HomeMy WebLinkAboutD-3 Staff Report - APU-Citrus College Mitigation MeasuresSCHEDULED ITEM
D-3
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
VIA: TROY L. BUTZLAFF, ICMA-CM, CITY MANAGER
FROM: DANIEL BOBADILLA, P.E., DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2016
SUBJECT: APPROVE FUNDING FOR PEDESTRIAN AND TRAFFIC SAFETY MITIGATION
MEASURES RELATED TO THE APU/CITRUS COLLEGE GOLD LINE STATION
SUMMARY:
The City of Azusa is home to two Gold Line stations. The Azusa Downtown Station is located in the
city’s downtown and the APU/Citrus College Station is located at the eastern border of the city near
Azusa Pacific University and Citrus College. The primary access to the APU/Citrus College Station and
its parking structure is from the future extension of Citrus Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard. The
improvements of the Citrus Avenue extension have not been constructed and are scheduled to be
completed July 2016. In the interim, all pedestrian and vehicular access to the APU/Citrus College
Station and parking structure will be provided via Palm Drive and The Promenade. This temporary
access route will create adverse impacts to the areas surrounding the APU/Citrus College Station. The
proposed action will approve funding to implement the recommended mitigation measures related to the
opening of the APU/Citrus College Gold Line Station.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action:
1)Approve funding to implement the recommended mitigation measures to improve pedestrian and
traffic safety related to the opening of the APU/Citrus College Station.
DISCUSSION:
On January 11, 2016, the City of Azusa sent a letter to Metro requesting a delay in the opening of the
APU/Citrus College Gold Line Station until the Citrus Avenue extension improvements are complete
and the primary access to the station and parking structure are open to through traffic.
APPROVED
CITY COUNCIL
2/22/2016, Special Meeting
Funding of Mitigation Measures Related to APU/Citrus Station
February 22, 2016
Page 2
In order to address traffic and pedestrian safety concerns, Supervisor Solis facilitated a meeting on
January 19, 2016 with Metro, the Gold Line Authority, Azusa Pacific University, Rosedale Land
Partners and the cities of Azusa and Glendora. At this meeting, City Staff suggested several mitigation
measures that could be taken to address pedestrian and traffic safety concerns as well as reduce the
impacts on the residents living adjacent to the station. Metro agreed to have a traffic engineer perform a
traffic study to assess the interim pedestrian and vehicular circulation surrounding the APU/Citrus
College Station and provide recommendations to manage the risks.
On February 10, 2016, Metro prepared a response letter with a list of recommendations with
responsibility parties assigned to each recommendation. The recommendations include:
Recommendation Responsible Party
1.
Install temporary all-way stop control at the Palm Drive
and Foothill Boulevard intersection to mitigate existing
conditions
City of Azusa
2.
Install guide signs at the existing Citrus Avenue Foothill
Boulevard intersection and at the future Citrus Avenue and
Foothill Boulevard (north) intersection to direct pedestrians
to the station
Gold Line Authority
3.
Install guide signs at the station to direct pedestrians to the
recommended paths of travel to the colleges or the shuttle
pick up location
Gold Line Authority
4.
Coordinate with APU, Citrus College, and other
community groups to make sure that student, residents, and
commuters are aware of the availability of the shuttle and
the recommended routes of travel to the station
Metro
5.
The existing fence north of Foothill Boulevard on the
proposed alignment of Citrus Avenue extension should
remain to limit access through the construction zone for the
Citrus Avenue extension, and the gate needs to be secured
at all times to prevent pedestrian access through the
construction site
Rosedale Land Partners
6.
Provide a fence on Citrus Avenue on the north side of the
rail overcrossing to prevent pedestrians from going under
the bridges to get to Foothill Boulevard
Rosedale Land Partners
7.
Install Type I Pedestrian Barricades on the south side of
The Promenade, with signage directing foot traffic to the
sidewalk in the median
Gold Line Authority
8.
Secure the vacant lot (south side of The Promenade)
adjacent to the station to prevent pedestrians from short
cutting through it to reach the station
Rosedale Land Partners
9.
In conjunction with the installation of all-way stop control,
provide crossing guards at Palm Drive and Foothill
Boulevard to stop pedestrians intermittently to allow
vehicles on Palm Drive to exit onto Foothill Boulevard.
Hours for crossing guards should be at least from 7:30 AM
to 4:30 PM on weekdays
City of Azusa
Funding of Mitigation Measures Related to APU/Citrus Station
February 22, 2016
Page 3
FISCAL IMPACT:
The two recommendations assigned to the City of Azusa are estimated to cost $27,000 ($12,000 for a
temporary all-way stop and $15,000 for a crossing guard at the intersection of Foothill Blvd. and Palm
Drive). Not included in the recommended mitigation measures is the cost of additional law enforcement
services that may be needed to enforce traffic and pedestrian safety in the area around the Gold Line
Station. Once the APU/Citrus Station is open for passenger service, the Police Department will be able
to better assess the impacts on public safety and provide a more refined estimate of actual law
enforcement costs.
Staff has reached out to Supervisor Solis’ office to inquire if the Supervisor can help fund all or some of
the associated costs of the recommended mitigation measures. Though, in the event Supervisor Solis is
unable to fund these mitigation measures, Staff is requesting authority from the City Council to fund the
implementation of the recommendations assigned to the City. These items will be funded by the General
Fund and Gas Tax Fund.
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved:
Daniel Bobadilla, P.E. Louie F. Lacasella
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Management Analyst
Reviewed and Approved:
Troy L. Butzlaff, ICMA-CM
City Manager
Attachments:
1. City of Azusa Letter to Metro
2. Response Letter from Metro
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
1
AECOM
515 S Flower St
4th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
www.aecom.com
213 330 7200 tel
213 330 7201 fax
Memorandum
Date:February 4, 2016
To:Denis Cournoyer, Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority
From:Vamshi Akkinepally, TE; George Dore, PE, TE; and Steve Greene, AECOM
Cc:Ray Sosa, AECOM
Subject:Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension – APU/Citrus College Station (City of Azusa)
1.0 Introduction
This technical memorandum presents an evaluation of interim pedestrian and vehicular circulation
surrounding the Azusa Pacific University (APU)/Citrus Station on the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension,
in the City of Azusa. The station will be the terminus station for Phase 2A of the Metro Gold Line Foothill
Extension, which is scheduled to begin operations on March 5, 2016.
The APU/Citrus Station is located between the light rail transit (LRT) tracks, just west of a planned
extension of Citrus Avenue, as shown in Figure 1. The station’s 202-space parking structure is located to
the north and east of the station site. The developer of the Rosedale planned community is responsible
for extending Citrus Avenue from its current terminus at Foothill Boulevard to Promenade.
When complete, the extension of Citrus Avenue will provide the primary vehicular and pedestrian access
to the APU/Citrus Station and the parking structure. However, the extension of Citrus Avenue will not be
completed when the station is opened. To provide interim access to the parking structure, the Authority
has constructed a section of Citrus Avenue connecting to Promenade. During this interim period, all
pedestrian and vehicular access to the station and parking structure will be provided by this section of
Citrus Avenue, via Promenade and Palm Drive. Local agencies have expressed concerns about the safety
of pedestrians and the impact to local traffic due to the lack of the complete extension of Citrus Avenue
to Foothill Boulevard.
2.0 Interim Paths of Travel
During the interim period, pedestrian access to the station will be from Promenade. The property
adjacent to the station on the south side of Promenade is a future development site, which is currently
partially enclosed by construction fencing and a raised berm. There is no sidewalk on the south side of
Promenade, but there is a pedestrian pathway in the median of Promenade and a sidewalk on the north
side of Promenade. A crosswalk at the Palm Drive intersection connects the sidewalk on Palm Drive to
the pedestrian pathway. There is also a crosswalk at the intersection of Promenade with Citrus Avenue.
Pedestrians will be prohibited from walking on the south side of Promenade.Figure 2 illustrates the
proposed pedestrian path of travel to the station.
2
3
4
During the interim period, vehicular access to the station will also be from Promenade. Vehicles will use
Palm Drive, Promenade and the short of section of Citrus Avenue at the eastern end of Promenade to
access the parking lot. Vehicles leaving the station will follow the same route in the opposite direction.
Figure 3 illustrates the vehicular path of travel to the station.
3.0 Field Review, Data Collection and Observation
Field review and observation were conducted on January 21, 2016, for the APU/Citrus Station and
vicinity. Photos and notes were taken to document the existing intersection geometry, existing
pedestrian paths and crossings at the intersections, and current intersection and crossing signage and
pavement markings. Photographs from the field visit are attached at the end of this memo.
Pedestrian counts were collected for two days, on January 19 and 20, 2016, at the Palm Drive & Foothill
Boulevard and Citrus Avenue & Foothill Boulevard intersections. Pedestrian volumes at the Palm Drive &
Foothill Boulevard intersection are illustrated in Figure 4. New AM (7-9) and PM (4-6) peak period
turning movement counts were conducted between January 19 and 21, 2016, at four intersections:
Citrus & Foothill, Palm & Foothill, Palm & Ninth, and Palm & Promenade. Vehicular volumes are
presented and discussed later in this memorandum.
Following is a summary of the field comments of the physical conditions in the area:
x The site of the Citrus Avenue extension is enclosed by a fence along Foothill Boulevard at the
current terminus of Citrus Avenue, with a gate for access (see Photo 1). The gate was open at
the time of the field review on January 21, although no construction activity was observed at
that time.
x Sidewalks along pedestrian path of travel to station:
o The sidewalk on the north side of Foothill Boulevard from Citrus Avenue to Palm Drive is
approximately 12 feet wide with a yellow centerline stripe (see Photo 2).
o The sidewalk on the east side of Palm Drive from Foothill Boulevard to Promenade
appears to be ADA compliant (see Photo 3).
o There is no sidewalk on the south side of Promenade from Citrus Avenue to Palm Drive
(see Photo 4). However, there is a sidewalk in the median of Promenade (see Photo 5)
from Citrus Avenue to Palm Drive that appears to be ADA compliant. The existing
sidewalk along the north side of Promenade also appears to be ADA compliant.
x Roadways:
o Citrus Avenue – Citrus Avenue is a north-south arterial with two lanes in each direction.
o Foothill Boulevard – Foothill Boulevard is an east-west arterial with two lanes in each
direction.
o Palm Drive – Palm Drive is a north-south roadway with one lane in each direction.
o Promenade – Promenade is an east-west roadway with one lane in each direction.
5
6
7
x Intersections:
o Citrus Avenue & Foothill Boulevard – The Citrus Avenue & Foothill Boulevard
intersection is signalized with protected left-turns on all approaches. The northbound
approach is striped as one exclusive left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one exclusive
right-turn lane. The southbound approach is striped as one left-turn lane, one through
lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane. The eastbound and westbound
approaches are striped as one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane.
There are striped crosswalks on all four approaches at the intersection.
o Palm Drive & Foothill Boulevard – Palm Drive & Foothill Boulevard is a three-legged
intersection with a stop control on southbound Palm Drive. The southbound approach is
striped as a left-turn lane and a right-turn lane. There is a striped crosswalk on the north
side of the intersection.
o Palm Drive & Ninth Street – Palm Drive & Ninth Street is a three-legged intersection
with a stop control on all three approaches. All approaches have one lane in each
direction.
o Palm Drive & Promenade – Palm Drive & Promenade is a one-lane roundabout with
yield controls on all approaches. There are striped crosswalks on all four approaches at
the intersection.
Following is a summary of the observations of circulation conditions in the area:
x The sidewalk on the north side of Foothill Boulevard is used by pedestrians, in addition to
bicyclists and roller-skaters, to, among other things, travel between APU campuses (see Photo
6).
x There is heavy pedestrian/bicyclist flow at times on the sidewalk on the north side of Foothill
Boulevard. The pedestrians who were observed appeared to be APU students walking between
campuses. Pedestrian volumes were highly variable, but with recurring peaks, presumably
between class sessions.
x Substantial queuing occurred on Palm Drive for southbound vehicles in the left lane trying to
make a left turn onto Foothill Boulevard (see Photo 7).
x Pedestrian flows can be heavy enough to cause queuing of cars trying to exit Palm Drive and
turn left on Foothill Boulevard. Less queuing was observed for right-turning vehicles. The queues
are likely the result of both the pedestrian volumes and the vehicular traffic volumes on Foothill
Boulevard, as discussed in more detail in the following section.
x There is an entrance to APU just west of Palm Drive on Foothill Boulevard. Some queueing of
right-turning vehicles on Foothill Boulevard was observed at this entrance, as well as at Palm
Drive (i.e., the westbound right turns at these locations). This queueing was the result of
pedestrian volumes on Foothill Boulevard.
x Very few pedestrians were observed crossing Foothill Boulevard at Palm Drive during the two-
day observation period.
x No queuing or delay issues were observed elsewhere in the study area, including at the
intersections of Citrus & Foothill, Palm & Ninth, or Palm & Promenade. Although pedestrian
volumes were high at the intersection of Citrus & Foothill, vehicular and pedestrian movements
were well controlled by the traffic signal, and no conflicts were observed.
The recommendations in this memorandum are based on field survey and engineering analysis of
existing conditions and projected opening day conditions.
8
4.0 Shuttle Route
APU currently runs a shuttle along Foothill Boulevard between the east and west campuses. According
to the APU web site, the shuttle runs at 7 to 10 minute headways from 7 AM to 4 PM.
The Authority is proposing to run an additional shuttle, with appropriate headways that interconnect
with the train headways, to carry students from both APU and Citrus College to and from the station.
The proposed shuttle route is shown in Figure 5.
5.0 Pedestrian Circulation During the Interim Period
Pedestrians who do not use the shuttle provided by the Authority will have to walk on Foothill
Boulevard to Palm Drive, on Palm Drive to Promenade and on Promenade to the extension of Citrus
Avenue. During the field survey, it was observed that the sidewalks along the desired route to the
station are in good condition. Similarly, crosswalks at the Palm Drive & Foothill Boulevard and Citrus
Avenue & Foothill Boulevard intersections are in good condition as well. The sidewalks and the
crosswalks in the vicinity of the station were found to be in good condition to handle the additional
station traffic after it becomes operational.
Measures to prevent pedestrians from attempting to reach the station by way of the unconstructed
extension of Citrus Avenue should be implemented. During the interim period, that area will remain an
active construction area, without pedestrian safety lighting or other features appropriate for a
pedestrian walkway. To direct pedestrians to a safe path of travel, it is recommended that guide signs be
installed at the existing Citrus Avenue & Foothill Boulevard intersection and at the future Citrus Avenue
& Foothill Boulevard (south) intersection to direct pedestrians to the station and to inform them of the
location of the shuttle stops. Similarly, signage should be installed at the station to direct pedestrians to
the recommended paths of travel to the colleges or the shuttle pick up location.
It is recommended that there be coordination with Azusa Pacific University, Citrus College, and
community groups to make sure that students, residents, and commuters are aware of the availability of
the shuttle, and that they are informed about the recommended routes of travel to the station.
Physical barriers should be installed and secured to prevent pedestrians from walking through the
construction site on Citrus Avenue. The gated fence north of Foothill Boulevard on the proposed
alignment of Citrus Avenue extension should be secured at all times when not in use. Also, it is
recommended that a fence should be provided on Citrus Avenue on the north side of the overcrossing
to prevent pedestrians from attempting to go under the bridges to get to Foothill Boulevard.
A satisfactory path of travel for pedestrian exists in the median of Promenade. Pedestrians should be
directed to use that path of travel. Type I Pedestrian Barricades should be installed on the south side of
Promenade at Palm Drive and at Citrus Avenue, along with signage to direct pedestrian traffic to the
median. To prevent pedestrians from walking through the vacant lot adjacent to the station, that site
should be secured.
9
10
6.0 Vehicular Circulation During the Interim Period
A circulation analysis was conducted to identify the potential impact of station traffic at four
intersections and three roadway segments during the interim period.Figure 1 illustrates the study area,
which includes the following study intersections:
1.Palm Drive & The Promenade
2.Palm Drive & 9th Street
3.Palm Drive & Foothill Boulevard
4.Citrus Avenue & Foothill Boulevard
The following roadway segments were also analyzed:
1.Palm Drive from The Promenade to 9th Street
2.Palm Drive from 9th Street to Foothill Boulevard
3.The Promenade east of Palm Drive
Palm Drive and Promenade are classified as collectors in the City of Azusa General Plan. The two
roadways are built to the General Plan standards. They are not considered neighborhood streets.
New AM (7-9) and PM (4-6) peak period turning movement counts were conducted on January 21st at
two of the intersections (Palm Drive & The Promenade and Palm Drive & 9th Street) and peak period
turning movement counts at the other two intersections (Palm Drive & Foothill Boulevard and Citrus
Avenue & Foothill Boulevard) were conducted on January 19 and 20, 2016. Existing peak hour volumes
at study intersections are illustrated in Figure 6.
Station traffic was estimated based on the capacity of the proposed parking structure at the station, the
projected number of kiss-and-ride vehicles at the station, and the proposed additional shuttles run by
the Authority to transport students of APU and Citrus College to and from the station. The Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) of the Foothill Gold Line Extension Phase 2A showed that the
proposed parking structure would have 202 spaces. In addition, the regional travel demand model used
for traffic forecasts for the FEIR showed that the number of kiss-and-ride vehicles would be
approximately 10% of the park-and-ride vehicles. Therefore, it was assumed that a total of 220 vehicles
would arrive at the station in the AM peak period (6-9 AM) and that 50% of them (110 vehicles) would
arrive in the AM peak hour.
Similarly, it was assumed that all 220 vehicles would leave the station during the PM peak period (3-7
PM) and 50% of them (110) would leave in the PM peak hour. The vehicle trips to and from the station
on opening day are summarized in Table 1 below.
11
12
Table 1: Opening-Day Station Vehicle Trips
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Park-and-Ride Vehicles (Assume 50% in the
AM peak hour and 50% in the PM peak hour)100 0 100 10 100 110
Kiss-and-Ride Vehicles (Assume 50% in the
AM peak hour and 50% in the PM peak hour)10 10 20 10 10 20
Authority Shuttles
(Assume 5 minute headways)12 12 24 12 12 24
Total 122 22 144 32 122 154
Trip distribution of park and ride and kiss-and-ride trips was based on the location of the station and the
surrounding land uses. It was assumed that approximately 75% of those trips would use Citrus Avenue
and Foothill Boulevard to get to/from the station from the east, 10% would use Foothill Boulevard from
the west, and 15% would use Rosedale Avenue from the north. In addition, trip distribution for the
shuttles was based on the recommended route, as shown in Figure 5. Station-related automobile and
shuttle trips were added to the study intersections based on the trip distribution described above. The
AM and PM peak hour volumes expected with the addition of station-related traffic are illustrated in
Figure 6.
A roadway segment level of analysis was conducted using the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio
methodology, to be consistent with the FEIR. For this analysis, the capacity of the study roadway
segments was assumed to be 800 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl), a typical lane capacity of a collector
street, which is consistent with Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP)
requirements.
To be consistent with the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), levels of service (LOS) for study
intersections were based on the methodologies of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000). The
analysis for the roundabout at Palm Drive/Promenade was based on the 2010 HCM, since HCM 2000
does not include a roundabout analysis methodology. Analysis at study intersections was conducted
using Synchro software.
According to the City of Azusa’s General Plan, the level of service standard for roadways and signalized
intersections throughout the city of Azusa is LOS D, except in the downtown area, the University District,
and in the vicinity of freeway interchanges. For the purpose of this analysis, a level of service standard of
LOS D has been used for intersections and roadways.
6.1 Existing Traffic Conditions
A level of service analysis was conducted at the roadway segments using previously described
methodology. The results show that all study roadway segments are currently operating at LOS A.
Table 2 summarizes the existing LOS at roadway segments.
13
Table 2: Existing (2015) Roadway Segment Levels of Service
ROADWAY SEGMENT Lanes
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS
1 Palm Drive from The Promenade to 9th Street 2 114 0.071 A 102 0.064 A
2 Palm Drive from 9th Street to Foothill Boulevard 2 218 0.136 A 222 0.139 A
3 The Promenade east of Palm Drive 2 60 0.038 A 59 0.037 A
V/C = Volume-to-Capacity ratio
Existing lane configurations at study intersections are illustrated in Figure 6. A level of service analysis
was conducted at the study intersections using previously described methodologies.Table 3 summarizes
the existing LOS at study intersections. The results show that three of the four study intersections are
currently operating at LOS C or better. LOS calculation worksheets are included at the end of this
document. The Palm Drive & Foothill Boulevard intersection is currently operating at LOS F during both
the AM and PM peak hours. The poor level of service at this location is due in part to the high pedestrian
volumes, which makes it difficult for vehicles on Palm Drive to turn left onto Foothill Boulevard, and in
part to heavy traffic on Foothill Boulevard during peak hours.
Table 3: Existing (2015) Intersection Levels of Service
INTERSECTIONS
Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Type Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Palm Drive & The Promenade Roundabout 3.7 A 3.7 A
2 Palm Drive &9th Street AWSC 7.5 A 7.7 A
3 Palm Drive & Foothill Boulevard 1WSC 78.9 F 53.7 F
4 Citrus Avenue & Foothill Boulevard Signal 26.0 C 33.8 C
1WSC = One-Way Stop Controlled; AWSC = All-Way Stop Controlled; Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (seconds)
BOLD indicates unsatisfactory LOS
A crossing guard on Foothill Boulevard at Palm Drive would be helpful to hold pedestrians at the
intersection and let vehicles make the left-turn, but only when traffic is light on Foothill Boulevard.
However, during peak hours, vehicles on Palm Drive may not find enough gaps in traffic on Foothill
Boulevard to make the left-turn. In this situation, having a crossing guard stop pedestrians to allow
vehicles to make a left-turn when there are not gaps in Foothill Boulevard traffic may cause confusion to
the drivers and possibly encourage them to make an unsafe left turn. Therefore, to reduce the existing
delays experienced by southbound traffic on Palm Drive and to enhance safety, it is recommended that
all-way stop control should be installed at the intersection and that eastbound Foothill Boulevard should
be restriped to include an exclusive left-turn lane and two through lanes. The California Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2014 Edition, states that a multi-way stop control can be
considered at an intersection if there is a need to control left-turn conflicts or there is a need to control
vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes.
A level of service analysis was conducted at the Palm Drive & Foothill Boulevard intersection to evaluate
how the intersection would operate with all-way stop control and existing peak hour volumes. The
results show that the intersection would operate at LOS D or better during both AM and PM peak hours
with all-way stop control.Table 4 summarizes the LOS at the intersection. LOS calculation worksheets
for mitigated existing conditions are included at the end of this document.
14
Table 4: Existing (2015) Intersection Levels of Service - Mitigated
INTERSECTIONS
Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Type Delay LOS Delay LOS
3 Palm Drive & Foothill Boulevard AWSC 26.1 D 15.0 B
AWSC = All-Way Stop Controlled; Delay =Average Vehicle Delay (seconds)
6.2 Traffic Conditions With the Addition of Station Traffic
Traffic volumes with the addition of station traffic were calculated by adding the station trips to the
existing traffic volumes at the study intersections. The peak hour traffic volumes with the addition of
station traffic at study intersections are illustrated in Figure 3.
A level of service analysis was conducted at the roadway segments using previously described
methodology. The results show that all study roadway segments would continue to operate at LOS A.
Table 5 summarizes the LOS on roadway segments with the addition of station traffic.
Table 5: Roadway Segment Levels of Service with Additional Station Traffic
ROADWAY SEGMENT Lanes
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS
1 Palm Drive from The Promenade to 9th Street 2 241 0.151 A 237 0.148 A
2 Palm Drive from 9th Street to Foothill Boulevard 2 345 0.216 A 357 0.223 A
3 The Promenade east of Palm Drive 2 206 0.129 A 214 0.134 A
V/C = Volume-to-Capacity ratio
A level of service analysis using previously described methodologies was conducted at the study
intersections to evaluate traffic conditions with the addition of station traffic, including the
implementation of all-way stop control at the intersection of Palm Drive and Foothill Boulevard needed
to mitigate the existing condition. The AM and PM peak hour intersection levels of service are
summarized in Table 6. The results of the LOS analysis show that all study intersections would operate
at LOS D or better. LOS calculation worksheets are included at the end of this document.
Table 6: Intersection Levels of Service with the Addition of Station Traffic
INTERSECTIONS
Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Type Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Palm Drive & The Promenade Roundabout 4.3 A 4.6 A
2 Palm Drive & 9th Street AWSC 8.2 A 8.3 A
3 Palm Drive & Foothill Boulevard AWSC*33.7 D 19.8 C
4 Citrus Avenue & Foothill Boulevard Signal 28.8 C 33.8 C
AWSC = All-Way Stop Controlled; Delay =Average Vehicle Delay (seconds)
*AWSC is required at the intersection to mitigate existing conditions
The results of the analysis show that Palm Drive & Foothill Boulevard intersection will continue to
operate at LOS D or better as an all-way stop controlled intersection. Since there is high pedestrian
activity at the Palm Drive & Foothill Boulevard intersection, a crossing guard is recommended to stop
pedestrians intermittently to allow vehicles to make left-turns at the intersection. As illustrated in
15
Figure 4, high pedestrian activity currently occurs from 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM on a typical weekday.
Therefore, crossing guards are recommended to monitor the intersection on a weekday from 7:30 AM
to 4:30 PM.
7.0 Recommendations
The following section summarizes the recommendations included in this memorandum to improve
pedestrian safety and traffic operations in the station vicinity:
x Install all-way stop control at the Palm Drive & Foothill Boulevard intersection to mitigate
existing conditions.
x Install guide signs at the existing Citrus Avenue & Foothill Boulevard intersection and at the
future Citrus Avenue & Foothill Boulevard (north) intersection to direct pedestrians to the
station.
x Install guide signs at the station to direct pedestrians to the recommended paths of travel to the
colleges or the shuttle pick up location.
x Coordinate with APU, Citrus College, and other community groups to make sure that student,
residents, and commuters are aware of the availability of the shuttle and the recommended
routes of travel to the station.
x The existing fence north of Foothill Boulevard on the proposed alignment of Citrus Avenue
extension should remain to limit access through the construction zone for the Citrus Avenue
extension, and the gate needs to be secured at all times to prevent pedestrian access through
the construction site.
x Provide a fence on Citrus Avenue on the north side of the rail overcrossing to prevent
pedestrians from going under the bridges to get to Foothill Boulevard.
x Install Type I Pedestrian Barricades on the south side of Promenade, with signage directing foot
traffic to the sidewalk in the median.
x Secure the vacant lot (south side of Promenade) adjacent to the station to prevent pedestrians
from short cutting through it to reach the station.
x In conjunction with the installation of all-way stop control, provide crossing guards at Palm Drive
and Foothill Boulevard to stop pedestrians intermittently to allow vehicles on Palm Drive to exit
onto Foothill Boulevard. Hours for crossing guards should be at least from 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM
on weekdays.
The recommendations are illustrated in in Figure 7.
16
17
Photo 1: Fence at south end of proposed construction
Photo 2: Sidewalk on north side of Foothill Boulevard
18
Photo 3: Sidewalk on the east side of Palm Drive
Photo 4: South Side of Promenade
19
Photo 5: Center Sidewalk on Promenade
Photo 6: Pedestrians crossing Palm Drive
20
Photo 7: Traffic Queue on Palm Drive
HCM 2010 Roundabout Existing (2015) Conditions
1: Palm Dr & Promenade AM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 3.7
Intersection LOS A
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 46 53 42 10
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 47 54 43 10
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 45 35 6 55
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 20 13 86 34
Follow-Up Headway, s 3.186 3.186 3.186 3.186
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.5
Approach LOS A A A A
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193
Entry Flow, veh/h 47 54 43 10
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1080 1091 1123 1069
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.977 0.977 0.988 0.980
Flow Entry, veh/h 46 53 42 10
Cap Entry, veh/h 1055 1066 1110 1049
V/C Ratio 0.044 0.049 0.038 0.009
Control Delay, s/veh 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.5
LOS A A A A
95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2015) Conditions
2: Palm Dr & 9th St AM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Volume (vph)3 62 49 35 68 8
Future Volume (vph)3 62 49 35 68 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Hourly flow rate (vph)3 68 54 38 75 9
Direction, Lane #EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)71 92 84
Volume Left (vph)3 54 0
Volume Right (vph)68 0 9
Hadj (s)-0.53 0.15 -0.03
Departure Headway (s)3.8 4.3 4.1
Degree Utilization, x 0.07 0.11 0.10
Capacity (veh/h)913 816 855
Control Delay (s)7.0 7.8 7.5
Approach Delay (s)7.0 7.8 7.5
Approach LOS A A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 7.5
Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.9%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2015) Conditions
3: Foothill Blvd & Palm Dr AM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)12 331 589 70 114 22
Future Volume (Veh/h)12 331 589 70 114 22
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0%0%0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76
Hourly flow rate (vph)16 436 775 92 150 29
Pedestrians 80
Lane Width (ft)12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s)3.5
Percent Blockage 8
Right turn flare (veh)5
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)911
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 947 1151 514
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 947 1151 514
tC, single (s)4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free %98 13 94
cM capacity (veh/h)666 172 467
Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 161 291 517 350 179
Volume Left 16 0 0 0 150
Volume Right 0 0 0 92 29
cSH 666 1700 1700 1700 206
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.17 0.30 0.21 0.87
Queue Length 95th (ft)2 0 0 0 167
Control Delay (s)1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.9
Lane LOS A F
Approach Delay (s)0.5 0.0 78.9
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 9.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.1%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2015) Conditions
4: Citrus Ave & Foothill Blvd AM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)178 114 190 50 29 11 279 267 323 14 179 317
Future Volume (vph)178 114 190 50 29 11 279 267 323 14 179 317
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.90
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.90
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1863 1537 1770 1863 1358 1770 3539 1350 1770 2887
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1863 1537 1770 1863 1358 1770 3539 1350 1770 2887
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73
Adj. Flow (vph)244 156 260 68 40 15 382 366 442 19 245 434
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 107 0 0 14 0 0 220 0 268 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)244 156 153 68 40 1 382 366 222 19 411 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)46 99 58 107
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s)15.0 13.9 34.1 6.4 5.3 5.3 20.2 40.5 40.5 1.8 22.1
Effective Green, g (s)15.0 13.9 34.1 6.4 5.3 5.3 20.2 40.5 40.5 1.8 22.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.17 0.42 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.02 0.27
Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)329 321 736 140 122 89 443 1778 678 39 791
v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.08 0.05 0.04 0.02 c0.22 0.10 0.01 c0.14
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.00 0.16
v/c Ratio 0.74 0.49 0.21 0.49 0.33 0.01 0.86 0.21 0.33 0.49 0.52
Uniform Delay, d1 31.0 30.1 14.7 35.5 35.9 35.2 28.9 11.1 11.9 38.9 24.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 8.7 1.2 0.1 2.6 1.6 0.0 15.7 0.3 1.3 9.3 2.4
Delay (s)39.7 31.3 14.8 38.2 37.5 35.2 44.6 11.4 13.2 48.2 27.2
Level of Service D C B D D D D B B D C
Approach Delay (s)27.9 37.6 22.7 27.8
Approach LOS C D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.6 Sum of lost time (s)18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.3%ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2010 Roundabout Existing (2015) Conditions
1: Palm Dr & Promenade PM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 3.7
Intersection LOS A
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 36 31 65 40
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 37 31 66 41
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 50 22 8 35
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 26 52 79 18
Follow-Up Headway, s 3.186 3.186 3.186 3.186
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.7
Approach LOS A A A A
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193
Entry Flow, veh/h 37 31 66 41
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1075 1105 1121 1091
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.969 0.993 0.980 0.984
Flow Entry, veh/h 36 31 65 40
Cap Entry, veh/h 1041 1098 1099 1074
V/C Ratio 0.034 0.028 0.059 0.038
Control Delay, s/veh 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.7
LOS A A A A
95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2015) Conditions
2: Palm Dr & 9th St PM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Volume (vph)4 72 77 43 52 3
Future Volume (vph)4 72 77 43 52 3
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)4 78 84 47 57 3
Direction, Lane #EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)82 131 60
Volume Left (vph)4 84 0
Volume Right (vph)78 0 3
Hadj (s)-0.53 0.16 0.00
Departure Headway (s)3.8 4.3 4.2
Degree Utilization, x 0.09 0.16 0.07
Capacity (veh/h)900 814 831
Control Delay (s)7.2 8.1 7.5
Approach Delay (s)7.2 8.1 7.5
Approach LOS A A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 7.7
Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.5%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2015) Conditions
3: Foothill Blvd & Palm Dr PM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)24 505 415 94 86 18
Future Volume (Veh/h)24 505 415 94 86 18
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0%0%0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Hourly flow rate (vph)29 616 506 115 105 22
Pedestrians 182
Lane Width (ft)12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s)3.5
Percent Blockage 17
Right turn flare (veh)5
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)911
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 803 1112 492
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 803 1112 492
tC, single (s)4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free %96 35 95
cM capacity (veh/h)675 161 432
Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 234 411 337 284 127
Volume Left 29 0 0 0 105
Volume Right 0 0 0 115 22
cSH 675 1700 1700 1700 194
Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.65
Queue Length 95th (ft)3 0 0 0 97
Control Delay (s)1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.7
Lane LOS A F
Approach Delay (s)0.6 0.0 53.7
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 5.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.1%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2015) Conditions
4: Citrus Ave & Foothill Blvd PM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)227 28 355 128 37 14 350 177 80 5 141 160
Future Volume (vph)227 28 355 128 37 14 350 177 80 5 141 160
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.88
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1863 1559 1770 1863 1416 1770 3539 1374 1770 2854
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1863 1559 1770 1863 1416 1770 3539 1374 1770 2854
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81
Adj. Flow (vph)280 35 438 158 46 17 432 219 99 6 174 198
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 71 0 0 16 0 0 46 0 143 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)280 35 367 158 46 1 432 219 53 6 229 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)44 71 51 167
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s)13.9 6.0 27.7 12.6 4.7 4.7 21.7 43.3 43.3 0.9 22.5
Effective Green, g (s)13.9 6.0 27.7 12.6 4.7 4.7 21.7 43.3 43.3 0.9 22.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.07 0.34 0.16 0.06 0.06 0.27 0.54 0.54 0.01 0.28
Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)304 138 621 276 108 82 475 1896 736 19 794
v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.02 c0.16 0.09 0.02 c0.24 0.06 0.00 c0.08
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.00 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.92 0.25 0.59 0.57 0.43 0.01 0.91 0.12 0.07 0.32 0.29
Uniform Delay, d1 32.9 35.3 21.9 31.6 36.7 35.9 28.6 9.3 9.1 39.6 22.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 31.8 1.0 1.5 2.9 2.7 0.1 21.1 0.1 0.2 9.3 0.9
Delay (s)64.7 36.3 23.4 34.5 39.4 35.9 49.7 9.4 9.2 49.0 23.8
Level of Service E D C C D D D A A D C
Approach Delay (s)39.4 35.6 32.6 24.2
Approach LOS D D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.8 Sum of lost time (s)18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.9%ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2010 Roundabout Existing (2015) Conditions-Mitigated
1: Palm Dr & Promenade AM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 3.7
Intersection LOS A
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 46 53 42 10
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 47 54 43 10
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 45 35 6 55
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 20 13 86 34
Follow-Up Headway, s 3.186 3.186 3.186 3.186
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.5
Approach LOS A A A A
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193
Entry Flow, veh/h 47 54 43 10
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1080 1091 1123 1069
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.977 0.977 0.988 0.980
Flow Entry, veh/h 46 53 42 10
Cap Entry, veh/h 1055 1066 1110 1049
V/C Ratio 0.044 0.049 0.038 0.009
Control Delay, s/veh 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.5
LOS A A A A
95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0
HCM 2010 AWSC Existing (2015) Conditions-Mitigated
2: Palm Dr & 9th St AM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.5
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBU EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 3 62 0 49 35 0 68 8
Future Vol, veh/h 0 3 62 0 49 35 0 68 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 3 68 0 54 38 0 75 9
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0
Conflicting Approach Right NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay 7.1 7.8 7.5
HCM LOS A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, %58%5%0%
Vol Thru, %42%0%89%
Vol Right, %0%95%11%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 84 65 76
LT Vol 49 3 0
Through Vol 35 0 68
RT Vol 0 62 8
Lane Flow Rate 92 71 84
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X)0.109 0.073 0.094
Departure Headway (Hd)4.239 3.67 4.065
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 844 959 878
Service Time 2.276 1.759 2.109
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.109 0.074 0.096
HCM Control Delay 7.8 7.1 7.5
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 0.2 0.3
HCM 2010 AWSC Existing (2015) Conditions-Mitigated
3: Foothill Blvd & Palm Dr AM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 26.1
Intersection LOS D
Movement EBU EBL EBT WBU WBT WBR SBU SBL SBR
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 12 331 0 589 70 0 114 22
Future Vol, veh/h 0 12 331 0 589 70 0 114 22
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.76 0.76 0.92 0.76 0.76 0.92 0.76 0.76
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 16 436 0 775 92 0 150 29
Number of Lanes 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 1
Approach EB WB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB
Opposing Lanes 2 3 0
Conflicting Approach Left SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 2
Conflicting Approach Right SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 0 2 3
HCM Control Delay 13.1 35.1 15.1
HCM LOS B E C
Lane EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, %100%0%0%0%0% 100%0%
Vol Thru, %0% 100% 100% 100%74%0%0%
Vol Right, %0%0%0%0%26%0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 12 166 166 393 266 114 22
LT Vol 12 0 0 0 0 114 0
Through Vol 0 166 166 393 196 0 0
RT Vol 0 0 0 0 70 0 22
Lane Flow Rate 16 218 218 517 350 150 29
Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Degree of Util (X)0.034 0.436 0.329 0.922 0.607 0.357 0.059
Departure Headway (Hd)7.824 7.315 5.55 6.421 6.234 8.575 7.355
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 460 494 651 563 575 422 490
Service Time 5.524 5.015 3.25 4.208 4.022 6.275 5.055
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.035 0.441 0.335 0.918 0.609 0.355 0.059
HCM Control Delay 10.8 15.5 10.9 46.5 18.3 16 10.5
HCM Lane LOS B C B E C C B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 2.2 1.4 11.4 4 1.6 0.2
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2015) Conditions-Mitigated
4: Citrus Ave & Foothill Blvd AM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)178 114 190 50 29 11 279 267 323 14 179 317
Future Volume (vph)178 114 190 50 29 11 279 267 323 14 179 317
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.90
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.90
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1863 1537 1770 1863 1358 1770 3539 1350 1770 2887
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1863 1537 1770 1863 1358 1770 3539 1350 1770 2887
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73
Adj. Flow (vph)244 156 260 68 40 15 382 366 442 19 245 434
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 107 0 0 14 0 0 220 0 268 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)244 156 153 68 40 1 382 366 222 19 411 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)46 99 58 107
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s)15.0 13.9 34.1 6.4 5.3 5.3 20.2 40.5 40.5 1.8 22.1
Effective Green, g (s)15.0 13.9 34.1 6.4 5.3 5.3 20.2 40.5 40.5 1.8 22.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.17 0.42 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.02 0.27
Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)329 321 736 140 122 89 443 1778 678 39 791
v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.08 0.05 0.04 0.02 c0.22 0.10 0.01 c0.14
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.00 0.16
v/c Ratio 0.74 0.49 0.21 0.49 0.33 0.01 0.86 0.21 0.33 0.49 0.52
Uniform Delay, d1 31.0 30.1 14.7 35.5 35.9 35.2 28.9 11.1 11.9 38.9 24.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 8.7 1.2 0.1 2.6 1.6 0.0 15.7 0.3 1.3 9.3 2.4
Delay (s)39.7 31.3 14.8 38.2 37.5 35.2 44.6 11.4 13.2 48.2 27.2
Level of Service D C B D D D D B B D C
Approach Delay (s)27.9 37.6 22.7 27.8
Approach LOS C D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.6 Sum of lost time (s)18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.3%ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2010 Roundabout Existing (2015) Conditions-Mitigated
1: Palm Dr & Promenade PM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 3.7
Intersection LOS A
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 36 31 65 40
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 37 31 66 41
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 50 22 8 35
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 26 52 79 18
Follow-Up Headway, s 3.186 3.186 3.186 3.186
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.7
Approach LOS A A A A
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193
Entry Flow, veh/h 37 31 66 41
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1075 1105 1121 1091
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.969 0.993 0.980 0.984
Flow Entry, veh/h 36 31 65 40
Cap Entry, veh/h 1041 1098 1099 1074
V/C Ratio 0.034 0.028 0.059 0.038
Control Delay, s/veh 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.7
LOS A A A A
95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0
HCM 2010 AWSC Existing (2015) Conditions-Mitigated
2: Palm Dr & 9th St PM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.7
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBU EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 4 72 0 77 43 0 52 3
Future Vol, veh/h 0 4 72 0 77 43 0 52 3
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 4 78 0 84 47 0 57 3
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0
Conflicting Approach Right NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay 7.2 8.1 7.5
HCM LOS A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, %64%5%0%
Vol Thru, %36%0%95%
Vol Right, %0%95%5%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 120 76 55
LT Vol 77 4 0
Through Vol 43 0 52
RT Vol 0 72 3
Lane Flow Rate 130 83 60
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X)0.154 0.087 0.069
Departure Headway (Hd)4.252 3.803 4.145
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 840 948 857
Service Time 2.294 1.803 2.207
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.155 0.088 0.07
HCM Control Delay 8.1 7.2 7.5
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 0.3 0.2
HCM 2010 AWSC Existing (2015) Conditions-Mitigated
3: Foothill Blvd & Palm Dr PM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 15
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBU EBL EBT WBU WBT WBR SBU SBL SBR
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 24 505 0 415 94 0 86 18
Future Vol, veh/h 0 24 505 0 415 94 0 86 18
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.82 0.82 0.92 0.82 0.82 0.92 0.82 0.82
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 29 616 0 506 115 0 105 22
Number of Lanes 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 1
Approach EB WB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB
Opposing Lanes 2 3 0
Conflicting Approach Left SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 2
Conflicting Approach Right SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 0 2 3
HCM Control Delay 13.8 16.7 13.1
HCM LOS B C B
Lane EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, %100%0%0%0%0% 100%0%
Vol Thru, %0% 100% 100% 100%60%0%0%
Vol Right, %0%0%0%0%40%0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 24 253 253 277 232 86 18
LT Vol 24 0 0 0 0 86 0
Through Vol 0 253 253 277 138 0 0
RT Vol 0 0 0 0 94 0 18
Lane Flow Rate 29 308 308 337 283 105 22
Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Degree of Util (X)0.057 0.557 0.407 0.602 0.483 0.241 0.043
Departure Headway (Hd)7.016 6.51 4.755 6.419 6.133 8.265 7.046
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 509 551 751 560 587 432 505
Service Time 4.783 4.276 2.521 4.183 3.897 6.056 4.836
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.057 0.559 0.41 0.602 0.482 0.243 0.044
HCM Control Delay 10.2 17.2 10.8 18.5 14.5 13.7 10.2
HCM Lane LOS B C B C B B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 3.4 2 4 2.6 0.9 0.1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2015) Conditions-Mitigated
4: Citrus Ave & Foothill Blvd PM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)227 28 355 128 37 14 350 177 80 5 141 160
Future Volume (vph)227 28 355 128 37 14 350 177 80 5 141 160
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.88
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1863 1559 1770 1863 1416 1770 3539 1374 1770 2854
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1863 1559 1770 1863 1416 1770 3539 1374 1770 2854
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81
Adj. Flow (vph)280 35 438 158 46 17 432 219 99 6 174 198
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 71 0 0 16 0 0 46 0 143 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)280 35 367 158 46 1 432 219 53 6 229 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)44 71 51 167
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s)13.9 6.0 27.7 12.6 4.7 4.7 21.7 43.3 43.3 0.9 22.5
Effective Green, g (s)13.9 6.0 27.7 12.6 4.7 4.7 21.7 43.3 43.3 0.9 22.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.07 0.34 0.16 0.06 0.06 0.27 0.54 0.54 0.01 0.28
Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)304 138 621 276 108 82 475 1896 736 19 794
v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.02 c0.16 0.09 0.02 c0.24 0.06 0.00 c0.08
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.00 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.92 0.25 0.59 0.57 0.43 0.01 0.91 0.12 0.07 0.32 0.29
Uniform Delay, d1 32.9 35.3 21.9 31.6 36.7 35.9 28.6 9.3 9.1 39.6 22.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 31.8 1.0 1.5 2.9 2.7 0.1 21.1 0.1 0.2 9.3 0.9
Delay (s)64.7 36.3 23.4 34.5 39.4 35.9 49.7 9.4 9.2 49.0 23.8
Level of Service E D C C D D D A A D C
Approach Delay (s)39.4 35.6 32.6 24.2
Approach LOS D D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.8 Sum of lost time (s)18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.9%ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2010 Roundabout Existing+Project Conditions
1: Palm Dr & Promenade AM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 4.3
Intersection LOS A
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 65 78 158 10
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 66 79 162 10
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 68 35 25 80
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 22 150 109 34
Follow-Up Headway, s 3.186 3.186 3.186 3.186
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.0 4.0 4.6 3.6
Approach LOS A A A A
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193
Entry Flow, veh/h 66 79 162 10
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1056 1091 1102 1043
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.978 0.984 0.978 0.980
Flow Entry, veh/h 65 78 158 10
Cap Entry, veh/h 1032 1073 1078 1023
V/C Ratio 0.063 0.072 0.147 0.010
Control Delay, s/veh 4.0 4.0 4.6 3.6
LOS A A A A
95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 0
HCM 2010 AWSC Existing+Project Conditions
2: Palm Dr & 9th St AM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.2
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBU EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 3 62 0 49 141 0 89 8
Future Vol, veh/h 0 3 62 0 49 141 0 89 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 3 68 0 54 155 0 98 9
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0
Conflicting Approach Right NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay 7.4 8.6 7.9
HCM LOS A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, %26%5%0%
Vol Thru, %74%0%92%
Vol Right, %0%95%8%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 190 65 97
LT Vol 49 3 0
Through Vol 141 0 89
RT Vol 0 62 8
Lane Flow Rate 209 71 107
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X)0.243 0.081 0.123
Departure Headway (Hd)4.192 4.062 4.169
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 850 887 847
Service Time 2.252 2.062 2.255
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.246 0.08 0.126
HCM Control Delay 8.6 7.4 7.9
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 1 0.3 0.4
HCM 2010 AWSC Existing+Project Conditions
3: Foothill Blvd & Palm Dr AM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 33.7
Intersection LOS D
Movement EBU EBL EBT WBU WBT WBR SBU SBL SBR
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 35 331 0 589 153 0 134 23
Future Vol, veh/h 0 35 331 0 589 153 0 134 23
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.76 0.76 0.92 0.76 0.76 0.92 0.76 0.76
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 46 436 0 775 201 0 176 30
Number of Lanes 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 1
Approach EB WB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB
Opposing Lanes 2 3 0
Conflicting Approach Left SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 2
Conflicting Approach Right SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 0 2 3
HCM Control Delay 14.2 46.8 17.3
HCM LOS B E C
Lane EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, %100%0%0%0%0% 100%0%
Vol Thru, %0% 100% 100% 100%56%0%0%
Vol Right, %0%0%0%0%44%0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 35 166 166 393 349 134 23
LT Vol 35 0 0 0 0 134 0
Through Vol 0 166 166 393 196 0 0
RT Vol 0 0 0 0 153 0 23
Lane Flow Rate 46 218 218 517 460 176 30
Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Degree of Util (X)0.105 0.464 0.357 0.975 0.828 0.437 0.065
Departure Headway (Hd)8.182 7.672 5.902 6.796 6.484 8.92 7.697
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 439 470 610 537 561 404 465
Service Time 5.917 5.407 3.637 4.529 4.217 6.664 5.441
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.105 0.464 0.357 0.963 0.82 0.436 0.065
HCM Control Delay 11.9 16.9 11.9 58.9 33.2 18.4 11
HCM Lane LOS B C B F D C B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 2.4 1.6 13.1 8.4 2.2 0.2
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing+Project Conditions
4: Citrus Ave & Foothill Blvd AM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)182 114 206 50 29 11 323 267 323 14 179 356
Future Volume (vph)182 114 206 50 29 11 323 267 323 14 179 356
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.90
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.90
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1863 1539 1770 1863 1353 1770 3539 1345 1770 2855
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1863 1539 1770 1863 1353 1770 3539 1345 1770 2855
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73
Adj. Flow (vph)249 156 282 68 40 15 442 366 442 19 245 488
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 103 0 0 14 0 0 216 0 260 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)249 156 179 68 40 1 442 366 226 19 473 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)46 99 58 107
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s)14.8 13.9 36.5 6.5 5.6 5.6 22.6 42.2 42.2 1.9 21.5
Effective Green, g (s)14.8 13.9 36.5 6.5 5.6 5.6 22.6 42.2 42.2 1.9 21.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.17 0.44 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.27 0.51 0.51 0.02 0.26
Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)317 313 764 139 126 91 484 1810 687 40 744
v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 c0.25 0.10 0.01 c0.17
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.00 0.17
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.50 0.23 0.49 0.32 0.01 0.91 0.20 0.33 0.47 0.64
Uniform Delay, d1 32.3 31.1 14.3 36.4 36.6 35.9 29.0 11.0 11.8 39.8 27.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 12.1 1.3 0.2 2.7 1.5 0.0 21.6 0.3 1.3 8.6 4.1
Delay (s)44.4 32.4 14.5 39.1 38.1 35.9 50.6 11.2 13.1 48.4 31.1
Level of Service D C B D D D D B B D C
Approach Delay (s)29.4 38.4 25.8 31.6
Approach LOS C D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 82.5 Sum of lost time (s)18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.4%ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2010 Roundabout Existing+Project Conditions
1: Palm Dr & Promenade PM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 4.6
Intersection LOS A
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 41 202 105 40
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 42 206 107 41
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 200 22 13 210
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 51 98 229 18
Follow-Up Headway, s 3.186 3.186 3.186 3.186
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.4 5.0 4.1 4.4
Approach LOS A A A A
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193
Entry Flow, veh/h 42 206 107 41
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 925 1105 1115 916
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.970 0.982 0.979 0.984
Flow Entry, veh/h 41 202 105 40
Cap Entry, veh/h 897 1085 1091 901
V/C Ratio 0.045 0.186 0.096 0.045
Control Delay, s/veh 4.4 5.0 4.1 4.4
LOS A A A A
95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0
HCM 2010 AWSC Existing+Project Conditions
2: Palm Dr & 9th St PM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.3
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBU EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 4 72 0 77 72 0 158 3
Future Vol, veh/h 0 4 72 0 77 72 0 158 3
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 4 78 0 84 78 0 172 3
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0
Conflicting Approach Right NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay 7.6 8.5 8.4
HCM LOS A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, %52%5%0%
Vol Thru, %48%0%98%
Vol Right, %0%95%2%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 149 76 161
LT Vol 77 4 0
Through Vol 72 0 158
RT Vol 0 72 3
Lane Flow Rate 162 83 175
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X)0.194 0.095 0.204
Departure Headway (Hd)4.316 4.123 4.191
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 820 874 844
Service Time 2.403 2.123 2.28
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.198 0.095 0.207
HCM Control Delay 8.5 7.6 8.4
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.7 0.3 0.8
HCM 2010 AWSC Existing+Project Conditions
3: Foothill Blvd & Palm Dr PM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 19.8
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBU EBL EBT WBU WBT WBR SBU SBL SBR
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 38 505 0 415 109 0 181 29
Future Vol, veh/h 0 38 505 0 415 109 0 181 29
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.82 0.82 0.92 0.82 0.82 0.92 0.82 0.82
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 46 616 0 506 133 0 221 35
Number of Lanes 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 1
Approach EB WB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB
Opposing Lanes 2 3 0
Conflicting Approach Left SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 2
Conflicting Approach Right SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 0 2 3
HCM Control Delay 17.4 22.2 19.8
HCM LOS C C C
Lane EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, %100%0%0%0%0% 100%0%
Vol Thru, %0% 100% 100% 100%56%0%0%
Vol Right, %0%0%0%0%44%0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 38 253 253 277 247 181 29
LT Vol 38 0 0 0 0 181 0
Through Vol 0 253 253 277 138 0 0
RT Vol 0 0 0 0 109 0 29
Lane Flow Rate 46 308 308 337 302 221 35
Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Degree of Util (X)0.102 0.633 0.481 0.687 0.588 0.536 0.074
Departure Headway (Hd)7.908 7.397 5.626 7.327 7.012 8.748 7.524
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 453 490 640 493 516 413 475
Service Time 5.654 5.143 3.371 5.075 4.76 6.504 5.28
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.102 0.629 0.481 0.684 0.585 0.535 0.074
HCM Control Delay 11.6 22.1 13.5 24.7 19.3 21.2 10.9
HCM Lane LOS B C B C C C B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 4.3 2.6 5.2 3.7 3.1 0.2
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing+Project Conditions
4: Citrus Ave & Foothill Blvd PM Peak Hour
APU/Citrus College Station Synchro 9 Report
AECOM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)266 28 411 128 37 14 358 177 80 5 141 167
Future Volume (vph)266 28 411 128 37 14 358 177 80 5 141 167
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.86
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1863 1556 1770 1863 1400 1770 3539 1354 1770 2799
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1863 1556 1770 1863 1400 1770 3539 1354 1770 2799
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81
Adj. Flow (vph)328 35 507 158 46 17 442 219 99 6 174 206
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 102 0 0 16 0 0 47 0 155 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)328 35 405 158 46 1 442 219 52 6 225 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)44 71 51 167
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s)19.2 7.5 32.7 16.6 4.9 4.9 25.2 46.7 46.7 0.9 22.4
Effective Green, g (s)19.2 7.5 32.7 16.6 4.9 4.9 25.2 46.7 46.7 0.9 22.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.08 0.36 0.19 0.05 0.05 0.28 0.52 0.52 0.01 0.25
Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)378 155 645 327 101 76 497 1842 704 17 698
v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.02 c0.18 0.09 0.02 c0.25 0.06 0.00 c0.08
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.00 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.87 0.23 0.63 0.48 0.46 0.01 0.89 0.12 0.07 0.35 0.32
Uniform Delay, d1 34.0 38.4 23.5 32.7 41.1 40.1 30.9 11.0 10.7 44.1 27.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 18.5 0.7 1.9 1.1 3.2 0.1 17.4 0.1 0.2 12.2 1.2
Delay (s)52.5 39.1 25.4 33.8 44.3 40.2 48.3 11.1 10.9 56.3 28.7
Level of Service D D C C D D D B B E C
Approach Delay (s)36.2 36.5 32.7 29.1
Approach LOS D D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 89.7 Sum of lost time (s)18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.5%ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
ATTACHMENT A
Citrus Avenue Construction
Action Items List Based on AECOM Study Recommendations
Page 1 of 2
Action Item Responsible
a) Install all-way stop control at the Palm Drive
and Foothill Boulevard intersection to
mitigate existing conditions
City
b) Install guide signs at the existing Citrus
Avenue and Foothill Boulevard intersection
and at the future Citrus Avenue and Foothill
Boulevard (north) intersection to direct
pedestrians to the station
Authority
c) Install guide signs at the station to direct
pedestrians to the recommended paths of
travel to the colleges or the shuttle pick up
location
Authority
d) Coordinate with APU, Citrus College, and
other community groups to make sure that
student, residents, and commuters are
aware of the availability of the shuttle and
the recommended routes of travel to the
station
Metro
e) The existing fence north of Foothill
Boulevard on the proposed alignment of
Citrus Avenue extension should remain to
limit access through the construction zone
for the Citrus Avenue extension, and the
gate needs to be secured at all times to
prevent pedestrian access through the
construction site
RLP
f) Provide a fence on Citrus Avenue on the
north side of the rail overcrossing to prevent
pedestrians from going under the bridges to
get to Foothill Boulevard
RLP
g) Install Type I Pedestrian Barricades on the
south side of Promenade, with signage
directing foot traffic to the sidewalk in the
median
Authority
ATTACHMENT A
Citrus Avenue Construction
Action Items List Based on AECOM Study Recommendations
Page 2 of 2
h) Secure the vacant lot (south side of
Promenade) adjacent to the station to
prevent pedestrians from short cutting
through it to reach the station
RLP
i) In conjunction with the installation of all-way
stop control, provide crossing guards at
Palm Drive and Foothill Boulevard to stop
pedestrians intermittently to allow vehicles
on Palm Drive to exit onto Foothill
Boulevard. Hours for crossing guards
should be at least from 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM
on weekdays
City