expressway NB
Signal=Spl lVRig hts=Overlap
Final Vol:
0
0
0
Lanes:
0 00
0
0 0
J�
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overiap
Vol Cnt
Date: 10/20/2010
Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:
�
Cycle
Time
(sec): 120
364"' 2
I 0
258
Loss
Time
(sec): 9
0
1
1083 3
Critical
V/C: 0.576
i�y-"'- 2
i
898-
0
Avg Grit
Del (sedveh):
33.1
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 27.7
0
0
LOS: C(1`
Lanes:
1 1
0
1 0
Final Vol:
419
527
179-
Sign al=S plit/Rights=l
nclu d e
Street Name:
Lawrence
Expressway
NB
Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound
South
Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L
- T
- R
L
- T - R
L - T -
R
L
- T
- R
------------I---------------II---------------II---------------
Min. Green: 0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
II
0
---------------I
0
0
0
Y+R: 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
4.0
---------------
4.0
4.0
------------I---------------II---------------II---------------
Volume Module: >> Count
Date:
20 Oct
2010 <<
II
I
Base Vol: 419
527
179
0
0 0
364 1083
0
0
898
258
Growth Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial Bse: 419
527
179
0
0 0
364 1083
0
0
898
258
User Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Volume: 419
527
179
0
0 0
364 1083
0
0
898
258
Reduct Vol: 0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Reduced Vol: 419
527
179
0
0 0
364 1083
0
0
898
258
PCE Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume: 419
.527
179
0
0 0
364 1083
0
0
---------------I
898
258
------------ I---------------
Saturation Flow Module:
II---------------
II---------------
II
Sat/Lane: 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment: 0.92
0.95
0.95
0.92
1.00 0.92
0.83 1.00
0.92
0.92
0.99
0.95
Lanes: 1.14
1.39
0.47
0.00
0.00 0.00
2.00 3.00
0.00
0.00
2.31
0.69
Final Sat.: 1992
2506
851
0
0 0
3150 5700
0
II
0
---------------I
4349
1249
------------ I ---------------
Capacity Analysis
Vol/Sat: 0.21
Module:
0.21
11---------------
0.21
0.DO
0.00 �0.00
II---------------
0.12 0.19
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.21
Crit Moves:
****
****
****
Green Time: 43.9
43.9
43.9
0.0
0.0 0.0
24.1 67.1
0.0
0.0
43.1
43.1
Volume/Cap: 0.58
0.58
0.58
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.58 0.34
0.00
0.00
0.58
0.58
Delay/Veh: 31.0
31.0
31.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
44.6 14.4
0.0
0.0
31.5
31.5
User DelAdj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh: .31.0
31.0
31.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
44.6 14.4
0.0
0.0
31.5
31.5
LOS by Move: C
C
C
A
A A
D B
A
A
C
C
HCM2kAvgQ: 12
12
12
0
0 0
7 7
0
0
12
12
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2 84 Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE
Tue Mar 22 1423:06 2011
Page 3-27
Sunflower Leaming Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative)
Project (PM)
Intersection #8: Stevens Creek Blvd/Lawrence Expressway NB
Signal=Spl iURig hts=Overlap
Final Vol:
0
0 0
Lanes:
0 0
0 0 0
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap
Signal=Protect
Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:
Final Vol:
�
Cycle me (sec): 120
Ti
375"' 2
0
258
Loss
Time (sec): 9
I
p
1
1094 3
Critical VIC: 0.586
2
i
9111-
0
Avg Crit
Del (sec/veh): 33.4
0
0 0
Avg Delay (serJveh): 27.9
0
0
LOS: C
I
I I
Lanes;
1 1
0 1 0
Final
Vol: • 438
527- 179
Signal=SpII VRighls=l n d u de
Street Name:
Lawrence
Expressway NB
Stevens
Creek
Blvd
Approach: North
Bound
South Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L -
T -
R
L - T - R
L - T -
R
L -
---------------I
T
- R
------------ I---------------
Min. Green: 0
0
II---------------
0
II---------------
0 0 0
0 0
II
0
0
0
0
Y+R: 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0 4.0 4.0
II---------------
4.0 4.0
4.0
II
4.0
---------------
4.0
4.0
------------ I---------------
Volume Module:
II---------------
Base Vol: 438
527
179
0 0 0
375 1094
0
0
911
258
Growth Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial Bse: 438
527
179
0 0 0
375 1094
0
0
911
258
User Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF volume: 438
527
179
0 0 0
375 1094
0
0
911
258
Reduct Vol: 0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0
0
0
. 0
Reduced Vol: 438
527
179
0 0 0
375 1094
0
0
911
258
PCE Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume: 438
527
179
0 0 0
375 1094
0
0
911
25B
------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900
1900
1900
1900 1900 1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment: 0.92
0.95
0.95
0.92 1.00 0.92
0.83 1.00
0.92
0.92
0.99
0.95
Lanes: 1.17
1.37
0.46
0.00 0.00 0.00
2.00 3.00
0.00
0.00
2.31
0.69
Final Sat.: 2048
2464
837
0 0 0
3150 5700
0
0
4362
1235
------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Capacity Analysis
Vol/Sat: 0.21
Module:
0.21 0.21
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.12 0.19
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.21
Crit Moves:
****
****
****
Green Time: 43.B
43.8
43.8
0.0 0.0 0.0
24.4 67.2
0.0
0.0
42.8
42.8
Volume/Cap: 0.59
0.59
0.59
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.59 0.34
0.00
0.00
0.59
0.59
Delay/Veh: 31.2
31.2
31.2
0.0 0.0 0.0
44.6 14.5
0.0
0.0
31.9
31.9
User DelAdj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 31.2
31.2
31.2
0.0 0.0 0.0
44.6 14.5
0.0
0.0
31.9
31.9
LOS by Move: C
C
C
A A A
D B
A
A
C
C
HCM2kAvgQ: 12
12
12
0 0 0
7 7
0
0
12
12
Note: Queue reported
is
the number of cars per
lane.
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2098-"10 Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 2011 Page 3-1
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Atemative)
Cumulative (PM)
Intersection #1: Stevens Creek Blvd/N Wolfe Road
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Final Vol: 556 859 403-
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=include
Vol Cnt
Date:
n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Cycle
Time
(sec):
110
575- 2
0
234
Loss
Time
(sec):
12
I j
0
1
1195 3
Critical
V/C:
0.817
2
i
1014-
0
Avg Crit
Del (seclveh):
46.2
0
141 1
Avg Delay
(sec/veh):
39.0
2
221
LOS:
D
1
Lanes:
1 0
2
1
0
Final Vol:
145
421^•
95
Signal=Protect1Ri
g hts=1 nclude
Street Name:
N Wolfe Road
Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound
South
Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L
- T
- R
L
- T
- R
L - T
- R
L
- T
- R
---------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Min. Green: 0
0
0
7
10
10
7 10
10
7
10
10
Y+R: 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 145
421
95
403
859
566
575 1196
141
221
1014
234
Growth Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial Bse: 145
421
95
403
859
566
575 1196
141
221
1014
234
User Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Volume: 145
421
95
403
859
566
575 1196
141
221
1014
234
Reduct Vol: 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Reduced Vol: 145
421
95
403
859
566
575 1196
141
221
1014
234
PCE Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume: 145
421
95
403
859
566
.575 1196
141
221
1014
234
------------ I---------------
Saturation Flow Module:
II---------------
II---------------
II
---------------I
Sat/Lane: 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 190D
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment: 0.92
0.99
0.95
0.92
1.00
0.92
0.83 1.00
0.92
0.83
0.99
0.95
Lanes: 1.00
2.43
0.57
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00 3.00
1.00
2.00
2.42
0.58
Final Sat.: 1750
4568
1031
1750
3800
1750
3150 5700
1750
3150
4549
1050
------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Capacity Analysis Module:
VolrSat: 0.08
0.09
0.09
0623
0.23
0� 32
0.18 0.21
0.08
0.07
0.22
0.22
Crit Moves
****
****
****
****
Green Time: 11.6
12.4
12.4
31.0
31.8
56.3
24.6 40.9
40.9
13.7
30.0
30.0
Volume/Cap: 0.78
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.78
0.63
0.82 0.56
0.22
0.56
0.82
0.82
Delay/Veh: 67.1
55.9
55.9
47.1
39.7
20.8
48.0 27.8
23.8
47.3
41.0
41.0
User DelAdj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 67.1
55.9
55.9
47.1
39.7
20.8
48.0 27.8
23.8
47.3
41.0
41.0
LOS by Move: E
E
E
D
D
C
D C
C
D
D
D
HCM2)cAvgQ: 7
8
8
16
15
15
13 11
3
5
16
16
Note: Queue reported is
the number
of cars
per
lane.
Traffx 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2($5-*tqh1g Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 2011 Page 3-3
Sunflower Leaming Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative)
Cumulative+Project (PM)
Intersection #1: Stevens Creek Blvd/N Wolfe Road
Si gn al=P rotectlRights=Overlap
Final Vol: 566
859
428-
Lanes: 4)
L�
1 0
2
0
1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Prated
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include
Vol Cnt Date:
We Rights=Include Lanes:
Final Vol:
Cycle Time (sec):
110
0
257
575"' 2
Loss
Time (sec):
12
1
1221 3
Critical V/C: 0.844
i� -- 2
1037-
0
Avg Crd
Del (seclveh):
47.9
0
141 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh):
40.0
I 2
227
LOS:
D
Lanes:
1 0
2
1
0
Final
Vol: 145
421"•
101
Signal=Protecl/Rights=l nclude
Street Name:
N
Wolfe Road
Stevens
Creek Blvd
Approach: North
Bound
South
Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L -
T -
R
L -
T
- R
L - T -
R
II
L -
---------------I
T
- R
------------ I---------------
Min. Green: 0
0
li---------------
0
7
10
II---------------
10
7 10
10
7
10
10
Y+R: 4.0
4.0
4.0
II---------------
4.0
4.0
4.0
II---------------
4.0 4.0
4.0
II
4.0
---------------I
4.0
4.0
------------ I---------------
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 145
421
101
428
859
566
575 1221
141
227
1037
257
Growth Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial Bse: 145
421
101
42B
B59
566
575 1221
141
227
1037
257
User Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Volume: 145
421
101
428
859
566
575 1221
141
227
1037
257
Reduct Vol: 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Reduced Vol: 145
421
101
428
859
566
575 1221
141
227
1037
257
PCE Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume: 145
---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
421
101
428
859
566
575 1221
141
227
1037
257
------------ I
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment: 0.92
0.99
0.95
0.92
1.00
0.92
0.83 1.00
0.92
0.83
0.99
0.95
Lanes: 1.00
2.40
0.60
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00 3.00
1.00
2.D0
2.38
0.62
Final Sat.: 1750
4515
1083
II
1750
---------------II---------------
3800
1750
3150 5700
1750
II
3150
---------------I
4486
1112
------------ I ---------------
Capacity Anae?ysis
Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.08
0.09
0.0_'4
0.24
0.23
0.32
0.18 0.21
0.08
0.07
0.23
0.23
Crit Moves:
****
****
****
****
Green Time: 11.8
12.2
12.2
31.9
32.2
56.0
23.8 40.4
40.4
13.6
30.1
30.1
Volume/Cap: 0.77
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.77
0.63
0.84 0.58
0.22
0.58
0.84
0.84
Delay/Veh: 65.4
58.2
58.2
48.9
38.9
21.1
50.7 28.5
24.1
47.8
42.2
42.2
User DelAdj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 65.4
58.2
58.2
48.9
38.9
21.1
50.7 2B.5
24.1
47.B
42.2
42.2
LCS by Move: E
E
E
D
D
C
D C
C
D
D
D
HCM2kAvgQ: 7
B
8
17
15
15
14 11
4
5
17
17
Note: Queue reported is
the number
of cars per
lane.
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 210&D"g Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:3D 2011 - Page 34
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Altemative)
Cumulative (PM)
Intersection #2: Stevens Creek Blvd/Finch Ave
Signal=Spl it1R1 g hts=l ndud e
Final Vol:
101*-
0
130
Lanes:
1
'[41
0 0 0
114 � �*
2
7
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include
Vol Cnt Date:
n/a
Signa]=Protect
Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
13D 1
Cycle Time (sec):
110
0 86
0
Loss Time (sec):
12
# 1
1488*** 2
Critical VIC:
0.550
ice_ 2 1205
i
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):
24.9
0
95 0
Avg Delay (sedveh):
24.3
1 185^'
LOS:
C
I
Lanes:
1
0 D 0
1
Final Vol:
108
0
76***
Si gnat =Spl iVRi ghts=l nd u de
Street Name: Finch Ave Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 108 0 76 130 0 101 130 1488 95 186 1205 86
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 108 0 76 130 0 101 130 148B 95 186 1205 86
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 108 0 76 130 0 101 130 1488 95 186 1205 86
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 108 0 76 130 0 101 130 1488 95 186 1205 86
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 108 0 76 130 0 101 130 1488 95 186 1205 86
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.81 0.19 1.00 2.79 0.21
Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 3150 0 1750 1750 5263 336 1750 5226 373
------------ I --------------- II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Capacity Analysis Module: t"
Vol/Sat: V 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.0? 0.28 0.28 0.11 0.23 0.23
Crit Moves **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 12.3 0.0 12.3 11.1 0.0 11.1 18.2 54.2 54.2 20.4 56.4 56.4
Volume/Cap: 0.55 0.00 0.39 0.41 0.00 0.57 0.45 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.45 0.45
Delay/Veh: 49.5 0.0 46.6 47.3 0.0 51.8 42.5 20.0 20.0 43.3 17.1 17.1
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 49.5 0.0 46.6 47.3 0.0 51.8 42.5 20.0 20.0 13.3 17.1 17.1
LOS by Move: D A D D A D D C C D B B
HCM2kAvgQ: 5 0 3 3 0 4 5 13 13 7 9 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Traffix 3.0.0715 Copyright (c) 206p 96Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 2011 Page 3-6
Sunflower Leaning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative)
Cumulative+project (PM)
Intersection #2: Stevens Creek Blvd/Finch Ave
Si gnat=S plit/Rights=l nclu d e
Final
Vol: 101-
0
130
Lanes:
1 0
0
0
2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Prated
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include
Vol Cnt Date:
n/a Rights=lnclude
Lanes:
Final Vol:
J,
Cycle Time (sec):
110
I
130 1
0
86
Loss
Time. (sec):
12
1544"' 2 *
Critical
V/C:
0.565
iI - 2
f
1255
1
Avg Crit
Del (sec/veh):
24.8
0
95 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh):
24.0
1
188"'
LOS:
C
1
I I
Lanes:
1 0
0
0
1
Final
Vol: 108
0
79"'
Sig na I=S pl it/Rig hts=Include
Street Name:
Finch
Ave
Stevens
Creek
Blvd
Approach: North
Bound
South Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L -
T -
R
L
- T
- R
L - T -
R
L -
---------------I
T
- R
------------ I---------------
Min. Green: 7
10
II---------------
10
7
10
II---------------
10
7 10
II
10
'7
10
10
Y+R: 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
II
4.0
---------------I
4.0
4.0
------------ I---------------
Volume Module:
II---------------
II---------------
Base Vol: 108
0
79
130
0
101
130 1544
95
188
1256
86
Growth Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial Bse: 108
0
79
130
0
101
130 1544
95
188
1256
66
User Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Volume: 108
0
79
130
0
101
130 1544
95
188
1256
86
Reduct Vol: 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Reduced Vol: 108
0
79
130
0
101
130 1544
95
188
1256
86
PCE Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume: 108
---------------
0
79
130
0
101
II---------------
130 1544
95
II
188
---------------I
1256
86
------------ I
Saturation Flow Module:
11---------------
Sat/Lane: 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment: 0.92
1.00
0.92
0.83
1.00
0.92
0.92 0.98
0.95
0.92
0.98
0.95
Lanes: 1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
0.00
1.00
1.00 2.82
0.18
1.00
2.80
0.20
Final Sat.: 1350
0
1750
3150
0
1750
1750 5275
325
1750
5241
359
------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.06
0.00
0.05
0.04
0L-00
0.06
0.07 0.29
0�29
0.11
0.24
0.24
Crit Moves
****
****
****
****
Green Time: 12.0
0.0
12.0
10.8
0.0
10.8
17.8 55.0
55.0
20.2
57.4
57.4
Volume/Cap: 0.56
0.00
0.41
0.42
0.00
0.59
0.46 0.59
0.59
0.59
0.46
0.46
Delay/Veh: 50.4
0.0
47.1
47.5
0.0
52.6
42.9 19.8
19.8
43.9
16.7
16.7
User DelAdj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 50.4
0.0
47.1
47.5
0.0
52.6
42.9 19.8
19.8
43.9
16.7
16.7
LOS by Move: D
A
D
D
A
D
D B
B
D
B
B
HCM2kAvgQ: 5
0
3
3
0
4
5 13
13
7
10
10
Note: Queue reported is
the number
of cars per
lane.
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 20pa ai: 14 Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 2011 Page 3-7
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2D00 HCM Operations (Base Volume Altemative)
Cumulative (PM)
Intersection #3: Stevens Creek Blvd/Tantau Ave
Signal=S piit1Rights=l nclu d e
Final Vol: 171 6 508-
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
'�)1�1►
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap
Vol Grit
Date:
n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:
Final Vol:
J,
Cycle
Time
(sec):
110
172 1
1
120
Loss
Time
(sec):
12
I j
0 -`j
�"��T""-- 0
1399- 2
*
Critical
VIC:
0.658
3
I
1129
1
Avg Crit
Del (seo/veh):
34.4
0
68 0 iF
Avg Delay (seaveh):
31.9
1
169"'
LOS:
C
r"OI
it
t*
Lanes:
0 0
11
0
0
Final Vol:
57
67-
25
Signal=S plit/Ri ghts=l
nclude
Street Name:
Tantau Ave
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Approach: North Bound
South Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L
- T -
R
L
- T
- R
L - T -
R
L
---------------I
- T
- R
------------ I---------------
Min. Green: 7
10
II---------------
10
7
10
II---------------
10
7 10
II
10
7
10
10
Y+R: 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
II
4.0
---------------I
4.0
4.0
------------ I---------------
Volume Module:
II---------------
II---------------
Base Vol: 57
67
25
508
6
171
172 1399
68
169
1129
120
Growth Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial Bse: 57
67
25
508
6
171
172 1399
68
169
1129
120
User Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Volume: 57
67
25
508
6
171
172 1399
68
169
1129
120
Reduct Vol: 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Reduced Vol: 57
67
25
508
6
171
172 1399
68
169
1129
120
PCE Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume: 57
67
25
508
6
171
172 1399
68
II
169
---------------I
1129
120
------------ I---------------
Saturation Flow Module:
II---------------
II---------------
Sat/Lane: 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment: 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.94
0.95
0.95
0.92 0.98
0.95
0.92
1.00
0.92
Lanes: 0.38
0.45
0.17
2.00
0.03
0.97
1.00 2.86
0.14
1.00
3.00
1.00
Final Sat.: 669
787
294
3555
61
1739
1750 5340
260
1750
5700
1750
------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Opacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09
0.09
0.09
0.14
0.10
0.10
0.10 0.26
0.26
0.10
0.20
0.07
Crit Moves
****
****
****
****
Green Time: 14.2
14.2
14.2
23.9
23.9
23.9
19.9 43.8
58.0
16.1
40.0
63.9
Volume/Cap: 0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.45
0.45
0.54 0.66
0.50
0.66
0.54
0.12
Delay/Veh: 52.5
52.5
52.5
40.9
37.6
37.6
42.9 27.8
16.8
50.5
28.0
10.4
User DelAdj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 52.5
52.5
52.5
40.9
37.6
37.6
42.9 27.8
16.8
50.5
28.0
10.4
LOS by Move: D
D
D
D
D
D
D C
B
D
C
B
HCM2kAvgQ: 6
6
6
9
6
6
6 14
11
6
10
2
Note: Queue reported is
the number
of cars per
lane.
P v
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2018-9cglb Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 2011 Page 3-9
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume A!temative)
Cumulative+Projad (PM)
Intersection #3: Stevens Creek Blvd/Tantau Ave
Signal=S plit/Ri ghts=l nclude
Final Vol:
171
6
508"'
Lanes:
1
0 0 0
2
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap
Vol Cnt Date:
nla
Signal=Proteol
Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:
172 1 �
Cycle Time (sec):
110
1 120
0
Loss Time (sec):
12
� 0
1458- 2
Critical VIC:
0.678
i
i.�........... 3 1182
1
Avg Crit Del (sedveh):
34.8
0
68 0
Avg Delay (secJveh):
32.0
1 175-
LOS:
C
rit)I
r*
Lanes:
0
0 1! 0
0
Final Vol:
57
67-'
31
Signal=S pl!URi ghts=ln clude
Street Name: Tantau Ave Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------- I
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 57 67 31 508 6 171 172 1453 68 175 1182 120
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 57 67 31 508 6 171 172 1458 68 175 1182 120
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 57 67 31 508 6 171 172 1458 68 175 1182 120
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 57 67 31 508 6 171 172 1458 68 175 1182 120
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 57 67 31 508 6 171 172 1458 68 175 1182 120
------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.37 0.43 0.20 2.00 0.03 0.97 1.00 2.86 0.14 1.00 3.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 644 756 350 3555 61 1739 1750 5350 250 1750 5700 1750
------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.09 0.09 0114 0.10 0.10 aO.10 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.21 0.07
Crit Moves **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 14.4 14.4 14.4 23.2 23.2 23.2 19.4 44.2 58.6 16.2 41.0 64.2
Volume/Cap: 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.47 0.47 0.56 0.68 0.51 0.68 0.56 0.12
Delay/Veh: 53.5 53.5 53.5 41.8 38.2 38.2 43.6 27.9 16.7 51.5 27.6 10.3
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 53.5 53.5 53.5 41.6 38.2 38.2 43.6 27.9 16.7 51.5 27.6 10.3
LOS by Move: D D D D D D D C B D C B
HCM2kAvgQ: 7 7 7 10 6 6 6 15 11 6 10 2
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Traffx 3.0.0715 Copyright (c) 21)LQgKI& Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 2011 Page 3-10
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Base Volume Alternative)
Cumulative (PM)
Intersection ##4: Stevens Creek Blvd/Stem Ave
Signal=Stop/Rights=l nclude
Final Vol:
9 0 2
Lanes:
0 I'I''' D 11 0 0
ILA
Signal=Uncontrol
Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include
Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final, Vol:
Cycle Time (sec): 100
26 1
0 5
Loss Time (sac): 0
It
0
1
1791 2
CriticalV/C: 1.908
2 1324
i
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 16.2
0
37 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 16.2
1 178
LOS: F
Lanes:
0 0 11 0 0
Final Vol: 12 0 55
Signal=Stop1R7ights=l ncl u da
Street Name:
Stern Ave
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Approach: North Bound
South Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L - T -
---------------II-
R L - T - R
--------II---------------II---------------I
L - T - R
L - T - R
------------
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 12 0
55 2 0 9
26 1791 37
173 1324 5
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 12 0
55 2 0 9
26 1791 37
178 1324 5
User Adj: 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 12 0
55 2 0 9
26 1791 37
178 1324 5
Reduct Vol: 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
FinalVolume: 12 0
55 2 0 9
II--------------- II---------------II---------------I
26 1791 37
176 1324 5
------------ I---------------
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 7.5 6.5
6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9
4.1 xxxx xxxxx
4.1 xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0
-------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
2.2 xxxx xxxxx
2.2 xxxx xxxxx
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 2659 3547
616 2332 3563 444
1329 xxxx xxxxx
1828 xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 11 6
439 20 6 567
526 xxxx xxxxx
339 xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 6 3
439 10 3 567
526 xxxx xxxxx
339 xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: 1.91 0.00
0.13 0.20 0.00 0.02
0.05 xxxx xxxx
II
0.53 xxxx xxxx
---------------I
------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx
xxxx xxxx xxxxx
0.2 xxxx xxxxx
2.9 xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
12,22 xxxx xxxxx
26.8 xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: V * *
* * * *
B * *
D
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
LT - LTR - RT
LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx 33 xxxxx xxxx 51 xxxxx
xxxx xxxx xxxxx
xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx 7.6 xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx
xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx 739 xxxxx xxxxx 94.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx
xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * F
* * F
ApproachDel: 739.2
94.1
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: F
F
Note: Queue reported is
the number of cars per
lane.
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
Intersection #4 Stevens
Creek Blvd/Stern Ave
********************************************************************************
Base Volume Alternative:
Peak Hour Warrant NOT
Met
------------ I --------------- II --------------- II
Approach: North Bound South Bound
---------------II---------------I
East Bound
West Bound
Movvsment: L - T -
R L - T - R
L - T - R
L - T - R
Tratlix 8.0.0715
Copyright (c) 216041h Associates, Inc.
Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Son Jose
COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 2011 Page 3-11
------------ I --------------- II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 l! 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2. 1 0
Initial Vol: 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1791 37 178 1324 5
ApproachDel: 739.2 94.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------ I --------------- II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Approach[northbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=13.8)
SUCCEED - Vehicle -hours greater than or equal to 4 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=67]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=3439]
SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 800 for intersection
with four or more approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approach[southbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.3]
FAIL - Vehicle -hours less than 4 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=ll]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=3439]
SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 800 for intersection
with four or more approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this Software, may yield different results.
Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
Intersection #4 Stevens Creek Blvd/Stern Ave
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0
Initial Vol: 12 0 55 2 0 9 26 1791 37 178 1324 5
---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Major Street Volume: 3361
Minor Approach Volume: 67
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: -133 [less than minimum of 100]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traf?ic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant `l
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 6-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 211"LD I0 Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 2011 Page 3-14
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Base Volume Altemative)
Cumulative+project (PM)
Intersection #4: Stevens Creek Blvd/Stem Ave
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Final Vol:
9
0
2
Lanes:
0 j 00
I�
'h11 0
LL
0
Signal=UnCDntrol
Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include
Vol Cnt Date:
n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Cycle Time (sec):
100
26 1
0 5
Loss
Time (sec):
0
D
1
1791 2
CriticalVIC: 21.1B6
2 1324
i
1
Avg Crit
Del (sedveh):
489.4
0
102 0
Avg Delay (sedveh):
489.4
1 234
F
1
I
tLOS:
t*
r1►
Lanes:
0 0
11 0
0
Final
Vol:
71
0
106
Sign al=Stop/Rig hts=1 ncl ude
Street Name:
Stern
Ave
Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North
Bound
South Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L -
T -
R
II
L - T
---------------II---------------
- R
L - T - R
II
L
---------------I
- T - R
------------I---------------
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 71
0
106
2 0
9
26 1791 102
234
1324 5
Growth Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 71
0
106
2 0
9
26 1791 102
234
1324 5
User Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 71
0
106
2 0
9
26 1791 102
234
1324 5
Reduct Vol: 0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0
FinalVolume: 71
0
------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
106
2 0
9
26 1791 102
234
1324 5
------------I---
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 7.5
6.5
6.9
7.5 6.5
6.9
4.1 xxxx xxxxx
4.1
xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 3.5
I---------------
4.0
3.3
II---------------
3.5 4.0
3.3
II---------------
2.2 xxxx xxxxx
II
2.2
---------------I
xxxx xxxxx
------------
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 2803
3691
648
2444 3740
444
1329 xxxx xxxxx
1893
xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 9
5
418
17 4
567
526 xxxx xxxxx
320
xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 3
1
418
5 1
567
526 xxxx xxxxx
320
xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: 21.19
0.00
0.25
0.41 0.00
0.02
0.05 xxxx xxxx
0.73
xxxx xxxx
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx 5.4 xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 12.2 xxxx xxxxx 91.6 xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * P * * �* * B * * E
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx 8 xxxxx xxxx 26 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx 23.9 xxxxx xxxxx 1.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 226 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * F * * F
ApproachDel: xxxxxx 226.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: F F
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
Intersection #4 Stevens Creek Blvd/Stern Ave
********************************************************************************
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------ I --------------- II --------------- II---------------II---------------I
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 20 8'D Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 2011 Page 3-15
------------I---------------II---------------II--------------- II ---------------I
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes • 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0
Initial Vol: 71 0 106 2 0 9 26 1791 102 234 1324 5
ApproachDel: xxxxxx 226.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Approach[northbound][lares=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=495.4]
SUCCEED - Vehicle -hours greater than or equal to 4 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=177]
SUCCEED - Approach volume greater than or equal to 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][tctal volume=3670]
SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 800 for intersection
with four or more approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approach[southbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.7]
FAIL - Vehicle -hours less than 4 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=ll]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=36701
SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 800 for intersection
with four or more approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
Intersection #4 Stevens Creek Blvd/Stern Ave
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R T_ - T - R
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0
Initial Vol: 71 0 106 2 0 9 26 1791 102 234 1324 5
------------I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Major Street Volume: 3482
Minor Approach Volume: 177
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: -145 [less than minimum of 100]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 41al"Ossociales, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 2011 Page 3-16
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
200D HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative)
Cumulative (PM)
Intersection #5: Stevens Creek Blvd/Calvert Drive/I 280 SB off ramo
Signal=SpliVRig hts=lndude
Final Vol: 46-
435
304
Lanes:
0 1
0
1
1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap
Vol Crit
Date:
We Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Cycle
Time
(sec):
100
0 0
D
0
Loss
Time
(sac):
12
i
0
0
1252 2
Critical
VIC:
0.748
i_L"'"'--- 3
i
1363
1
Avg Crit
Del (secWeh):
28.9
0
666- 0
Avg Delay (sedvsh):
23.0
2
414-
LOS:
C
I I I I
Lanes:
1 0
0
0
1
Final
Vol:
29
0
53-
Signal=S pliVRights=l
nclu d e
Street Name: Calvert Drive/I
280 SB off
ramp
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Approach: North Bound
South
Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L
- T
- R
L
- T
- R
L - T
- R
L
- T
- R
------------ I---------------
Min. Green: 0
0
II---------------
0
0
0
II---------------
0
0 0
II
0
---------------I
0
0
0
Y+R: 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
4.0
---------------I
4.0
4.0
------------ I---------------
Volume Module:
II---------------
II---------------
II
Base Vol: 29
0
53
304
435
45
0 1252
666
414
1363
0
Growth Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial Bse: 29
0
53
304
435
45
0 1252
666
414
1363
0
User Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Volume: 29
0
53
304
435
45
0 1252
666
414
1363
0
Reduct Vol: 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Reduced Vol: 29
0
53
304
435
45
0 1252
666
414
1363
0
PCE Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume: 29
0
53
304
435
45
0 1252
666
414
---------------I
1363
0
------------ I---------------
Saturation Flow Module:
II---------------
II---------------
II
Sat/Lane: 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment: 0.92
1.00
0.92
0.92
0.95
0.95
0.92 1.00
0.92
0.83
1.00
0.92
Lanes: 1.00
0.00
1.00
1.18
1.65
0.17
0.00 2.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.00
Final Sat.: 1750
0
1750
2074
2968
307
0 3800
1750
3150
5700
0
------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.03
0.A
0.15
0.15
0.00 0.33
0.38
0.13
c'
0.24
0.00
Crit Moves:
****
****
****
****
Green Time: 4.0
0.0
4.0
19.6
19.6
19.6
0.0 48.6
52.7
17.6
66.2
0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.41
0.00
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.00 0.68
0.72
0.75
0.36
0.00
Delay/Veh: 50.6
0.0
82.5
40.9
40.9
40.9
0.0 20.3
19.1
44.7
7.6
0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 50.6
0.0
82.5
40.9
40.9
40.9
0.0 20.3
19.1
44.7
7.6
0.0
LOS by Move: D
A
F
D
D
D
A C
B
D
A
A
HCM2kAvgQ: 1
0
3
10
10
10
0 14
17
9
6
0
Note: Queue reported is
the number
of cars per
lane.
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2JD84v04A3SDCiateS, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 2011 Page 3-18
Sunfiower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
20W HCM Operations (Base Volume Altemative)
Cumulative+Project (PM)
Intersection #5: Stevens Creek Blvd/Calvert Drive/I 280 SB off ramp
Signal=Split/Ri ghts=Include
Final
Vol: 5B-
435
304
Lanes:
0 1
0
1
1
Signal=Prated
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap
Cycle
Vol Cnt Date:
Time (sec):
n!a Rights=Include
100
Lanes:
Final Vol:
j
Loss
Time (sec):
12
I
0
0
1285 2
Critical V/C:
0.762
it 3
1407
1
Avg Crit
Del (sedveh):
292
0
683- 0
Avg Delay
(sealveh):
23.1
2
414-
LOS:
C
I
Lanes:
1 0
0
0
1
Final
Vol:
29
0
53-
Si gnat=S pl iVRights=l nclud e
Street Name: Calvert
Drive/I 280 SB
off
ramp
Stevens
Creek
Blvd
Approach: North
Bound
South
Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L -
T
- R
L -
T
- R
L - T -
R
L
---------------I
- T
- R
------------I
Min. Green: 0
-----
0
II---------------
0
0
0
II---------------
0
0 0
II
0
0
0
0
Y+R: 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
II---------------II---------------I
4.0 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
------------ I---------------
Volume Module:
II---------------
Base Vol: 29
0
53
304
435
58
0 1286
683
414
1407
D
Growth Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial Bse: 29
0
53
304
435
58
0 1286
683
414
1407
D
User Adj: 1.00
1.OD
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Volume: 29
0
53
304
435
58
0 1286
683
414
1407
0
Reduct Vol: 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
D
Reduced Vol: 29
0
53
304
435
58
0 1286
683
414
1407
0
PCE Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume: 29
0
53
304
435
58
II---------------
0 1286
683
II--------
414
1407
0
I
------------ I---------------
Saturation Flow Module:
II---------------
Sat/Lane: 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment: 0.92
1.00
0.92
0.92
0.95
0.95
0.92 1.00
0.92
0.83
1.00
0.92
Lanes: 1.00
0.00
1.00
1.16
1.62
0.22
0.00 2.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.00
Final Sat.: 1750
0
1750
2040
2920
389
0 3900
1750
3150
5700
0
------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Capacity Analysis
Vol/Sat: 0.02
Module:
(nOO 0.03
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.00 0.34
O��9
0.13
0.25
0.00
Crit Moves:
****
****
****
****
Green Time: 4.0
0.0
4.0
19.5
19.5
19.5
0.0 49.0
53.0
17.2
66.3
0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.42
0.00
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.00 0.69
0.74
0.76
0.37
0.00
Delay/Veh: 50.9
0.0
85.8
41.4
41.4
41.4
O.D 20.4
19.2
45.7
7.6
0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 50.9
0.0
85.8
41.4
41.4
41.4
0.0 20.4
19.2
45.7
7.6
0.0
LOS by Move: D
A
F
D
D
D
A C
B
D
A
A
HCM2kAvgQ: 1
0
3
10
10
10
0 15
17
9
6
0
Note: Queue reported is
the number
of cars per
lane.
J
Traf iix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2rQB,I M2kssociates, Inc. Licensed 10 Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE
Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 2011
Page 3-19
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level OF Service computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Altemative)
Cumulative (PM)
_
Intersection #6: Stevens Creek Blvd/Agilent Technologies Driveway Access
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final
Vol: 446'-
0
149
Lanes:
1 0
11
0
1
JT)
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Ovedap
Vol Cnt
Date:
n/a
Rights=Ovedap Lanes: Final Vol:
�
Cycle
Time
(sec):
100
Ilk-72"'
1
1
48
Loss
Time
(sec):
12
0
0
1634 2
Critical
VIC:
0.723
3
2368-
1
Avg Cdt
Del (sec/veh):
23.1
0
0 0
Avg Delay (seclveh):
18.6
1
18
LOS:
B
1
I I
Lanes:
0 0
1!
0
0
Final
Vol: 46'^
0
14
Signal=S pl!URi ghts=l nclud e
Street Name:Agilent
Technologies
Driveway
Acc
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Approach: North
Bound
South Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L -
T -
R
L
- T
- R
L - T -
R
L -
T
- R
------------ I---------------
Min. Green: 0
0
II---------------
0
0
0
0
II---------------
0 0
II
0
---------------I
0
0
0
Y+R: 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0 4.0
---------------
4.0
11---------------I
4.0
4.0
4.0
------------ I---------------
Volume Module:
II--------------
-11
Base Vol: 46
0
14
149
0
446
72 1634
0
18
2388
48
Growth Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial Bse: 46
0
14
149
0
446
72 1634
0
1B
23BB
48
User Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1-00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Volume: 46
0
14
149
0
446
72 1634
0
18
23B8
48
Reduct Vol: 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Reduced Vol: 46
0
14
149
0
446
72 1634
0
18
2388
48
PCE Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume: 46
0
14
149
0
446
72 1634
0
II
18
---------------I
2388
48
------------ I---------------
Saturation Flow Module:
II---------------
II---------------
Sat/Lane: 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
190D
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment: 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
1.00
0.95
0.92 0.98
0.92
0.92
1.00
0.92
Lanes: 0.77
0.00
0.23
1.26
0.00
1.74
1.00 3.00
0.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
Final Sat.: 1342
0
40B
219E
0
3140
1750 5600
0
1750
5700
1750
------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Capacity Analysis
Vol/Sat: 0.03
Module:
0.00
0.03
0.07
0.00
0 14
0.04 0.29
0.00
0.01
0.92
U
0.03
Crit Moves: ****
****
****
***
Green Time: 4.7
0.0
4-7
19.6
0.0
19.6
5.7 61.5
0.0
2.2
57.9
77.6
Volume/Cap: 0.72
0.00
0.72
0.35.0.00
0.72
0.72 0.47
0.00
0.47
0.72
0.04
Delay/Veh: 73-7
0.0,
73.7
34.8
0.0
40A
69.2 10.6
0.0
57.4
16.0
2.6
User DelAdj: 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1-00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 73.7
0.0
73.7
34.8
0.0
40.8
69.2 10.6
0.0
57.4
16.0
2.6
LOS by Move: E
A
E
C
A
D
E B
A
E
B
A
HCM2kAvgQ: 3
0
3
4
0
9
4 9
0
1
17
0
Note: Queue reported
is
the number
of cars per
lane.
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) ociates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE
Tue Mar 22 14:2D:30 2011
Page 3-21
Sunflower Leaming Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Or Service Computation Report
2000
HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative)
Cumulative -Project (PM)
Intersection #6: Stevens Creek Blvd/Agilent Technologies Driveway Access
Signal=Split/Rights=ln clu d e
Final Vol: 446-
0
149
Lanes:
1 0
11
0
1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap
Vol Cnt
Date:
n/a
Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:
Cycle
Time
(sec):
100
83- 1
1
48
Loss
Time
(sac):
12
0
0
1657 2
Critical V/C:
0.739
3
i
2432-
1
Avg Crtt Del (sec/veh):
23.7
0
0 0
Avg Delay
(sedveh):
18.9
1
18
LOS:
B
Ilot
it
t-0-
Lanes: 0 0
11
0
0
Final Vol: 46-
0
14
Signal=S pl it,1Rights=l n clu d e
Street Name:Agilent Technologies
Driveway
Acc
Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound
South
Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L
- T - R
L
- T
- R
L - T
- R
L
- T
- R
---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Min. Green: 0
0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Y+R: 4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
------------ I---------------
Volume Module:
II---------------
II---------------II---------------I
Base Vol: 46
0 14
149
0
446
83 1657
0
18
2432
48
Growth Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial Bse: 46
0 14
149
0
446
83 1657
0
18
2432
48
User Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Volume: 46
0 14
149
0
446
83 1657
0
18
2432
48
Reduct Vol: 0
0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Reduced Vol: 46
0 14
149
0
446
83 1657
0
18
2432
48
PCE Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume: 46
0 14
149
0
446
83 1657
0
1B
2432
48
------------ I--------------- II---------------
Saturation Flow Module:
II---------------
II
---------------I
Sat/Lane: 1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment: 0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
1.00
0.95
0.92 0.98
0.92
0.92
1.00
0.92
Lanes: 0.77
0.00 0.23
1.26
0.00
1.74
1.00 3.00
0.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
Final Sat.: 1342
0 408
2198
0
3140
1750 5600
0
1750
5700
1750
------------ I --------------- II
Capacity Analysis Module:
---------------II---------------II---------------I
Vol/Sat: 0.03
0.00 0.03;:?
0.07e0.00
0.14
0.05 0.30
0.00
0.01
0.43
0.03 '
Crit Moves- ****
****
****
****
Green Time: 4.6
0.0 4.6
19.2
0.0
19.2
6.4 62.0
0.0
2.2
57.7
76.9
Volume/Cap: 0.74
0.00 0.74
0.35
0.00
0.74
0.74 0.48
0.00
0.48
0.74
0.04
Delay/Veh: 76.9
0.0 76.9
35.1
0.0
41.7
68.6 10.4
0.0
57.6
16.5
2.7
User De1Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 76.9
0.0 76.9
35.1
0.0
41.7
68.6 10.4
0.0
57.6
16.5
2.7
LOS by Move: E
A E
D
A
D
E 3
A
E
B
A
HCM2kAvgQ: 4
0 4
4
0
9
4 9
0
1
18
0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2108_U"4ssociates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE
Tue Mar22 14:20:30 2011
page 3-22
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000
HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative)
Cumulative (PM)
Intersection #7: Stevens Creek Blvd/Lawrence Expressway SB
S inal=Split/Rig hts=Overlap
Final Vol: 785-
0
316
Lanes: 1 0
0
0
1
Signal=Permit
Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes:
Rights=Include Vol Cnt
Cycle Time
Date:
(sec):
We Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
120
Loss
Time
(sec):
6
0
p
1892 5
_ y4
Critical V1C:
0.816
3
1863-
1
Avg Cril
Del (sec/veh):
32.4
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sedveh):
29.2
0
0
LOS:
C
Lanes: 0 0
0
0
0
Final Vol: 0
0
0
Sign al=Spl iURights=Overlap
Street Name: Lawrence Expressway SB
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Approach:
North Bound
South
Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement:
------------
L - T - R
L
- T
- R
L - T
- R
L
- T
- R
Min. Green:
I--------------- II---------------
0 0 0
0
0
II---------------
0
0 0
11---------------I
0
0
0
0
Y+R:
------------
4.0 4.0 4.0
I---------------
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
II---------------
Volume Module:
II---------------
11---------------I
Base Vol:
0 0 0
316
0
785
0 1892
0
0
1863
0
Growth Adj:
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0
316
0
785
0 1892
0
0
1863
0
User Adj:
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj:
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Volume:
0 0 0
316
0
785
0 1892
0
0
1863
0
Reduct Vol:
0 0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Reduced Vol:
0 0 0
316
0
785
0 1892
0
0
1863
0
PCE Adj:
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj:
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume:
------------
0 0 0
316
0
785
0 1892
0
0
1863
0
Saturation
I--------------- II---------------
Flow Module:
II---------------
II
---------------I
Sat/Lane:
1900 1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment:
0.92 1.00 0.92
0.92
1.00
0.92
0.92 1.00
0.92
0.92
1.00
0.92
Lanes:
0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.00 5.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
Final Sat.:
0 0 0
1750
0
1750
0 9500
0
0
5700
0
------------
Capacity Analysis
Vol/Sat:
I --------------- II
Module:
0.00 0.00 0.00
---------------II---------------
0.18
0.00
0.45
0.0Y 0.20
II
0.0e
---------------I
0.00
.,
0.33
0.00
Crit Moves:
****
****
Green Time:
0.0 0.0 0.0
65.9
0.0
65.9
0.0 48.1
0.0
0.0
48.1
0.0
Volume/Cap:
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.33
0.00
0.82
0.00 0.50
0.00
0.00
0.82
0.00
Delay/Veh:
0.0 0.0 0.0
15.1
0.0
27.6
0.0 27.0
0.0
0.0
34.4
0.0
User DelAdj:
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh:
0.0 0.0 0.0
15.1
0.0
27.6
0.0 27.0
0.0
0.0
34.4
0.0
LOS by Move:
A A A
B
A
C
A C
A
A
C
A
HCM2kAvgQ:
0 0 0
7
0
27
0 10
0
0
20
0
Note: Queue
reported is the number
of cars
per
lane.
Traffix 6.0.0715 Copyright (c) 20"o I sociates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE
Tue Mar 22 14:2D:30 2011
Page 3-24
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000
HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative)
_
Cumulative -Project (PM)
Intersection #7: Stevens Creek Blvd/Lawrence Expressway SB
Signal=Spl it/Rig hts=Overlap
Final Vol: 798-
0
318
Lanes:
1 0
0
0
1
' 1
114
4*
Signal=Permit
Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include
Vol Cnt
Date:
n/a
Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
Cycle
Time
(sec):
120
0 0
0
0
Loss
Time
(sec):
6
I j
0
0
��'�
1915 5
Critical V/C:
0.83D
3
i
1894-
D
Avg Crtt
Del (sedveh):
33.1
0
0 D
Avg Delay
(sedveh):
29.6
0
0
LOSS:
C
Lanes:
0 0
0
0
0
Final Vol: 0
0
0
Signal=SpliVRights=Ovedap
Street Name:
Lawrence Expressway
SB
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Approach: North Bound
South Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement: L
------------
- T - R
L
- T
- R
L - T -
R
L
- T
- R
I---------------
Min. Green: 0
II---------------
0 0
0
0
0
II---------------
0 0
II
0
---------------I
0
0
0
Y+R: 4.0
------------
4.0 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
I---------------
Volume Module:
II---------------
II---------------
II
---------------I
Base Vol: 0
0 0
316
0
798
0 1915
0
0
1894
0
Growth Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial Bse: 0
0 0
316
0
798
0 1915
0
0
1894
0
User Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Volume: 0
0 0
316
0
798
0 1915
0
0
1894
0
Reduct Vol: 0
0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Reduced Vol: 0
0 0
316
0
798
0 1915
0
0
1894
0
PCE Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume: 0
0 0
316
0
798
0 1915
0
0
1894
0
I--------------- II---------------
Saturation Flow Module:
II---------------
II
---------------I
Sat/Lane: 1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment: 0.92
1.00 0.92
0.92
1.00
0.92
0.92 1.00
0.92
0.92
1.00
0.92
Lanes: 0.00
0.00 0.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.00 5.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
Final Sat.: 0
------------
0 0
175C
0
1750
0 9500
0
0
5700
0
I ---------------II---------------
Capar,ity Analysis
Module:
II---------------II---------------I
Vol/Sat: 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.18
0.Ct
0.46
0.00 0.20
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
Crit Moves:
****
****
Green Time: 0.0
0.0 0.0
65.9
0.0
65.9
0.0 48.1
0.0
0.0
48.1
0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.33
0.00
0.83
0.00 0.50
0.00
0.00
0.83
0.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0
0.0 0.0
15.1
0.0
28.5
0.0 27.1
0.0
0.0
35.0
0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 0.0
0.0 0.0
15.1
0.0
28.5
0.0 27.1
0.0
0.0
35.0
0.0
LOS by Move: A
A A
B
A
C
A C
A
A
D
A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0
0 0
7
0
28
0 10
0
0
21
0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Traiix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2dP9-aWbssociates. Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 2011 Page 3-25
Sunflower Learning Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative)
Cumulative (PM)
Intersection #8: Stevens Creek Blvd/Lawrence Expressway NB
Si gn a1=Split/Rights=Dver1 ap
Final Vol:
0
D
0
Lanes:
0
0 0 0
0
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap
Vol Cnt Date:
n/a
Cycle Time (sec):
120
376"' 2
Loss Time (sec):
9
0
1479 3
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.675
Avg Cdt Del (sectveh): 34.3
Avg Delay (seclveh): 28.2
LOS: C
14) I-4-t t t* (*
Signal=Protect
Rights=Ovedap
0
Lanes: Final Vol:
0 263
1
2 1217-
0
0 0
Lanes: 1 1 0 1 0
Final Vol: 572- 539 179
Signal=S plit/Rights=l n clud e
Street Name: Lawrence Expressway NB Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Volume Module:
.Base Vol: 572 539 179 0 0 0 376 1479 0 0 1217 263
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 572 539 179 0 0 0 376 1479 0 0 1217 263
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 572 539 179 0 0 0 376 1479 0 0 1217 263
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D
Reduced Vol: 572 539 179 0 0 0 376 1479 0 0 1217 263
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 572 539 179 0 0 0 376 1479 0 0 1217 263
------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.95
Lanes: 1.35 1.24 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.45 0.55
Final Sat.: 2372 2235 742 0 0 0 3150 5700 0 0 4604 995
------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Capacity Analysis Module: v
Vol/Sat: 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.A0.00 0.12 0.26 01-1100 0.00 0.26 0.26
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 42.8 42.8 42.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.2 68.2 0.0 0.0 47.0 47.0
Volume/Cap: 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.68 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68
Delay/Veh: 33.7 33.7 33.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.5 15.2 0.0 0.0 31.1 31.1
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 33.7 33.7 33.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.5 15.2 0.0 0.0 31.1 31.1
LOS by Move: C C C A A A D B A A C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 15 15 15 0 0 0 8 10 0 0 16 16
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Traifix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2W14g1kesociates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
COMPARE
Tue Mar 22 14:20:30 2011
Page3-27
Sunflower Leaming Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
Level Of Service Computation Report
2DD0
HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative)
Cumulative+Project (PM)
Intersection #8: Stevens Creek Blvd/Lawrence Expressway NB
S ign al=Sp lit/Rig hts=Oved ap
Final Vol: 0
0
0
Lanes: 0 0
1 14
0
0 0
1*
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes:
Rights=Overlap
Vol Cnt
Date: n/a
Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:
Cycle Time
(sec): 12D
387- 2
0
263
0
Loss Time
(sec): 9
j
� 1
1490 3
Critical V/C: 0.686
2
i
1230-
D
Avg Crit
Del (sec/veh):
34.7
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sedveh): 28.5
0
0
LOS: C
I
t*
Lanes: 1 1
0
1 0
Final Vol: 591
539
179-
S ign al=S plit/Righ
is=lnclu d e
Street Name:
Lawrence Expressway NB
Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach:
North
Bound
South
Bound
East Bound
West Bound
Movement:
------------
L
-----
- T - R
L
- T - R
L - T
- R
L
- T
- R
Min. Green:
0
-----II---------------II---------------II---------------I
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Y+R:
---------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Volume Module:
Base Vol:
591
539 179
0
0 0
387 1490
0
0
1230
263
Growth Adj:
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Initial 3se: 591
539 179
0
0 0
387 1490
0
0
1230
263
User Adj:
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Adj:
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PHF Volume:
591
539 179
0
0 0
387 1490
0
0
1230
263
Reduct Vol:
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Reduced Vol:
591
539 179
0
0 0
387 1490
0
0
1230
263
PCE Adj:
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
MLF Adj:
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
FinalVolume: 591
------------ I---------------
539 179
0
0 0
387 1490
0
0
1230
263
Saturation
II---------------
Flow Module:
II---------------
II
---------------I
Sat/Lane:
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900 1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Adjustment:
0.93
0.95 0.95
0.92
1.00 0.92
0.83 1.00
0.92
0.92
0.99
0.95
Lanes:
1.37
1.22 0.41
0.00
0.00 0.00
2.00 3.00
0.00
0.00
2.45
0.55
Final Sat.:
----
2415
-I-
2203 732
---------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
0
0 0
3150 5700
0
0
4612
986
Capacity Analysis
Module:
Vol/Sat:
0.24
0.24 0.24
0.00
0.00 0.00
LO.12 0.26
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.27 V
Crit Moves:
****
****
****
Green Time:
42.8
42.8 42.8
0.0
0.0 0.0
21.5 68.2
0.0
O.D
46.7
46.7
Volume/Cap:
0.69
0.69 0.69
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.69 0.46
0.00
0.00
0.69
0.69
Delay/Veh:
33.9
33.9 33.9
0.0
0.0 0.0
49.6 15.3
0.0
0.0
31.5
31.5
User DelAdj:
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Del/Veh:
33.9
33.9 33.9
0.0
0.0 0.0
49.6 15.3
0.0
0.0
31.5
31.5
LOS by Move:
C
C C
A
A A
D B
A
A
C
C
HCM2kAvgQ:
15
15 15
0
0 0
8 10
0
0
16
16
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 21 OLDtHlesociates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
`wAppendix C
Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant
1-109
Lo
_
a
-
z1
a1
U
0 1
_.. .
■
o
a o
............_
■
005E
OOi*E
oo£E
OOZE
ONE
000E
006Z
DOM
OOLZ E
009Z Z.
009Z d
L
00bZ
00£Z c
OOU a
00�z o
OOOZ m
006L
009 �
OOLLLU
F
0094 ui
009E y
Dot 0
DOE
DOZL
00L4
000L
006
009
OOL
009
009
004
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 O O 0 0 0
h co In V 0 N
(ydn) yoewddy 9wn10A 461H -133N1S NONIW
F u
O�
z
� 1
x
a
a
a
1-110