2555 Park Boulevard Palo Alto, California - City of Palo Alto

2 downloads 256 Views 989KB Size Report
Jul 29, 2014 - Alm a. Street. O re go n. E xpressw ay. 1. 2. 3. N. NOT TO SCALE. 4. 097564002. PALO ALTO - 2555 PARK BOU
Traffic Impact Analysis

2555 Park Boulevard Palo Alto, California

July 29, 2014

Prepared for: Fergus Garber Young Architects

Prepared by: 2720 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95833 Phone: 916 858 5800

2555 Park Boulevard Traffic Impact Analysis

Palo Alto, California

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report documents the results of a traffic impact analysis completed for a proposed office building development at 2555 Park Boulevard in Palo Alto. The purpose of this impact analysis is to identify potential environmental impacts to transportation facilities as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This study was performed in accordance with the scope of work approved by the City. The project site, which is occupied with an existing operational 8,675 square foot (sf) office building, is proposed to be replaced with a 24,466 sf office building. The project is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Park Boulevard and Grant Avenue. Access to the site is proposed to be provided via one driveway along Grant Avenue. The following intersections are included in this evaluation: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Park Boulevard @ Grant Avenue El Camino Real @ California Avenue El Camino Real @ Grant Avenue El Camino Real @ Page Mill Road/ Oregon Expressway Page Mill Road @ Park Boulevard Birch Street @ Grant Avenue

Consistent with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) requirements, this LOS analysis was conducted for the study facilities for the following scenarios: A. B. C. D. E. F.

Existing (2013) Conditions Existing (2013) plus Proposed Project Conditions Background (2015) Conditions Background (2015) plus Proposed Project Conditions Cumulative (2035) Conditions Cumulative (2035) plus Proposed Project Conditions

Significant findings of this study include: §

The proposed project is estimated to generate 246 total new daily trips, with 35 new trips occurring during the weekday AM peak-hour, and 18 new trips occurring during the weekday PM peak-hour.

§

As defined by VTA, the addition of the proposed project to any of the analyzed scenarios does not significantly change operating conditions at any of the study intersections.

§

The addition of the proposed project adds minor additional queuing to the study intersections. In most cases evaluated, the conditions without the proposed project (Existing and Background) experience queuing in excess of the available storage. The addition of the proposed project is demonstrated to add only minor additional queuing (less than 25 feet, or one vehicle length). This increase in queue length is considered to be insignificant.

§

The addition of the proposed project to any of the analyzed scenarios does not result in the peak hour traffic signal warrant to be satisfied at the four unsignalized study intersections.

ii

July 29, 2014

2555 Park Boulevard Traffic Impact Analysis

Palo Alto, California

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT AREA ROADWAYS ............................................................................................................. 1 ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................................... 5 Proposed Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................. 5 Proposed Project Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................ 6 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 6 EXISTING (2013) CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................ 9 EXISTING (2013) PLUS PROPOSED PROJECT CONDITIONS ..................................................... 11 BACKGROUND (2015) CONDITIONS ...............................................................................................13 BACKGROUND (2015) PLUS PROPOSED PROJECT CONDITIONS ............................................. 15 CUMULATIVE (2035) CONDITIONS ................................................................................................15 CUMULATIVE (2035) PLUS PROPOSED PROJECT CONDITIONS .............................................. 18 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION .......................................................................................................... 20 Standards of Significance ......................................................................................................................... 20 Impacts and Mitigations ........................................................................................................................... 20 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS............................................................................................................. 21 Intersection Queuing Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 21 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................................. 23 APPENDICES Traffic Count Data Sheets ...........................................................................................................Appendix A Analysis Worksheets for Existing (2013) Conditions .................................................................. Appendix B Analysis Worksheets for Background (2015) Conditions............................................................ Appendix C Analysis Worksheets for Cumulative (2035) Conditions............................................................ Appendix D

iii

July 29, 2014

2555 Park Boulevard Traffic Impact Analysis

Palo Alto, California

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Proposed Project Trip Generation....................................................................................................... 5 Table 2 – Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria ................................................................................. 6 Table 3 – Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria ............................................................................. 9 Table 4 – Existing (2013) Intersection Levels of Service ...................................................................................11 Table 5 – Existing (2013) and Existing (2013) plus Proposed Project Intersection Levels of Service ............. 11 Table 6 – Traffic Volume Growth Factors ......................................................................................................... 13 Table 7 – Background (2015) Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................................ 13 Table 8 – Background (2015) and Background (2015) plus Proposed Project Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................ 15 Table 9 – Cumulative (2035) Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................................. 15 Table 10 – Cumulative (2035) and Cumulative (2035) plus Proposed Project Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................ 18 Table 11 – Intersection Queuing Evaluation Results for Select Locations....................................................... 21 Table 12 – Peak Hour Signal Warrant Evaluation Results for Unsignalized Intersections .............................. 23

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Project Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2 – Proposed Project Site Plan ................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3 – Study Intersections, Lane Geometry, and Traffic Control................................................................. 4 Figure 4 – Project Trip Distribution ..................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5 – Project Trip Assignment ..................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 6 – Existing (2013) Conditions Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................................. 10 Figure 7 – Existing (2013) plus Proposed Project Conditions Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ............................. 12 Figure 8 – Background (2015) Conditions Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................... 14 Figure 9 – Background (2015) plus Proposed Project Conditions Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ...................... 16 Figure 10 – Cumulative (2035) Conditions Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes .......................................................... 17 Figure 11 – Cumulative (2035) plus Proposed Project Conditions Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ..................... 19

iv

July 29, 2014

2555 Park Boulevard Traffic Impact Analysis

Palo Alto, California

INTRODUCTION This report documents the results of a traffic impact analysis completed for a proposed office building development at 2555 Park Boulevard in Palo Alto. The purpose of this impact analysis is to identify potential environmental impacts to transportation facilities as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This study was performed in accordance with the scope of work approved by the City1. The remaining sections of this report document the proposed project, analysis methodologies, impacts and mitigation, and general study conclusions.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site, which is occupied with an existing operational 8,675 square foot (sf) office building, is proposed to be replaced with a 24,466 sf office building. The project is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Park Boulevard and Grant Avenue. Access to the site is proposed to be provided via one driveway along Grant Avenue. The project location is shown in Figure 1, and the proposed project site plan is shown in Figure 2.The following intersections are included in this evaluation: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Park Boulevard @ Grant Avenue El Camino Real @ California Avenue El Camino Real @ Grant Avenue El Camino Real @ Page Mill Road/ Oregon Expressway Oregon Expressway @ Park Boulevard Birch Street @ Grant Avenue

Figure 3 illustrates the study facilities, existing traffic control, and existing lane configurations.

PROJECT AREA ROADWAYS The following are descriptions of the primary roadways in the vicinity of the project. U.S. Route 101 (US-101) is a freeway facility located north of the project site. Generally, US-101 serves Santa Clara County and the San Francisco Bay Area’s major population centers, providing vital connectivity along California’s Pacific Ocean coastline. Primary access to the project site from US-101 is provided at the Oregon Expressway interchange. US-101 currently serves approximately 206,000 vehicles per day2 (vpd) with four travel lanes in each direction in the vicinity of Oregon Expressway. El Camino Real (State Route 82), is a major arterial roadway located south of the project site that parallels US101, providing similar connectivity between Bay Area’s population and employment centers. Access to the project site from El Camino Real is provided at multiple intersections between California Avenue and Oregon Expressway and Page Mill Road. El Camino Real currently accommodates approximately 41,000 vpd2 with three travel lanes in each direction. Oregon Expressway is an expressway facility located east of the project site. This facility provides primary connectivity for the project to US-101. South of El Camino Real, the route name changes to Page Mill Road. More broadly speaking, Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road provides a vital link between Interstate 280 (I-280) and US-101.

1 2

Traffic Study Initial Coordination, August 7, 2013, and Email from Rafael Ruis, City of Palo Alto, August 21, 2013. Caltrans Traffic and Vehicle Data Systems Unit, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/2012all/index.html

1

July 29, 2014

y re ss wa Ex p on Or eg PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION

Ca

mi

no R

ea l

Pa g

eM

ill R oa d

El

LEGEND PROJECT SITE

FIGURE 1 N

NOT TO SCALE

097564002

JULY 2014

PROJECT VICINITY MAP PALO ALTO - 2555 PARK BOULEVARD TIA

nu e erm an Av e lev

ard

Project Site

tA ve nu

ou

Grant Avenue

Gr an

rk B

e

Sh Pa

Park Boulevard NOTE: Project will be a three-story building with one level of underground basement parking. Only the ground floor is illustrated on this figure. SOURCE: FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS

FIGURE 2 PROPOSED PROJECT SITE PLAN 097564002

JULY 2014

PALO ALTO - 2555 PARK BOULEVARD TIA

345' 75'

4

210'

290'

120'

95'

340'

340'

170'

120'

DROP

3

DROP

2 50'

1

100'

et

Pa

rk

Bo

275'

ule va rd

325'

tre

Ex pr es s

aS

wa y

5

Or eg on

Al m

6 1

rc h

5

LEGEND X

STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS PROJECT SITE

sw ay

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

Ex pre s

3

St ree t

tre et

Or eg on

mi no Re al

Bi

nA ve nu e

Ca

hS

Sh er ida

El

ve nu e

2

As

Gr an tA

Sh er ma nA

Ca

lifo

ve nu e

rn ia

Av en ue

6

STOP SIGN

XX'

STORAGE LENGTH CUMULATIVE CONDITION

Pa ge

Mi ll

Ro ad

4

N

NOT TO SCALE

FIGURE 3 STUDY INTERSECTIONS, LANE GEOMETRY, AND TRAFFIC CONTROL 097564002

JULY 2014

PALO ALTO - 2555 PARK BOULEVARD TIA

2555 Park Boulevard Traffic Impact Analysis

Palo Alto, California

The proposed project is located at the intersection of Park Boulevard and Grant Avenue. Both Park Boulevard and Grant Avenue are minor facilities whose primary function is to provide access to residential and commercial uses located north of El Camino Real and west of Oregon Expressway. East of the project site, Park Boulevard provides access to Oregon Expressway/ Page Mill Road. Park Boulevard has one travel lane in each direction with parallel parking and bike lanes on both sides. Grant Avenue has one travel lane in each direction with parallel parking on both sides between Birch Street and El Camino Real, and is one-way northbound with perpendicular parking on the west side between Birch Street and the project site. North of the project site, Grant Avenue is closed to through traffic. California Avenue is a major collector whose primary function is to link the residential and commercial uses to the north of El Camino Real to the residential and educational uses to the south. California Avenue has two lanes in each direction with angled parking on both sides north of El Camino Real. California Avenue parallels Oregon Expressway/ Page Mill Road, providing access to the project site from the west.

ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED PROJECT Proposed Project Trip Generation The number of trips anticipated to be generated by the proposed project was derived using data included in Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). As previously described, the project site, which is occupied with an existing operational 8,675 square foot (sf) office building is proposed to be replaced with a 24,466 sf office building. Table 1 presents the trip generation data for the proposed project. Table 1 – Proposed Project Trip Generation Time Period

Daily

AM Peak

PM Peak

In

Trips Out

Total

Ln(Trips) = 0.76 x Ln(Size) + 3.68

-103

-103

-206

Ln(Trips) = 0.76 x Ln(Size) + 3.68

226

226

452

123

123

246

Ln(Trips) = 0.80 x Ln(Size) + 1.57

-24

-3

-27

Ln(Trips) = 0.80 x Ln(Size) + 1.57

55

7

62

31

4

35

Trips = 1.12 x Size + 78.45

-15

-73

-88

Trips = 1.12 x Size + 78.45

18

88

106

3

15

18

Land Use (Size) Existing General Office Building (-8.675 KSF) Proposed General Office Building (24.466 KSF) Net New Vehicle Trips Existing General Office Building (-8.675 KSF) Proposed General Office Building (24.466 KSF) Net New Vehicle Trips Existing General Office Building (-8.675 KSF) Proposed General Office Building (24.466 KSF) Net New Vehicle Trips

Regression Equation

th

Source: Trip Generation Manual, 9 Edition, ITE.

As shown in Table 1, the proposed project is estimated to generate 246 total new daily trips, with 35 new trips occurring during the AM peak-hour, and 18 new trips occurring during the PM peak-hour.

5

July 29, 2014

2555 Park Boulevard Traffic Impact Analysis

Palo Alto, California

Proposed Project Trip Distribution The distribution of project traffic to the surrounding roadway network was performed based on existing traffic data, general knowledge of project area traffic patterns, and engineering judgment. Historical turning movement counts at the intersection of Oregon Expressway and El Camino Real revealed that there is a fairly even split of traffic on all four legs of the intersection when averaging the AM and PM peak periods. Based on these volume patterns, the project trip distribution percentages are illustrated in Figure 4. The resulting AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes attributed to the proposed project are illustrated in Figure 5.

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Analysis of transportation facility significant environmental impacts is based on the concept of Level of Service (LOS). The LOS of a facility is a qualitative measure used to describe operational conditions. LOS ranges from A (best), which represents minimal delay, to F (worst), which represents heavy delay and a facility that is operating at or near its functional capacity. Levels of Service for this study were determined using methods defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 (HCM) and appropriate traffic analysis software. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) requirements3 for signalized intersections include average stopped delay thresholds associated with each level of service interval for signalized intersections. Table 2 presents signalized intersection LOS definitions as defined by VTA. Table 2 – Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria Level of Service (LOS)

Average Control Delay per Vehicle (sec / veh)

Level of Service (LOS)

Average Control Delay per Vehicle (sec / veh)

A B+ B BC+ C C-

≤ 10.0 10.1 – 12.0 12.1 – 18.0 18.1 – 20.0 20.1 – 23.0 23.1 – 32.0 32.1 – 35.0

D+ D DE+ E EF

35.1 – 39.0 39.1 – 51.0 51.1 – 55.0 55.1 – 60.0 60.1 – 75.0 75.1 – 80.0 > 80.0

Source: VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, March 2009.

3

Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Updated March 2009, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.

6

July 29, 2014

wa y

tre

et

Ex pr es s

aS

Or eg on

Al m

Pa

rk

Bo

ule va rd 1

rc h

tre et

sw ay Ex pre s

3

5

St ree t

Or eg on

mi no Re al

Bi

nA ve nu e

Ca

hS

Sh er ida

El

ve nu e

2

As

Gr an tA

Sh er ma nA

Ca

lifo

ve nu e

rn ia

Av en ue

6

Pa ge

Mi ll

Ro ad

4

LEGEND X

STUDY INTERSECTION PROJECT SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE

FIGURE 4 N

NOT TO SCALE

097564002

JULY 2014

PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PALO ALTO - 2555 PARK BOULEVARD TIA

3

2

4

X

X

1(2)

9(1)

9(1) 1(2)

7(1) 1(0)

18(2)

7(1)

3(0) 5(0)

1(0) 3(0) 5(0)

1(4)

3(11)

X

1(4) 1(4)

1

X

5

et

Pa

rk

Bo

1(4)

ule va rd

9(1)

Ex pr es s

tre

Or eg on

aS

wa y

X

Al m

6

X 1

rc h

5

LEGEND

tre et

X

STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS PROJECT SITE

sw ay

XX

AM VOLUME

(XX)

PM VOLUME

Ex pre s

3

St ree t

Or eg on

mi no Re al

Bi

nA ve nu e

Ca

hS

Sh er ida

El

ve nu e

2

As

Gr an tA

Sh er ma nA

Ca

lifo

ve nu e

rn ia

Av en ue

6

9(1)

Pa ge

Mi ll

Ro ad

4

N

NOT TO SCALE

FIGURE 5 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT 097564002

JULY 2014

PALO ALTO - 2555 PARK BOULEVARD TIA

2555 Park Boulevard Traffic Impact Analysis

Palo Alto, California

The 2000 HCM requirements for unsignalized intersections include the control delay for minor movements associated with each level of service interval for unsignalized intersections. In the operations methodology, the delay is reported for the worst-case approach of each intersection. Table 3 presents unsignalized intersection LOS definitions as defined by 2000 HCM. Table 3 – Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria Level of Service (LOS)

Control Delay (sec / veh)

A B C D E F

0 - 10 >10 - 15 >15 -25 >25 - 35 >35 - 50 >50

Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000, National Research Council, 2000.

Consistent with the VTA requirements3, this LOS analysis was conducted for the study facilities for the following scenarios: A. B. C. D. E. F.

Existing (2013) Conditions Existing (2013) plus Proposed Project Conditions Background (2015) Conditions Background (2015) plus Proposed Project Conditions Cumulative (2035) Conditions Cumulative (2035) plus Proposed Project Conditions

The following is a discussion of the analyses for these scenarios.

EXISTING (2013) CONDITIONS Weekday AM and PM peak-period intersection turning movement traffic counts were conducted for three (3) of the study intersections. These counts were conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. (Grant Avenue at El Camino Real and Grant Avenue at Park Boulevard conducted on 10/10/2013, California Avenue at El Camino Real conducted on 5/7/2013). For the other study intersections, existing volumes were provided by City staff. Existing (2013) peak-hour turning movement volumes are presented in Figure 6, and the traffic count data sheets are provided in Appendix A. Table 4 presents the peakhour intersection operating conditions for this analysis scenario.

9

July 29, 2014

3

48(55) 1194(2256) 14(27)

37(186) 35(74) 67(163)

10(9) 12(11) 28(60)

61(57) 1828(1495) 44(14)

350(498) 615(1390) 178(354)

169(237) 1395(861) 512(235)

146(299)

62(95) 1739(1404) 101(64)

66(108) 1192(1921) 178(59)

X 38(41)

108(55) 57(114)

65(74)

13(14)

9(5)

10(6) 134(100)

6(5) 172(358)

4

X

627(491) 675(1132)

2

X

165(202) 909(706) 296(364)

1

X

5 1(4) 5(3) 3(3)

Pa

rk

Bo

44(16)

1(1) 218(206) 222(364)

ule va rd

7(2) 132(126) 116(115)

48(29) 3(3)

et

Ex pr es s

tre

Or eg on

aS

wa y

X

Al m

6

X 1

45(18) 441(259) 39(14)

rc h

5

7(9)

LEGEND

tre et

X

STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS PROJECT SITE

sw ay

XX

AM VOLUME

(XX)

PM VOLUME

Ex pre s

3

St ree t

Or eg on

mi no Re al

Bi

nA ve nu e

Ca

hS

Sh er ida

El

ve nu e

2

As

Gr an tA

Sh er ma nA

Ca

lifo

ve nu e

rn ia

Av en ue

6

4(6) 48(34)

9(7) 15(69) 4(4)

Pa ge

Mi ll

Ro ad

4

N

NOT TO SCALE

FIGURE 6 EXISTING (2013) CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 097564002

JULY 2014

PALO ALTO - 2555 PARK BOULEVARD TIA

2555 Park Boulevard Traffic Impact Analysis

Palo Alto, California Table 4 – Existing (2013) Intersection Levels of Service

#

Intersection

Traffic Control

1 2 3 4 5 6

Park Boulevard @ Grant Avenue El Camino Real @ California Avenue El Camino Real @ Grant Avenue El Camino Real @ Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road Oregon Expressway @ Park Boulevard Birch Street @ Grant Avenue

TWSC b Signal TWSC Signal a TWSC b AWSC

a

AM Peak-Hour Delay LOS (seconds) 11.6 (SB LTR) 12.8 21.7 (EB L) 50.3 21.8 (SB LTR) 10.6

B B C D C B

PM Peak-Hour Delay LOS (seconds) 14.6 (SB LTR) 19.5 24.4 (WB L) 45.0 19.4 (SB LTR) 8.7

B BC D C A

a = Delay refers to average control delay for worst movement, noted in parentheses (unsignalized TWSC) b = Delay refers to average control delay for the entire intersection (signalized and unsignalized AWSC) TWSC = Two Way Stop-Controlled, AWSC = All Way Stop-Controlled, SB= Southbound, L= Left Turn Movement, T= Through Movement, R= Right Turn Movement, Bold = Substandard

As indicated in Table 4, the study intersections operate from LOS B to LOS D during the AM and PM peakhours. Analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix B.

EXISTING (2013) PLUS PROPOSED PROJECT CONDITIONS Peak-hour traffic associated with the proposed project was added to the existing traffic volumes and levels of service were determined at the study intersections. Table 5 provides a summary of the intersection analysis and Figure 7 provides the AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes at the study intersections for this analysis scenario. Table 5 – Existing (2013) and Existing (2013) plus Proposed Project Intersection Levels of Service # 1 2 3 4 5 6 +

Intersection

Analysis + Scenario

Park Boulevard @ Grant Avenue El Camino Real @ California Avenue El Camino Real @ Grant Avenue El Camino Real @ Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road Oregon Expressway @ Park Boulevard Birch Street @ Grant Avenue

Exist. Exist.+PP Exist. Exist.+PP Exist. Exist.+PP Exist. Exist.+ PP Exist. Exist.+PP Exist. Exist.+ PP

Traffic Control TWSC

a

b

Signal TWSC

a

b

Signal TWSC

a

b

AWSC

AM Peak-Hour

PM Peak-Hour

Delay (sec)

LOS

Delay (sec)

LOS

11.6 (SB LTR) 12.4 (SB LTR) 12.8 13.0 21.7 (EB L) 22.0 (EB L) 50.3 50.8 21.8 (SB LTR) 21.9 (SB LTR) 10.6 10.7

B B B B C C D D C C B B

14.6 (SB LTR) 15.4 (SB LTR) 19.5 19.5 24.4 (WB L) 24.4 (WB L) 45.0 45.3 19.4 (SB LTR) 19.4 (SB LTR) 8.7 8.7

B C BBC C D D C C A A

Exist. = Existing (2013), Exist. + PP = Existing (2013) plus Proposed Project a = Delay refers to average control delay for worst movement, noted in parentheses (unsignalized TWSC) b = Delay refers to average control delay for the entire intersection (signalized and unsignalized AWSC) TWSC = Two Way Stop-Controlled, AWSC = All Way Stop-Controlled, SB= Southbound, L= Left Turn Movement, T= Through Movement, R= Right Turn Movement, Bold = Substandard

As indicated in Table 5, the study intersections continue to operate from LOS A to LOS D with the addition of project traffic during the AM and PM peak-hours. The analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix B.

11

July 29, 2014

3

49(55) 1194(2256) 14(27)

37(186) 35(74) 67(163)

10(9) 30(13) 28(60)

70(58) 1828(1495) 44(14)

350(498) 615(1390) 178(354)

172(237) 1400(861) 512(235)

146(299)

62(95) 1740(1406) 101(64)

73(109) 1193(1921) 178(59)

X 38(41)

108(55) 57(114)

66(76)

16(25)

10(9)

19(7) 134(100)

13(6) 172(358)

4

X

630(491) 680(1132)

2

X

165(202) 910(710) 297(368)

1

X

5 1(4) 5(3) 3(3)

Pa

rk

Bo

44(16)

1(1) 218(206) 223(368)

ule va rd

7(2) 132(126) 116(115)

57(30) 3(3)

et

Ex pr es s

tre

Or eg on

aS

wa y

X

Al m

6

X 1

54(19) 441(259) 39(14)

rc h

5

7(9)

LEGEND

tre et

X

STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS PROJECT SITE

sw ay

XX

AM VOLUME

(XX)

PM VOLUME

Ex pre s

3

St ree t

Or eg on

mi no Re al

Bi

nA ve nu e

Ca

hS

Sh er ida

El

ve nu e

2

As

Gr an tA

Sh er ma nA

Ca

lifo

ve nu e

rn ia

Av en ue

6

4(6) 48(34)

9(7) 15(69) 4(4)

Pa ge

Mi ll

Ro ad

4

N

NOT TO SCALE

FIGURE 7 EXISTING (2013) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 097564002

JULY 2014

PALO ALTO - 2555 PARK BOULEVARD TIA

2555 Park Boulevard Traffic Impact Analysis

Palo Alto, California

BACKGROUND (2015) CONDITIONS Background conditions for this analysis were established as 2015, the year during which the proposed project is anticipated to be completed and fully occupied. To achieve year 2015 traffic conditions, two years of background traffic growth and traffic volumes from four approved projects (441 Page Mill Road, 2755 El Camino Real, 3159 El Camino Real, and 385 Sherman Avenue) were incorporated according to the information and direction offered by City staff4. In addition, traffic from a project that was determined to no longer be considered as “reasonably foreseeable”, the 27 University Avenue project, was removed from the projected traffic volumes generated by the City’s traffic model5. Annual growth rates were calculated for the intersections of El Camino Real at California Ave and El Camino Real at Page Mill Road and Oregon Expressway based on data contained in the 2013 and 2035 city’s traffic model6. The higher of the growth rates at these intersections was determined and applied to the other intersections. The growth factors used in this analysis are presented in Table 6. Table 6 – Traffic Volume Growth Factors #

Intersection

1

Park Boulevard @ Grant Avenue

2

El Camino Real @ California Avenue

3 4 5 6

Peak Hour

El Camino Real @ Grant Avenue El Camino Real @ Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road Oregon Expressway @ Park Boulevard Birch Street @ Grant Avenue

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

Annual Growth Rate 1.017259 1.014449 1.017259 1.014449 1.017259 1.014449 1.007333 1.007760 1.017259 1.014449 1.017259 1.014449 89

Table 7 provides a summary of the intersection analysis and Figure 8 provides the AM and PM traffic volumes for this analysis scenario. As indicated in Table 7, the study intersections operate from LOS A to LOS E+ during the AM and PM peak-hours. The analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix C. Table 7 – Background (2015) Intersection Levels of Service #

Intersection

Traffic Control

1 2 3 4 5 6

Park Boulevard @ Grant Avenue El Camino Real @ California Avenue El Camino Real @ Grant Avenue El Camino Real @ Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road Oregon Expressway @ Park Boulevard Birch Street @ Grant Avenue

TWSC b Signal TWSC Signal a TWSC b AWSC

a

AM Peak-Hour Delay LOS (seconds) 11.8 (SB LTR) 13.1 24.3 (EB L) 56.4 23.0 (SB LTR) 11.1

B B C E+ C B

PM Peak-Hour Delay LOS (seconds) 15.3 (SB LTR) 19.9 26.2 (WB L) 48.5 20.5 (SB LTR) 8.8

C BD D C A

a = Delay refers to average control delay for worst movement, noted in parentheses (unsignalized TWSC) b = Delay refers to average control delay for the entire intersection (signalized and unsignalized AWSC) TWSC = Two Way Stop-Controlled, AWSC = All Way Stop-Controlled, SB= Southbound, L= Left Turn Movement, T= Through Movement, R= Right Turn Movement, Bold = Substandard

4

Email from Rafael Ruis, City of Palo Alto, August 21, 2013. Email from Rafael Ruis, City of Palo Alto, June 16, 2014. 6 Email from Rafael Ruis, City of Palo Alto, November 26, 2013. 5

13

July 29, 2014

3

50(57) 1257(2341) 14(28)

38(191) 38(76) 69(168)

10(9) 12(11) 29(62)

63(59) 1932(1554) 46(14)

367(525) 632(1406) 182(366)

188(249) 1421(882) 528(245)

157(310)

64(98) 1829(1463) 105(66)

74(112) 1254(1996) 184(61)

X 39(42)

112(59) 59(117)

67(76)

13(14)

9(5)

10(6) 139(103)

6(5) 182(387)

4

X

649(502) 685(1150)

2

X

189(209) 923(723) 324(386)

1

X

5 1(4) 5(3) 3(3)

Pa

rk

Bo

46(16)

1(1) 226(212) 234(394)

ule va rd

7(2) 137(130) 120(118)

50(30) 3(3)

et

Ex pr es s

tre

Or eg on

aS

wa y

X

Al m

6

X 1

47(19) 477(272) 40(14)

rc h

5

7(9)

LEGEND

tre et

X

STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS PROJECT SITE

sw ay

XX

AM VOLUME

(XX)

PM VOLUME

Ex pre s

3

St ree t

Or eg on

mi no Re al

Bi

nA ve nu e

Ca

hS

Sh er ida

El

ve nu e

2

As

Gr an tA

Sh er ma nA

Ca

lifo

ve nu e

rn ia

Av en ue

6

4(6) 50(35)

9(7) 16(71) 4(4)

Pa ge

Mi ll

Ro ad

4

N

NOT TO SCALE

FIGURE 8 BACKGROUND (2015) CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 097564002

JULY 2014

PALO ALTO - 2555 PARK BOULEVARD TIA

2555 Park Boulevard Traffic Impact Analysis

Palo Alto, California

BACKGROUND (2015) PLUS PROPOSED PROJECT CONDITIONS Peak-hour traffic associated with the proposed project was added to the Background (2015) traffic volumes and levels of service were determined at the study intersections. Table 8 provides a summary of the intersection operating conditions for this analysis scenario. Figure 9 provides the AM and PM traffic volumes for this analysis scenario. Table 8 – Background (2015) and Background (2015) plus Proposed Project Intersection Levels of Service #

Intersection

1

Park Boulevard @ Grant Avenue

2

El Camino Real @ California Avenue

3 4 5 6 +

El Camino Real @ Grant Avenue El Camino Real @ Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road Oregon Expressway @ Park Boulevard Birch Street @ Grant Avenue

Analysis + Scenario Back. Back.+PP Back. Back.+PP Back. Back.+PP Back. Back.+PP Back. Back.+PP Back. Back.+PP

AM Peak-Hour

Traffic Control TWSC

a

b

Signal

TWSC Signal TWSC

a

b

AWSC

.

PM Peak-Hour

Delay (sec)

LOS

Delay (sec)

LOS

11.8 (SB LTR) 12.6 (SB LTR) 13.1 13.4 24.3 (EB L) 24.6 (EB L) 56.4 57.0 23.0 (SB LTR) 23.1 (SB LTR) 11.1 11.2

B B B B C C E+ E+ C C B B

15.3 (SB LTR) 16.3 (SB LTR) 19.9 19.9 26.2 (WB L) 26.2 (WB L) 48.5 48.9 20.5 (SB LTR) 20.6 (SB LTR) 8.8 8.8

C C BBD D D D C C A A

Back. = Background (2015), Back. + PP = Background (2015) plus Proposed Project a = Delay refers to average control delay for worst movement, noted in parentheses (unsignalized TWSC) b = Delay refers to average control delay for the entire intersection (signalized and unsignalized AWSC) TWSC = Two Way Stop-Controlled, AWSC = All Way Stop-Controlled, SB= Southbound, L= Left Turn Movement, T= Through Movement, R= Right Turn Movement, Bold = Substandard

As indicated in Table 8, the study intersections continue to operate from LOS A to LOS E+ with the addition of project traffic during the AM and PM peak-hours. The analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix C.

CUMULATIVE (2035) CONDITIONS Cumulative conditions for this analysis were established as 2035. Cumulative traffic volumes for the intersections of El Camino Real at California Ave and El Camino Real at Page Mill Road and Oregon Expressway were provided from the 2035 city’s traffic model. To achieve year 2035 traffic conditions for the intersections of Park Boulevard at Grant Avenue and El Camino Real at Grant Avenue, twenty-two (22) years of background traffic growth (see Table 6) from Existing (2013) Conditions were incorporated. In addition, per direction from the City, an exclusive westbound left-turn lane was assumed to be in place at the Oregon Expressway intersection with Park Boulevard for Cumulative (2035) Conditions. As previously discussed, traffic from a project that was determined to no longer be considered as “reasonably foreseeable”, the 27 University Avenue project, was removed from the projected traffic volumes generated by the City’s traffic model5. Table 9 provides a summary of the intersection analysis and Figure 10 provides the AM and PM traffic volumes for this analysis scenario. As indicated in Table 9, the study intersections operate from LOS A to LOS F during the AM and PM peak-hours. The analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix D.

15

July 29, 2014

3

51(57) 1257(2341) 14(28)

38(191) 38(76) 69(168)

10(9) 31(13) 29(62)

72(59) 1932(1554) 46(14)

367(525) 632(1406) 182(366)

192(249) 1426(883) 528(245)

157(310)

64(98) 1829(1465) 105(66)

82(113) 1256(1996) 184(61)

X 39(42)

112(59) 59(117)

68(78)

16(26)

10(9)

19(7) 139(103)

14(6) 182(387)

4

X

653(502) 690(1150)

2

X

189(209) 924(727) 325(389)

1

X

5 1(4) 5(3) 3(3)

Pa

rk

Bo

46(16)

1(1) 226(212) 235(397)

ule va rd

7(2) 137(130) 120(118)

58(31) 3(3)

et

Ex pr es s

tre

Or eg on

aS

wa y

X

Al m

6

X 1

55(19) 477(272) 40(14)

rc h

5

7(9)

LEGEND

tre et

X

STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS PROJECT SITE

sw ay

XX

AM VOLUME

(XX)

PM VOLUME

Ex pre s

3

St ree t

Or eg on

mi no Re al

Bi

nA ve nu e

Ca

hS

Sh er ida

El

ve nu e

2

As

Gr an tA

Sh er ma nA

Ca

lifo

ve nu e

rn ia

Av en ue

6

4(6) 50(35)

9(7) 16(71) 4(4)

Pa ge

Mi ll

Ro ad

4

N

NOT TO SCALE

FIGURE 9 BACKGROUND (2015) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 097564002

JULY 2014

PALO ALTO - 2555 PARK BOULEVARD TIA

3

70(75) 1737(3073) 20(37)

44(175) 29(81) 88(185)

15(12) 17(15) 41(82)

89(78) 2642(2044) 64(19)

436(613) 1099(1941) 209(455)

176(303) 1434(1096) 535(301)

185(299)

105(89) 2275(2108) 138(95)

155(91) 1703(2583) 170(53)

X 55(56)

122(50) 62(129)

54(78)

19(19)

13(7)

15(8) 195(137)

9(7) 251(491)

4

X

627(574) 1292(1149)

2

X

171(211) 945(738) 308(380)

1

X

5 1(5) 7(4) 4(4)

Pa

rk

Bo

64(22)

1(1) 318(282) 323(499)

ule va rd

10(3) 192(173) 169(158)

70(40) 4(4)

et

Ex pr es s

tre

Or eg on

aS

wa y

X

Al m

6

X 1

66(25) 643(355) 57(19)

5

LEGEND

tre et

X

STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS PROJECT SITE

sw ay

XX

AM VOLUME

(XX)

PM VOLUME

Ex pre s

3

St ree t

10(12)

rc h

Or eg on

mi no Re al

Bi

nA ve nu e

Ca

hS

Sh er ida

El

ve nu e

2

As

Gr an tA

Sh er ma nA

Ca

lifo

ve nu e

rn ia

Av en ue

6

22(95) 6(5)

6(8) 70(47)

13(10)

Pa ge

Mi ll

Ro ad

4

N

NOT TO SCALE

FIGURE 10 CUMULATIVE (2035) CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 097564002

JULY 2014

PALO ALTO - 2555 PARK BOULEVARD TIA

2555 Park Boulevard Traffic Impact Analysis

Palo Alto, California Table 9 – Cumulative (2035) Intersection Levels of Service

#

Intersection

Traffic Control

1 2 3 4 5 6

Park Boulevard @ Grant Avenue El Camino Real @ California Avenue El Camino Real @ Grant Avenue El Camino Real @ Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road Oregon Expressway @ Park Boulevard Birch Street @ Grant Avenue

TWSC b Signal TWSC Signal a TWSC b AWSC

a

AM Peak-Hour Delay LOS (seconds) 12.5 (SB LTR) 14.8 81.2 (WB L) 2 (EB L) 58.0

B B F E+ D B

32.7 (SB LTR) 12.8

PM Peak-Hour Delay LOS (seconds) 17.2 (SB LTR) 22.7 65.9 (WB L) 81.9 25.7 (SB LTR) 9.1

C C+ F F D A

a = Delay refers to average control delay for worst movement, noted in parentheses (unsignalized TWSC) b = Delay refers to average control delay for the entire intersection (signalized and unsignalized AWSC) TWSC = Two Way Stop-Controlled, AWSC = All Way Stop-Controlled, SB= Southbound, L= Left Turn Movement, T= Through Movement, R= Right Turn Movement, Bold = Substandard

CUMULATIVE (2035) PLUS PROPOSED PROJECT CONDITIONS Peak-hour traffic associated with the proposed project was added to the Cumulative (2035) traffic volumes and levels of service were determined at the study intersections. Table 10 provides a summary of the intersection analysis and Figure 11 provides the AM and PM traffic volumes for this analysis scenario. Table 10 – Cumulative (2035) and Cumulative (2035) plus Proposed Project Intersection Levels of Service #

Intersection

1

Park Boulevard @ Grant Avenue

2

El Camino Real @ California Avenue

3 4 5 6 +

El Camino Real @ Grant Avenue El Camino Real @ Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road Oregon Expressway @ Park Boulevard Birch Street @ Grant Avenue

Analysis + Scenario Cum. Cum.+PP Cum. Cum.+PP Cum. Cum.+PP Cum. Cum.+PP Cum. Cum.+PP Cum. Cum.+PP

Traffic Control TWSC

a

b

Signal

TWSC Signal TWSC

a

b

AWSC

AM Peak-Hour

PM Peak-Hour

Delay (sec)

LOS

Delay (sec)

LOS

12.5 (SB LTR) 13.3 (SB LTR) 14.8 15.0 81.2 (EB L) 83.9 (EB L) 58.0 58.7 32.7 (SB LTR) 32.7 (SB LTR) 12.8 12.9

B B B B F F E+ E+ D D B B

17.2 (SB LTR) 18.1 (SB LTR) 22.7 22.8 65.9 (WB L) 65.9 (WB L) 81.9 82.6 25.7 (SB LTR) 25.8 9.1 9.1

C C C+ C+ F F F F D D A A

Cum. = Cumulative (2035), Cum. + PP = Cumulative (2035) plus Proposed Project a = Delay refers to average control delay for worst movement, noted in parentheses (unsignalized TWSC) b = Delay refers to average control delay for the entire intersection (signalized and unsignalized AWSC) TWSC = Two Way Stop-Controlled, AWSC = All Way Stop-Controlled, SB= Southbound, L= Left Turn Movement, T= Through Movement, R= Right Turn Movement, Bold = Substandard

As indicated in Table 10, the study intersections continue to operate from LOS A to LOS F with the addition of project traffic during the AM and PM peak-hours. The analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix D.

18

July 29, 2014

3

71(76) 1737(3073) 20(37)

44(175) 29(81) 88(185)

15(12) 36(17) 41(82)

97(79) 2642(2044) 64(19)

436(613) 1099(1941) 209(455)

179(303) 1439(1096) 535(301)

185(299)

105(89) 2276(2110) 138(95)

162(92) 1704(2583) 170(53)

X 55(56)

122(50) 62(129)

55(80)

22(30)

14(11)

23(9) 195(137)

16(8) 251(491)

4

X

630(574) 1297(1149)

2

X

171(211) 946(742) 309(384)

1

X

5 1(5) 7(4) 4(4)

Pa

rk

Bo

64(22)

1(1) 318(282) 324(503)

ule va rd

10(3) 192(173) 169(158)

78(41) 4(4)

et

Ex pr es s

tre

Or eg on

aS

wa y

X

Al m

6

X 1

74(25) 643(355) 57(19)

5

LEGEND

tre et

X

STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS PROJECT SITE

sw ay

XX

AM VOLUME

(XX)

PM VOLUME

Ex pre s

3

St ree t

10(12)

rc h

Or eg on

mi no Re al

Bi

nA ve nu e

Ca

hS

Sh er ida

El

ve nu e

2

As

Gr an tA

Sh er ma nA

Ca

lifo

ve nu e

rn ia

Av en ue

6

22(95) 6(5)

6(8) 70(47)

13(10)

Pa ge

Mi ll

Ro ad

4

N

NOT TO SCALE

FIGURE 11 CUMULATIVE (2035) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 097564002

JULY 2014

PALO ALTO - 2555 PARK BOULEVARD TIA

2555 Park Boulevard Traffic Impact Analysis

Palo Alto, California

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Standards of Significance Project impacts were determined by comparing conditions with the proposed project to those without the project. Impacts for intersections are created when traffic from the proposed project forces the LOS to fall below a specific threshold. VTA’s standards3 specify a standard of LOS E, as well as the following: “If the analysis shows that a development project is projected to cause traffic LOS on a CMP facility to fall from LOS E or better to LOS F under project conditions, then the project is said to impact the facility…A project is said to impact an intersection determined to have been at LOS F under background conditions if the addition of project traffic increases the average control delay for critical movements by four (4) seconds or more, and projected traffic increases the critical v/c value by 0.01 or more.”

While the three El Camino Real intersections (#2, #3, and #4) and the Oregon Expressway intersection (#5) are specifically CMP facilities as defined by VTA, the Park Boulevard intersection with Grant Avenue (#1) and the Birch Street intersection with Grant Avenue (#6) are not CMP facilities. Accordingly, the City of Palo Alto has specified LOS D as the measure of significance for project impacts at these two locations. The following is a discussion of the impacts and associated mitigations required for each of the analysis scenarios. Impacts and Mitigations Existing (2013) plus Proposed Project Conditions As reflected in Table 5, the addition of the proposed project does not result in significant impacts as defined by VTA. Accordingly, no mitigations are required. Background (2015) plus Proposed Project Conditions As reflected in Table 8, the addition of the proposed project does not result in significant impacts as defined by VTA. Accordingly, no mitigations are required. Cumulative (2035) plus Proposed Project Conditions As reflected in Table 10, the addition of the proposed project does not result in significant impacts as defined by VTA. Although Intersection #3 (El Camino Real @ Grant Avenue) operates at LOS F in the AM peak-hour, the addition of the proposed project increases the average control delay for the critical movement by only 2.7 seconds and increases the movement’s v/c by 0.015. This intersection also operates at LOS F in the PM peakhour during which the addition of the proposed project increases the average control delay for the critical movement by only 0.0 seconds and increases the movement’s v/c by 0.00. These increases do not satisfy the aforementioned VTA standards of significance. Accordingly, no mitigations are required. Intersection #4 (El Camino Real @ Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road) operates at LOS F in the PM peak-hour. The addition of the proposed project increases the average control delay for the critical movement by only 0.7 seconds and increases the movement’s v/c by 0.002. These increases do not satisfy the aforementioned VTA standards of significance. Accordingly, no mitigations are required.

20

July 29, 2014

2555 Park Boulevard Traffic Impact Analysis

Palo Alto, California

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Intersection Queuing Evaluation Consistent with the VTA’s requirements3, near-term (Existing and Background) queuing impacts have been evaluated and quantified by comparing the calculated queues for critical study intersection movements. For this evaluation, the relative queues without and with the addition of the proposed project are the primary focus. For the queuing analysis, the anticipated vehicle queues for critical movements affected by the addition of the proposed project were evaluated. Results of the queuing evaluation are presented in Table 11. Analysis sheets that include the anticipated vehicle queues are presented in Appendices B, C, and D. As presented in Table 11, in most cases evaluated, the conditions without the proposed project (Existing and Background) experience queuing in excess of the available storage. The addition of the proposed project is demonstrated to add only minor additional queuing (less than 25 feet, or one vehicle length). There are three movements where the queue shown increases by one vehicle, but this is because the queue lengths (in feet) are rounded up to the nearest vehicle. The additional vehicle in queue shown for these movements actually represents an increase of only 13-feet or less. These increases in queue length are insignificant and can likely be accommodated by altering traffic signal timing and/or the signal phase sequence, if needed. Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant Evaluation A planning level assessment of the need for traffic signalization was performed for the unsignalized study intersections. This evaluation was performed consistently with the peak-hour warrant methodologies noted in Section 4C of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUCTD), 2012 Edition. A summary of the peak hour warrant results are presented in Table 12. Analysis sheets that include the anticipated approach delay and volumes are presented in Appendices B, C, and D. As presented in Table 12, the addition of the proposed project does not result in the peak-hour signal warrant to be satisfied.

21

July 29, 2014

2555 Park Boulevard Traffic Impact Analysis

Palo Alto, California

Table 11 – Intersection Queuing Evaluation Results for Select Locations Intersection / Analysis Scenario

Movement

EBL Existing (2013) Existing plus Proposed Project (2013) Background (2015) Background plus Proposed Project (2015) SBR Existing (2013) Existing plus Proposed Project (2013) Background (2015) Background plus Proposed Project (2015) SBL Existing (2013) Existing plus Proposed Project (2013) Background (2015) Background plus Proposed Project (2015) #3, El Camino Real @ Grant Ave EBL Existing (2013) Existing plus Proposed Project (2013) Background (2015) Background plus Proposed Project (2015) #4, El Camino Real @ Oregon Expy/Page Mill Rd SBL Existing (2013) Existing plus Proposed Project (2013) Background (2015) Background plus Proposed Project (2015) NBL Existing (2013) Existing plus Proposed Project (2013) Background (2015) Background plus Proposed Project (2015) #5, Oregon Expy @ Park Blvd NBL Existing (2013) Existing plus Proposed Project (2013) Background (2015) Background plus Proposed Project (2015)

AM Peak-Hour Available 95% Queue Storage feet (# cars)

PM Peak-Hour Available 95% Queue Storage feet (# cars)

#2, El Camino Real @ California Ave

120

154 (6) 165 (7) 171 (7) 184 (8)

50

119 (5) 122 (5) 124 (5) 126 (6)

+

143 (6) 143 (6) 151 (6) 152 (6)

100

18 (1) 18 (1) 21 (1) 22 (1)

210

267 (11) 269 (11) 290 (12) 292 (12)

340

680 (27) 685 (27) 726 (29) 732 (29)

325

21 (1) 26 (2) 24 (1) 28 (2)

120

214 (9) 216 (9) 225 (9) 226 (9)

50

156 (6) 159 (6) 161 (7) 165 (7)

+

253 (10) 253 (10) 264 (11) 264 (11)

100

13 (1) 13 (1) 15 (1) 15 (1)

210

377 (15) 380 (15) 403 (17) 405 (17)

340

560 (22) 561 (22) 589 (24) 591 (24)

325

12 (1) 12 (1) 13 (1) 14 (1)

+

Source: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology per Traffix. Denotes available storage equal to segment length

22

July 29, 2014

2555 Park Boulevard Traffic Impact Analysis

Palo Alto, California

Table 12 – Peak Hour Signal Warrant Evaluation Results for Unsignalized Intersections #

Intersection

1

Park Boulevard @ Grant Avenue

3

El Camino Real @ Grant Avenue

5

Oregon Expressway @ Park Boulevard

6

Birch Street @ Grant Avenue

Analysis Scenario

Peak Hour

Exist.

Exist.+PP

Back.

Back.+PP

Cum.

Cum.+PP

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

No No No No No No No No

No No No No No No No No

No No No No No No No No

No No No No No No No No

No No No No No No No No

No No No No No No No No

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) methodology per Traffix. Note: Peak Hour Warrant is satisfied if Condition A or B is satisfied. Exist. = Existing (2013), Exist.+PP = Existing (2013) plus Proposed Project, Back. = Background (2015), Back.+PP = Background (2015) plus Proposed Project, Cum. = Cumulative (2035), Cum.+PP = Cumulative (2035) plus Project

CONCLUSIONS Based upon the analysis documented in this report, the following conclusions are offered: §

The proposed project is estimated to generate 246 total new daily trips, with 35 new trips occurring during the weekday AM peak-hour, and 18 new trips occurring during the weekday PM peak-hour.

§

As defined by VTA, the addition of the proposed project to any of the analyzed scenarios does not significantly change operating conditions at any of the study intersections.

§

The addition of the proposed project adds minor additional queuing to the study intersections. In most cases evaluated, the conditions without the proposed project (Existing and Background) experience queuing in excess of the available storage. The addition of the proposed project is demonstrated to add only minor additional queuing (less than 25 feet, or one vehicle length). This increase in queue length is considered to be insignificant.

§

The addition of the proposed project to any of the analyzed scenarios does not result in the peak hour traffic signal warrant to be satisfied at the four unsignalized study intersections.

23

July 29, 2014