Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Vallejo, California

Prepared for:

City of Vallejo

Prepared by:

AECOM

June 2011, Revised April 2012

Contents

1.0 Affected Environment ...... 1-1 Environmental Setting ...... 1-1 Project Location...... 1-1 Project Description ...... 1-3 Study Scope and Approach ...... 1-7 Traffic Evaluation ...... 1-7 Intersection Operations ...... 1-7 Existing Conditions ...... 1-10 Roadway Network ...... 1-10 Traffic Conditions ...... 1-11 Regulatory Setting ...... 1-19 Federal Regulation ...... 1-19 State Regulation ...... 1-19 Local Regulation ...... 1-20

2.0 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures ...... 2-1 Methods and Assumptions ...... 2-1 Project Travel Demand ...... 2-1 Criteria for Determining Significance of Effects ...... 2-5 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures...... 2-6

3.0 Near-Term Effects ...... 3-1 Methods and Assumptions ...... 3-1 Background Growth ...... 3-1 Near-Term 2015 Conditions ...... 3-1 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures ...... 3-3

4.0 Cumulative Effects ...... 4-1 Methods and Assumptions ...... 4-1 Background Growth ...... 4-1 Cumulative 2035 Conditions ...... 4-1 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures ...... 4-3

Appendix A: Level of Service Calculations Existing Conditions - Weekday AM Peak Hour Existing Conditions - Weekday PM Peak Hour Near-Term 2015 Conditions - Weekday AM Peak Hour Near-Term 2015 Conditions - Weekday PM Peak Hour Near-Term 2015 plus Phase 1 Conditions - Weekday AM Peak Hour

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study i

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Near-Term 2015 plus Phase 1 Conditions - Weekday PM Peak Hour Near-Term 2015 plus Phase 1 Conditions (Mitigated) - Weekday AM Peak Hour Near-Term 2015 plus Phase 1 Conditions (Mitigated) - Weekday PM Peak Hour Cumulative 2035 Conditions - Weekday AM Peak Hour Cumulative 2035 Conditions - Weekday PM Peak Hour Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions - Weekday AM Peak Hour Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions - Weekday PM Peak Hour Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions (Mitigated) - Weekday AM Peak Hour Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions (Mitigated) - Weekday PM Peak Hour

Appendix B: The Vallejo Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street - Site Analysis and Conceptual Design Report, October 20, 2008, "Part 2: Planning Basis"

Traffic Impact Analysis ii Technical Study Tables

Table 1: Intersection Level of Service Definitions—HCM Methodology...... 1-9 Table 2: Intersection Level of Service—Existing Conditions ...... 1-13 Table 3: Vehicle-Trip Generation ...... 2-2 Table 4: Project Parking Demand ...... 2-3 Table 5: Intersection Level of Service—Near-Term 2015 Conditions ...... 3-3 Table 6: Intersection Level of Service—Near-Term 2015 plus Project (Phase 1) Conditions ...... 3-6 Table 7: Intersection Level of Service—Cumulative 2035 Conditions ...... 4-3 Table 8: Intersection Level of Service—Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions...... 4-6

Figures

Figure 1: Project Location...... 1-2 Figure 2: Near-Term 2015 Conditions Site Plan ...... 1-5 Figure 3: Cumulative 2035 Conditions Site Plan ...... 1-6 Figure 4: Study Intersections ...... 1-8 Figure 5: Existing Conditions Intersection Geometry and Traffic Volumes ...... 1-12 Figure 6: Existing Transit Network ...... 1-15 Figure 7: Existing Bicycle Facilities...... 1-18 Figure 8: Project Trip Distribution ...... 2-4 Figure 9: Near-Term 2015 Conditions Intersection Geometry and Traffic Volumes ...... 3-2 Figure 10: Near-Term 2015 plus Phase 1 Conditions Intersection Geometry and Traffic Volumes ...... 3-5 Figure 11: Cumulative 2035 Conditions Intersection Geometry and Traffic Volumes .... 4-2 Figure 12: Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions Intersection Geometry and Traffic Volumes ...... 4-5

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study iii

1.0 Affected Environment

Environmental Setting

This analysis has been conducted to assess the potential transportation impacts associated with the construction of the Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street in Vallejo, California, herein referred to as the “Project”. In 2008, the City of Vallejo completed The Vallejo Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street - Site Analysis and Conceptual Design Report (referred to herein as “2008 study”, see Appendix). The Report documents a site criteria and ranking process to identify potential locations within the City for a transit center to augment or replace the existing park-and- ride lot at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street. It was determined that the existing site presented the best option among the ten evaluated, and that the transit center could be implemented in phases while the existing facility remained in use. The existing site is analyzed in this traffic impact analysis (TIA), which addresses the following transportation topics:

Ź traffic conditions;

Ź transit conditions;

Ź pedestrian conditions;

Ź bicycle conditions;

Ź parking conditions;

Ź site access and circulation; and

Ź construction conditions.

Project Location

The Project site is a six-acre parcel located southeast of downtown Vallejo between Curtola Parkway and Carlson Street, west of Lemon Street. The location of the site in the surrounding context of Vallejo is shown in Figure 1. The site is currently used as a park-and-ride lot for bus riders and carpoolers, and hosts a Greyhound bus station. The western end of the site is owned by the City of Vallejo, as is a small portion of the eastern end of the site along Lemon Street where Greyhound’s operations are staged. Caltrans owns the balance of the site, but leases a portion of the property under its ownership to the City. Caltrans also owns a parcel approximately one acre in size at the southeast corner of the intersection of Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street, which is also used as a park-and-ride lot. The site is surrounded by residential neighborhoods on the north and on the east, and by an unimproved wetland area adjoining Wilson / Lake Dalwigk Park on the west. Commercial properties are located to the south, including a PG&E facility bordering the site along Carlson Street. Internal access to the site is provided by Carlson Street, and Lemon Street and Curtola Parkway provide peripheral access. East of Lemon Street, Curtola Parkway becomes I-780, which has a cloverleaf interchange with I-80 immediately to the east; I-80 and I-780 provide regional access to the site.

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 1-1 ST PKWY ST

VALLE VISTA AV ASCOT WILSON CALLAGHAN SKYLINE

DR COUCH AV

FLEMING AV EAST WY

AV ADMIRAL

PKWY NEBRASKA PKWY ST SUNRISE

AV OAKWOOD

DR PKWY

J ST LOCUST TENNESSEE AV VERVAIS ST ST TENNESSEE ST

ST ST

BLVD LOUISIANA COLUMBUS

ST G ST

MARIPOSA VALLEJO SPRINGS RD Mare FLORIDA 14TH

ST ST MARE ISLAND AV A ST COLUMBUS

WATERFRONT AV

TUOLUMNE

AMADOR NIMITZ NAPA

SONOMA

SANTA CLARA SANTA SACRAMENTO RAILROAD ALAMEDA GEORGIA SOLANO ST WALNUT GEORGIA ST WALLACE AZUAR AV AV MAINE CAMPBELL AV ST

AV WY Island BENICIA AV AV CYPRESS CURTOLA RD THOMAS AV AV

SONOMA PKWY ST BENICIA FIFTH Wilson- CARLSON ST Lake Dalwigk Park ST ST 14TH Strait RD 29 LEMON BLVD PROJECT

RD PKWY SIXTHSITE

780 COVE

ST MAGAZINE ST

GLEN

MAGAZINE 80 ST

MARE

ISLAND BENICIA

PKWY

N GLEN COVE

San Pablo Bay Carquinez Strait

Location.ai TRANSIT CENTER AT CURTOLA PARKWAY AND LEMON STREET Figure 1 Project Location

1.0 Affected Environment Project Description

The existing park-and-ride lot at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street is used by commuters in Solano County to reach jobs in San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Bus service at the site connects to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) System in El Cerrito and Walnut Creek, and the park-and-ride is used to form casual carpools to downtown San Francisco. The facility is currently at capacity, and many bus riders and carpoolers park on surrounding streets. To address capacity issues and provide a more attractive and secure facility, the City proposes to construct a transit center with a bus loop (bus-only driveway) and improved amenities, as well as parking structures to accommodate 1,160 vehicles, the expected 2035 parking demand. In 2008, the City of Vallejo commissioned a survey of park-and-ride users as well as an evaluation of ten potential sites for the new transit center. Over a dozen criteria were considered, with the following considered most important:

Ź Proximity to I-80 Exit;

Ź Access to Commuter Bus Routes;

Ź Current Site Ownership;

Ź Size; and

Ź Location. The Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street site was selected as the preferred option, scoring the highest in an evaluation matrix. The site is both proximate to I-80 and the existing commuter bus routes, thus providing direct access to the freeway and requiring no service rerouting. Unlike the other sites evaluated, the site is already under partial City ownership. The site also is located in the southern portion of the city near the Carquinez Bridge, thus minimizing out-of-direction travel for its targeted users. Though other locations offered more space for the transit center, it was determined that the size of the site would be adequate to accommodate all of the planned facilities. Because ownership of the site is divided between the City and Caltrans, and reflecting the objective of meeting long-term demand, it is proposed that the transit center will be built in phases. The first phase, Phase 1, would be built on the western end of the site, already in City ownership, and consist of one parking structure and a transit center plaza. The Phase 1 parking structure would accommodate 420 vehicles at ground level and on three decks, and the transit center plaza would include a bus loop and designated kiss-and-ride and casual carpool loading and unloading areas. The remainder of the site would continue to be used for surface parking. Phase 1 is expected to be completed by 2015. Future phases would include the construction of an additional three-deck parking structure east of the transit center plaza on the portion of the site owned by Caltrans. Phase 2 and Phase 3 would add an additional 420 and 320 spaces, respectively, for a total of 1,160 spaces at full build-out. It is proposed that Greyhound operations would be moved to the Caltrans-owned lot across Lemon Street, but they could be relocated somewhere else altogether. The implementation of Phases 2 and 3 depend on funding availability and would require acquisition of property from Caltrans. Additionally, expansion of the facility may be timed to coincide with specific increases in expected parking demand. Because of these contingencies, a specific timeline for the

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 1-3

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street implementation of the future phases has not been defined; however, it is expected that full build-out of the transit center would occur before 2035. Preliminary site plans were developed in conjunction with the 2008 study and evaluation, which proposed that the transit center’s circulation needs would be met by extending Carlson Street on the west end of the site to curve north and intersect with Curtola Parkway. Carlson Street would be changed to one-way operations, providing access to the Phase 1 and Phase 2/3 parking structures as well as to the kiss-and-ride and carpool pick-up and drop-off locations. Access to the one-way bus loop would be provided from Curtola Parkway. Based on the traffic analysis conducted in 2008, as well as subsequent discussion with the City and Caltrans, it was determined that Carlson Street would be routed one-way eastbound. The eastbound routing was chosen primarily to accommodate left turns from Curtola Parkway to access the site, which represent the majority of the facility’s users. The westbound approach to the Curtola Parkway / Lemon Street intersection has limited queuing space for left-turning vehicles. In addition, conflict points arise between vehicles traveling westbound through the intersection and vehicles transitioning to the left-turn lane from the northbound and southbound I-80 ramps, both of which merge with westbound I-780 on the right side. With the extended Carlson Street operating in the eastbound direction, vehicles would make a left turn to access the site at Carlson Street instead of at Lemon Street. This would provide an extended length of roadway over which vehicles could transition from the right lane to the left lane, as well as additional queuing space forward of the Curtola Parkway / Carlson Street intersection. Site and circulation plans for Near-Term 2015 Conditions and Cumulative 2035 Conditions are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively.

Ź By 2015, the Phase 1 parking structure, transit plaza and bus loop would be constructed. All park-and-ride users would enter the site at the intersection of Curtola Parkway with an extended Carlson Street, and exit at the intersection of Lemon Street and Carlson Street. Users parking in the Phase 1 parking structure would also be able to exit the site at Curtola Parkway and Carlson Street. The remainder of the existing surface lot, and the lot at the southeast corner of Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street would be restriped to maximize capacity. The Greyhound bus station would remain and Greyhound buses would continue to access the site via Lemon Street. Access to the PG&E facility from Lemon Street would also be maintained. However, prohibitive signage would disallow access to the remaining surface lot from Lemon Street.

Ź By 2035, it is expected that the Phase 2 and Phase 3 parking structures would be constructed on the remaining surface lot on the east end of the site. As in the Near- Term 2015 scenario, all park-and-ride users would enter the site at the intersection of Curtola Parkway and Carlson Street, and exit at the intersection of Lemon Street and Carlson Street. Users parking in the Phase 1 parking structure would also be able to exit the site at Curtola Parkway and Carlson Street. However, with the completion of Phase 2 and Phase 3, both lanes of Carlson Street would be converted to eastbound operation on the approach to Lemon Street. Greyhound operations would be relocated elsewhere, and PG&E access would occur exclusively from Curtola Parkway and Carlson Street.

Traffic Impact Analysis 1-4 Technical Study N

Source: Stantec Architecture, June 7, 2011

Near Term 2015 Site Plan.ai TRANSIT CENTER AT CURTOLA PARKWAY AND LEMON STREET Figure 2 Near-Term 2015 Conditions Site Plan N

Source: Stantec Architecture, June 7, 2011

Cumulative 2035 Site Plan.ai TRANSIT CENTER AT CURTOLA PARKWAY AND LEMON STREET Figure 3 Cumulative 2035 Conditions Site Plan

1.0 Affected Environment Study Scope and Approach

The following scenarios were evaluated to identify the potential transportation impacts of the project:

Ź Existing Conditions;

Ź Near-Term 2015 Conditions;

Ź Near-Term 2015 with Phase 1 Conditions;

Ź Cumulative 2035 Conditions; and

Ź Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions. Existing Conditions reflect year 2011. The terms “Near-Term” and “Cumulative” herein refer to year 2015 conditions and year 2035 conditions, respectively.

Traffic Evaluation

Intersection Operations For this study, seven intersections were selected for analysis in coordination with City of Vallejo staff. In addition, three new intersections are proposed by the Project. The locations of the ten study intersections surrounding the Project site are shown in Figure 4 and listed as follows: 1. Curtola Parkway / Lemon Street (signalized); 2. Lemon Street / Carlson Street (stop-controlled); 3. Curtola Parkway / Carlson Street (stop-controlled, proposed by the Project); 4. Curtola Parkway / Bus Entrance (stop-controlled, proposed by the Project); 5. Curtola Parkway / Bus Exit (stop-controlled, proposed by the Project); 6. Curtola Parkway / Solano Avenue (signalized); 7. Lemon Street / Benicia Road (signalized); 8. Lemon Street / Cypress Avenue (stop-controlled); 9. Lemon Street / Fifth Street (stop-controlled); and 10. Lemon Street / Sonoma Boulevard (signalized).

Methodology Intersection operating conditions were analyzed at the ten key intersections near the Project site for the peak hour of the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak periods (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) Existing Conditions (2011) traffic volumes, lane configuration and signal timing information were observed and recorded during counts collected during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours on October 19, 2010 and March 1, 2011. The operations of the study intersections were evaluated using the level of service (LOS) methodology. This methodology qualitatively characterizes traffic conditions associated with varying levels of vehicular traffic, ranging from LOS A (indicating free-flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (indicating congested conditions where traffic flows exceed design capacity and result in queuing and delay). Intersection LOS for the study intersections were calculated using Trafficware’s Synchro 7 (Build 773) software package.

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 1-7 DR A T

TENNESSEE VERV LOCUS ST TENNESSEE ST

BLVD LOUISIANA COLUMBUS

MARIPOSA

ST SPRINGS RD

BLVD

ST ST FLORIDA ST ST 14TH

ST MARE ISLAND AV ST COLUMBUS

WATERFRONT AV

LINCOLN RD E.

TUOLUMNE

AMADOR

NAPA

SONOMA

SACRAMENTO ALAMEDA SOLANO CALIFORNIA GEORGIA ST LR GEORGIA ST OAD WALLACE SANTA CLARA SANTA AV MAINE ST CAMPBELL

WY VALLEJO BENICIA AV CYPRESS 6 CURTOLA RD THOMAS 7 AV AV PKWY Mare SONOMA ST 3 5 8 BENICIA FIFTH Wilson- CARLSON 4 1 ST Lake Dalwigk 2 Park ST ST 14TH RD Island 29 LEMON BLVD PROJECT 9 SITE N RD SIXTH 10 780 COVE

ST Strait MAGAZINE Curtola Transit Center Detail ST GLEN

3 CURTOLA PARKWAY MAGAZINE 5 80 ST 4

1 MARE ISLAND 2

LEMON SREET

Study Intersections.ai TRANSIT CENTER AT CURTOLA PARKWAY AND LEMON STREET

GLEN FigureCOVE 4 Study Intersections

1.0 Affected Environment

Signalized Intersections The signalized study intersections were analyzed using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) operations methodology for signalized intersections. The operations analysis uses various intersection characteristics (e.g., traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing/timing) to estimate the average control delay experienced by motorists at an intersection. This methodology then uses the estimated average control delay to assign a LOS to the intersection as a whole. The HCM operations methodology for signalized and unsignalized intersections is summarized in Table 1.

Unsignalized Intersections At unsignalized (one-way, two-way, and all-way stop-controlled) study intersections, traffic conditions were evaluated using the HCM 2000 operations methodology for unsignalized intersections. With this methodology, LOS is related to the total delay per vehicle for the intersection as a whole (for all-way stop-controlled intersections) or for the worst stop-controlled approach (for one- and two-way stop-controlled intersections). Total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the queue. This time includes the time required for a vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position to the first-in-queue position. The HCM operations methodology for signalized and unsignalized intersections is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Intersection Level of Service Definitions—HCM Methodology Average Delay (sec/veh) LOS Description Signalized Unsignalized Intersections Intersections A Little or no delay < 10.0 < 10.0 B Short traffic delay > 10.0 and < 20.0 > 10.0 and < 15.0 C Average traffic delay > 20.0 and < 35.0 > 15.0 and < 25.0 D Long traffic delay > 35.0 and < 55.0 > 25.0 and < 35.0 E Very long traffic delay > 55.0 and < 80.0 > 35.0 and < 50.0 F Extreme traffic delay > 80.0 > 50.0 Notes: HCM = 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, sec/veh = seconds per vehicle For signalized intersections, average delay represents the average of all approaches. For unsignalized intersections, average delay represents the average of all approaches (all-way stop control) or the worst approach (one- or two-way stop control). Source: TRB 2000 Because of limitations in the HCM methodology, delay values over 80.0 seconds are typically considered unreliable. In these cases, the delay is presented simply as “greater than 80.0” (> 80.0), with the understanding that the intersection is operating poorly. For unsignalized intersections, delay values over 50.0 seconds are considered unreliable, and delay is presented as “greater than 50.0” (> 50.0).

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 1-9

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Existing Conditions

This section provides a description of the existing transportation conditions near the Project site. Included in this section are descriptions of the existing roadway, transit, pedestrian, and bikeway networks and documentation of the existing traffic, transit, pedestrian, bicycle, site access and circulation, and parking conditions.

Roadway Network A brief description of the regional and local roadway network serving the project site is provided below. Interstate 80 (I-80) is the major north-south route through Vallejo, a freeway connecting the San Francisco Bay Area with the Sacramento Valley, the Sierras, and Nevada. It is both an interregional traffic carrier and a major commuter road. Entering the city from the south, I-80 crosses the Carquinez Strait on two bridges and is a six-lane facility (three lanes in each direction) west of the Columbus Parkway / State Route 37 interchange, and eight lanes east of it. Additional merging lanes are provided at exits, of which there are 11 in the city. I-80 connects commuters throughout Solano County to Vallejo, providing a primary means of access to the existing park-and-ride at the Project site. Interstate 780 (I-780) is an east-west freeway connecting Vallejo with I-680 in neighboring Benicia. I-780 terminates at the Curtola Parkway / Lemon Street intersection, adjacent to the Project site, and immediately enters a cloverleaf interchange with I-80, one quarter-mile east of Lemon Street. I-780 is a four-lane facility along its entire length, with additional merging lanes at exits, of which there are seven between the I-80 and I-680 interchanges. The highway connects commuters along the I-680 corridor and Benicia with the existing park-and-ride at the Project site, providing a primary means of access. In addition, all park-and-ride traffic to and from I-80 travels on the short stretch of I-780 between I-80 and Lemon Street. Curtola Parkway is a major arterial street connecting east-west between Sonoma Boulevard (State Route 29) at the south end of downtown Vallejo, and I-780 east of downtown. Eastbound traffic on Curtola Parkway enters eastbound I-780 immediately east of Lemon Street, and westbound traffic on I-780 enters Curtola Parkway immediately west of Lemon Street. Two lanes are provided in each direction along the entire length of Curtola Parkway, which are separated by a landscaped median or left- turn pocket lanes. Lemon Street is a major arterial street connecting southwest-northeast between Sonoma Boulevard (State Route 29) and Curtola Parkway / I-780. North of the Curtola Parkway / I-780 intersection, Lemon Street continues for approximately one quarter-mile as a residential street, terminating at Benicia Road. The intersections of Lemon Street with Sonoma Boulevard, Curtola Parkway / I-780 and Benicia Road are signalized. On the south side of its intersection with Sonoma Boulevard, Lemon Street continues for approximately one quarter-mile as a local street terminating along the shore of Mare Island Strait. One travel lane is provided in both directions along the entire length of Lemon Street, augmented with a parking lane in each direction except in the immediate vicinity of its intersection with Curtola Parkway. On-street parking along Lemon Street provides unofficial overflow capacity for users of the existing park-and-ride facility. Benicia Road is a major arterial street roughly paralleling Curtola Parkway and I-780 between Solano Avenue and Columbus Parkway. As access to I-780 is limited east of Lemon Street, Benicia Road provides an important distributor function in the area east of

Traffic Impact Analysis 1-10 Technical Study

1.0 Affected Environment

the Project site. One travel lane is provided in each direction along the entire length of Benicia Road, augmented with a parking lane in each direction. An additional travel lane in each direction is provided on a segment of Benicia Road west of Lemon Street to Beach Street, west of which it narrows to a two-lane facility. Solano Avenue is a major arterial street connecting southwest-northeast between Sonoma Boulevard (Highway 29) and Springs Road, intersecting with Curtola Parkway and Benicia Road. The midsection of Solano Avenue between Alameda Street / Fifth Street and Georgia Street provides a travel lane and a parking lane in both directions. South of Alameda Street / Fifth Street and north of Georgia Street, Solano Avenue widens to a four-lane facility and a median is provided along some blocks. Fifth Street is a major collector street generally of residential character paralleling Sonoma Boulevard (Highway 29) south of Solano Avenue. The intersection of Fifth Street and Lemon Street is stop-controlled for Fifth Street only. Carlson Street is a local street intersecting with Lemon Street directly south of Curtola Parkway and forming the southern boundary of the Project site. West of Lemon Street, Carlson Street provides the only internal access to the existing park-and-ride for commuters, carpoolers, and buses. Carlson Street also provides the only means of access to the PG&E facility immediately south of the Project site. East of Lemon Street, Carlson Street forms a residential cul-de-sac. The intersection of Carlson Street and Lemon Street is stop-controlled for Carlson Street only. Cypress Avenue is a local residential street paralleling Curtola Parkway one block north of the project site. The intersection of Cypress Avenue with Lemon Street is stop- controlled for eastbound Cypress Avenue only. Cypress Avenue, along with other residential streets in the vicinity of the Project site, provides unofficial overflow parking capacity for users of the existing park-and-ride facility.

Traffic Conditions To establish Existing Conditions (year 2011), new intersection counts were obtained for the study intersections. Traffic volumes for Near-Term (2015) Conditions and Cumulative (2035) Conditions were forecast using the most recent versions of the Napa-Solano Travel Demand Model. The travel demand model captures the traffic growth expected in the vicinity of the Project due to land use changes, shifts in travel behavior, planned transportation improvements and other considerations. Two different techniques were used for post-processing of the model output. The first technique compares model output for existing and future scenarios, and calculates non-compounded growth rates for intersection approaches and movements. These growth rates were applied to existing traffic counts to develop future year traffic volumes. The second technique compares model output for existing and future scenarios, and calculates the incremental difference in traffic by subtracting the model’s baseline data from its future year data. This incremental difference was layered directly over existing traffic counts to develop Cumulative traffic volumes. This approach was found to be appropriate only for trips associated with the Project. At all other movements at study intersections, the growth rate methodology was applied. Existing Conditions intersection geometries and traffic volumes are shown in Figure 5 for the seven existing intersections. Existing Conditions intersection LOS is summarized in Table 2. The analysis is based on data collected on October 19, 2010 for Intersections 1 and 2, and on March 1, 2011 for Intersections 6 through 10. Detailed LOS calculations are included in the Appendix.

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 1-11 #1: Curtola Pkwy/Lemon St #2: Carlson St/Lemon St Stop Sign AV Signalized Intersection 36(13) 317(171) 165(156) 107(81) 98(160) BENICIA AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 157(114) 6(19) 63(108) 11(15)1(0) SOLANO 20(43) 391(569) CYPRESS 367(642) 258(248) CURTOLA 50(24) 6(28) 6 3(1) 1(3)

25(69) RD 9(10) 84(129) 3(7) THOMAS 273(315) 203(318) AV 7 #3: Curtola Pkwy/Carlson St #4: Curtola Pkwy/Bus Entrance

PKWY ST 80 SONOMA Wilson- 8 FIFTH CARLSON 1 Project Intersection Project Intersection Lake Dalwigk 2 Park ST ST 29 LEMON #5: Curtola Pkwy/Bus Exit #6: Curtola Pkwy/Solano Ave #7: Benicia Rd/Lemon St BLVD PROJECT

1(0) 14(23)

5(0) 81(86)

29(23) 2(4) SITE 4(4) 29(35) 66(78) 109(109) 9 22(35) 109(145)9(16) 1(4) 66(72) 113(65) Project Intersection 24(70) 48(60) 427(628) 157(142) 18(41) 87(73) 10 614(583) 1(2) 68(26)

3(5) 47(60) Project Site Detail 0(1) 3 CURTOLA 104(145)50(99) 53(105) 5 16(102) 4 #8: Cypress Ave/Lemon St #9: Fifth St/Lemon St #10: Sonoma Blvd/Lemon St PKWY 27(28) 28(57) 74(112) 7(18) 12(12) 246(352) 29(33) 14(20) 28(57) 40(49) 46(56)4(9) 252(222) 22(41) ST 10(19) CARLSON ST 1 7(27) 18(26) 39(102) 23(35) 294(388) N 7(4) 1(4) LEMON 29(54) 9(13) 6(12) 2 3(6) 11(15)4(8) 241(319) 72(176)

Curtola.ai TRANSIT CENTER AT CURTOLA PARKWAY AND LEMON STREET Figure 5 Existing Conditions Intersection Geometry and Traffic Volumes

1.0 Affected Environment

Table 2: Intersection Level of Service—Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Control Peak LOS # Intersection Delay Type Hour (Worst V/C Ratio (veh/s) Approach) Curtola Parkway / a.m. C 34.3 0.68 1 Signal Lemon Street p.m. C 33.6 0.84 Lemon Street / a.m. C (SEB) 19.7 0.45 2 2WSC Carlson Street p.m. D (SEB) 31.1 0.58 Curtola Parkway / a.m. B 14.0 0.47 6 Signal Solano Avenue p.m. B 15.7 0.52 Lemon Street / a.m. C 23.0 0.57 7 Signal Benicia Road p.m. C 23.1 0.52 Lemon Street / a.m. B (SEB) 11.1 0.12 8 1WSC Cypress Avenue p.m. B (SEB) 11.3 0.12 Lemon Street / a.m. B (SEB) 11.3 0.12 9 2WSC Fifth Street p.m. B (SEB) 13.6 0.21 Lemon Street / a.m. C 34.9 0.27 10 Signal Sonoma Boulevard p.m. B 10.7 0.37 Notes: LOS = level of service, 1WSC = one-way stop control, 2WSC = two-way stop control, SEB = southeast-bound, V/C = volume to capacity Source: Data compiled by AECOM, 2011

All the study intersections currently operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. peak hour and LOS D or better during the p.m. peak hour.

Transit Conditions Vallejo Transit provides local bus service on seven routes in Vallejo and express service on three routes between Vallejo, Fairfield, El Cerrito, Benicia and Walnut Creek. The Project site at the existing park-and-ride at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street is served by one local service, Route 1, and two of the express services, Route 78 and Route 80. An additional local route, Route 6, operates near the Project site but does not directly serve it. Existing transit services near the Project site are described below and shown in Figure 6. Route 1 provides local service between neighborhoods south of Downtown Vallejo and Rancho Vallejo, a northern neighborhood of the city. The north-south route generally follows Broadway, serving the area south of downtown in a clockwise loop that includes Curtola Parkway. Accordingly, the existing Curtola park-and-ride lot is served only in the southbound direction. Riders boarding at the park-and-ride that are bound for downtown and Rancho Vallejo travel first outbound toward Fifth Street and Sonoma Boulevard, where buses turn north toward downtown. Route 1 operates every half hour from approximately 5:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and every half hour from approximately 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturdays and holidays. Route 6 provides local service between Downtown Vallejo and neighborhoods along Tennessee Street and Benicia Road on a counterclockwise circuit. To serve the Beverly Hills neighborhood east of the Project site, the route deviates from Benicia Road, turning on Lemon Street to reach the neighborhood via I-780. Route 6 operates every hour from approximately 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on weekdays, and every hour from approximately 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on Saturdays and holidays.

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 1-13

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Route 78 provides express service between Downtown Vallejo, Benicia, and the Pleasant Hill / Contra Costa Centre and Walnut Creek BART Stations. The route stops at the York and Marin Transit Center and the Ferry Terminal in Downtown Vallejo and at the existing Curtola park-and-ride lot. The route travels east on I-780 to Benicia, where it makes four local stops along Military West and Military East. The route then travels south on I-680 and stops at Pleasant Hill / Contra Costa Centre BART Station and Walnut Creek BART Station. At the existing Curtola park-and-ride lot, eastbound buses stop on Curtola Parkway; westbound buses are routed from I-780 to Lemon Street to Carlson Street, stop inside the park-and-ride, and return to Curtola Parkway. On weekdays, Route 78 operates every half hour from about 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m., every hour from about 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., and every half hour from 3:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Saturday service is provided every two hours from approximately 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Route 80 provides express service between Downtown Vallejo and the El Cerrito del Norte BART Station. The route stops at the York and Marin Transit Center in downtown Vallejo and at the existing Curtola park-and-ride lot. The route travels south on I-80 to El Cerrito, stopping at the El Cerrito del Norte BART Station. At the existing Curtola park- and-ride lot, southbound buses stop on Curtola Parkway; northbound buses are routed from I-780 to Lemon Street to Carlson Street, stop inside the park-and-ride, and return to Curtola Parkway. On weekdays, Route 80 begins service at approximately 4:30 a.m. and operates every fifteen minutes from about 5:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., every half hour from about 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., every fifteen minutes from about 2:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., and every half hour from about 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., with the last bus operating at approximately 10:30 p.m. Service on Saturday and Sunday is provided every half hour from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.

Traffic Impact Analysis 1-14 Technical Study

DR VERVAIS TENNESSEE LOCUST ST TENNESSEE ST

LOUISIANA COLUMBUS

MARIPOSA

6 to 80 to 1 to SPRINGS RD Rollingwood Drive/ Sereno Rancho Vallejo

ST Tennessee Street Transit Center ST

BLVD 14TH

ST MARE ISLAND AV ST COLUMBUS

WATERFRONT AV

TUOLUMNE

AMADOR

NAPA

SONOMA

SACRAMENTO ALAMEDA RAILROAD CLARA SANTA SOLANO CALIFORNIA GEORGIA ST GEORGIA ST WALLACE AV MAINE ST CAMPBELL

WY BENICIA AV Ferry VALLEJO RD Terminal CYPRESS 4 CURTOLA RD York & Marin THOMAS AV AV 3 Transfer Center COVE SONOMA PKWY ST

2 BENICIA GLEN FIFTH Wilson- CARLSON 1 Lake Dalwigk ST Mare 7 Park ST ST 14TH RD 29 LEMON BLVD Island PROJECT 6 SITE SIXTH 6 to 5 780 Rollingwood Drive/ Tennessee Street ST MAGAZINE Strait ST 78 to Benicia / Walnut Creek BART MAGAZINE N 80 Vallejo ST Transit Routes

1 6 MARE78 ISLAND80

Note: Not all routes shown 80 to El Cerrito del Norte BART Existing Transit Network.ai TRANSIT CENTER AT CURTOLA PARKWAY AND LEMON STREET

GLEN FigureCOVE 6 Existing Transit Network

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Pedestrian Conditions Sidewalks are currently provided near the Project site along Curtola Parkway, Lemon Street, and Carlson Street. Pedestrian conditions on these and surrounding streets in the neighborhoods around the Project site are described below. Curtola Parkway features sidewalks on both sides of the street from Lemon Street as far west as Wilson / Lake Dalwigk Park, where a pedestrian overcrossing of Curtola Parkway is provided. At this location, the sidewalk on the north side of Curtola Parkway is diverted into the park; the sidewalk on the south side continues to Solano Avenue. Sidewalks do not continue east from the Curtola Parkway / Lemon Street intersection, as pedestrians are prohibited on I-780. The Solano Countywide Pedestrian Plan1 identifies improvements to the intersection of Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street as both a “Pedestrian Connection Project” and a “Crossing Improvement Project”. The Plan listed this intersection as having multiple vehicle-pedestrian accidents in 2001 and 2002. Lemon Street is provided with sidewalks on both sides of the street north and south from Curtola Parkway; however, the east side of the street between Carlson Street and Cypress Avenue does not have a sidewalk. Accordingly, a pedestrian-activated crossing is provided only across the west leg of the Curtola Parkway / Lemon Street intersection. This provides pedestrian access to the existing park-and-ride from the north. A marked pedestrian crossing is provided across Lemon Street on the north side of Cypress Avenue; however, similar treatment is not provided at Carlson Street. Carlson Street features a sidewalk only on its north side, west of Lemon Street. This sidewalk provides pedestrian access to the existing park-and-ride from the south. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of residential Carlson Street east of Lemon Street. As noted above, marked crossings are not provided across Lemon Street. Sidewalks are provided on the streets in the neighborhood northwest of the Curtola Parkway / Lemon Street intersection. No neighborhood streets connect through to Curtola Parkway; thus all pedestrian traffic to and from the neighborhood is routed along Lemon Street. In the neighborhood northeast of the Curtola Parkway / Lemon Street intersection, sidewalks are generally not provided, except along portions of Woodrow Avenue. However, a pedestrian-only connection between Reis Avenue (a cul-de-sac) and Lemon Street is provided, and a pedestrian crossing of Lemon Street at Cypress Avenue near this location is provided, as noted above. In the area southeast of the Curtola Parkway / Lemon Street intersection, sidewalks are provided on Carlson Street as described above. Vallejo Mobile Estates, a gated community, lies immediately south of Carlson Street and is designated a “Higher Density Residential” Pedestrian Area in the Solano Countywide Pedestrian Plan. Though residences within Vallejo Mobile Estates are located in close proximity to the Project site, the community’s only entrance is on its east side and there are no pedestrian connections to Lemon Street or Carlson Street. Pedestrian access between the community and the existing park-and-ride is thus impractical. Further south, there are no sidewalks along Union Avenue, which serves commercial properties, but sidewalks are provided on the residential streets further south, such as Sheridan Street and Fifth Street. Marked crossings are provided across Lemon Street at these streets, and the sidewalk along Lemon Street provides access from this area to the Project site.

1 Solano Countywide Pedestrian Plan, Solano Transportation Authority, 2004.

Traffic Impact Analysis 1-16 Technical Study

1.0 Affected Environment

In the area southwest of the Curtola Parkway / Lemon Street intersection, commercial properties front Lemon Street, west of which lies Wilson / Lake Dalwigk Park. Sidewalks are provided on the residential streets south and west of the park, which connect with the sidewalk along Lemon Street to provide access to the Project site.

Bicycle Conditions Bikeways are classified as Class I, Class II, and Class III facilities. The existing bicycle facilities near the Project Site are illustrated in Figure 7.

Ź Class I bicycle facilities are typically known as bicycle paths. This is a dedicated path for bicyclists and pedestrians that does not permit motorized travel. Bicycle paths create a relaxed environment for non-motorized travel and reduce the risk of potential conflict between vehicles and bicyclists. Often these facilities are located in parks or greenway areas, areas connecting two dead-end streets, or in railroad rights-of-way that are no longer in use. The San Francisco Bay Trail includes a shared-use, off-street path along Mare Island Way, west of the Project site.

Ź Class II bicycle facilities are also known as bicycle lanes, a portion of the roadway network that has been striped and signed for bicycle use. Implementation of Class II facilities requires sufficient right-of-way between the vehicle stream and the curb or curbside parking. Bicycle lanes are typically used along collector or major streets with medium to high traffic volumes, providing additional travel space for bicyclists along busy roadway segments. Class II bicycle lanes have been implemented along Curtola Parkway west of Sonoma Boulevard, and on Maritime Academy Drive between the Class I bicycle facility across the Carquinez Bridge and Sonoma Boulevard. Both of these facilities are part of the San Francisco Bay Trail. North of the Project site, Class II bicycle facilities are proposed on Benicia Road and Georgia Street.

Ź Class III bicycle facilities are also known as bicycle routes, bikeways that primarily serve to connect other facilities and destinations in the bikeway network but provide a lower level of service than Class I or Class II bikeway facilities. These routes include signage but do not have roadway markings or striping to indicate reserved space for the bicyclist. Bicycle routes are easier to implement because they do not require right-of-way to be reallocated from vehicular traffic. There are no existing Class III bicycle routes near the Project site, but they are planned along Sonoma Boulevard, Solano Avenue, Benicia Road, and Alameda Street. In California, bicycle parking is classified as either Class I or Class II facilities. Class I facilities are designed for long-term use and provide security and weather protection. Class II facilities are designed for short-term use and typically consist of bicycle racks. The existing park-and-ride facility provides Class I bicycle parking in the form of 12 lockers.

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 1-17

DR VERVAIS TENNESSEE LOCUST ST TENNESSEE ST

BLVD LOUISIANA COLUMBUS

MARIPOSA

SPRINGS RD

ST BLVD FLORIDA ST ST 14TH

ST ST MARE ISLAND AV ST COLUMBUS

WATERFRONT AV

TUOLUMNE

AMADOR

NAPA

San Francisco SONOMA

SACRAMENTO RAILROAD ALAMEDA SOLANO CALIFORNIA GEORGIA ST GEORGIA ST WALLACE SANTA CLARA SANTA AV MAINE ST CAMPBELL

WY BENICIA AV Bay Trail VALLEJO CYPRESS 6 CURTOLA RD THOMAS AV AV 7

SONOMA PKWY ST 8 BENICIA FIFTH Wilson- CARLSON 1 Lake Dalwigk ST Mare 2 Park ST ST 14TH RD 29 LEMON BLVD Island PROJECT SITE 9 RD SIXTH 10 780 COVE

ST MAGAZINE San Francisco Strait ST

GLEN

San Francisco Bay Trail Bay Trail MAGAZINE N 80 ST

Bicycle Routes

Existing Proposed MARE Class I ISLAND Class II Source: 2001 Solano Countywide Bike Plan Class III San Francisco Bay Trail Map, 2010

Existing Bicycle Facilities.ai TRANSIT CENTER AT CURTOLA PARKWAY AND LEMON STREET

GLEN FigureCOVE 7 Existing Bicycle Facilities

1.0 Affected Environment Regulatory Setting

Federal Regulation National Environmental Policy Act and Transportation Decision Making The principles of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decision-making include:

Ź assessment of social, economic, and environmental impacts of the project;

Ź analysis of alternatives to the project;

Ź consideration of appropriate impact mitigation;

Ź interagency coordination;

Ź public involvement; and

Ź documentation and disclosure.

Federal Highway Administration Travel and Land Use Forecasting Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) interim guidance on the application of travel and land use forecasting seeks to improve the quality of project-level forecasting in the context of the NEPA process. The guidance shares key considerations, collective lessons learned, and best practices regarding how to apply forecasting in NEPA. FHWA Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume VI: Definition, Interpretation, and Calculation of Traffic Analysis Tools Measures of Effectiveness FHWA Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume VI presents how to correctly interpret findings and present recommendations that are easy to comprehend by decision makers and the public. Computing one or more traffic performance measures of effectiveness is to quantify the achievement of a project’s traffic operations. These measures include travel time, speed, delay, queuing, stops, density, and travel-time variance. The Transportation Research Board’s (TRB’s) 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) LOS and volume-to- capacity ratio are commonly used indicators of performance used to communicate the quality of facility performance to decision-makers (TRB, 2000).

State Regulation Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies Caltrans policies are summarized in the Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Caltrans, 2002). These guidelines identify circumstances under which Caltrans believes that a traffic impact study would be required, information that Caltrans believes should be included in the study, analysis scenarios, and guidance on acceptable analysis methodologies. Caltrans Transportation Corridor Concept Reports Caltrans TCCRs (Caltrans, 2010) are long-range (20-year) planning documents for each State highway that identify existing route conditions and future needs. Each TCCR includes a route summary, segment summaries, existing and forecasted travel data, route maps, and a list of planned, programmed, and needed projects for the highway over the next 20 years. The TCCR establishes the minimum standard at which Caltrans District 4 expects the highway to function. If travel forecasting predicts the LOS would

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 1-19

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street drop below the minimum standard, Caltrans District 4 will design improvements to maintain acceptable highway conditions.

Local Regulation Solano County General Plan The Solano County General Plan (Solano County, 2008) is a long-term planning document guiding important community issues such as new growth, housing needs, environmental protection, as well as projecting future growth demand services for sewer, water, roadways, parks and emergency services. The “Transportation and Circulation” chapter of the Solano County General Plan focuses on maintaining and improving the County’s transportation systems to enhance safety, resident access to basic needs, mobility, and convenience. Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area The Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2009) is a long-range planning document for identifying and programming transportation improvements throughout the nine-county Bay Area, which includes Solano County. The MTC funds and delivers identified transportation projects through state and local sources. City of Vallejo Traffic Impact Analysis/Study Guidelines The City of Vallejo Traffic Impact Analysis/Study Guidelines (City Guidelines) incorporate and are consistent with Caltrans’ requirements. Vallejo General Plan Plans and policies from the Circulation and Transportation Element of the Vallejo General Plan (City of Vallejo, 1999) were used in this analysis. Solano Countywide Bicycle Plan The Solano Countywide Bicycle Plan (Bicycle Plan) (Solano Transportation Authority, 2004) identifies existing and planned bicycle routes in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. The Bicycle Plan also contains design, safety, and traffic control standards for use in constructing and/or upgrading facilities. The Circulation and Transportation Element of the County General Plan also identifies goals and policies for bicycle facilities. Solano Countywide Pedestrian Plan The Solano Countywide Pedestrian Plan (Pedestrian Plan) (Solano Transportation Authority, 2004) identifies existing and planned pedestrian routes and facilities in Solano County. The Pedestrian Plan develops an overall vision and systematic plan for accommodating pedestrians in urban areas based on current shared policies, principles, and criteria. The Plan highlights current and potential projects to fulfill this vision. I-80 / I-680 / I-780 Major Investment and Corridor Study The I-80 / I-680 / I-780 Major Investment and Corridor Study (Solano Transportation Authority, 2004) analyzes existing highway capacity and usage along the I-80 / I-680 / I- 780 corridor and prioritizes a list of Mid-Term and Long-Term Projects to the year 2030. I-80 / I-680 / I-780 Transit Corridor Study The I-80 / I-680 / I-780 Transit Corridor Study (Solano Transportation Authority, 2004) analyzes existing transit services and demand, and provides short and long range transit plans for intercity express bus services and auxiliary facility improvements, such as direct access ramps to center median HOV lanes, park-and-ride, and transit center demand and site planning.

Traffic Impact Analysis 1-20 Technical Study

2.0 Environmental Consequences

2.0 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures

Methods and Assumptions

Project Travel Demand Methodology Travel demand refers to the new vehicle, transit, pedestrian, and other trips that would be generated by the Project. This section provides an estimate of the travel demand that would be generated by the Project, including parking demand. Trip Generation Travel demand estimates and trip generation for the proposed Project are primarily based on a survey of demand at the existing park-and-ride facility, with additional growth forecasted by 2015 and 2035. Mode Split Mode split for the proposed Project is determined from a 2008 study of users of the existing park-and-ride facility commissioned by the City. Trip Distribution/Assignment Trip distribution is determined from a 2008 study of users of the existing park-and-ride facility commissioned by the City. Parking Demand Parking demand for the Project, which is primarily a parking facility, is closely related to travel demand and trip generation and is also based on a survey of demand at the existing park-and-ride facility, with additional growth forecasted by 2015 and 2035.

Project Travel Demand

Trip Generation ITE’s Trip Generation Manual (8th Edition) (ITE 2008) provides vehicle-trip generation rates for typical land uses. As currently defined, the Project consists of a transit center and parking structures with 1,160 spaces. Project vehicle-trip generation based on ITE trip generation methodology, using ITE Land Use Code 090 (Park-and-Ride Lot with Bus Service), is presented in Table 3. However, data from the 2008 study would be expected to provide more accurate trip generation projections, as opposed to generic ITE trip generation rates not necessarily reflective of the particular commuting patterns at the existing Curtola park-and-ride facility. To estimate trip generation for the expanded transit center, trips at the park-and- ride in 2008 were extrapolated. The resulting Project vehicle-trip generation is also presented in Table 3.

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 2-1

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Table 3: Vehicle-Trip Generation Parking a.m. Peak Hour p.m. Peak Hour Methodology Daily Spaces In Out Total In Out Total ITE1 1,160 4,804 745 175 919 167 558 725 2008 Study 1,160 - 695 224 919 352 819 1,171 Notes: 1 a.m. Peak Hour – ITE Land Use Code 090 – T = 0.83(X) - 43.40 p.m. Peak Hour – ITE Land Use Code 090 – T = 0.63(X) - 5.94 Total Daily – ITE Land Use Code 090 – T = 4.04(X) + 117.33 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition; data compiled by AECOM in 2011 Based on ITE rates and proposed parking capacity, the Project would generate approximately 919 vehicle trips during the weekday a.m. peak hour and 725 vehicle trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Based on analysis performed by the 2008 study, the Project would generate approximately 919 vehicle trips during the weekday a.m. peak hour and 1,171 vehicle trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The two methodologies provide somewhat different results. The ITE-based calculations project a greater number of trips in the a.m. peak hour than in the p.m. peak hour, while extrapolation of the 2008 study observations projects the opposite. However, both vehicle-trip generation results are of comparable order of magnitude. Because it reflects how the existing facility is used and local commuting patterns, the trip generation based on the 2008 study will be used in the travel demand calculations of this study. The trip generation projected by ITE provides a useful comparison and confirms the reliability of the trip generation extrapolated from the 2008 study data. Mode Split In the 2008 study, the access mode of park-and-ride users was surveyed. It was found that 97 percent of survey respondents arrived by private automobile, either by driving and parking or being dropped off. Two percent reported taking the bus, one percent walked to the park-and-ride, and less than one percent arrived by bicycle. For onward trips from the park-and-ride, 74 percent reported traveling in a carpool, 18 percent reported taking a bus, and 4 percent reported taking a Genentech employee shuttle. For purposes of this study, it is assumed that the mode splits determined in the 2008 study will remain constant as growth in demand increases into the future. Trip Distribution/Assignment The trips generated by the project are distributed throughout the surrounding road network. Trip distribution is based on travel patterns determined in the 2008 study and was modified as necessary to more closely reflect current travel patterns. Vehicle trips are distributed as follows for the Project site:

Ź From the east via I-780 and from the north and south via I-80: 60%

Ź From the west (via Curtola Parkway): 7%

Ź From the north (via Lemon Street): 28%

Ź From the south (via Lemon Street): 5%

Traffic Impact Analysis 2-2 Technical Study

2.0 Environmental Consequences

The distribution above assumes that minor changes in travel patterns are expected with the new location of the site access. The trip distribution was adjusted as follows to reflect the potential changes in travel patterns:

Ź From the east via I-780 and from the north and south via I-80: 60%

Ź From the west (via Curtola Parkway): 10%

Ź From the north (via Lemon Street): 25%

Ź From the south (via Lemon Street): 5% Project trip distribution is illustrated in Figure 8. Parking Demand The demand for parking at the existing park-and-ride currently outstrips supply, with both lots filling up by approximately 7 a.m. In a recent count, 224 vehicles parked on surrounding neighborhood streets were attributed to park-and-ride users. Therefore, the total current constrained demand is estimated at 709. In the 2008 study, 10 percent of survey respondents indicated that they had previously parked at the park-and-ride, but now arrive some other way due to the lack of parking. Thus, unconstrained demand is estimated to be 780, 10 percent greater. Future parking demand at the transit center is related directly to overall travel demand. Therefore, it is assumed that the growth in parking demand will correspond to the overall growth in travel demand forecasted by the Napa-Solano Travel Demand Model. By 2015, the constrained parking demand is expected to increase to 772 and the unconstrained demand to 850. By 2035, the constrained parking demand is expected to increase to 1,025 and the unconstrained demand to 1,128. The weekday peak period estimated parking demand for the Project is presented in Table 4. The proposed project would provide 1,160 spaces, exceeding the 2035 parking demand by approximately 32 spaces.

Table 4: Project Parking Demand Weekday a.m. / p.m. Peak Hour Demand Current (2011) 2015 2035 Constrained1 709 772 1,025 Unconstrained2 780 850 1,128 Notes: 1 Reflecting current conditions, with greater demand than supply. 2 Constrained demand plus an additional ten percent, reflecting users that would park if there was greater supply. Source: AECOM, 2008, 2011

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 2-3

DR VERVAIS TENNESSEE LOCUST ST TENNESSEE ST

BLVD LOUISIANA COLUMBUS

MARIPOSA

ST SPRINGS RD

BLVD

ST ST FLORIDA ST ST ST 14TH

ST MARE ISLAND AV ST COLUMBUS

WATERFRONT AV

TUOLUMNE

AMADOR

NAPA

SONOMA

SACRAMENTO RAILROAD ALAMEDA SOLANO CALIFORNIA GEORGIA ST GEORGIA ST WALLACE SANTA CLARA SANTA AV MAINE ST CAMPBELL

WY VALLEJO BENICIA AV CYPRESS 6 CURTOLA RD THOMAS AV AV 7

Mare SONOMA ST 10% PKWY 25% 8 BENICIA FIFTH Wilson- CARLSON 1 ST Lake Dalwigk 2 Park ST 60% ST 14TH RD Island 29 LEMON BLVD PROJECT 5% SITE 9 RD SIXTH 10 780 COVE

ST Strait MAGAZINE ST

GLEN

MAGAZINE N 80 ST

MARE ISLAND

Trip Distribution.ai TRANSIT CENTER AT CURTOLA PARKWAY AND LEMON STREET

GLEN FigureCOVE 8 Project Trip Distribution

2.0 Environmental Consequences Criteria for Determining Significance of Effects

Thresholds of Significance The criteria for determining the significance of effects encompass the factors taken into account under NEPA to determine the significance of an action in terms of its context and intensity. The significance criteria for this analysis are based on the environmental checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, because CEQA is more stringent than NEPA. The Proposed Action and alternative under consideration were determined to result in a significant impact related to transportation and circulation if they would:

Ź cause significant traffic delays during peak commute hours;

Ź result in an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system;

Ź result in a change in air traffic patterns;

Ź result in substantially increased hazards due to a design feature, such as a sharp curve, or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment;

Ź result in inadequate emergency access;

Ź result in inadequate parking capacity; or

Ź conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, such as bus turnouts and bicycle racks. For the purposes of this analysis, the impact thresholds of Solano County and City of Vallejo are used. An impact is considered significant at an intersection when any of the following increases in the volume to capacity (V/C) ratios occur between the “without project” and the “with project” conditions:

Ź greater than 0.04 for study intersections operating at LOS C;

Ź greater than 0.02 for study intersections operating at LOS D; or,

Ź greater than 0.01 for study intersections operating at LOS E or LOS F. To determine whether signals should be installed at any one location, signal warrants as contained in the Traffic Manual (Caltrans 1995) are typically reviewed. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (FHWA 2009) provides a set of signal warrants, at least one of which should be met for a traffic signal to be installed. The California Supplement to the MUTCD (Caltrans 2012) has additional criteria that, if met, may justify the installation of a traffic signal. The peak-hour warrant is a subset of the standard traffic-signal warrants recommended in the MUTCD (FHWA 2009) and associated Caltrans guidelines. The peak hour warrant compares traffic volumes on the major and minor streets of an intersection to determine if specific volume thresholds are met. However, the peak-hour signal warrant analysis should not serve as the only basis for deciding whether and when to install a signal. To reach such a decision, the full set of warrants should be investigated based on field- measured, rather than forecasted, traffic data, and on a thorough study of traffic and roadway conditions conducted by an experienced engineer. Furthermore, the decision to install a signal should not be based solely on the warrants, because the installation of signals can lead to certain types of collisions (i.e., rear-end collisions). Although signals provide increased capacity at intersections and may be needed (from a capacity

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 2-5

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street perspective) to serve predicted volume demands at the intersection, the potential safety implications associated with signal installation should be reviewed by the responsible state or local agency (depending on whether the intersection is controlled by the State, the County, or the City). The responsible agency should undertake regular monitoring of actual traffic conditions and accident data, and a timely reevaluation of the full set of warrants to prioritize and program intersections that may be identified for signalization in this study.

Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures

The following section summarizes the proposed Project’s potential impacts on transportation facilities. Summary impacts are followed by required mitigation measures. The Project sponsor shall participate in the necessary improvements identified in all of the following mitigation measures, and shall be responsible for the project’s fair-share participation and the associated timing of the improvements. Please note that the improvements described in each of the following mitigation measures have not been designed, and thus project-specific impacts resulting from these improvements cannot be precisely identified or quantified. Site-specific impacts of the identified improvements may be assessed pursuant to CEQA requirements when specific intersection and roadway improvement plans are developed. Any such necessary environmental review will be completed before final approval of the improvements identified in the mitigation measures. Impact: Increases to Peak-Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes, Resulting in Unacceptable Levels of Service under Near-Term (2015) plus Project (Phase 1) Conditions and Cumulative (2035) plus Project Conditions. Under all traffic analysis scenarios that assume implementation of the proposed Project, project implementation would affect LOS at study intersections. Impacts associated with the increased traffic were compared against the previously identified thresholds of significance. For the sake of brevity, only intersections and roadway segments where significant, direct impacts would occur are discussed below, followed by required mitigation measures.

Traffic Impact Analysis 2-6 Technical Study

3.0 Near-Term Effects

Methods and Assumptions

Background Growth Impacts on the roadway system for Near-Term 2015 Conditions were determined by forecasting the increase in weekday a.m. and p.m. peak-hour traffic volumes that would occur with implementation of the Project. Projections from the Napa-Solano Travel Demand Model were utilized to derive growth rates and develop weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak-hour traffic volume forecasts for study intersections. Volume balancing utilizing Furness methodology was conducted in order to ensure realistic future year projections and consistency.

Near-Term 2015 Conditions

Near-Term Year 2015 Conditions intersection geometry and traffic volumes are shown in Figure 9. Near-Term Year 2015 Conditions intersection LOS is summarized in Table 5. Detailed LOS calculations are included in the Appendix. The following study intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS F under Near-Term 2015 Conditions: 2. Lemon Street / Carlson Street (weekday p.m. peak hour).

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 3-1 #1: Curtola Pkwy/Lemon St #2: Carlson St/Lemon St Stop Sign AV Signalized Intersection 48(15) 358(202) 175(247) 143(91) 111(166) BENICIA AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 210(129) 7(20) 68(130) 12(23)1(0) SOLANO 21(52) 423(571) CYPRESS 389(662) 279(268) CURTOLA 53(25) 6(28) 6 3(1) 1(3)

RD 27(87) 91(162) 10(15) 3(8) THOMAS 296(395) 228(359) AV 7 #3: Curtola Pkwy/Carlson St #4: Curtola Pkwy/Bus Entrance

1(0) 23(26)

7(0) 133(98)

42(31) 3(5) SITE 6(5) 37(51) 84(114) 180(109) 10(30) 9 28(51) 116(171) 1(4) 70(84) 121(77) Project Intersection 25(70) 51(60) 446(628) 167(168) 19(41) 93(87) 10 650(587) 1(2) 72(26)

4(6) 53(82) Project Site Detail 0(1) 3 CURTOLA 117(197)56(99) 72(119) 5 22(115) 4 #8: Cypress Ave/Lemon St #9: Fifth St/Lemon St #10: Sonoma Blvd/Lemon St PKWY 29(31) 33(63) 79(123) 8(20) 16(13) 40(41) 336(534)38(87) 4(10) 15(22) 48(54) ST 49(59) 342(243) 30(51) CARLSON ST 1 10(33) 14(29) 30(41) 63(104) 38(55) 472(395) N 12(6) 2(4) LEMON 31(62) 11(15) 6(12) 2 4(7) 11(15)4(8) 257(363) 87(202)

Curtola.ai TRANSIT CENTER AT CURTOLA PARKWAY AND LEMON STREET Figure 9 Near-Term 2015 Conditions Intersection Geometry and Traffic Volumes

3.0 Near-Term Effects

Table 5: Intersection Level of Service—Near-Term 2015 Conditions Existing Near-Term 2015 Conditions Conditions Peak # Intersection LOS LOS Hour Delay V/C Delay V/C (Worst (Worst (s/veh) Ratio (s/veh) Ratio Approach) Approach) Curtola Parkway / a.m. C 34.3 0.68 D 37.0 0.77 1 Lemon Street p.m. C 33.6 0.84 D 44.2 0.92 Lemon Street / a.m. C (SEB) 19.7 0.45 C (SEB) 23.4 0.52 2 Carlson Street p.m. D (SEB) 31.1 0.58 F (SEB) >50.0 1.05 Curtola Parkway / a.m. B 14.0 0.47 B 15.8 0.52 6 Solano Avenue p.m. B 15.7 0.52 B 18.8 0.60 Lemon Street / a.m. C 23.0 0.57 C 26.4 0.67 7 Benicia Road p.m. C 23.1 0.52 C 25.9 0.64 Lemon Street / a.m. B (SEB) 11.1 0.12 B (SEB) 12.3 0.15 8 Cypress Avenue p.m. B (SEB) 11.3 0.12 B (SEB) 11.9 0.14 Lemon Street / a.m. B (SEB) 11.3 0.12 B (SEB) 12.4 0.18 9 Fifth Street p.m. B (SEB) 13.6 0.21 C (SEB) 16.3 0.30 Lemon Street / a.m. C 34.9 0.27 A 7.9 0.38 10 Sonoma Boulevard p.m. B 10.7 0.37 A 9.2 0.40 Notes: LOS = level of service, s/veh = seconds per vehicle, V/C = volume to capacity, SEB = southeast-bound; Bold indicates intersection operates at unacceptable LOS (LOS F). For stop-controlled intersections, average delay beyond 50 seconds is shown as “>50.0”, as delays greater than 50 seconds are beyond the meaningful range of the analysis methodology. Source: Data compiled by AECOM, 2011

All the study intersections currently operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. peak hour and LOS D or better during the p.m. peak hour. In Near-Term 2015 Conditions, all of these intersections are expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours except the Lemon Street / Carlson Street intersection. The southeast-bound approach of the Lemon Street / Carlson Street intersection, with the existing configuration of the park-and-ride facility, currently operates at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour and is expected to continue operating at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour under future conditions. However, during the p.m. peak hour the southeast-bound approach at this intersection, which currently operates at LOS D, is expected to operate at LOS F by 2015.

Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures The following section summarizes the proposed Project’s potential impacts on transportation facilities. Summary impacts are followed by required mitigation measures. The Project sponsor shall participate in the necessary improvements identified in all of the following mitigation measures, and shall be responsible for the project’s fair-share participation and the associated timing of the improvements. Please note that the improvements described in each of the following mitigation measures have not been designed, and thus project-specific impacts resulting from these improvements cannot be precisely identified or quantified. Site-specific impacts of the identified improvements may be assessed pursuant to CEQA requirements when specific intersection and roadway improvement plans are developed. Any such

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 3-3

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street necessary environmental review will be completed before final approval of the improvements identified in the mitigation measures. Impact: Increases to Peak-Hour and Daily traffic volumes, resulting in unacceptable Levels of Service under Near-Term 2015 plus Project Conditions. Under Near-Term 2015 plus Project conditions, project implementation would affect LOS at study intersections. Impacts associated with the increased traffic were compared against the previously identified thresholds of significance. For the sake of brevity, only intersections and roadway segments where significant impacts would occur are discussed below, followed by required mitigation measures.

Traffic Impacts Intersection geometry changes were assumed at the following three study intersections in the Near-Term Year 2015 Conditions analysis as a result of the expected year 2015 completion of Phase 1 of the proposed Project: 2. Curtola Parkway / Carlson Street; 3. Curtola Parkway / Bus Loop Entrance; and, 4. Curtola Parkway / Bus Loop Exit. The Near-Term 2015 plus Project (Phase 1) Conditions traffic volumes are shown in Figure 10. The Near-Term 2015 plus Project (Phase 1) Conditions intersection LOS is summarized in Table 6. Detailed LOS calculations are included in the Appendix. The following study intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS E under Near-Term 2015 plus Project (Phase 1) Conditions: 2. Lemon Street / Carlson Street (weekday p.m. peak hour).

Traffic Impact Analysis 3-4 Technical Study #1: Curtola Pkwy/Lemon St #2: Carlson St/Lemon St Stop Sign AV Signalized Intersection 144(68) 18(5) 51(31) 175(239) 89(168) BENICIA AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 210(112) 4(20) 51(130) 12(24)1(0) SOLANO 21(75) 657(698) CYPRESS 389(720) 62(141) 6 CURTOLA 23(10) 9(26) 1(2)

RD 46(108) 1(0) 85(147) 2(8) THOMAS 296(355) 240(351) AV 7 #3: Curtola Pkwy/Carlson St #4: Curtola Pkwy/Bus Entrance

PKWY ST SONOMA 8 80 504(683) 839(860) FIFTH Wilson- CARLSON 344(191) 9(14) 1 433(724) 433(805) Lake Dalwigk 2 44(22) ST Park 0(81) ST 29 LEMON #5: Curtola Pkwy/Bus Exit #6: Curtola Pkwy/Solano Ave #7: Benicia Rd/Lemon St BLVD PROJECT

1(0) 23(26)

7(0) 133(98)

42(31) 3(5) SITE 6(5) 37(51) 84(114) 180(109) 9 116(171)10(30) 839(860) 41(58) 1(4) 70(84) 25(70) 121(77) 446(628) 57(70) 167(168) 433(805) 19(41) 93(87) 10 650(587) 1(2) 72(26)

9(14) 4(6) 53(82) Project Site Detail 0(1) 3 CURTOLA 117(197)56(99) 72(119) 5 22(115) 4 #8: Cypress Ave/Lemon St #9: Fifth St/Lemon St #10: Sonoma Blvd/Lemon St PKWY 29(31) 33(63) 79(123) 8(20) 14(13) 336(534) 40(41) 15(22) 38(87) 48(54) 42(43)4(8) 354(235) 30(51) ST 10(33) 14(29) CARLSON ST 1 30(41) 63(104) 38(55) 472(395) N 12(6) 2(4) LEMON 16(58) 11(15) 6(12) 2 4(7) 11(15)4(8) 249(375) 87(202)

Curtola.ai TRANSIT CENTER AT CURTOLA PARKWAY AND LEMON STREET Figure 10 Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I Conditions Intersection Geometry and Traffic Volumes

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Table 6: Intersection Level of Service—Near-Term 2015 plus Project (Phase 1) Conditions Near-Term 2015 Near-Term 2015 plus Conditions Project (Phase 1) Conditions Peak # Intersection LOS LOS Hour Delay V/C Delay V/C (Worst (Worst (s/veh) Ratio (s/veh) Ratio Approach) Approach) Curtola Parkway / a.m. D 37.0 0.77 C 25.0 0.65 1 Lemon Street p.m. D 44.2 0.92 C 33.6 0.77 Lemon Street / a.m. C (SEB) 23.4 0.52 C (SEB) 15.5 0.38 2 Carlson Street p.m. F (SEB) >50.0 1.05 E (SEB) 45.1 0.80 Curtola Parkway / a.m. - - - B (WBL) 10.4 0.36 3 Carlson Street p.m. - - - B (NB) 12.1 0.15 Curtola Parkway / a.m. - - - B (WBL) 10.9 0.02 4 Bus Entrance p.m. - - - C (WBL) 15.1 0.04 Curtola Parkway / a.m. - - - C (NB) 15.3 0.03 5 Bus Exit p.m. - - - D (NB) 25.4 0.08 Curtola Parkway / a.m. B 15.8 0.52 B 16.3 0.54 6 Solano Avenue p.m. B 18.8 0.60 B 18.9 0.61 Lemon Street / a.m. C 26.4 0.67 C 26.4 0.67 7 Benicia Road p.m. C 25.9 0.64 C 25.9 0.64 Lemon Street / a.m. B (SEB) 12.3 0.15 B (SEB) 12.2 0.13 8 Cypress Avenue p.m. B (SEB) 11.9 0.14 B (SEB) 11.6 0.10 Lemon Street / a.m. B (SEB) 12.4 0.18 B (SEB) 12.4 0.18 9 Fifth Street p.m. C (SEB) 16.3 0.30 C (SEB) 16.3 0.30 Lemon Street / a.m. A 7.9 0.38 A 7.9 0.38 10 Sonoma Boulevard p.m. A 9.2 0.40 A 9.1 0.40 Notes: LOS = level of service, s/veh = seconds per vehicle, V/C = volume to capacity, SEB = southeast-bound; Bold indicates intersection operates at unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F). For stop-controlled intersections, average delay beyond 50 seconds is shown as “>50.0”, as delays greater than 50 seconds are beyond the meaningful range of the analysis methodology. ‘-’ indicates not applicable to scenario Source: Data compiled by AECOM, 2011

The reconfiguration of the Curtola park-and-ride lot with Carlson Street extended to Curtola Parkway and operating in the eastbound direction will result in the redistribution of Project traffic. In addition, a significant portion of park-and-ride users who park on- street will find spaces in the expanded park-and-ride facilities, and traffic will be rerouted accordingly. Intersections located close to the proposed Project are expected to experience the most significant changes in traffic distribution as a result of the Project’s implementation. Conversely, intersections located farther away from the Project are expected to see less of a change. The study intersections were evaluated to determine if the Project contributed to any intersection impacts. With the redistribution of Project traffic in Near-Term 2015 plus Project (Phase 1) Conditions, all of the study intersections are expected to continue to operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. peak hour. In the p.m. peak hour, the southeast-bound approach of the Lemon Street / Carlson Street intersection is expected to operate at unacceptable LOS during the p.m. peak hour, though it would improve from LOS F to LOS E.

Traffic Impact Analysis 3-6 Technical Study

3.0 Near-Term Effects

Curtola Parkway / Carlson Street The new intersection at the Curtola Parkway / Carlson Street intersection (Intersection #3, the Project entrance) is also proposed to be stop-controlled and would operate at LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. However, a significant number of left-turns are expected during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours when patrons are accessing the park-and-ride lot. The 95th percentile queue lengths for the westbound left turn during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours are expected to be 41 feet and 25 feet, respectively. Assuming buses can reach a speed of approximately 15 mph exiting the bus loop, approximately 300 feet of acceleration distance will be required to accelerate to the current speed limit on Curtola Parkway, which is 40 mph. A traffic signal is not expected to be required at the Project entrance in 2015, as long as there is enough linear space in the median to accommodate a left-turn pocket to provide storage for a 41-foot queue, and a 300-foot acceleration lane to allow buses to merge into westbound traffic. Curtola Parkway / Bus Loop Entrance and Exit The new intersections at the bus loop entrance (Intersection #4) and exit (Intersection #5) along the south side of Curtola Parkway are proposed to be stop-controlled, and would operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Impact 1: Unacceptable LOS at Lemon Street / Carlson Street (Intersection #2, Project Exit) under Near-Term 2015 plus Project (Phase 1) Conditions The redistribution of traffic proposed by the Project is expected to reduce delay and improve LOS at this unsignalized intersection. As a result, the intersection would operate at better LOS, with lower delays and V/C ratio under Near-Term 2015 plus Project (Phase 1) Conditions than under Near-Term 2015 Conditions, but still at unacceptable LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. However, as the V/C ratio at the intersection would not increase beyond the 0.01 threshold, this impact is considered not significant. Improvement Measure 1: Improvements at Lemon Street / Carlson Street (Intersection #2, Project Exit) As stated above, the Project would improve LOS and delay at this intersection as compared to Near-Term 2015 Conditions and would not result in a significant impact at this location. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Nevertheless, the intersection would still operate at unacceptable LOS E in the p.m. peak hour. Improvements would need to be made for the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS. Signalization of this intersection would improve intersection operations to acceptable LOS A with 9.8 seconds of delay per vehicle in the a.m. peak hour, and LOS B with 11.3 seconds of delay per vehicle in the p.m. peak hour. However, a comparison of Near-Term 2015 plus Project major and minor street peak hour traffic volumes indicates that the MUTCD peak hour volume signal warrant would not be met under Near-Term 2015 plus Project Conditions. Nevertheless, as mentioned in the Thresholds of Significance section of this Study, further analysis should be performed. This analysis should include the evaluation of additional signal warrants as Phase 1 nears completion, allowing field data, rather than forecasted traffic volumes, to be used in the analysis. Responsibility: Project sponsor. Timing: With implementation of Phase 1.

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 3-7

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Transit Impacts Transit operations would be modified with implementation of Phase 1 of the proposed Project, providing a dedicated bus loop for the routes stopping at the transit center. This would alleviate conflicts with other vehicles that buses may now encounter as they enter the park-and-ride on Carlson Street and circulate through the west end of the park-and- ride. Eastbound buses would continue to stop on Curtola Parkway, while westbound buses would be rerouted to the proposed bus loop. Travel time for westbound buses would be reduced, as the time to enter the bus loop, stop to allow passengers to alight and board, and exit the bus loop, would be less than the time currently required for westbound buses stopping at the site, which requires a circuitous path along Lemon Street, Carlson Street, and a loop through the west end of the park-and-ride before returning to Curtola Parkway. This impact to transit operations would be considered less than significant.

Bicycle Impacts Implementation of Phase 1 of the proposed Project would impact bicycle activity by introducing three new intersections along Curtola Parkway: at an extended Carlson Street, and at the entrance and exit to the proposed bus loop. Bicycle activity along Curtola Parkway is currently relatively minimal, and appreciably greater levels of bicycle activity are not expected in 2015 or with implementation of Phase 1 of the proposed Project. Delays for cyclists as a result of the three new stop- controlled intersections are expected to be minimal. Therefore, the impact of the Project on bicycle activity would be considered less than significant.

Site Access/Circulation Impacts Implementation of Phase 1 of the proposed Project would change the site access and circulation as presented earlier in the Project Description. The proposed site access and circulation has been developed through a separate analysis and consideration of alternatives in the 2008 study, as well as subsequent refinement, and is intended to improve overall conditions for all users of the park-and-ride facility. With implementation of Phase 1 of the proposed Project, access to the PG&E facility immediately south of the existing park-and-ride would continue to be provided at the

Traffic Impact Analysis 3-8 Technical Study

3.0 Near-Term Effects

Lemon Street / Carlson Street intersection. Therefore, the impact of the Project on site access and circulation would be considered less than significant.

Construction Impacts Construction-related impacts generally would not be considered significant due to their temporary and limited duration. However, in circumstances where construction would occur over long periods of time, construction-related impacts may be considered significant. Implementation of Phase 1 of the proposed project would require portions of the west end of the existing park-and-ride facility to be closed to commuter use while the Phase 1 parking structure and/or transit plaza are being constructed. Parking at the east end of the existing park-and-ride, as well as the lot at the southeast corner of Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street, would remain in use and could be restriped to maximize the number of parking spaces. However, supply would ultimately not meet demand with the loss of the west-end spaces. Impact 2: Loss of Parking Capacity prior to Near-Term 2015 plus Project (Phase 1) Conditions The proposed location of the Phase 1 parking structure and transit plaza occupy approximately 241 spaces, about half of the existing facility’s capacity. The loss of these spaces during construction of Phase 1 would result in a significant impact on the operations of the park-and-ride facility. Mitigation Measure 1: Temporary Parking Facilities The City has identified sites for temporary “satellite” parking during the construction period. The site would need to accommodate the number of spaces taken out of service by construction activities, which would amount to a maximum of approximately 241 vehicles. The size of the temporary satellite facility would be determined once a construction staging plan is developed for the implementation of Phase 1. Property acquisition may be required. Because the bus and carpool staging activities occurring at the park-and-ride require a central location, a shuttle service may also be necessary to connect the satellite lot to the existing park-and-ride during the construction period. Responsibility: Project sponsor(s). Timing: Prior to construction of Phase 1.

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 3-9

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Traffic Impact Analysis 3-10 Technical Study

4.0 Cumulative Effects

Methods and Assumptions

Background Growth Impacts on the roadway system for Cumulative 2035 Conditions were determined by forecasting the increase in weekday a.m. and p.m. peak-hour traffic volumes that would occur with implementation of the Project. Projections from the Napa-Solano Travel Demand Model were utilized to derive growth rates and develop weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak-hour traffic volume forecasts for study intersections. Volume balancing utilizing Furness methodology was conducted in order to ensure realistic future year projections and consistency.

Cumulative 2035 Conditions

Cumulative 2035 Conditions intersection geometry and traffic volumes are shown in Figure 11. Cumulative Year 2035 Conditions intersection LOS is summarized in Table 7. Detailed LOS calculations are included in the Appendix. The following study intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS F under Cumulative 2035 Conditions: 1. Curtola Parkway / Lemon Street (weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour); 2. Lemon Street / Carlson Street (weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour); and 9. Lemon Street / Fifth Street (weekday p.m. peak hour).

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 4-1 #1: Curtola Pkwy/Lemon St #2: Carlson St/Lemon St Stop Sign AV Signalized Intersection 97(21) 520(324) 214(609) 289(133) 161(192) BENICIA AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 424(187) 10(23) 89(216) 14(54)1(0) SOLANO 26(86) 549(580) CYPRESS 476(740) 363(350) CURTOLA 65(28) 6(28) 6 3(1) 1(3)

RD 35(157) 14(33) 119(293) THOMAS 387(715) 326(525)5(13) AV 7 #3: Curtola Pkwy/Carlson St #4: Curtola Pkwy/Bus Entrance

2(0) 59(39)

16(0) 343(146)

94(64) 6(11) SITE 13(11) 68(117) 154(260) 462(109) 12(84) 9 51(117) 145(277) 88(132) 1(4) 151(125) Project Intersection 29(70) 62(62) 520(629) 209(274) 23(42) 116(141) 10 794(603) 1(2) 88(27)

8(8) 75(169) Project Site Detail 0(2) 3 CURTOLA 167(407)80(99) 5 147(174)45(169) 4 #8: Cypress Ave/Lemon St #9: Fifth St/Lemon St #10: Sonoma Blvd/Lemon St PKWY 36(42) 55(89) 99(166) 697(1263)79(205) 14(28) 33(18) 82(72) 5(12) 19(30) 78(76) ST 63(73) 700(328) 62(89) CARLSON ST 1 20(59) 28(68) 76(100) 157(111) 97(134) 1186(422) N 30(15) 4(4) LEMON 39(92) 18(23) 6(12) 2 11(15)4(8) 321(541) 147(307)6(10)

Curtola.ai TRANSIT CENTER AT CURTOLA PARKWAY AND LEMON STREET Figure 11 Cumulative 2035 Conditions Intersection Geometry and Traffic Volumes

4.0 Cumulative Effects

Table 7: Intersection Level of Service—Cumulative 2035 Conditions Existing Cumulative 2035 Conditions Conditions Peak # Intersection LOS LOS Hour Delay V/C Delay V/C (Worst (Worst (s/veh) Ratio (s/veh) Ratio Approach) Approach) Curtola Parkway / a.m. C 34.3 0.68 F >80.0 1.10 1 Lemon Street p.m. C 33.6 0.84 F >80.0 1.34 Lemon Street / a.m. C (SEB) 19.7 0.45 F (SEB) >50.0 0.99 2 Carlson Street p.m. D (SEB) 31.1 0.58 F (SEB) >50.0 4.43 Curtola Parkway / a.m. B 14.0 0.47 C 26.1 0.79 6 Solano Avenue p.m. B 15.7 0.52 D 41.6 0.92 Lemon Street / a.m. C 23.0 0.57 E 71.4 0.99 7 Benicia Road p.m. C 23.1 0.52 D 52.2 0.85 Lemon Street / a.m. B (SEB) 11.1 0.12 C (SEB) 24.4 0.38 8 Cypress Avenue p.m. B (SEB) 11.3 0.12 B (SEB) 15.0 0.23 Lemon Street / a.m. B (SEB) 11.3 0.12 D (SEB) 26.9 0.58 9 Fifth Street p.m. B (SEB) 13.6 0.21 F (SEB) >50.0 1.41 Lemon Street / a.m. C 34.9 0.27 B 14.0 0.77 10 Sonoma Boulevard p.m. B 10.7 0.37 B 13.2 0.75 Notes: LOS = level of service, s/veh = seconds per vehicle, V/C = volume to capacity, SEB = southeast-bound; Bold indicates intersection operates at unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F). For stop-controlled intersections, average delay beyond 50 seconds is shown as “>50.0”, as delays greater than 50 seconds are beyond the meaningful range of the analysis methodology. For signalized intersections, average delay beyond 80 seconds is shown as “>80.0”, as delays greater than 80 seconds are beyond the meaningful range of the analysis methodology. Source: Data compiled by AECOM, 2011

All the study intersections currently operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. peak hour and LOS D or better during the p.m. peak hour. In Cumulative 2035 Conditions, three intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS F). The Curtola Parkway / Lemon Street intersection, which currently operates at LOS C during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, is expected to operate at LOS F during both peak hours by 2035. The southeast-bound approach of the Lemon Street / Carlson Street intersection is also expected to operate at LOS F during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours by 2035. Lastly, the southeast-bound approach of the Lemon Street / Fifth Street intersection, which currently operates at LOS B during the p.m. peak hour, is expected to operate at LOS F by 2035. The remaining intersections are all expected to operate at LOS E or better during the a.m. peak hour and at LOS D or better during the p.m. peak hour in Cumulative 2035 Conditions.

Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures The following section summarizes the proposed Project’s potential on transportation facilities. Summary impacts are followed by required mitigation measures. The project sponsor shall participate in the necessary improvements identified in all of the following mitigation measures, and shall be responsible for the project’s fair-share participation and the associated timing of the improvements. Please note that the improvements described in each of the following mitigation measures have not been designed, and thus project-specific impacts resulting from

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 4-3

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street these improvements cannot be precisely identified or quantified. Site-specific impacts of the identified improvements may be assessed pursuant to CEQA requirements when specific intersection and roadway improvement plans are developed. Any such necessary environmental review will be completed before final approval of the improvements identified in the mitigation measures. Impact: Increases to Peak-Hour and Daily traffic volumes, resulting in unacceptable Levels of Service under Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions. Under Cumulative 2035 plus Project conditions, project implementation would affect LOS at study intersections. Impacts associated with the increased traffic were compared against the previously identified thresholds of significance. For the sake of brevity, only intersections and roadway segments where significant impacts would occur are discussed below, followed by required mitigation measures.

Traffic Impacts Intersection geometry changes were assumed at the following four study intersections in Cumulative Year 2035 Conditions analysis as a result of the expected year 2035 completion of the proposed Project: 2. Lemon Street / Carlson Street; 3. Curtola Parkway / Carlson Street; 4. Curtola Parkway / Bus Loop Entrance; and, 5. Curtola Parkway / Bus Loop Exit. The Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions traffic volumes are shown in Figure 12. The Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions intersection LOS is summarized in Table 8. Detailed LOS calculations are included in the Appendix. The following study intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F) under Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions: 1. Curtola Parkway / Lemon Street (weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour); 2. Lemon Street / Carlson Street (weekday p.m. peak hour); 7. Benicia Road / Lemon Street (weekday a.m. peak hour); and 9. Lemon Street / Fifth Street (weekday p.m. peak hour).

Traffic Impact Analysis 4-4 Technical Study #1: Curtola Pkwy/Lemon St #2: Carlson St/Lemon St Stop Sign AV Signalized Intersection 276(111) 214(610) 139(33) 98(192) BENICIA AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 424(138) 1(23) 40(216) 14(63)1(0) SOLANO 26(134) 979(795) 476(861) 10(135) CYPRESS 9(18) 6 CURTOLA 15(3) 1(1)

RD 78(200) 112(270) THOMAS 387(642) 349(495)3(13) AV 7 #3: Curtola Pkwy/Carlson St #4: Curtola Pkwy/Bus Entrance

PKWY ST SONOMA 8 80 688(783) 1324(1091) FIFTH Wilson- CARLSON 645(322) 9(14) 1 517(829) 517(999) Lake Dalwigk 2 72(36) Park ST 0(170) ST 29 LEMON #5: Curtola Pkwy/Bus Exit #6: Curtola Pkwy/Solano Ave #7: Benicia Rd/Lemon St BLVD PROJECT 59(39) SITE 343(146) 462(109) 9 145(277)12(84) 1324(1091) 88(132) 151(125) 517(999) 209(274) 10 116(141)

9(14) Project Site Detail 75(169) 3 CURTOLA 167(407)80(99) 5 4 #8: Cypress Ave/Lemon St #9: Fifth St/Lemon St #10: Sonoma Blvd/Lemon St PKWY 36(42) 55(89) 28(18) 99(166) 697(1263)79(205) 14(28) 82(72) 19(30) 78(76) 59(35)5(7) 732(306) 62(89) ST 20(59) 28(68) CARLSON ST 1 76(100) 157(111) 97(134) 1186(422) N 30(15) 4(4) LEMON 5(85) 18(23) 6(12) 2 11(15)4(8) 299(573) 147(307)6(10)

Curtola.ai TRANSIT CENTER AT CURTOLA PARKWAY AND LEMON STREET Figure 12 Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions Intersection Geometry and Traffic Volumes

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Table 8: Intersection Level of Service—Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions Cumulative 2035 Cumulative 2035 plus Conditions Project Conditions Peak # Intersection LOS LOS Hour Delay V/C Delay V/C (Worst (Worst (s/veh) Ratio (s/veh) Ratio Approach) Approach) Curtola Parkway / a.m. F >80.0 1.10 E 61.5 1.01 1 Lemon Street p.m. F >80.0 1.34 F >80.0 1.14 Lemon Street / a.m. F (SEB) >50.0 0.99 C (SEB) 21.5 0.54 2 Carlson Street p.m. F (SEB) >50.0 4.43 F (SEB) >50.0 2.53 Curtola Parkway / a.m. - - - C (WBL) 19.1 0.75 3 Carlson Street p.m. - - - C (NB) 15.1 0.48 Curtola Parkway / a.m. - - - B (WBL) 11.6 0.02 4 Bus Entrance p.m. - - - C (WBL) 18.6 0.05 Curtola Parkway / a.m. - - - C 17.0 0.03 5 Bus Exit p.m. - - - D 35.0 0.11 Curtola Parkway / a.m. C 26.1 0.79 C 28.8 0.83 6 Solano Avenue p.m. D 41.6 0.92 D 44.7 0.95 Lemon Street / a.m. E 71.4 0.99 E 71.4 0.99 7 Benicia Road p.m. D 52.2 0.85 D 52.2 0.85 Lemon Street / a.m. C (SEB) 24.4 0.38 C (SEB) 24.4 0.37 8 Cypress Avenue p.m. B (SEB) 15.0 0.23 B (SEB) 13.8 0.11 Lemon Street / a.m. D (SEB) 26.9 0.58 D (SEB) 26.9 0.58 9 Fifth Street p.m. F (SEB) >50.0 1.41 F (SEB) >50.0 1.41 Lemon Street / a.m. B 14.0 0.77 B 14.0 0.77 10 Sonoma Boulevard p.m. B 13.2 0.75 B 13.2 0.75 Notes: LOS = level of service, s/veh = seconds per vehicle, V/C = volume to capacity, SEB = southeast-bound; Bold indicates intersection operates at unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F). For stop-controlled intersections, average delay beyond 50 seconds is shown as “>50.0”, as delays greater than 50 seconds are beyond the meaningful range of the analysis methodology. For signalized intersections, average delay beyond 80 seconds is shown as “>80.0”, as delays greater than 80 seconds are beyond the meaningful range of the analysis methodology. ‘-’ indicates not applicable to scenario Source: Data compiled by AECOM, 2011

The reconfiguration of the Curtola Park-and-Ride lot with Carlson Street extended to Curtola Parkway and operating in the eastbound direction will result in the redistribution of project traffic. In addition, implementation of the full Project will include enough parking capacity to accommodate expected demand through 2035. Therefore, park-and- ride users would no longer park on-street in the surrounding neighborhood as they currently do, and their trips would be rerouted accordingly. Intersections located close to the proposed Project are expected to experience significant changes in traffic distribution as a result of the Project’s implementation. Conversely, intersections located farther away from the Project are expected to see less of a change. The study intersections were evaluated to determine if the Project contributed to any intersection impacts. With the redistribution of Project traffic in Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions, six of the study intersections are expected to continue to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

Traffic Impact Analysis 4-6 Technical Study

4.0 Cumulative Effects

Under Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions, four study intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS, as described below. The Project would have impacts at two additional study intersections, as described below. Curtola Parkway / Lemon Street With the relocation of Project-bound left-turns, the signalized Curtola Parkway / Lemon Street intersection (Intersection #1) is expected to experience a decrease in delay during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with an improved LOS during the a.m. peak hour; however, during the p.m. peak hour the intersection is expected to continue to operate at LOS F. Lemon Street / Carlson Street The southeast-bound approach of the Lemon Street / Carlson Street intersection (Intersection #2) is expected to improve to acceptable LOS C during the a.m. peak hour with the overall reduction in Project traffic at this location; however, operation will continue to fail during the p.m. peak hour. Curtola Parkway / Carlson Street The new Curtola Parkway / Carlson Street intersection (Intersection #3, the Project entrance) is also proposed to be unsignalized and its worst approach would operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. However, a significant number of left-turns are expected during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours when patrons are accessing the transit center. The 95th percentile queue lengths for the westbound left turn during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours are expected to be 178 feet and 66 feet, respectively. Assuming buses can reach a speed of approximately 15 mph exiting the bus loop, approximately 300 feet of acceleration distance will be required to accelerate to the current speed limit on Curtola Parkway, which is 40 mph. Based on the transit center’s preliminary design, there is not enough linear space in the median to accommodate a 178-foot queue and a 300-foot acceleration lane, making a traffic signal at the Project entrance necessary by 2035. Curtola Parkway / Solano Avenue The signalized Curtola Parkway / Solano Avenue intersection (Intersection #6) is expected to continue to operate at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour, with increases to delay and V/C ratio during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, which require mitigation. Benicia Road / Lemon Street The signalized Benicia Road / Lemon Street intersection (Intersection #7) is expected to continue to operate at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour, unaffected by the redistribution of Project traffic. Lemon Street / Fifth Street The southeast-bound approach of the Lemon Street / Fifth Street intersection (Intersection #9) is expected to continue to operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour, unaffected by the redistribution of Project traffic. The impacts of the Project under Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions are presented below. Proposed mitigation and improvement measures follow the description of each impact. Impact 3: Unacceptable LOS at Curtola Parkway / Lemon Street (Intersection #1) under Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions This signalized intersection would degrade from acceptable LOS C to unacceptable LOS F by 2035. Despite an expected improvement in the amount

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 4-7

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

of delay that would be experienced by traffic at the intersection due to the relocation of Project-bound traffic to the Curtola Parkway / Carlson Street intersection proposed by the Project, the intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F. However, as the V/C ratio at the intersection would not increase beyond the 0.01 threshold, this impact is considered not significant. Improvement Measure 2: Improvements at Curtola Parkway / Lemon Street (Intersection #1) As stated above, the Project would improve delay at this intersection compared to Cumulative 2035 Conditions, and would not result in a significant impact at this location. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Nevertheless, improvements would need to be made to ensure that this intersection operates at an acceptable LOS. Separating right-turns from the through movement on Lemon Street by combining left-turns with the through movement would allow for northeast-bound right-turn permitted-overlap phasing. The reconfiguration of the northeast-bound approach and the phasing adjustments are expected to improve the intersection’s operation to acceptable LOS C, with 28.7 seconds of delay per vehicle in the a.m. peak hour and 30.6 seconds of delay per vehicle in the p.m. peak hour. There is a potential alignment conflict if the through movements are combined with the left-turn movements; however, this can be addressed by striping a dashed line connecting the centerlines of the northeast- and southwest-bound approaches to direct the northeast-bound through movements to the receiving lane on the opposite side of the intersection. Impact 4: Unacceptable LOS at Lemon Street / Carlson Street (Intersection #2, Project Exit) under Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions This unsignalized intersection would degrade from acceptable LOS D at the worst approach to unacceptable LOS F by 2035. Despite an expected improvement in the amount of delay that would be experienced by traffic at the intersection due to the redistribution of traffic proposed by the Project, the intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F. However, as the V/C ratio at the intersection would not increase beyond the 0.01 threshold, this impact is considered not significant. Improvement Measure 3: Improvements at Lemon Street / Carlson Street (Intersection #2, Project Exit) As stated above, the Project would improve delay at this intersection compared to Cumulative 2035 Conditions, and would not result in a significant impact at this location. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Nevertheless, the intersection would still operate at unacceptable LOS F in the p.m. peak hour. Improvements would need to be made for the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS. Signalization of this intersection (Improvement Measure #1) is expected to improve operations in the a.m. peak hour to LOS B with 11.3 seconds of delay per vehicle, and to LOS C with 29.6 seconds of delay per vehicle in the p.m. peak hour. A comparison of major and minor street traffic volumes at this intersection for Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions indicates that the MUTCD peak hour volume signal warrant would be met for Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions. Nevertheless, as mentioned in the Thresholds of Significance

Traffic Impact Analysis 4-8 Technical Study

4.0 Cumulative Effects

section of this Study, further analysis should be performed. The analysis should include the evaluation of additional signal warrants as the project nears final completion, allowing field data, rather than forecasted traffic volumes, to be used in the analysis. Traffic flow on Lemon Street between Carlson Street and Curtola Parkway could be improved by adjusting the striping on the northeast leg of the intersection to provide two receiving lanes for left turns from Carlson Street to northeast-bound Lemon Street. Impact 5: Unacceptable queue lengths at Curtola Parkway / Carlson Street (Intersection #3) under Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions This new unsignalized intersection would operate at acceptable LOS C at the worst approach in 2035; however, the 95th percentile queue length for the westbound left turn during the a.m. peak hour is expected to be 178 feet. Based on the transit center’s preliminary design, there is not enough linear space in the median to accommodate this queue and a 300-foot acceleration lane for buses exiting westbound from the bus loop, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 2: Improvements at Curtola Parkway / Carlson Street (Intersection #3, Project Entrance) Improvements must be made to address unacceptable queue lengths for the westbound left-turn at this intersection. Signalization of this intersection would improve intersection operations to LOS A, with 5.5 seconds of delay during the a.m. peak hour and 3.5 seconds of delay during the p.m. peak hour. The 95th percentile queue lengths are expected to be reduced to 99 feet and 34 feet in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively, with this measure. This reduction would allow sufficient linear space to accommodate an acceleration lane for buses turning westbound out of the bus loop. Furthermore, with a traffic signal in place, the signal timing could be adjusted as necessary to reduce queue lengths if additional space is required to accommodate bus acceleration. Responsibility: Project sponsor. Timing: With implementation of the full Project. Impact 6: Significant increase in volume to capacity (V/C) ratio at Curtola Parkway / Solano Avenue (Intersection #6) under Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions This signalized intersection would degrade from acceptable LOS B to acceptable LOS D during the p.m. peak hour by 2035. Despite the fact that the intersection is expected to continue to operate at acceptable LOS D with the redistribution of traffic as proposed by the Project, the 0.03 increase in the V/C ratio exceeds the threshold for an intersection operating at LOS D, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3: Improvements at Curtola Parkway / Solano Avenue (Intersection #6) Improvements must be made to ensure that the change in the V/C ratio at this intersection does not exceed the allowable threshold. Given the fact that the intersection would continue to operate at acceptable LOS D with the redistribution of traffic, major intersection improvements would not be warranted. Increasing the total cycle length from 90 seconds to 95 seconds in the p.m. peak hour and assigning this additional time to the more critical approaches is

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 4-9

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

expected to improve the V/C ratio from 0.95 to 0.89, which would result in a -0.03 change, as compared to Cumulative 2035 Conditions. During the p.m. peak hour the intersection would operate at LOS D with 42.7 seconds of delay. No changes would be required for acceptable a.m. operation. Responsibility: Project sponsor. Timing: With implementation of the full Project. Impact 7: Unacceptable LOS at Lemon Street / Benicia Road (Intersection #7) under Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions This signalized intersection would degrade from acceptable LOS C to unacceptable LOS E during the a.m. peak hour by 2035. Redistribution of traffic as proposed by the Project is not expected to improve intersection operations, and the intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS E. However, as the V/C ratio at the intersection would not increase beyond the 0.01 threshold, this impact is considered not significant. Improvement Measure 4: Improvements at Lemon Street / Benicia Road (Intersection #7) The Project would not affect delay at this intersection compared to Cumulative 2035 Conditions, and would not result in a significant impact at this location. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Nevertheless, improvements would need to be made to ensure that this intersection operates at an acceptable LOS. Adding a separate westbound right-turn lane and providing permitted- overlap phasing for the westbound right-turns is expected to improve the operation of the intersection to LOS D, with 54.6 seconds of delay during the a.m. peak hour and 46.2 seconds of delay during the p.m. peak hour. However, a new dedicated right-turn lane would require some widening of the east leg of the intersection. There appears to be available right-of-way in the northeast quadrant of the intersection that could be used to accommodate the separate right-turn lane. Impact 8: Unacceptable LOS at Lemon Street / Fifth Street (Intersection #9) under Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions This unsignalized intersection would degrade from acceptable LOS B at the worst approach to unacceptable LOS F by 2035. Redistribution of traffic as proposed by the Project is not expected to improve intersection operations, and the intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F. However, as the V/C ratio at the intersection would not increase beyond the 0.01 threshold, this impact is considered not significant. Improvement Measure 5: Improvements at Lemon Street / Fifth Street (Intersection #9) The Project would not affect delay at this intersection compared to Cumulative 2035 Conditions, and would not result in a significant impact at this location. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Nevertheless, improvements would need to be made to ensure that this intersection operates at an acceptable LOS. Converting the intersection to a four-way stop and adding a separate northwest-bound right-turn lane is expected to improve the operation of the southeast-bound approach to LOS B with 11.6 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour, and LOS C with 16.9 seconds of delay during the p.m. peak hour.

Traffic Impact Analysis 4-10 Technical Study

4.0 Cumulative Effects

The northeast and southwest approaches of the intersection currently operate at LOS A and experience only minimal delay. With the conversion of the intersection to a four-way stop, LOS would decrease to LOS B in the a.m. peak hour and LOS C in the p.m. peak hour. As a four-way stop-controlled intersection, the intersection average operation would be LOS B with 10.7 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour, and LOS C with 18.9 seconds of delay during the p.m. peak hour. The addition of a separate right-turn lane to the northwest-bound approach would require widening the southeast leg of the intersection and the elimination of some on-street parking on Fifth Street in the northeast quadrant of the intersection. There appears to be right-of-way in the northeast quadrant of the intersection that could be obtained to accommodate the separate right-turn lane.

Transit Impacts Transit operations would be modified with implementation of the proposed Project, providing a dedicated bus loop for the routes stopping at the transit center. This would alleviate conflicts with other vehicles that buses may now encounter as they enter the park-and-ride on Carlson Street and circulate through the west end of the park-and-ride. Eastbound buses would continue to stop on Curtola Parkway, while westbound buses would be rerouted to the proposed bus loop. Travel time for westbound buses would be reduced, as the time to enter the bus loop, stop to allow passengers to alight and board, and exit the bus loop, would be less than the time currently required for westbound buses stopping at the site, which requires a circuitous path along Lemon Street, Carlson Street, and a loop through the west end of the park-and-ride before returning to Curtola Parkway. This impact to transit operations would be considered less than significant.

Pedestrian Impacts The transit center plaza proposed in Phase 1 of the Project would offer enhanced amenities for pedestrians and offer more clearly-delineated areas for pedestrian circulation and waiting. Pedestrian activity that occurs within the aisles of the existing park-and-ride facility would be accommodated by the transit plaza, reducing pedestrian- vehicle conflicts. Implementation of the full Project beyond Phase 1 (Phases 2 and 3) would offer additional benefits for pedestrian activity. Park-and-ride users would no longer park at on-street locations or in the lot at the southeast corner of Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street, because sufficient parking capacity would be provided at the transit center. Thus, potential conflicts between pedestrians parking in these peripheral locations and crossing Curtola Parkway or Lemon Street to reach the transit center would be eliminated. Implementation of the proposed Project would impact pedestrian activity by introducing three new intersections along Curtola Parkway: at an extended Carlson Street, and at the entrance and exit to the proposed bus loop. A potential reduction in delays for pedestrians (absent overall traffic growth) along Lemon Street may be realized with the conversion of Carlson Street to a one-way eastbound facility, as pedestrians crossing Carlson Street would encounter traffic operating in a single direction. Pedestrian activity along Curtola Parkway is currently relatively minimal, with pedestrian traffic related to the existing park-and-ride occurring mainly along Lemon Street. Greater levels of pedestrian activity along Curtola Parkway are not expected in 2035 or with

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 4-11

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street implementation of the proposed Project. Delays for pedestrians as a result of the three new stop-controlled intersections are expected to be minimal. Therefore, the impact of the Project on pedestrian activity would be considered less than significant.

Bicycle Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would impact bicycle activity by introducing three new intersections along Curtola Parkway: at an extended Carlson Street, and at the entrance and exit to the proposed bus loop. Bicycle activity along Curtola Parkway is currently relatively minimal, and appreciably greater levels of bicycle activity are not expected in 2035 or with implementation of the proposed Project. Delays for cyclists as a result of the three new stop-controlled intersections are expected to be minimal. Therefore, the impact of the Project on bicycle activity would be considered less than significant.

Site Access/Circulation Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would change the site access and circulation as presented earlier in the Project Description. The proposed site access and circulation has been developed through a separate analysis and consideration of alternatives in the 2008 study, as well as subsequent refinement, and is intended to improve overall conditions for all users of the park-and-ride facility. With implementation of the proposed Project, access to the PG&E facility immediately south of the existing park-and-ride would no longer be provided at the Lemon Street / Carlson Street intersection, but would be relocated to the new Curtola Parkway / Carlson Street intersection. With Carlson Street rerouted one-way eastbound, outbound PG&E traffic would exit via Carlson Street as it currently does. Depending on the origins and destinations of PG&E-related traffic, the change in site access and circulation may mean a slight increase or decrease in travel time, but is expected to have minimal effect overall. The Project will maintain PG&E’s existing access points and Carlson Street will be designed to accommodate PG&E vehicles. Therefore, the impact of the Project on site access and circulation would be considered less than significant.

Traffic Impact Analysis 4-12 Technical Study

4.0 Cumulative Effects corner of Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street and/or on-street parking. The location of the Phase 3 parking structure occupies approximately 30 spaces, about 3 percent of the transit center capacity following completion of Phase 2. The loss of these spaces could be met by the lot at the southeast corner of Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street. Therefore, the construction impact of the implementation of Phase 2 and/or Phase 3 would be considered less than significant.

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study 4-13

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Appendix A: Level of Service Calculations

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Existing Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM 1: Curtola Pkwy. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 20 367 50 258 391 63 25 84 273 157 107 36 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3457 1770 3435 1770 1631 1770 1863 1559 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3457 1770 3435 1770 1631 1770 1863 1559 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 23 417 57 269 407 66 27 91 297 187 127 43 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 16 0 0 163 0 0 0 28 Lane Group Flow (vph) 23 460 0 269 457 0 27 225 0 187 127 15 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 32 1 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.8 16.3 10.2 24.7 1.8 15.7 9.8 23.7 23.7 Effective Green, g (s) 1.8 18.3 10.2 26.7 1.8 16.6 9.8 24.6 24.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.26 0.14 0.38 0.03 0.23 0.14 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.4 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.1 2.0 3.7 3.7 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 45 892 255 1294 45 382 245 646 541 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.13 c0.15 0.13 0.02 c0.14 c0.11 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.52 1.05 0.35 0.60 0.59 0.76 0.20 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 34.1 22.5 30.4 15.9 34.2 24.1 29.4 16.2 15.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.0 0.6 71.5 0.2 13.5 2.3 11.9 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 38.1 23.1 101.9 16.1 47.7 26.5 41.4 16.4 15.3 Level of Service D C F B D C D B B Approach Delay (s) 23.8 47.2 27.8 29.3 Approach LOS C D C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 34.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.9 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM 2: Carlson St. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 165 1 11 1 3 6 9 203 3 6 98 317 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 183 1 12 2 5 10 11 245 4 6 100 323 Pedestrians 1 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 432 pX, platoon unblocked 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 vC, conflicting volume 555 547 263 557 707 248 424 250 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 553 545 260 555 705 248 422 250 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 57 100 98 100 99 99 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 427 437 776 427 354 789 1134 1313 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 197 16 259 430 Volume Left 183 2 11 6 Volume Right 12 10 4 323 cSH 439 543 1134 1313 Volume to Capacity 0.45 0.03 0.01 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 57 2 1 0 Control Delay (s) 19.7 11.8 0.4 0.2 Lane LOS C B A A Approach Delay (s) 19.7 11.8 0.4 0.2 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 4/12/2011

Movement EBL2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR WBR2 SBL2 SBL SBR SBR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 1 24 427 1 68 614 18 48 5 29 2 4 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3538 1770 3522 1549 1743 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3538 1770 3522 1549 1743 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 28 497 1 75 675 20 53 6 35 2 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 29 498 0 75 695 0 53 0 43 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 4 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 1 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Free Split Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green, G (s) 1.9 19.0 3.6 20.7 51.1 3.1 Effective Green, g (s) 1.9 19.0 4.1 20.7 51.1 3.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.37 0.08 0.41 1.00 0.06 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 66 1315 142 1427 1549 106 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.14 c0.04 c0.20 c0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.03 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.38 0.53 0.49 0.03 0.41 Uniform Delay, d1 24.1 11.7 22.6 11.3 0.0 23.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.6 0.3 3.5 0.4 0.0 2.6 Delay (s) 28.7 12.0 26.1 11.6 0.0 25.7 Level of Service C B C B A C Approach Delay (s) 12.9 12.2 25.7 Approach LOS B B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 51.1 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 4/12/2011

Movement NEL2 NET NER SWL SWT SWR SWR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 3 53 16 22 66 29 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1858 1562 1768 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.93 Satd. Flow (perm) 1828 1562 1659 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 Adj. Flow (vph) 4 71 21 29 87 38 1 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 75 4 0 155 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 2 2 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.9 8.9 8.9 Effective Green, g (s) 8.9 8.9 8.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 318 272 289 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.00 c0.09 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.01 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 18.2 17.5 19.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.0 1.9 Delay (s) 18.6 17.5 21.1 Level of Service B B C Approach Delay (s) 18.3 21.1 Approach LOS B C Intersection Summary

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM 7: Benicia Rd. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 9 109 66 87 157 113 47 104 50 109 81 14 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1757 1770 1746 1770 1772 1770 1822 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1757 1770 1746 1770 1772 1770 1822 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.72 0.72 0.72 Adj. Flow (vph) 12 140 85 126 228 164 70 155 75 151 112 19 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 26 0 0 25 0 0 21 0 0 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 12 199 0 126 367 0 70 209 0 151 124 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 1.1 15.5 10.0 24.4 5.0 14.3 10.8 20.1 Effective Green, g (s) 1.1 15.5 10.0 24.4 5.0 14.3 10.8 20.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.23 0.15 0.37 0.08 0.21 0.16 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 29 409 266 640 133 380 287 550 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.11 c0.07 c0.21 0.04 c0.12 c0.09 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.41 0.49 0.47 0.57 0.53 0.55 0.53 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 32.4 22.1 25.9 16.9 29.7 23.3 25.6 17.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.3 0.9 1.3 1.2 3.7 1.6 1.7 0.2 Delay (s) 41.7 23.0 27.2 18.2 33.4 24.9 27.3 17.6 Level of Service D C C B C C C B Approach Delay (s) 24.0 20.4 26.9 22.8 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.6 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM 8: Cypress Ave. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SBL SBR NEL NET SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 4 46 29 241 252 12 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.60 0.60 0.78 0.78 0.81 0.81 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 77 37 309 311 15 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 172 1160 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 702 319 326 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 702 319 326 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 98 89 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 392 722 1234 Direction, Lane # SB 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 83 346 326 Volume Left 7 37 0 Volume Right 77 0 15 cSH 677 1234 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.03 0.19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 2 0 Control Delay (s) 11.1 1.1 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.1 1.1 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM 9: 5th St. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 29 22 7 7 23 18 9 72 3 14 74 27 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 38 29 9 10 34 27 11 86 4 16 87 32 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 571 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 289 247 103 268 261 88 119 89 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 289 247 103 268 261 88 119 89 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 94 96 99 98 95 97 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 610 644 952 645 632 971 1469 1506 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 76 72 100 135 Volume Left 38 10 11 16 Volume Right 9 27 4 32 cSH 651 730 1469 1506 Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.10 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 8 1 1 Control Delay (s) 11.3 10.5 0.9 1.0 Lane LOS B B A A Approach Delay (s) 11.3 10.5 0.9 1.0 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM 10: SR 29 & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 28 246 10 1 294 39 6 11 4 40 7 28 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 0.97 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.97 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3515 1770 3464 1780 1706 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.81 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3515 1770 3464 1589 1424 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.75 0.75 0.75 Adj. Flow (vph) 34 300 12 1 354 47 10 19 7 53 9 37 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 10 0 0 6 0 0 32 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 309 0 1 391 0 0 30 0 0 67 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 10 15 3 3 15 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1 2 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 19.2 0.6 19.0 5.3 5.3 Effective Green, g (s) 0.3 19.7 0.1 19.5 4.8 4.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.54 0.00 0.53 0.13 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 15 1892 5 1846 208 187 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.09 0.00 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.05 v/c Ratio 2.27 0.16 0.20 0.21 0.14 0.36 Uniform Delay, d1 18.2 4.3 18.2 4.5 14.1 14.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 736.2 0.1 7.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 Delay (s) 754.4 4.3 25.3 4.6 14.2 14.9 Level of Service F A C A B B Approach Delay (s) 78.0 4.6 14.2 14.9 Approach LOS E A B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 34.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.27 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 36.6 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 8 Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Existing Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM 1: Curtola Pkwy. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 43 642 24 248 569 108 69 129 315 114 81 13 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3515 1770 3429 1770 1646 1770 1863 1555 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3515 1770 3429 1770 1646 1770 1863 1555 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 46 690 26 267 612 116 73 136 332 130 92 15 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 18 0 0 115 0 0 0 10 Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 713 0 267 710 0 73 353 0 130 92 5 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 21 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 4 3 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.4 18.5 13.3 28.4 3.8 20.0 7.1 23.3 23.3 Effective Green, g (s) 3.4 20.5 13.3 30.4 3.8 20.9 7.1 24.2 24.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.26 0.17 0.39 0.05 0.27 0.09 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.4 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.1 2.0 3.7 3.7 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 77 926 303 1340 86 442 162 579 484 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.20 c0.15 0.21 0.04 c0.21 c0.07 c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.77 0.88 0.53 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.16 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 36.5 26.5 31.5 18.2 36.7 26.5 34.7 19.4 18.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.0 4.1 23.9 0.5 48.7 9.8 23.0 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 44.6 30.6 55.4 18.7 85.5 36.3 57.6 19.6 18.5 Level of Service D C E B F D E B B Approach Delay (s) 31.4 28.5 42.9 40.4 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.8 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM 2: Carlson St. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 156 0 15 3 1 28 10 318 7 19 160 171 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 168 0 16 4 1 42 11 335 7 20 170 182 Pedestrians 1 22 39 22 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 2 3 2 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 409 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 727 688 301 738 775 382 353 364 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 727 688 301 738 775 382 353 364 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 44 100 98 99 100 93 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 300 353 714 299 314 641 1205 1173 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 184 48 353 372 Volume Left 168 4 11 20 Volume Right 16 42 7 182 cSH 316 562 1205 1173 Volume to Capacity 0.58 0.08 0.01 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 86 7 1 1 Control Delay (s) 31.1 12.0 0.3 0.6 Lane LOS D B A A Approach Delay (s) 31.1 12.0 0.3 0.6 Approach LOS D B Intersection Summary Average Delay 6.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 4/12/2011

Movement EBL2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR WBR2 SBL SBR SBR2 NEL2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 4 70 628 2 26 583 41 60 23 4 4 5 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.85 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3538 1770 3499 1549 1715 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3538 1770 3499 1549 1715 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.76 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 83 748 2 27 614 43 63 38 7 7 7 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 88 750 0 27 657 0 63 45 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 4 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 1 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Free Perm Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 6 3 Permitted Phases Free 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.0 23.3 2.0 21.3 54.6 3.1 Effective Green, g (s) 4.0 23.3 2.5 21.3 54.6 3.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.43 0.05 0.39 1.00 0.06 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 130 1510 81 1365 1549 97 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.21 0.02 0.19 c0.03 v/s Ratio Perm c0.04 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.50 0.33 0.48 0.04 0.47 Uniform Delay, d1 24.7 11.4 25.2 12.5 0.0 25.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.1 0.4 2.4 0.4 0.0 3.5 Delay (s) 37.8 11.7 27.7 12.9 0.0 28.5 Level of Service D B C B A C Approach Delay (s) 14.5 12.3 28.5 Approach LOS B B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 15.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 54.6 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 4/12/2011

Movement NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 1 105 102 35 78 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1858 1562 1775 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.89 Satd. Flow (perm) 1833 1562 1596 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 138 134 42 93 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 110 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 146 24 0 177 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 2 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.7 9.7 9.7 Effective Green, g (s) 9.7 9.7 9.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 326 277 284 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.02 c0.11 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.09 0.62 Uniform Delay, d1 20.1 18.7 20.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.1 4.2 Delay (s) 21.0 18.9 25.0 Level of Service C B C Approach Delay (s) 20.0 25.0 Approach LOS C C Intersection Summary

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM 7: Benicia Rd. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 16 145 72 73 142 65 60 145 99 109 86 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1770 1770 1775 1770 1750 1770 1804 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1770 1770 1775 1770 1750 1770 1804 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.76 0.76 0.76 Adj. Flow (vph) 17 158 78 87 169 77 68 165 112 143 113 30 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 21 0 0 17 0 0 29 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 215 0 87 229 0 68 248 0 143 133 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 1.2 15.7 8.6 23.1 4.9 15.2 10.5 20.8 Effective Green, g (s) 1.2 15.7 8.6 23.1 4.9 15.2 10.5 20.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.24 0.13 0.35 0.07 0.23 0.16 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 32 421 231 621 131 403 282 569 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.12 c0.05 0.13 0.04 c0.14 c0.08 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.53 0.51 0.38 0.37 0.52 0.61 0.51 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 32.1 21.8 26.2 16.0 29.4 22.8 25.4 16.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 15.9 1.0 1.0 0.4 3.4 2.8 1.4 0.2 Delay (s) 48.0 22.8 27.3 16.4 32.9 25.6 26.8 16.9 Level of Service D C C B C C C B Approach Delay (s) 24.5 19.2 27.0 21.9 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM 8: Cypress Ave. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SBL SBR NEL NET SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 9 56 54 319 222 12 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.78 0.78 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 69 58 343 285 15 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 172 1160 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 751 292 300 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 751 292 300 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 91 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 361 747 1261 Direction, Lane # SB 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 80 401 300 Volume Left 11 58 0 Volume Right 69 0 15 cSH 651 1261 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.05 0.18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 4 0 Control Delay (s) 11.3 1.6 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.3 1.6 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM 9: 5th St. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 33 41 27 4 35 26 13 176 6 20 112 28 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.82 0.82 0.82 Hourly flow rate (vph) 35 44 29 7 62 46 14 187 6 24 137 34 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 571 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 498 424 154 471 438 190 171 194 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 498 424 154 471 438 190 171 194 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 91 91 97 98 87 95 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 404 508 892 445 499 851 1406 1380 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 107 116 207 195 Volume Left 35 7 14 24 Volume Right 29 46 6 34 cSH 524 592 1406 1380 Volume to Capacity 0.21 0.20 0.01 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 19 18 1 1 Control Delay (s) 13.6 12.6 0.6 1.1 Lane LOS B B A A Approach Delay (s) 13.6 12.6 0.6 1.1 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM 10: SR 29 & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 57 352 19 4 388 102 12 15 8 49 18 57 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3506 1770 3406 1764 1694 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.90 0.85 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3506 1770 3406 1616 1465 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.79 0.79 0.79 Adj. Flow (vph) 63 387 21 4 422 111 18 22 12 62 23 72 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 25 0 0 10 0 0 46 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 63 404 0 4 508 0 0 42 0 0 111 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 10 15 3 3 15 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1 2 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 2.3 19.7 0.6 18.0 7.4 7.4 Effective Green, g (s) 1.8 20.2 0.1 18.5 6.9 6.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.52 0.00 0.47 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 81 1807 5 1607 284 258 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.12 0.00 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.08 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.22 0.80 0.32 0.15 0.43 Uniform Delay, d1 18.5 5.2 19.5 6.4 13.7 14.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 33.7 0.1 246.5 0.2 0.1 0.4 Delay (s) 52.2 5.3 266.0 6.6 13.8 14.8 Level of Service D A F A B B Approach Delay (s) 11.6 8.5 13.8 14.8 Approach LOS B A B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 10.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.37 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 39.2 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 8

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Near-Term 2015 Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 AM 1: Curtola Pkwy. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 21 389 53 279 423 68 27 91 296 210 143 48 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3456 1770 3437 1770 1631 1770 1863 1556 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3456 1770 3437 1770 1631 1770 1863 1556 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 24 442 60 291 441 71 29 99 322 250 170 57 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 15 0 0 147 0 0 0 37 Lane Group Flow (vph) 24 489 0 291 497 0 29 274 0 250 170 20 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 32 1 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 1 2 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.9 17.6 13.9 29.6 1.9 17.8 12.0 27.9 27.9 Effective Green, g (s) 1.9 19.6 13.9 31.6 1.9 18.7 12.0 28.8 28.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.24 0.17 0.39 0.02 0.23 0.15 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.4 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.1 2.0 3.7 3.7 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 42 845 307 1354 42 380 265 669 559 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.14 c0.16 0.14 0.02 c0.17 c0.14 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.58 0.95 0.37 0.69 0.72 0.94 0.25 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 38.7 26.7 32.8 17.2 38.9 28.3 33.8 18.1 16.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.1 1.0 36.9 0.2 32.7 6.6 39.6 0.3 0.0 Delay (s) 49.9 27.7 69.7 17.4 71.5 35.0 73.3 18.4 16.7 Level of Service D C E B E C E B B Approach Delay (s) 28.7 36.4 37.3 47.0 Approach LOS C D D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 37.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.2 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 AM 2: Carlson St. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 175 1 12 1 3 6 10 228 3 7 111 358 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 194 1 13 2 5 10 12 275 4 7 113 365 Pedestrians 1 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 396 pX, platoon unblocked 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 vC, conflicting volume 624 616 297 627 796 279 480 280 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 588 579 248 591 768 279 438 280 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 50 100 98 100 98 99 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 388 401 759 388 313 759 1077 1280 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 209 16 290 486 Volume Left 194 2 12 7 Volume Right 13 10 4 365 cSH 401 498 1077 1280 Volume to Capacity 0.52 0.03 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 73 3 1 0 Control Delay (s) 23.4 12.5 0.5 0.2 Lane LOS C B A A Approach Delay (s) 23.4 12.5 0.5 0.2 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 AM 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 4/12/2011

Movement EBL2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR WBR2 SBL2 SBL SBR SBR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 1 25 446 1 72 650 19 51 7 42 3 6 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3538 1770 3522 1549 1740 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3538 1770 3522 1549 1740 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 29 519 1 79 714 21 56 8 51 4 7 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 30 520 0 79 735 0 56 0 64 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 4 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 1 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Free Split Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green, G (s) 1.9 20.9 3.7 22.7 54.2 3.1 Effective Green, g (s) 1.9 20.9 4.2 22.7 54.2 3.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.39 0.08 0.42 1.00 0.06 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 62 1364 137 1475 1549 100 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.15 c0.04 c0.21 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm c0.04 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.38 0.58 0.50 0.04 0.64 Uniform Delay, d1 25.7 12.0 24.1 11.6 0.0 25.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.8 0.2 5.8 0.4 0.0 13.3 Delay (s) 31.5 12.2 29.9 11.9 0.0 38.3 Level of Service C B C B A D Approach Delay (s) 13.3 12.8 38.3 Approach LOS B B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 15.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 54.2 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 AM 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 4/12/2011

Movement NEL2 NET NER SWL SWT SWR SWR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 4 72 22 28 84 37 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1858 1562 1768 Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.92 Satd. Flow (perm) 1837 1562 1647 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 96 29 37 111 49 1 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 101 5 0 198 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 2 2 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 339 288 304 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.00 c0.12 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.02 0.65 Uniform Delay, d1 19.1 18.1 20.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 4.9 Delay (s) 19.6 18.1 25.4 Level of Service B B C Approach Delay (s) 19.2 25.4 Approach LOS B C Intersection Summary

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 AM 7: Benicia Rd. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 10 116 70 93 167 121 53 117 56 180 133 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1758 1770 1745 1770 1772 1770 1822 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1758 1770 1745 1770 1772 1770 1822 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.72 0.72 0.72 Adj. Flow (vph) 13 149 90 135 242 175 79 175 84 250 185 32 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 26 0 0 26 0 0 22 0 0 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 13 213 0 135 391 0 79 237 0 250 210 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 1.2 16.0 10.6 25.4 7.0 14.4 13.7 21.1 Effective Green, g (s) 1.2 16.0 10.6 25.4 7.0 14.4 13.7 21.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.23 0.15 0.36 0.10 0.20 0.19 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 30 398 265 627 175 361 343 544 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.12 c0.08 c0.22 0.04 c0.13 c0.14 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.43 0.53 0.51 0.62 0.45 0.66 0.73 0.39 Uniform Delay, d1 34.4 24.1 27.7 18.7 30.0 25.9 26.8 19.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.7 1.4 1.5 1.9 1.8 4.3 7.5 0.5 Delay (s) 44.1 25.5 29.2 20.6 31.9 30.2 34.3 20.1 Level of Service D C C C C C C C Approach Delay (s) 26.4 22.7 30.6 27.7 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.7 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 AM 8: Cypress Ave. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SBL SBR NEL NET SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 4 49 31 257 342 16 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.60 0.60 0.78 0.78 0.81 0.81 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 82 40 329 422 20 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 172 1160 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 841 432 442 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 841 432 442 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 98 87 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 323 623 1118 Direction, Lane # SB 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 88 369 442 Volume Left 7 40 0 Volume Right 82 0 20 cSH 583 1118 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.04 0.26 Queue Length 95th (ft) 13 3 0 Control Delay (s) 12.3 1.2 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 12.3 1.2 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 AM 9: 5th St. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 40 30 10 12 38 30 11 87 4 15 79 29 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 53 39 13 18 57 45 13 104 5 18 93 34 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 571 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 351 280 110 310 294 106 127 108 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 351 280 110 310 294 106 127 108 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 90 94 99 97 91 95 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 526 615 943 593 604 948 1459 1482 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 105 119 121 145 Volume Left 53 18 13 18 Volume Right 13 45 5 34 cSH 591 697 1459 1482 Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.17 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 15 1 1 Control Delay (s) 12.4 11.2 0.9 1.0 Lane LOS B B A A Approach Delay (s) 12.4 11.2 0.9 1.0 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 AM 10: SR 29 & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 38 336 14 2 472 63 6 11 4 48 8 33 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 0.97 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.97 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3513 1770 3463 1780 1706 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.90 0.81 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3513 1770 3463 1619 1423 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.75 0.75 0.75 Adj. Flow (vph) 46 410 17 2 569 76 10 19 7 64 11 44 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 11 0 0 6 0 0 32 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 424 0 2 634 0 0 30 0 0 87 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 10 15 3 3 15 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1 2 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 2.2 23.4 0.7 21.9 6.9 6.9 Effective Green, g (s) 1.7 23.9 0.2 22.4 6.4 6.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.56 0.00 0.53 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 71 1976 8 1825 244 214 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.12 0.00 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.06 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.21 0.25 0.35 0.12 0.41 Uniform Delay, d1 20.1 4.6 21.1 5.8 15.6 16.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.2 0.1 5.9 0.2 0.1 0.5 Delay (s) 34.3 4.7 27.0 6.0 15.7 16.8 Level of Service C A C A B B Approach Delay (s) 7.6 6.0 15.7 16.8 Approach LOS A A B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 7.9 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 42.5 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 8 Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Near-Term 2015 Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 PM 1: Curtola Pkwy. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 52 662 25 268 571 130 87 162 395 129 91 15 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3515 1770 3410 1770 1650 1770 1863 1555 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3515 1770 3410 1770 1650 1770 1863 1555 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 56 712 27 288 614 140 92 171 416 147 103 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 23 0 0 109 0 0 0 13 Lane Group Flow (vph) 56 736 0 288 731 0 92 478 0 147 103 4 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 21 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 1 2 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.6 18.4 14.0 28.8 11.0 24.2 7.0 20.2 20.2 Effective Green, g (s) 3.6 20.4 14.0 30.8 11.0 25.1 7.0 21.1 21.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.25 0.17 0.37 0.13 0.30 0.08 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.4 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.1 2.0 3.7 3.7 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 77 869 300 1273 236 502 150 476 398 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.21 c0.16 0.21 0.05 c0.29 c0.08 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.85 0.96 0.57 0.39 0.95 0.98 0.22 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 39.0 29.6 34.0 20.6 32.7 28.1 37.7 24.2 22.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 24.9 7.8 40.4 0.8 0.4 28.3 66.4 0.3 0.0 Delay (s) 63.8 37.4 74.4 21.4 33.1 56.4 104.1 24.5 22.9 Level of Service E D E C C E F C C Approach Delay (s) 39.2 36.0 53.2 68.2 Approach LOS D D D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 44.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 82.5 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 PM 2: Carlson St. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 247 0 23 3 1 28 15 359 8 20 166 202 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 266 0 25 4 1 42 16 378 8 21 177 215 Pedestrians 1 22 39 22 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 2 3 2 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 400 pX, platoon unblocked 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 vC, conflicting volume 806 767 324 826 871 426 392 408 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 795 756 306 816 861 426 376 408 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 0 100 96 98 99 93 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 263 315 699 257 274 605 1164 1129 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 290 48 402 413 Volume Left 266 4 16 21 Volume Right 25 42 8 215 cSH 278 520 1164 1129 Volume to Capacity 1.05 0.09 0.01 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 281 8 1 1 Control Delay (s) 107.0 12.6 0.5 0.6 Lane LOS F B A A Approach Delay (s) 107.0 12.6 0.5 0.6 Approach LOS F B Intersection Summary Average Delay 27.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 PM 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 4/12/2011

Movement EBL2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR WBR2 SBL SBR SBR2 NEL2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 4 70 628 2 26 587 41 60 31 5 5 6 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.85 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3538 1770 3499 1549 1722 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3538 1770 3499 1549 1722 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.76 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 83 748 2 27 618 43 63 52 8 8 8 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 88 750 0 27 661 0 63 61 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 4 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 1 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Free Perm Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 6 3 Permitted Phases Free 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.1 24.1 2.2 20.2 62.0 3.4 Effective Green, g (s) 6.1 24.1 2.7 20.2 62.0 3.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.39 0.04 0.33 1.00 0.05 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 174 1375 77 1140 1549 94 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.21 0.02 0.19 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.55 0.35 0.58 0.04 0.65 Uniform Delay, d1 26.5 14.7 28.8 17.4 0.0 28.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 0.6 2.8 0.9 0.0 15.1 Delay (s) 28.8 15.3 31.5 18.2 0.0 43.8 Level of Service C B C B A D Approach Delay (s) 16.7 17.2 43.8 Approach LOS B B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 62.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 PM 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 4/12/2011

Movement NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 1 119 115 51 114 51 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1858 1563 1776 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.89 Satd. Flow (perm) 1825 1563 1598 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 157 151 61 136 61 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 113 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 166 38 0 258 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 2 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.8 15.8 15.8 Effective Green, g (s) 15.8 15.8 15.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 465 398 407 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.02 c0.16 v/c Ratio 0.36 0.10 0.63 Uniform Delay, d1 18.9 17.6 20.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 3.2 Delay (s) 19.4 17.8 23.7 Level of Service B B C Approach Delay (s) 18.6 23.7 Approach LOS B C Intersection Summary

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 PM 7: Benicia Rd. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 30 171 84 87 168 77 82 197 99 109 98 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1771 1770 1775 1770 1770 1770 1804 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1771 1770 1775 1770 1770 1770 1804 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.76 0.76 0.76 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 186 91 104 200 92 93 224 112 143 129 34 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 21 0 0 17 0 0 21 0 0 11 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 256 0 104 275 0 93 315 0 143 152 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 2.9 16.3 9.3 22.7 7.4 16.4 10.7 19.7 Effective Green, g (s) 2.9 16.3 9.3 22.7 7.4 16.4 10.7 19.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.24 0.14 0.33 0.11 0.24 0.16 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 75 420 240 586 191 423 276 517 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.14 c0.06 0.15 0.05 c0.18 c0.08 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.44 0.61 0.43 0.47 0.49 0.74 0.52 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 32.1 23.4 27.3 18.2 28.9 24.2 26.6 19.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.1 2.5 1.3 0.6 2.0 6.9 1.6 0.3 Delay (s) 36.2 25.9 28.5 18.8 30.8 31.2 28.3 19.4 Level of Service D C C B C C C B Approach Delay (s) 27.0 21.4 31.1 23.6 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 25.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.7 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 PM 8: Cypress Ave. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SBL SBR NEL NET SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 10 59 62 363 243 13 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.78 0.78 Hourly flow rate (vph) 12 73 67 390 312 17 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 172 1160 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 844 320 328 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 844 320 328 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 96 90 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 316 721 1231 Direction, Lane # SB 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 85 457 328 Volume Left 12 67 0 Volume Right 73 0 17 cSH 608 1231 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.05 0.19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 12 4 0 Control Delay (s) 11.9 1.7 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.9 1.7 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 PM 9: 5th St. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 41 51 33 6 55 41 15 202 7 22 123 31 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.82 0.82 0.82 Hourly flow rate (vph) 44 54 35 11 98 73 16 215 7 27 150 38 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 571 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 595 477 169 535 492 219 188 222 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 595 477 169 535 492 219 188 222 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 86 89 96 97 79 91 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 310 472 875 390 463 821 1386 1347 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 133 182 238 215 Volume Left 44 11 16 27 Volume Right 35 73 7 38 cSH 449 554 1386 1347 Volume to Capacity 0.30 0.33 0.01 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 31 36 1 2 Control Delay (s) 16.3 14.7 0.6 1.1 Lane LOS C B A A Approach Delay (s) 16.3 14.7 0.6 1.1 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 6.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 PM 10: SR 29 & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 87 534 29 4 395 104 12 15 8 54 20 63 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3506 1770 3405 1763 1692 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.85 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3506 1770 3405 1633 1464 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.79 0.79 0.79 Adj. Flow (vph) 96 587 32 4 429 113 18 22 12 68 25 80 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 25 0 0 10 0 0 47 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 96 615 0 4 517 0 0 42 0 0 126 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 10 15 3 3 15 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1 2 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.2 22.7 0.7 19.2 7.7 7.7 Effective Green, g (s) 3.7 23.2 0.2 19.7 7.2 7.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.54 0.00 0.46 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 154 1909 8 1575 276 247 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.18 0.00 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.09 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.32 0.50 0.33 0.15 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 18.8 5.4 21.2 7.3 15.1 16.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.5 0.1 16.8 0.2 0.1 0.7 Delay (s) 24.3 5.5 37.9 7.4 15.2 16.8 Level of Service C A D A B B Approach Delay (s) 8.0 7.6 15.2 16.8 Approach LOS A A B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 9.2 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 42.6 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 8

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Near-Term 2015 plus Phase 1 Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I AM 1: Curtola Pkwy. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 21 389 23 62 657 51 46 85 296 210 51 144 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3501 1770 3483 1770 1627 1770 1863 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3501 1770 3483 1770 1627 1770 1863 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 24 442 26 65 684 53 50 92 322 250 61 171 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 8 0 0 185 0 0 0 106 Lane Group Flow (vph) 24 462 0 65 729 0 50 229 0 250 61 65 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 32 1 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 1 2 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.7 16.0 2.6 16.9 2.6 14.1 11.6 23.1 23.1 Effective Green, g (s) 1.7 18.0 2.6 18.9 2.6 15.0 11.6 24.0 24.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.28 0.04 0.30 0.04 0.24 0.18 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.4 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.1 2.0 3.7 3.7 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 48 997 73 1042 73 386 325 707 592 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.13 c0.04 c0.21 0.03 c0.14 c0.14 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.46 0.89 0.70 0.68 0.59 0.77 0.09 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 30.3 18.6 30.2 19.6 29.9 21.4 24.5 12.6 12.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 0.4 67.7 2.2 19.1 2.5 9.5 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 33.3 19.0 97.9 21.9 49.0 23.9 34.0 12.6 12.8 Level of Service C B F C D C C B B Approach Delay (s) 19.7 28.0 26.6 23.8 Approach LOS B C C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 25.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 63.2 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I AM 2: Carlson St. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 175 1 12 1 0 9 1 240 2 4 89 18 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 194 1 13 2 0 15 1 289 2 4 91 18 Pedestrians 1 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 419 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 416 405 101 417 413 292 110 294 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 416 405 101 417 413 292 110 294 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 64 100 99 100 100 98 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 533 531 954 534 526 746 1479 1266 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 209 16 293 113 Volume Left 194 2 1 4 Volume Right 13 15 2 18 cSH 548 717 1479 1266 Volume to Capacity 0.38 0.02 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 44 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 15.5 10.1 0.0 0.3 Lane LOS C B A A Approach Delay (s) 15.5 10.1 0.0 0.3 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I AM 3: Curtola Pkwy. & Carlson St. 5/25/2011

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 433 44 344 504 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 471 48 374 548 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 518 1516 259 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 495 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1022 vCu, unblocked vol 518 1516 259 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 64 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1044 187 740 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 Volume Total 314 205 374 274 274 0 Volume Left 0 0 374 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 48 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1044 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.12 0.36 0.16 0.16 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 41 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 4.2 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I AM 4: Curtola Pkwy. & Bus Entrance 5/25/2011

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 433 0 9 839 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 471 0 10 912 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 701 pX, platoon unblocked 0.85 vC, conflicting volume 471 946 235 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 471 581 235 tC, single (s) 6.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 623 371 766 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 Volume Total 235 235 10 456 456 Volume Left 0 0 10 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 623 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.14 0.02 0.27 0.27 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I AM 5: Curtola Pkwy. & Bus Exit 5/25/2011

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 433 0 0 839 9 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 471 0 0 912 10 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL None Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) 1081 pX, platoon unblocked 0.86 vC, conflicting volume 471 927 235 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 471 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 456 vCu, unblocked vol 471 593 235 tC, single (s) 4.1 8.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 7.8 tF (s) 2.2 4.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 97 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1087 361 766 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 Volume Total 235 235 456 456 10 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 10 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 361 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.14 0.27 0.27 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.3 Lane LOS C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 15.3 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I AM 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 5/25/2011

Movement EBL2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR WBR2 SBL2 SBL SBR SBR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 1 25 446 1 72 650 19 57 7 42 3 6 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3538 1770 3522 1549 1740 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3538 1770 3522 1549 1740 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 29 519 1 79 714 21 63 8 51 4 7 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 30 520 0 79 735 0 63 0 64 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 4 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 1 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Free Split Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green, G (s) 1.9 21.2 3.7 23.0 55.0 3.1 Effective Green, g (s) 1.9 21.2 4.2 23.0 55.0 3.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.39 0.08 0.42 1.00 0.06 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 61 1364 135 1473 1549 98 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.15 c0.04 c0.21 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm c0.04 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.38 0.59 0.50 0.04 0.66 Uniform Delay, d1 26.1 12.2 24.6 11.8 0.0 25.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.1 0.2 6.3 0.4 0.0 14.7 Delay (s) 32.2 12.4 30.9 12.1 0.0 40.2 Level of Service C B C B A D Approach Delay (s) 13.5 13.0 40.2 Approach LOS B B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 55.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I AM 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 5/25/2011

Movement NEL2 NET NER SWL SWT SWR SWR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 4 72 22 41 84 37 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1858 1562 1768 Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.89 Satd. Flow (perm) 1838 1562 1598 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 96 29 54 111 49 1 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 101 6 0 215 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 2 2 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.5 10.5 10.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.5 10.5 10.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 351 298 305 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.00 c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.02 0.70 Uniform Delay, d1 19.0 18.1 20.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 7.2 Delay (s) 19.5 18.1 28.0 Level of Service B B C Approach Delay (s) 19.2 28.0 Approach LOS B C Intersection Summary

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I AM 7: Benicia Rd. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I AM 8: Cypress Ave. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement SBL SBR NEL NET SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 4 42 16 249 354 14 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.60 0.60 0.78 0.78 0.81 0.81 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 70 21 319 437 17 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 172 1160 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 806 446 454 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 806 446 454 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 98 89 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 345 613 1106 Direction, Lane # SB 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 77 340 454 Volume Left 7 21 0 Volume Right 70 0 17 cSH 574 1106 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.02 0.27 Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 1 0 Control Delay (s) 12.2 0.7 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 12.2 0.7 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I AM 9: 5th St. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I AM 10: SR 29 & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 11

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Near-Term 2015 plus Phase 1 Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I PM 1: Curtola Pkwy. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 75 720 10 141 698 130 108 147 355 112 31 68 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3530 1770 3429 1770 1650 1770 1863 1556 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3530 1770 3429 1770 1650 1770 1863 1556 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 81 774 11 152 751 140 114 155 374 127 35 77 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 18 0 0 112 0 0 0 57 Lane Group Flow (vph) 81 784 0 152 873 0 114 417 0 127 35 20 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 21 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 1 2 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.8 20.7 8.0 24.9 10.7 22.8 7.0 19.1 19.1 Effective Green, g (s) 3.8 22.7 8.0 26.9 10.7 23.7 7.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.29 0.10 0.35 0.14 0.31 0.09 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.4 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.1 2.0 3.7 3.7 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 87 1035 183 1192 245 505 160 481 402 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.22 c0.09 c0.25 0.06 c0.25 c0.07 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.76 0.83 0.73 0.47 0.83 0.79 0.07 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 36.7 24.8 34.0 22.1 30.7 24.9 34.5 21.7 21.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 72.9 3.3 25.2 2.5 0.5 10.7 21.7 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 109.6 28.1 59.2 24.6 31.2 35.6 56.2 21.8 21.6 Level of Service F C E C C D E C C Approach Delay (s) 35.8 29.7 34.8 40.0 Approach LOS D C C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I PM 2: Carlson St. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 239 0 24 2 0 26 0 351 8 20 168 5 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 257 0 26 3 0 39 0 369 8 21 179 5 Pedestrians 1 22 39 22 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 2 3 2 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 391 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 659 625 221 684 623 418 185 400 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 659 625 221 684 623 418 185 400 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 24 100 97 99 100 94 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 336 386 791 324 387 612 1388 1137 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 283 42 378 205 Volume Left 257 3 0 21 Volume Right 26 39 8 5 cSH 355 575 1388 1137 Volume to Capacity 0.80 0.07 0.00 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 168 6 0 1 Control Delay (s) 45.1 11.7 0.0 1.0 Lane LOS E B A Approach Delay (s) 45.1 11.7 0.0 1.0 Approach LOS E B Intersection Summary Average Delay 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I PM 3: Curtola Pkwy. & Carlson St. 5/25/2011

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 724 22 191 683 0 81 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 787 24 208 742 0 88 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 811 1585 405 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 799 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 786 vCu, unblocked vol 811 1585 405 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 74 100 85 cM capacity (veh/h) 811 247 595 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 Volume Total 525 286 208 371 371 88 Volume Left 0 0 208 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 24 0 0 0 88 cSH 1700 1700 811 1700 1700 595 Volume to Capacity 0.31 0.17 0.26 0.22 0.22 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 25 0 0 13 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 12.1 Lane LOS B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.4 12.1 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I PM 4: Curtola Pkwy. & Bus Entrance 5/25/2011

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 805 0 14 860 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 875 0 15 935 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 760 pX, platoon unblocked 0.82 vC, conflicting volume 875 1373 438 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 875 1025 438 tC, single (s) 6.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 96 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 370 183 567 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 Volume Total 438 438 15 467 467 Volume Left 0 0 15 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 370 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.26 0.26 0.04 0.27 0.27 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 3 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 15.1 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I PM 5: Curtola Pkwy. & Bus Exit 5/25/2011

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 805 0 0 860 14 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 875 0 0 935 15 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL None Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) 1114 pX, platoon unblocked 0.83 vC, conflicting volume 875 1342 438 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 875 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 467 vCu, unblocked vol 875 1009 438 tC, single (s) 4.1 8.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 7.8 tF (s) 2.2 4.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 92 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 767 192 567 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 Volume Total 438 438 467 467 15 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 15 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 192 Volume to Capacity 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 6 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.4 Lane LOS D Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 25.4 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I PM 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 5/25/2011

Movement EBL2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR WBR2 SBL SBR SBR2 NEL2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 4 70 628 2 26 587 41 70 31 5 5 6 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.85 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3538 1770 3499 1549 1722 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3538 1770 3499 1549 1722 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.76 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 83 748 2 27 618 43 74 52 8 8 8 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 88 750 0 27 661 0 74 61 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 4 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 1 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Free Perm Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 6 3 Permitted Phases Free 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.1 24.2 2.2 20.3 62.4 3.4 Effective Green, g (s) 6.1 24.2 2.7 20.3 62.4 3.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.39 0.04 0.33 1.00 0.05 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 173 1372 77 1138 1549 94 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.21 0.02 0.19 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.55 0.35 0.58 0.05 0.65 Uniform Delay, d1 26.7 14.8 29.0 17.5 0.0 28.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 0.6 2.8 0.9 0.1 15.1 Delay (s) 29.1 15.4 31.7 18.4 0.1 44.0 Level of Service C B C B A D Approach Delay (s) 16.8 17.1 44.0 Approach LOS B B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 62.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I PM 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 5/25/2011

Movement NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 1 119 115 58 114 51 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1858 1563 1776 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.88 Satd. Flow (perm) 1825 1563 1577 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 157 151 69 136 61 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 112 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 166 39 0 266 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 2 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.1 16.1 16.1 Effective Green, g (s) 16.1 16.1 16.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 471 403 407 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.02 c0.17 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.10 0.65 Uniform Delay, d1 18.9 17.6 20.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 3.7 Delay (s) 19.4 17.7 24.4 Level of Service B B C Approach Delay (s) 18.6 24.4 Approach LOS B C Intersection Summary

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I PM 7: Benicia Rd. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I PM 8: Cypress Ave. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement SBL SBR NEL NET SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 8 43 58 375 235 13 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.78 0.78 Hourly flow rate (vph) 10 53 62 403 301 17 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 172 1160 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 838 310 318 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 838 310 318 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 93 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 320 730 1242 Direction, Lane # SB 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 63 466 318 Volume Left 10 62 0 Volume Right 53 0 17 cSH 608 1242 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.05 0.19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 4 0 Control Delay (s) 11.6 1.5 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.6 1.5 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I PM 9: 5th St. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I PM 10: SR 29 & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 87 534 29 4 395 104 12 15 8 54 20 63 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3506 1770 3405 1763 1692 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.85 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3506 1770 3405 1632 1464 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.79 0.79 0.79 Adj. Flow (vph) 96 587 32 4 429 113 18 22 12 68 25 80 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 27 0 0 10 0 0 46 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 96 615 0 4 515 0 0 42 0 0 127 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 10 15 3 3 15 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1 2 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.2 22.7 0.7 19.2 7.6 7.6 Effective Green, g (s) 3.7 23.2 0.2 19.7 7.1 7.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.55 0.00 0.46 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 154 1914 8 1578 273 245 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.18 0.00 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.09 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.32 0.50 0.33 0.15 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 18.7 5.3 21.1 7.2 15.1 16.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.5 0.1 16.8 0.2 0.1 0.8 Delay (s) 24.3 5.4 37.9 7.4 15.2 16.9 Level of Service C A D A B B Approach Delay (s) 8.0 7.6 15.2 16.9 Approach LOS A A B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 9.1 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 42.5 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 11

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Near-Term 2015 plus Phase 1 Conditions (Mitigated) Weekday AM Peak Hour

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I AM (Mitigated) 2: Carlson St. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 175 1 12 1 0 9 1 240 2 4 89 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 0.88 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.96 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1765 1631 1860 1813 Flt Permitted 0.73 0.97 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm) 1345 1600 1860 1797 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 194 1 13 2 0 15 1 289 2 4 91 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 202 0 0 8 0 0 291 0 0 102 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 538 640 744 719 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.01 0.16 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.01 0.39 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 8.5 7.2 8.5 7.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 0.0 1.5 0.4 Delay (s) 10.5 7.3 10.1 8.0 Level of Service B A B A Approach Delay (s) 10.5 7.3 10.1 8.0 Approach LOS B A B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 9.8 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 40.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 1

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Near-Term 2015 plus Phase 1 Conditions (Mitigated) Weekday PM Peak Hour

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near-Term 2015 plus Phase I PM (Mitigated) 2: Carlson St. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 239 0 24 2 0 26 0 351 8 20 168 5 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 0.96 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 0.87 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1708 1549 1856 1843 Flt Permitted 0.72 0.98 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1277 1524 1856 1757 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 257 0 26 3 0 39 0 369 8 21 179 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 23 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 274 0 0 19 0 0 375 0 0 203 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 22 39 39 22 1 22 22 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 511 610 742 703 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm c0.21 0.01 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.03 0.51 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 9.2 7.3 9.0 8.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.0 0.1 2.5 1.0 Delay (s) 13.2 7.4 11.5 9.2 Level of Service B A B A Approach Delay (s) 13.2 7.4 11.5 9.2 Approach LOS B A B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 40.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 1

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Cumulative 2035 Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 AM 1: Curtola Pkwy. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 26 476 65 363 549 89 35 119 387 424 289 97 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3451 1770 3433 1770 1631 1770 1863 1554 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3451 1770 3433 1770 1631 1770 1863 1554 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 30 541 74 378 572 93 38 129 421 505 344 115 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 11 0 0 106 0 0 0 46 Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 605 0 378 654 0 38 444 0 505 344 69 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 32 1 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 1 2 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.6 18.6 21.0 36.0 3.6 26.7 28.0 51.1 51.1 Effective Green, g (s) 3.6 20.6 21.0 38.0 3.6 27.6 28.0 52.0 52.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.18 0.19 0.34 0.03 0.24 0.25 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.4 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.1 2.0 3.7 3.7 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 56 628 328 1152 56 398 438 856 714 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.18 c0.21 0.19 0.02 c0.27 c0.29 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.96 1.15 0.57 0.68 1.12 1.15 0.40 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 54.0 45.9 46.1 30.9 54.2 42.8 42.6 20.3 17.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.9 27.0 97.7 0.8 22.6 80.4 92.0 0.4 0.1 Delay (s) 58.8 72.9 143.8 31.6 76.9 123.2 134.6 20.7 17.4 Level of Service E E F C E F F C B Approach Delay (s) 72.3 72.3 120.2 80.0 Approach LOS E E F E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 83.3 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.10 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 113.2 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.5% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 AM 2: Carlson St. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 214 1 14 1 3 6 14 326 5 10 161 520 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 238 1 16 2 5 10 17 393 6 10 164 531 Pedestrians 1 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 398 pX, platoon unblocked 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 vC, conflicting volume 893 886 431 898 1148 398 696 401 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 815 807 295 821 1103 398 594 401 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 4 100 98 99 97 99 98 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 247 271 660 247 182 651 871 1156 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 254 16 416 705 Volume Left 238 2 17 10 Volume Right 16 10 6 531 cSH 257 336 871 1156 Volume to Capacity 0.99 0.05 0.02 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 240 4 1 1 Control Delay (s) 95.5 16.3 0.6 0.2 Lane LOS F C A A Approach Delay (s) 95.5 16.3 0.6 0.2 Approach LOS F C Intersection Summary Average Delay 17.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 AM 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 4/12/2011

Movement EBL2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR WBR2 SBL2 SBL SBR SBR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 1 29 520 1 88 794 23 62 16 94 6 13 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3538 1770 3522 1549 1744 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3538 1770 3522 1549 1744 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 34 605 1 97 873 25 68 19 113 7 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 35 606 0 97 898 0 68 0 150 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 4 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 1 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Free Split Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green, G (s) 2.5 21.5 5.3 24.3 68.9 7.2 Effective Green, g (s) 2.5 21.5 5.8 24.3 68.9 7.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.31 0.08 0.35 1.00 0.10 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 64 1104 149 1242 1549 182 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.17 c0.05 c0.25 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.65 0.72 0.04 0.82 Uniform Delay, d1 32.6 19.7 30.6 19.4 0.0 30.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.2 0.7 9.8 2.3 0.1 24.8 Delay (s) 41.9 20.4 40.3 21.6 0.1 55.1 Level of Service D C D C A E Approach Delay (s) 21.6 22.0 55.1 Approach LOS C C E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.9 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 AM 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 4/12/2011

Movement NEL2 NET NER SWL SWT SWR SWR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 8 147 45 51 154 68 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1858 1563 1768 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.90 Satd. Flow (perm) 1826 1563 1608 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 196 60 67 203 89 3 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 207 16 0 362 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 2 2 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.4 18.4 18.4 Effective Green, g (s) 18.4 18.4 18.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 488 417 429 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.01 c0.23 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.04 0.84 Uniform Delay, d1 20.9 18.7 23.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.0 14.1 Delay (s) 21.5 18.7 37.9 Level of Service C B D Approach Delay (s) 20.9 37.9 Approach LOS C D Intersection Summary

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 AM 7: Benicia Rd. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 12 145 88 116 209 151 75 167 80 462 343 59 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1757 1770 1746 1770 1772 1770 1822 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1757 1770 1746 1770 1772 1770 1822 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.72 0.72 0.72 Adj. Flow (vph) 15 186 113 168 303 219 112 249 119 642 476 82 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 16 0 0 11 0 0 4 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 283 0 168 506 0 112 357 0 642 554 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 3.1 31.2 16.5 44.6 13.2 27.1 50.1 64.0 Effective Green, g (s) 3.1 31.2 16.5 44.6 13.2 27.1 50.1 64.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.22 0.12 0.32 0.09 0.19 0.36 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 39 389 207 553 166 341 629 828 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.16 c0.09 c0.29 0.06 c0.20 c0.36 0.30 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.38 0.73 0.81 0.91 0.67 1.05 1.02 0.67 Uniform Delay, d1 68.0 50.9 60.7 46.3 61.8 56.9 45.4 30.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.2 6.7 20.9 19.7 10.3 61.3 41.2 2.1 Delay (s) 74.2 57.6 81.6 66.0 72.1 118.2 86.6 32.2 Level of Service E E F E E F F C Approach Delay (s) 58.4 69.8 107.4 61.3 Approach LOS E E F E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 71.4 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.9 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 AM 8: Cypress Ave. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SBL SBR NEL NET SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 5 63 39 321 700 33 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.60 0.60 0.78 0.78 0.81 0.81 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 105 50 412 864 41 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 172 1160 pX, platoon unblocked 0.78 0.78 0.78 vC, conflicting volume 1396 885 905 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1367 715 741 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 93 69 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 118 338 679 Direction, Lane # SB 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 113 462 905 Volume Left 8 50 0 Volume Right 105 0 41 cSH 297 679 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.38 0.07 0.53 Queue Length 95th (ft) 43 6 0 Control Delay (s) 24.4 2.1 0.0 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 24.4 2.1 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 AM 9: 5th St. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 82 62 20 30 97 76 18 147 6 19 99 36 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 108 82 26 45 145 113 21 175 7 22 116 42 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 571 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 590 407 138 471 425 179 159 182 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 590 407 138 471 425 179 159 182 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 61 84 97 89 71 87 98 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 277 517 911 419 505 864 1421 1393 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 216 303 204 181 Volume Left 108 45 21 22 Volume Right 26 113 7 42 cSH 375 578 1421 1393 Volume to Capacity 0.58 0.52 0.02 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 87 76 1 1 Control Delay (s) 26.9 17.9 0.9 1.1 Lane LOS D C A A Approach Delay (s) 26.9 17.9 0.9 1.1 Approach LOS D C Intersection Summary Average Delay 12.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 AM 10: SR 29 & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 79 697 28 4 1186 157 6 11 4 78 14 55 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 0.97 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.97 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3513 1770 3461 1778 1701 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.81 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3513 1770 3461 1686 1423 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.75 0.75 0.75 Adj. Flow (vph) 96 850 34 5 1429 189 10 19 7 104 19 73 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 12 0 0 6 0 0 32 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 96 881 0 5 1606 0 0 30 0 0 164 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 10 15 3 3 15 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1 2 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.0 42.5 0.9 38.4 11.8 11.8 Effective Green, g (s) 4.5 43.0 0.4 38.9 11.3 11.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.64 0.01 0.58 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 119 2265 11 2018 286 241 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.25 0.00 c0.46 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.12 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.39 0.45 0.80 0.11 0.68 Uniform Delay, d1 30.7 5.6 33.0 10.8 23.4 26.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 30.0 0.2 10.5 2.4 0.1 6.2 Delay (s) 60.7 5.8 43.5 13.2 23.5 32.2 Level of Service E A D B C C Approach Delay (s) 11.2 13.3 23.5 32.2 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 8 Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Cumulative 2035 Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 PM 1: Curtola Pkwy. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 86 740 28 350 580 216 157 293 715 187 133 21 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3515 1770 3346 1770 1650 1770 1863 1554 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3515 1770 3346 1770 1650 1770 1863 1554 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 92 796 30 376 624 232 165 308 753 212 151 24 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 31 0 0 73 0 0 0 15 Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 824 0 376 825 0 165 988 0 212 151 9 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 21 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 1 2 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.8 24.0 18.0 34.2 15.2 48.1 11.0 43.9 43.9 Effective Green, g (s) 7.8 26.0 18.0 36.2 15.2 49.0 11.0 44.8 44.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.22 0.15 0.30 0.13 0.41 0.09 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.4 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.1 2.0 3.7 3.7 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 115 762 266 1009 224 674 162 696 580 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.23 c0.21 0.25 0.09 c0.60 c0.12 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.80 1.08 1.41 0.82 0.74 1.47 1.31 0.22 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 55.3 47.0 51.0 38.8 50.5 35.5 54.5 25.6 23.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 30.0 56.7 206.9 5.5 10.3 217.5 176.1 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 85.4 103.7 257.9 44.3 60.8 253.0 230.6 25.8 23.7 Level of Service F F F D E F F C C Approach Delay (s) 101.8 109.5 227.1 137.9 Approach LOS F F F F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 148.9 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.34 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 123.8% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 PM 2: Carlson St. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 609 0 54 3 1 28 33 525 13 23 192 324 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 655 0 58 4 1 42 35 553 14 24 204 345 Pedestrians 1 22 39 22 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 2 3 2 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 403 pX, platoon unblocked 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 vC, conflicting volume 1120 1084 417 1174 1250 603 550 588 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1101 1064 363 1158 1238 603 503 588 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 0 100 91 97 99 91 97 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 151 196 628 134 155 481 1011 969 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 713 48 601 573 Volume Left 655 4 35 24 Volume Right 58 42 14 345 cSH 161 367 1011 969 Volume to Capacity 4.43 0.13 0.03 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) Err 11 3 2 Control Delay (s) Err 16.3 0.9 0.7 Lane LOS F C A A Approach Delay (s) Err 16.3 0.9 0.7 Approach LOS F C Intersection Summary Average Delay 3684.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 PM 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 4/12/2011

Movement EBL2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR WBR2 SBL SBR SBR2 NEL2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 4 70 629 2 27 603 42 62 64 11 11 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.85 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3538 1770 3499 1549 1722 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3538 1770 3499 1549 1722 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.76 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 83 749 2 28 635 44 65 107 18 18 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 88 751 0 28 679 0 65 137 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 4 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 1 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Free Perm Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 6 3 Permitted Phases Free 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.5 26.2 2.7 23.4 88.8 7.1 Effective Green, g (s) 5.5 26.2 3.2 23.4 88.8 7.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.30 0.04 0.26 1.00 0.08 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 110 1044 64 922 1549 138 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.21 0.02 0.19 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.72 0.44 0.74 0.04 1.00 Uniform Delay, d1 41.1 28.0 41.9 29.9 0.0 40.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 32.7 2.6 4.7 3.3 0.1 75.0 Delay (s) 73.8 30.6 46.6 33.2 0.1 115.8 Level of Service E C D C A F Approach Delay (s) 35.1 30.9 115.8 Approach LOS D C F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 41.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 PM 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 4/12/2011

Movement NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 2 174 169 117 260 117 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1857 1563 1776 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.79 Satd. Flow (perm) 1793 1563 1423 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 3 229 222 139 310 139 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 131 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 243 91 0 588 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 2 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 36.3 36.3 36.3 Effective Green, g (s) 36.3 36.3 36.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 733 639 582 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.06 c0.41 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.14 1.01 Uniform Delay, d1 18.0 16.5 26.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.1 39.9 Delay (s) 18.2 16.6 66.1 Level of Service B B E Approach Delay (s) 17.4 66.1 Approach LOS B E Intersection Summary

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 PM 7: Benicia Rd. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 84 277 132 141 274 125 169 407 99 109 146 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1773 1770 1775 1770 1808 1770 1804 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1773 1770 1775 1770 1808 1770 1804 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.76 0.76 0.76 Adj. Flow (vph) 91 301 143 168 326 149 192 462 112 143 192 51 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 14 0 0 8 0 0 9 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 91 429 0 168 461 0 192 566 0 143 234 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 9.1 28.4 13.8 33.1 15.8 33.2 13.0 30.4 Effective Green, g (s) 9.1 28.4 13.8 33.1 15.8 33.2 13.0 30.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.27 0.13 0.32 0.15 0.32 0.12 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 154 482 234 563 268 575 220 525 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.24 c0.09 c0.26 c0.11 c0.31 0.08 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.59 0.89 0.72 0.82 0.72 0.99 0.65 0.45 Uniform Delay, d1 45.9 36.5 43.4 32.9 42.2 35.4 43.5 30.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.0 17.9 10.1 9.1 8.8 33.5 6.7 0.6 Delay (s) 51.8 54.4 53.5 42.0 51.0 68.8 50.2 30.8 Level of Service D D D D D E D C Approach Delay (s) 53.9 45.0 64.4 38.0 Approach LOS D D E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 52.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 104.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 PM 8: Cypress Ave. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SBL SBR NEL NET SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 12 73 92 541 328 18 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.78 0.78 Hourly flow rate (vph) 15 90 99 582 421 23 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 172 1160 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1212 432 444 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1212 432 444 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 92 86 91 cM capacity (veh/h) 183 623 1117 Direction, Lane # SB 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 105 681 444 Volume Left 15 99 0 Volume Right 90 0 23 cSH 466 1117 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.23 0.09 0.26 Queue Length 95th (ft) 21 7 0 Control Delay (s) 15.0 2.2 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 15.0 2.2 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 PM 9: 5th St. & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 72 89 59 15 134 100 23 307 10 30 166 42 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.82 0.82 0.82 Hourly flow rate (vph) 77 95 63 27 239 179 24 327 11 37 202 51 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 571 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 980 687 228 792 708 332 254 337 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 980 687 228 792 708 332 254 337 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 0 73 92 88 30 75 98 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 72 352 811 216 342 710 1311 1222 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 234 445 362 290 Volume Left 77 27 24 37 Volume Right 63 179 11 51 cSH 166 414 1311 1222 Volume to Capacity 1.41 1.07 0.02 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 364 374 1 2 Control Delay (s) 268.3 97.3 0.7 1.3 Lane LOS F F A A Approach Delay (s) 268.3 97.3 0.7 1.3 Approach LOS F F Intersection Summary Average Delay 80.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 PM 10: SR 29 & Lemon St. 4/12/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 205 1263 68 4 422 111 12 15 8 76 28 89 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3506 1770 3403 1763 1691 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.90 0.85 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3506 1770 3403 1614 1463 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.79 0.79 0.79 Adj. Flow (vph) 225 1388 75 4 459 121 18 22 12 96 35 113 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 35 0 0 10 0 0 53 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 225 1458 0 4 545 0 0 42 0 0 191 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 10 15 3 3 15 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1 2 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.3 26.8 0.7 17.2 10.7 10.7 Effective Green, g (s) 9.8 27.3 0.2 17.7 10.2 10.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.55 0.00 0.36 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 349 1926 7 1212 331 300 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.42 0.00 0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.76 0.57 0.45 0.13 0.64 Uniform Delay, d1 18.3 8.6 24.7 12.3 16.1 18.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 1.9 55.0 0.4 0.1 3.2 Delay (s) 21.4 10.5 79.7 12.6 16.2 21.3 Level of Service C B E B B C Approach Delay (s) 12.0 13.1 16.2 21.3 Approach LOS B B B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 13.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 49.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 8

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project AM 1: Curtola Pkwy. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 26 476 15 10 979 40 78 112 387 424 139 276 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3519 1770 3508 1770 1628 1770 1863 1555 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3519 1770 3508 1770 1628 1770 1863 1555 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 30 541 17 10 1020 42 85 122 421 505 165 329 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 112 0 0 0 114 Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 556 0 10 1059 0 85 431 0 505 165 215 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 32 1 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 1 2 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 2.9 34.5 1.0 32.6 7.7 26.9 29.1 48.3 48.3 Effective Green, g (s) 2.9 36.5 1.0 34.6 7.7 27.8 29.1 49.2 49.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.33 0.01 0.31 0.07 0.25 0.26 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.4 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.1 2.0 3.7 3.7 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 46 1163 16 1099 123 410 467 830 693 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.16 0.01 c0.30 0.05 c0.26 c0.29 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.48 0.62 0.96 0.69 1.05 1.08 0.20 0.31 Uniform Delay, d1 53.3 29.4 54.5 37.3 50.2 41.3 40.7 18.6 19.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 22.5 0.4 44.0 19.0 12.7 58.4 65.3 0.1 0.3 Delay (s) 75.7 29.7 98.5 56.3 62.8 99.7 106.0 18.8 20.0 Level of Service E C F E E F F B C Approach Delay (s) 32.1 56.7 94.7 63.3 Approach LOS C E F E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 61.5 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project AM 2: Carlson St. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 214 1 14 1 0 9 0 349 3 1 98 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 238 1 16 2 0 15 0 420 4 1 100 0 Pedestrians 1 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 394 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 540 529 101 542 527 424 101 426 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 540 529 101 542 527 424 101 426 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 46 100 98 100 100 98 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 441 453 954 441 455 629 1490 1131 Direction, Lane # SE 1 SE 2 NW 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 238 17 16 424 101 Volume Left 238 0 2 0 1 Volume Right 0 16 15 4 0 cSH 441 888 603 1700 1131 Volume to Capacity 0.54 0.02 0.03 0.25 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 78 1 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 22.3 9.1 11.1 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS C A B A Approach Delay (s) 21.5 11.1 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 7.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project AM 3: Curtola Pkwy. & Carlson St. 5/25/2011

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 517 72 645 688 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 562 78 701 748 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 640 2377 320 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 601 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1776 vCu, unblocked vol 640 2377 320 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 25 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 940 30 676 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 Volume Total 375 266 701 374 374 0 Volume Left 0 0 701 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 78 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 940 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.16 0.75 0.22 0.22 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 178 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 19.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 9.3 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 6.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project AM 4: Curtola Pkwy. & Bus Entrance 5/25/2011

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 517 0 9 1324 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 562 0 10 1439 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 788 pX, platoon unblocked 0.72 vC, conflicting volume 562 1301 281 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 562 631 281 tC, single (s) 6.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 555 291 716 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 Volume Total 281 281 10 720 720 Volume Left 0 0 10 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 555 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.17 0.02 0.42 0.42 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project AM 5: Curtola Pkwy. & Bus Exit 5/25/2011

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 517 0 0 1324 9 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 562 0 0 1439 10 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL None Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) 1085 pX, platoon unblocked 0.72 vC, conflicting volume 562 1282 281 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 562 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 720 vCu, unblocked vol 562 608 281 tC, single (s) 4.1 8.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 7.8 tF (s) 2.2 4.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 97 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1005 310 716 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 Volume Total 281 281 720 720 10 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 10 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 310 Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.17 0.42 0.42 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 Lane LOS C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 17.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project AM 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 5/25/2011

Movement EBL2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR WBR2 SBL2 SBL SBR SBR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 1 29 520 1 88 794 23 69 16 94 6 13 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3538 1770 3522 1549 1744 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3538 1770 3522 1549 1744 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 34 605 1 97 873 25 76 19 113 7 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 35 606 0 97 898 0 76 0 150 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 4 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 1 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Free Split Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green, G (s) 2.6 21.5 5.4 24.3 71.7 7.1 Effective Green, g (s) 2.6 21.5 5.9 24.3 71.7 7.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.30 0.08 0.34 1.00 0.10 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 64 1061 146 1194 1549 173 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.17 c0.05 c0.25 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.57 0.66 0.75 0.05 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 34.0 21.2 31.9 21.0 0.0 31.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.2 0.9 10.8 2.9 0.1 33.3 Delay (s) 43.2 22.1 42.8 23.9 0.1 65.2 Level of Service D C D C A E Approach Delay (s) 23.3 23.9 65.2 Approach LOS C C E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 28.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.7 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project AM 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 5/25/2011

Movement NEL2 NET NER SWL SWT SWR SWR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 8 147 45 73 154 68 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1858 1563 1768 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.83 Satd. Flow (perm) 1823 1563 1493 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 196 60 96 203 89 3 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 207 18 0 391 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 2 2 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.2 21.2 21.2 Effective Green, g (s) 21.2 21.2 21.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 539 462 441 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.01 c0.26 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.04 0.89 Uniform Delay, d1 20.1 18.0 24.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 18.8 Delay (s) 20.5 18.0 42.9 Level of Service C B D Approach Delay (s) 20.0 42.9 Approach LOS B D Intersection Summary

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project AM 7: Benicia Rd. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project AM 8: Cypress Ave. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement SBL SBR NEL NET SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 5 59 5 299 732 28 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.60 0.60 0.78 0.78 0.81 0.81 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 98 6 383 904 35 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 172 1160 pX, platoon unblocked 0.78 0.78 0.78 vC, conflicting volume 1317 921 938 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1267 761 784 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 94 69 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 145 318 654 Direction, Lane # SB 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 107 390 938 Volume Left 8 6 0 Volume Right 98 0 35 cSH 290 654 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.37 0.01 0.55 Queue Length 95th (ft) 41 1 0 Control Delay (s) 24.4 0.3 0.0 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 24.4 0.3 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project AM 9: 5th St. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project AM 10: SR 29 & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 11

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project PM 1: Curtola Pkwy. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 134 861 3 135 795 216 200 270 642 138 33 111 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3537 1770 3387 1770 1651 1770 1863 1553 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3537 1770 3387 1770 1651 1770 1863 1553 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 144 926 3 145 855 232 211 284 676 157 38 126 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 71 0 0 0 82 Lane Group Flow (vph) 144 929 0 145 1066 0 211 889 0 157 38 44 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 21 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 1 2 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.0 33.0 9.0 35.0 18.1 51.1 8.0 41.0 41.0 Effective Green, g (s) 7.0 35.0 9.0 37.0 18.1 52.0 8.0 41.9 41.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.29 0.08 0.31 0.15 0.43 0.07 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.4 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.1 2.0 3.7 3.7 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 103 1032 133 1044 267 715 118 650 542 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.26 0.08 c0.31 0.12 c0.54 c0.09 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 1.40 0.90 1.09 1.02 0.79 1.24 1.33 0.06 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 56.5 40.8 55.5 41.5 49.1 34.0 56.0 25.9 26.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 227.5 10.8 104.3 33.4 13.7 120.9 195.5 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 284.0 51.7 159.8 74.9 62.9 154.9 251.5 26.0 26.2 Level of Service F D F E E F F C C Approach Delay (s) 82.8 84.8 138.3 136.4 Approach LOS F F F F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 105.1 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.14 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 111.4% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project PM 2: Carlson St. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 610 0 63 1 0 18 0 495 13 23 192 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 656 0 68 1 0 27 0 521 14 24 204 0 Pedestrians 1 22 39 22 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 2 3 2 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 391 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 831 811 244 910 804 572 205 557 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 831 811 244 910 804 572 205 557 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 0 100 91 99 100 95 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 259 300 768 214 303 501 1365 995 Direction, Lane # SE 1 SE 2 NW 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 656 68 28 535 229 Volume Left 656 0 1 0 24 Volume Right 0 68 27 14 0 cSH 259 768 468 1700 995 Volume to Capacity 2.53 0.09 0.06 0.31 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1353 7 5 0 2 Control Delay (s) 729.4 10.1 13.2 0.0 1.1 Lane LOS F B B A Approach Delay (s) 662.1 13.2 0.0 1.1 Approach LOS F B Intersection Summary Average Delay 316.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project PM 3: Curtola Pkwy. & Carlson St. 5/25/2011

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 829 36 322 783 0 170 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 901 39 350 851 0 185 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 940 2046 470 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 921 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1126 vCu, unblocked vol 940 2046 470 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 52 100 66 cM capacity (veh/h) 725 127 540 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 Volume Total 601 339 350 426 426 185 Volume Left 0 0 350 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 39 0 0 0 185 cSH 1700 1700 725 1700 1700 540 Volume to Capacity 0.35 0.20 0.48 0.25 0.25 0.34 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 66 0 0 38 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 14.5 0.0 0.0 15.1 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 4.2 15.1 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project PM 4: Curtola Pkwy. & Bus Entrance 5/25/2011

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 999 0 14 1091 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1086 0 15 1186 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 779 pX, platoon unblocked 0.74 vC, conflicting volume 1086 1709 543 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1086 1251 543 tC, single (s) 6.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 95 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 281 115 484 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 Volume Total 543 543 15 593 593 Volume Left 0 0 15 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 281 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.32 0.32 0.05 0.35 0.35 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 4 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 18.6 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project PM 5: Curtola Pkwy. & Bus Exit 5/25/2011

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 999 0 0 1091 14 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1086 0 0 1186 15 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL None Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) 1105 pX, platoon unblocked 0.74 vC, conflicting volume 1086 1679 543 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1086 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 593 vCu, unblocked vol 1086 1220 543 tC, single (s) 4.1 8.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 7.8 tF (s) 2.2 4.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 89 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 638 135 484 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 Volume Total 543 543 593 593 15 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 15 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 135 Volume to Capacity 0.32 0.32 0.35 0.35 0.11 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 9 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.0 Lane LOS D Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 35.0 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project PM 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 5/25/2011

Movement EBL2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR WBR2 SBL SBR SBR2 NEL2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 4 70 629 2 27 603 42 87 64 11 11 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.85 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3538 1770 3499 1549 1722 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3538 1770 3499 1549 1722 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.76 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 83 749 2 28 635 44 92 107 18 18 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 88 751 0 28 679 0 92 137 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 4 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 1 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Free Perm Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 6 3 Permitted Phases Free 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.5 26.2 2.7 23.4 88.8 7.1 Effective Green, g (s) 5.5 26.2 3.2 23.4 88.8 7.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.30 0.04 0.26 1.00 0.08 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 110 1044 64 922 1549 138 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.21 0.02 0.19 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.72 0.44 0.74 0.06 1.00 Uniform Delay, d1 41.1 28.0 41.9 29.9 0.0 40.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 32.7 2.6 4.7 3.3 0.1 75.0 Delay (s) 73.8 30.6 46.6 33.2 0.1 115.8 Level of Service E C D C A F Approach Delay (s) 35.1 29.8 115.8 Approach LOS D C F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 44.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project PM 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 5/25/2011

Movement NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 2 174 169 128 260 117 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1857 1563 1776 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.77 Satd. Flow (perm) 1792 1563 1381 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 3 229 222 152 310 139 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 131 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 243 91 0 601 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 2 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 36.3 36.3 36.3 Effective Green, g (s) 36.3 36.3 36.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 733 639 565 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.06 c0.44 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.14 1.06 Uniform Delay, d1 18.0 16.5 26.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.1 55.9 Delay (s) 18.2 16.6 82.2 Level of Service B B F Approach Delay (s) 17.4 82.2 Approach LOS B F Intersection Summary

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project PM 7: Benicia Rd. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project PM 8: Cypress Ave. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement SBL SBR NEL NET SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 7 35 85 573 306 18 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.78 0.78 Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 43 91 616 392 23 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 172 1160 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1203 404 415 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1203 404 415 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 95 93 92 cM capacity (veh/h) 187 647 1144 Direction, Lane # SB 1 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 52 708 415 Volume Left 9 91 0 Volume Right 43 0 23 cSH 459 1144 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.08 0.24 Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 7 0 Control Delay (s) 13.8 2.0 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 13.8 2.0 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project PM 9: 5th St. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project PM 10: SR 29 & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 11

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions (Mitigated) Weekday AM Peak Hour

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project AM (Mitigated) 1: Curtola Pkwy. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 26 476 15 10 979 40 78 112 387 424 139 276 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3518 1770 3509 1825 1568 1770 1863 1556 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3518 1770 3509 1537 1568 1117 1863 1556 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 30 541 17 10 1020 42 85 122 421 505 165 329 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 25 0 0 110 Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 556 0 10 1059 0 0 207 396 505 165 219 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 32 1 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 1 2 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm pm+ov Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 1 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 2.9 18.7 12.6 28.4 41.2 53.8 41.2 41.2 41.2 Effective Green, g (s) 2.9 20.7 12.6 30.4 42.1 53.8 41.2 42.1 42.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.24 0.14 0.35 0.48 0.62 0.47 0.48 0.48 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.4 2.0 4.0 3.1 2.0 3.7 3.7 3.7 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 59 833 255 1221 740 1037 527 897 750 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.16 0.01 c0.30 0.06 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.20 c0.45 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.67 0.04 0.87 0.28 0.38 0.96 0.18 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 41.5 30.2 32.2 26.6 13.6 8.4 22.3 12.9 13.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 2.1 0.0 6.9 0.2 0.1 28.8 0.1 0.3 Delay (s) 44.0 32.3 32.2 33.5 13.8 8.5 51.1 13.0 13.9 Level of Service D C C C B A D B B Approach Delay (s) 32.9 33.5 10.3 32.5 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 28.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 87.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project AM (Mitigated) 2: Carlson St. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 214 1 14 1 0 9 0 349 3 1 98 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.86 0.88 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1600 1631 1860 1862 Flt Permitted 0.75 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1390 1600 1617 1860 1857 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 238 1 16 2 0 15 0 420 4 1 100 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 238 7 0 0 8 0 0 423 0 0 101 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 556 640 647 744 743 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm c0.17 0.00 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.01 0.01 0.57 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 8.7 7.2 7.2 9.3 7.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.4 Delay (s) 11.1 7.3 7.3 12.5 8.0 Level of Service B A A B A Approach Delay (s) 10.8 7.3 12.5 8.0 Approach LOS B A B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 40.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project AM (Mitigated) 3: Curtola Pkwy. & Carlson St. 5/25/2011

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 517 72 645 688 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3475 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.26 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3475 493 3539 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 562 78 701 748 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 28 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 612 0 701 748 0 0 Turn Type pm+pt Over Protected Phases 4 3 8 3 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.1 35.1 39.1 Effective Green, g (s) 11.1 35.1 39.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.90 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 987 1096 3539 v/s Ratio Prot 0.18 c0.33 0.21 v/s Ratio Perm c0.25 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.64 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 12.2 3.0 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 1.2 0.0 Delay (s) 13.4 4.2 0.0 Level of Service B A A Approach Delay (s) 13.4 2.1 0.0 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 5.5 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 39.1 Sum of lost time (s) 4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 3 Queues Cumulative 2035 plus Project AM (Mitigated) 3: Curtola Pkwy. & Carlson St. 5/25/2011

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 640 701 748 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.64 0.21 Control Delay 14.6 5.8 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.6 5.8 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 58 23 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 96 99 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1131 351 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 Base Capacity (vph) 1095 1097 3474 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.58 0.64 0.22 Intersection Summary

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project AM (Mitigated) 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 5/25/2011

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project AM (Mitigated) 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 5/25/2011

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project AM (Mitigated) 7: Benicia Rd. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 12 145 88 116 209 151 75 167 80 462 343 59 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1757 1770 1863 1583 1770 1772 1770 1822 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.19 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1757 1770 1863 1583 1770 1772 358 1822 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.72 0.72 0.72 Adj. Flow (vph) 15 186 113 168 303 219 112 249 119 642 476 82 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 24 0 0 0 83 0 19 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 275 0 168 303 136 112 349 0 642 552 0 Turn Type Prot Prot pm+ov Prot pm+pt Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.5 18.7 12.9 30.1 56.2 9.3 16.8 46.9 33.6 Effective Green, g (s) 1.5 18.7 12.9 30.1 56.2 9.3 16.8 46.9 33.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.21 0.14 0.33 0.62 0.10 0.19 0.52 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 29 363 252 620 1053 182 329 593 676 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.16 c0.09 0.16 0.04 0.06 0.20 c0.31 0.30 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.25 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.76 0.67 0.49 0.13 0.62 1.06 1.08 0.82 Uniform Delay, d1 44.1 33.8 36.8 24.1 7.1 38.9 36.9 24.1 25.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.7 8.8 6.5 0.6 0.1 6.1 66.8 61.3 7.5 Delay (s) 58.8 42.5 43.3 24.7 7.1 44.9 103.7 85.4 33.2 Level of Service E D D C A D F F C Approach Delay (s) 43.3 23.6 90.0 61.1 Approach LOS D C F E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 54.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.5 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisCumulative 2035 plus Project AM (Mitigated) 9: 5th St. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 82 62 20 30 97 76 18 147 6 19 99 36 Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 108 82 26 45 145 113 21 175 7 22 116 42 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NW 2 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total (vph) 216 190 113 204 181 Volume Left (vph) 108 45 0 21 22 Volume Right (vph) 26 0 113 7 42 Hadj (s) 0.06 0.15 -0.67 0.03 -0.08 Departure Headway (s) 5.7 6.1 5.3 5.7 5.6 Degree Utilization, x 0.34 0.32 0.17 0.32 0.28 Capacity (veh/h) 588 557 637 582 585 Control Delay (s) 11.6 10.7 8.1 11.3 10.8 Approach Delay (s) 11.6 9.8 11.3 10.8 Approach LOS B A B B Intersection Summary Delay 10.7 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 7 Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street

Cumulative 2035 plus Project Conditions (Mitigated) Weekday PM Peak Hour

Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Study

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project PM (Mitigated) 1: Curtola Pkwy. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 134 861 3 135 795 216 200 270 642 138 33 111 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3537 1770 3390 1824 1569 1770 1863 1557 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.84 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3537 1770 3390 1573 1569 454 1863 1557 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 144 926 3 145 855 232 211 284 676 157 38 126 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 9 0 0 79 Lane Group Flow (vph) 144 929 0 145 1052 0 0 495 667 157 38 47 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 21 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 1 2 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm pm+ov Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 1 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 19.9 8.6 22.5 24.5 33.1 24.5 24.5 24.5 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 21.9 8.6 24.5 25.4 33.1 24.5 25.4 25.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.32 0.13 0.36 0.37 0.49 0.36 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.4 2.0 4.0 3.1 2.0 3.7 3.7 3.7 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 156 1141 224 1223 588 765 164 697 582 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.26 0.08 c0.31 0.11 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.31 0.31 c0.35 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.92 0.81 0.65 0.86 0.84 0.87 0.96 0.05 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 30.7 21.1 28.2 20.1 19.4 15.5 21.2 13.6 13.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 49.0 4.7 4.8 6.6 10.6 10.4 57.4 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 79.8 25.8 33.0 26.7 30.0 25.9 78.6 13.6 13.8 Level of Service E C C C C C E B B Approach Delay (s) 33.0 27.4 27.6 45.5 Approach LOS C C C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 30.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.9 Sum of lost time (s) 8.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project PM (Mitigated) 2: Carlson St. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 610 0 63 1 0 18 0 495 13 23 192 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.90 0.96 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.87 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1720 1419 1550 1853 1851 Flt Permitted 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.68 Satd. Flow (perm) 1338 1419 1548 1853 1272 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 656 0 68 1 0 27 0 521 14 24 204 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 30 0 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 656 38 0 0 16 0 0 534 0 0 228 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 22 39 39 22 1 22 22 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 39.0 39.0 39.0 23.0 23.0 Effective Green, g (s) 39.0 39.0 39.0 23.0 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.33 0.33 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 745 791 862 609 418 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm c0.49 0.01 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.88 0.05 0.02 0.88 0.55 Uniform Delay, d1 13.5 7.1 6.9 22.2 19.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.1 0.1 0.0 16.2 5.0 Delay (s) 27.6 7.2 7.0 38.4 24.3 Level of Service C A A D C Approach Delay (s) 25.7 7.0 38.4 24.3 Approach LOS C A D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 29.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project PM (Mitigated) 3: Curtola Pkwy. & Carlson St. 5/25/2011

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 829 36 322 783 0 170 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.86 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3517 1770 3539 1611 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3517 392 3539 1611 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 901 39 350 851 0 185 RTOR Reduction (vph) 8 0 0 0 0 75 Lane Group Flow (vph) 932 0 350 851 0 110 Turn Type pm+pt Over Protected Phases 4 3 8 3 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 26.7 30.7 7.7 Effective Green, g (s) 15.0 26.7 30.7 7.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.87 1.00 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1718 687 3539 404 v/s Ratio Prot 0.27 c0.13 0.24 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm c0.32 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.51 0.24 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 5.5 1.8 0.0 9.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.4 Delay (s) 5.8 2.4 0.0 9.6 Level of Service A A A A Approach Delay (s) 5.8 0.7 9.6 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 3.5 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 30.7 Sum of lost time (s) 4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 3 Queues Cumulative 2035 plus Project PM (Mitigated) 3: Curtola Pkwy. & Carlson St. 5/25/2011

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 940 350 851 185 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.51 0.24 0.39 Control Delay 7.1 4.6 0.2 8.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 7.1 4.6 0.2 8.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 41 0 0 11 Queue Length 95th (ft) 101 34 0 47 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1144 319 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 Base Capacity (vph) 2378 897 3539 712 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.39 0.24 0.26 Intersection Summary

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project PM (Mitigated) 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 5/25/2011

Movement EBL2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR WBR2 SBL SBR SBR2 NEL2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 4 70 629 2 27 603 42 87 64 11 11 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.85 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3538 1770 3499 1549 1722 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3538 1770 3499 1549 1722 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.76 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 83 749 2 28 635 44 92 107 18 18 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 88 751 0 28 679 0 92 137 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 4 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 1 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Free Perm Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 6 3 Permitted Phases Free 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.7 24.6 4.1 23.0 93.4 7.0 Effective Green, g (s) 5.7 24.6 4.6 23.0 93.4 7.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.26 0.05 0.25 1.00 0.07 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 108 932 87 862 1549 129 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.21 0.02 0.19 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm c0.06 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.81 0.32 0.79 0.06 1.07 Uniform Delay, d1 43.3 32.2 42.9 32.9 0.0 43.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 35.7 5.4 2.1 5.1 0.1 97.8 Delay (s) 79.1 37.6 45.0 38.0 0.1 141.0 Level of Service E D D D A F Approach Delay (s) 41.9 33.9 141.0 Approach LOS D C F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 42.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 93.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project PM (Mitigated) 6: Curtola Pkwy. & Solano Ave. 5/25/2011

Movement NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 2 174 169 128 260 117 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1857 1564 1776 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.79 Satd. Flow (perm) 1793 1564 1412 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 3 229 222 152 310 139 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 124 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 243 98 0 601 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 2 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 41.2 41.2 41.2 Effective Green, g (s) 41.2 41.2 41.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 791 690 623 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.06 c0.43 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.14 0.96 Uniform Delay, d1 16.9 15.6 25.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 27.2 Delay (s) 17.1 15.7 52.6 Level of Service B B D Approach Delay (s) 16.4 52.6 Approach LOS B D Intersection Summary

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative 2035 plus Project PM (Mitigated) 7: Benicia Rd. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 84 277 132 141 274 125 169 407 99 109 146 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1773 1770 1863 1583 1770 1808 1770 1804 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.16 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1773 1770 1863 1583 1770 1808 298 1804 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.76 0.76 0.76 Adj. Flow (vph) 91 301 143 168 326 149 192 462 112 143 192 51 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 0 86 0 8 0 0 9 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 91 428 0 168 326 63 192 566 0 143 234 0 Turn Type Prot Prot pm+ov Prot pm+pt Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.7 24.0 13.1 28.4 38.9 14.6 29.1 35.5 25.0 Effective Green, g (s) 8.7 24.0 13.1 28.4 38.9 14.6 29.1 35.5 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.26 0.14 0.31 0.42 0.16 0.31 0.38 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 166 459 250 571 733 279 568 281 487 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.24 c0.09 0.18 0.01 c0.11 c0.31 0.06 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.93 0.67 0.57 0.09 0.69 1.00 0.51 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 40.1 33.6 37.8 27.0 16.2 36.9 31.7 21.8 28.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.7 25.8 6.9 1.4 0.1 6.9 36.5 1.5 0.7 Delay (s) 43.8 59.4 44.7 28.4 16.2 43.8 68.3 23.2 29.1 Level of Service D E D C B D E C C Approach Delay (s) 56.7 29.8 62.1 26.9 Approach LOS E C E C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 46.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 92.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisCumulative 2035 plus Project PM (Mitigated) 9: 5th St. & Lemon St. 5/25/2011

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 72 89 59 15 134 100 23 307 10 30 166 42 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.82 0.82 0.82 Hourly flow rate (vph) 77 95 63 27 239 179 24 327 11 37 202 51 Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NW 2 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total (vph) 234 266 179 362 290 Volume Left (vph) 77 27 0 24 37 Volume Right (vph) 63 0 179 11 51 Hadj (s) -0.06 0.08 -0.67 0.03 -0.05 Departure Headway (s) 7.4 7.5 6.7 6.9 7.0 Degree Utilization, x 0.48 0.55 0.33 0.69 0.57 Capacity (veh/h) 434 451 501 487 467 Control Delay (s) 16.9 18.3 11.9 24.1 18.9 Approach Delay (s) 16.9 15.7 24.1 18.9 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary Delay 18.9 HCM Level of Service C Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Transit Center at Curtola Parkway and Lemon Street Synchro 7 - Report AECOM Page 7