The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1611 Adrian Road - Technical StudyExhibit 3 BAY BADMINTON CENTER TRAFFIC AND PARKING STUDY Prepared for: City of Burlingame Prepared by: � � CHS G onpultirig � 130 Sutter Street, Suife 468 San Francisco. CA 94104 (495) 392-9688 April 18, 2007 ,,,, . . . ::,.,,, , p�`":?F,U � � S� ilU�� . ,�' � ` y� .�'': , Q, ,�� , ::•`� s� y �� "�_ ':��No TF?.15U��m, _ • �, � � 2 ,�� . : �.�p.�=:'�;: .` ��cS'J'•,�/�t��G ,^�Q,��, ��''�.�dF�CA1.�F�� `�`, �,,. � � #.o'�.. . �.� ,�„ iJ� .4PR 2 3 2007 CITY OF SU�i� !NGAME PLANNIPJG DEPT. Bay Badminton Center Traffic and Parking Study The purpose of this study is to examine the potential traffic and parking impacts that would be generated by the proposed Bay Badminton Center in BurlinQame (Proposed Project). Project Description The Proposed Project would be located at 161 1 Adrian Road in Burlingame. The site currently contains a warehouse building of approximately 59,429 gross square feet (gs� with 63 parking spaces. A portion of the building would be converted to a 16-court Badminton Center; the remaining space would continue to be used as a warehouse. There would be an increase of 44 parking spaces (from 63 to 107 spaces). Of the total 107 spaces, 7 would be disabled accessible spaces and 100 would be regular spaces. Table 1 compares the existing and proposed uses at the project site. Figure 1 presents the proposed project floor plan. Table 1 — Proiect Descrintion Warehouse for QF Badminton Club Court (16 courts Office Existing Uses 47,672 �ed Uses 19,339 1 1.757 Retail ( ro sho ) Total Buildio Area 59,429 Parkin S aces 63 l he Pmposed Project «�ould include 107 parking spaces, 7 of which ��ould be disabled spaces. Gross square feet of each use includes fair share of accessory uses_ such as stair�ca��, janitorial room Project Setting 31,955 7,606 529 59,429 10 rest rooms, and utility room. Adrian Road parallels US 101, and is located on the immediate west side of US ]0L The project site can be accessed from Millbrae Avenue and Broadway via Rollins Road. Adrian Road is a two-lane street with mostly industria] uses. It begins at Rollins Road in Millbrae in the north, and dead-ends just south of David Road in Burlingame in the south. Rollins Road connects Millbrae Avenue at the north end and Broadway at the south end. The average daily traffic volurne along Rollins Road is approximately 14,000 to I5,000 vehicles. Project Trip Generation Existing Uses The existing warehouse has seven employees and a typical weekday demand for seven parking spaces. The existing warehouse operation is "wholesale" - i.e., not open to the public, nor can the general public rent the warellouse units in wholesale. This use generates a demand for approximately t��o trucks per day, which deliver goods to warehouse customers. Bay Badminton Center Traffic and Parking Study April 18, 2007 � .___•, . _ �_�. - � Bay Badminton Center Traffic and Parking S[udy �r CHS Consu[ting � � Group Figure 1 Project Site Plan Proposed Uses Since there is no `Badminton Court", "Commercial Recreation", nor "Gym" land use in the Institute of TransporCation Engineer's Trip Generation Mai�ual, project trip generation is determined by the estimated levels of activities at the project site, provided by the project sponsor. Tables 2 and 3 present the estimated activities of the Proposed Project during a typical weekday and weekend, respectively. It should be noted that average stay by the players is typically one hour or less. The estimated number of players presented in Tables 2 and 3 are for one and half hours to allow for changing time for players. Table 2— Estimated Number of Em lo ers and Pla �ers b Time of the Da Weekda �) Adult Children Badminton Warehouse Players Players Coaches Parents Club Employees Total Em lo �ees AM 7:30 - 9:00 0 0 0 0 ? 7 9 AM 9:00 — 10:30 10 1 2 7 ?0 AM (10:30 - 12:00 10 1 2 7 20 PM 12:00 - 1:30 10 1 2 7 ZO PM (1:30-3:00 0 1 2 7 10 PM 3:00 --1:30 0 10 1 10 2 7 30 PM 4:30 - 6:00 10 1 2 7 20 Evenin 6:00 - 7:30 16 2 18 Evenin 7:30 - 9:U0 23 2 24 Evenin 9:00 - I 1:00 10 2 12 Source: k�a� Badminton Center. Inc. Note: The coach would be the same person staying for the entire duration and employees ��ould bc in two shifls �� idi 2 employees per shift and the shift change would occur at 3:00 p.m. Table 3— Estimated Number of Em lo ers and Plavers bv Time of the Da Weekend Adult Children Badminton Warehouse Plapers Players Coaches Parents Club Employees Total Em lo •ees AM (7:30 - 9:00) 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 AM 9:00 — 10:30 18 5 1 0 3 0 27 AM 10:30 - 12:00 20 5 1 0 3 0 29 PM 12:00 - 1:30 6 0 1 0 3 0 10 PM 1:30 - 3:00 8 5 1 5 3 0 22 PM (3:00 - 4:30 12 5 1 � 3 0 26 PM(-1:30-6:00 ]2 0 1 0 3 0 16 Evenin (6:00 - 7:30) 14 0 0 0 3 0 17 E��enin 7:30 - 9:00 24 0 0 0 3 0 27 Evenin 9:00 - 11:00 10 0 0 0 3 0 13 Jource: tiac tiadmmton Center. Inc. Note: The coach �a�ould be the same person staying for the entire duration and employees would be in h{�o shifts with 2 emploqees per shift and the shift change N�ould occur at 3:00 p.m. In addition to the typical weekday/weekend activities, there would be two tournaments each year, one in the spring and another one in the fall, and both of which would occur on a weekend (Saturday and Sunday). On these two weekends, the Club would be closed for otller users. Tournament participants would be no more than 60 individuals each time, of which 40 participants would play singles on the first day and 60 participants would play doubles on the Bay Badminton Center Traffic and Parking Study April 18. 2007 3 second day. Some of these players would participate in both singles and doubles matches. Spectators are anticipated during the tournament. However, it is anticipated tllat they would mostly be friends and family members arriving with the players in the same vehicle. �:� X Since the Radminton Court would not onen until-�90 a.m.. the Pr000sed Proiect would not cause anv increase in AM peak hour traffic volumes. All trips generated during the AM peak hour (typically 7:30 a.m. to 830 a.m.) would be existing warehouse employees. During the weekday morning period from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, the Proposed Badminton Project would generate a maximum of 40 vehicles, 20 inbound and 20 outbound, assuming the worst-case condition (all badminton players drive alone, none take transit or carpool, and all players stay for 1 hour only), with the exception of the period just before 9:00 a.m. wllen a coach and two badminton employee would arrive. During the weekday afternoon period from 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m., the Proposed Project would generate a maximum of 60 vehicles, 30 inbound and 30 outbound (20 adult players and ]0 children players), assuming the �vorst-case condition (all badminton players drive alone, none take transit or carpool, and all players stay for 1 hour only), with the exception of the PM peak hour (usually between 4:30-5:30 p.m.) during which the warehouse employees would leave. During the PM peak hour, the number of outbound vehicle trips would be 18 (10 adult plavers. one coach, and seven warehouse employees), an increase of 1 1 vehicles. The number of' inbound vehicle trips would be 16. The Proposed Project is anticipated to generate a maximum of 96 vehicle trips during the evening period from 6:00 p.m. to I 1:00 p.m., 48 inbound and 48 outbound, assuming the worst- case scenario (all players drive alone, none take transit or carpool, and all players stay for 1 hour only). The period �vith heaviest usage in the evening would be between 7:30 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. when 22 adult players would be present. Total weekend activity would be higher than that of a typical weekday (total 144 players on a weekend day as compared to 98 players during a typical weekday). However, on any given hour. the largest increase would be bet�veen 10:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon when an additional 15 players (instead of 10 players) would use the facility. Difference in activities at otller hours would be smaller. Traffic Impact Analysis 9:3� Because the facilit�pens at 9�' a.m., the Proposed Project would not �enerate anv traffic im�acts during the AM peak hour because there would be no additional trips generated during the AM peak hour. The only potential impact analyzed in this report is during the PM peak hour. Based on the data presented above, the Proposed Project would not cause any significant traffic impacts on the surrounding streets. A field observation shows that traffic generally flows well along Adrian Road and Rollins Road. The amount of vehicles the Proposed Project ��ould add to Rollins Road during the PM peak hour (under worst-case conditions) would be approximatelv 34 �16 inbound vehicles bv plavers comin� in for the 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. slot and l8 outbound vehicles bv plavers leaving for the 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. slot). This would represent an Bay Badminton Center Traffic and Parking Study April 18, 2007 4 approximately 1.1-1.5 percent increase over the current volume alon� Rollins Road. Therefore, no si�nificant traffic impacts are anticipated. In addition to assessing traffic volumes along Rollins Road, PM Peak hour intersection level of service (LOS) at the intersections of Rollins Road and Millbrae Avenue and Rollins Road and Broadway was analyzed for the Existing and Existing plus Project conditions. The existing PM peak period traffic turning movement volumes were counted between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on March 1, 2007 at these two intersections and the PM peak hour was determined to be from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. for the intersection of Rollins Road and Millbrae Avenue and from 4:15 p.m. to 5:15 for the intersection of Rollins Road and Broadway. Appendix B presents the field data collection for each intersection. Table 4 presents the LOS and delay calculation for the PM peak hour. Figure 2 presents the traffic volumes at these two intersections. Appendix A presents LOS calculations. Table 4 shows that the existing LOS at these two intersections is C for Millbrae and Rollins and D for Broadway and Rollins. It should be noted that while both intersections currently operate at acceptable conditions, there are approaches that currently operate at LOS E condition. These approaches include: • Millbrae and Rollins — Northbound westbound) • Broadway and Rollins — Eastbound Road) and southbound through left turn (from Rollins Road to Millbrae Avenue left turn (from Burlingame eastbound to Rollin The Proposed Project would not change LOS and would have minimum change in delays at these t��o intersections and the existing LOS E approaches. Thus, the Proposed Project would not have significant traffic impacts at these two intersections. Table 4— PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Analvsis Existine � LOS � Delay (sec Millbrae Ave/Rolli��s Rd C 33.9 Broad�vav/Rollins Rd D 36.1 Parking Impact Analysis Existin Plus Project LOS Delav (sec0 C 34.1 D 36.8 Because the Institute of Transportation Engineer°s Parking Generation Manual contains no land use category of "Badminton Club'°, "Commercial Recreation", nor "Gym", parking demand analysis is estimated based on comparable uses in the Bay Area. Table 5 presents survey data of parking demand at four known active badminton clubs in the Bay Area. The average midday parking demand during a typical weekday is approximately 1.4 spaces per court; during a typical weekday evening, average parking demand is 4.3 spaces per court. Based o�� these ratios, Table 6 presents the estimated demand for the Proposed Project to be 59 spaces during weekday midday and 107 spaces during weekday evening and weekend. This includes the Planning Code requirements for the �varehouse use (not observed existing occupancy of seven vehicles for the warehouse use and two for the delivery trucks); the demand for 22 spaces for the badminton court (1.4 spaces per court x 16 courts) during weekday midday and 69 spaces (4.3 spaces per Bay Badminton Center Traffic and Parking Study April 18, 2007 5 court x l6 courts) during weekday evening and weekend; and the demand for 3 to 4 spaces for office use (2 to 3 for Badminton Court employees and 1 for the coach). This analysis further assumed that the 34 spaces required for the warehouse use ��ould not be available for other uses durintr weekends. The Proposed Project would provide 107 total parking spaces. This supply should be sufficient to meet the project parking demand, including potential overflows because the warehouse portion of the project would not open on weekends. Table 5— Parkin Surve � of Known Parkin Facilities in the Badminton Club Number of Parking Courts Supply Bin Tan Club (Sunn vale) 11 40 Boscell Road Club (Fremont) 9 83 24,000 sfClub (Mil itas) 12 60 y Area Parkin Weekday 30 8 10 190 Constitution Drive Club (Menlo 8 2� � Source: CI IS Consulting Group Table 6— Estimated Parkina Demand for the Badminton Club Weekdav Midd; Weekdav Eveni Warehouse 34 eekend 34 Badminton 22 69 Project Badminton Office 3 4 Demand Week P 45 �g 50 47 Total � � Table 7 presents the parking requirements imposed on the four other badminton courts by the city in �vhich they are located. There is no consistenc� in parking requirements among these four cities. For example, the City of Menlo Park would consider the club an industrial use because it is located in a M-2 zone, while the other three cities have established requirements for a badminton club, either per court or per square feet of the court. The Milpitas requirement appears to be most comparable. The City of Milpitas requires the badminton court within its city to provide one space per 500 gsf of court area (similar to the requirement for a tennis court) and one space per 200 gsf of retail/lounge area. Table 7 — Parkin Bin Tang Club (Sunnyvale)' Boscell Road Club (Fremont)' 24,000 gsf Club (Milpitas)� 190 Constitution Drive Club (Menlo Parkl' uirements for the Known Project Number of Size (�stl Courts 1 �.000 14,747 24,000 16,389 Facilities in the Bay Area Parking Requirements I Parking c----�-- I 1 � 1 space per 400 gsf of court � 38 9 2 spaces per court 1 s ace er 200 sf retail � 2 1 space per 500 gsf of court 1 snace per 200 �sf of retail 23 56 8 � 1 space per 1,000 gsf (M-2 zoning) � 22 I Cih Planning Commission StafiReport, Sep[ember Ii, 200d 2 City of Fremont letter dated No��ember 4. 200d regarding Zoning Administrator Permit for a Badminton Club at 43901 Boscell Road � Approved Special Conditions. Milpitas Planning Commission ApprovaL Pebruary 9. 2005. Bay Badminton Center Traffic and Parking Study April 18, 2007 6 Additional research on parking requirements for a comparable use was also conducted for reference purposes. This includes parking requirements for '`Tennis Court" in the Cities of San Jose, San Mateo, Campbell, and Monterey. Parking requirements for a tennis court in these four cities are the same — two spaces per court. Tennis court has similar characteristics to a badminton court since both sports usually have four persons per court and badminton court is slightly smaller than a tennis court (36 feet by 78 feet vs. 20 feet by 44 feet). Based on the demand analysis, this requirement would meet the average demand on a typical weekday conditions. Thus, parking requirements for a tennis court is recommended as a comparable for badminton court. Based on the estimated tournament participants during the tournament weekend, its demand would not be higher than a typical weekend condition. Thus. there would not be parking impacts during the tournament weekend. Bay Badminton Center Traffic and Parking Study April 18, 2007 � Summary The proposed Burlingame Badminton Club would not generate any traffic impacts because the project area roadways operate in a reasonably free-flow condition and the amount of traffic that would be generated by the Proposed Project would add only approximately 1.1-1.5 percent of the existing traffic volumes. PM peak hour LOS at two major intersections in the vicinity of the Proposed Project (Millbrae Avenue and Rollins Road in Millbrae and Broadway and Rollins in Burlingame) was analyzed and found that the Proposed Project would not cause significant traffic i�ropacts at these two intersections as well. The proposed Burlingame Badminton Club would have sufficient parking spaces to meet its demand during a typical weekday midday and evening, a weekend, and tournament period. The Proposed Project would provide a total 107 parking spaces; tota) estimated weekday midday demand would be 59 spaces, and weekday evening and weekend demand would be 107 spaces, assuming the 34 spaces required for the warehouse use would not be available for other users during weekends and weekday nights. With respect to the parking requirement, it appears that rivo spaces per court is a reasonable requirement. No local jurisdictions in the Bay Area have "Badminton Court" as a land use in its Zoning Code. The requirements imposed by the four cities that have approved badminton courts vary substantially. from one space per 1,000 square feet to one space per 400 square feet. On the other hand, several cities have "Tennis Court" in its Zoning Code and the requirement is consistent — 2 spaces per court. Badminton court has many similar characteristics as a tennis court and badminton court is somewhat smaller in size than a tennis court. Bay Badminton Center Traffic and Parking Study April 18, 2007 g o__ � ww. � PROPOSED FIRST FLDOR PLAN BADMINTON OFFICES 'iB`.'-o^ �� 0 0 � � � � O4 O3 �O �� i Q O O O Q O Q O i i O O O 0 , PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN ' WARENOUSE OFFICES '•B .'-o" �, �� O O O O O O � Existing PM Peak Hour 3: Millbrae AVE. & Rollins RD. s�2��200� � -► � � � � '� t �' `► 1 � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations � �� ►j►j �,��. �r t�� v ►�1� � � 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 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 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 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 74 1122 178 393 1503 87 341 32 289 200 61 174 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 87 1320 209 418 1599 93 411 39 348 238 73 207 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 122 0 0 45 0 0 249 0 0 132 Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 1320 87 418 1599 48 411 39 99 238 73 75 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Split Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 7 7 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 7 Actuated Green, G(s) 11.4 48.0 48.0 19.8 56.4 56.4 16.8 16.8 16.8 13.4 13.4 13.4 Effective Green, g(s) 11.9 48.5 48.5 20.3 56.9 56.9 17.3 17.3 17.3 13.9 13.9 13.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.42 0.42 0.18 0.49 0.49 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.12 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 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 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 182 2126 662 601 2494 776 512 278 236 411 223 190 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.26 c0.12 c0.31 c0.12 0.02 c0.07 0.04 v!s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.62 0.13 0.70 0.64 0.06 0.80 0.14 0.42 0.58 0.33 0.39 Uniform Delay, d1 49.1 26.5 20.8 44.9 22.0 15.5 47.7 42.9 44.8 48.3 46.8 47.2 Progression Factor 1.00 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 2.0 1.4 0.4 3.5 1.3 0.2 8.8 0.2 1.2 2.0 0.9 1.4 Delay (s) 51.1 27.9 21.2 48.4 23.2 15.7 56.5 43.1 46.0 50.3 47.6 48.5 Level of Service D C C D C B E D D D D D Approach Delay (s) 28.3 27.9 51.3 49.2 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 116.0 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 Burlingame Badminton Project Synchro 6 Report CHS Consulting Group Page 1 Existing PM Peak Hour 6: Broadway & US 101 SB offramp 3/21/2007 t --. � '- � � t r� `► 1 � •� Movement EBL2 EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR2 SBL SBT SBR SWR Lane Configurations ►�►� �'� �` �'�r � � �'� � ��, 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 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.98 0.85 0.97 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3329 1441 3441 1842 1583 3515 1583 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3329 1441 3441 966 1583 2938 1583 2787 Volume (vph) 112 648 406 498 113 26 92 247 88 548 177 327 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 123 712 446 566 128 31 108 291 107 668 216 367 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 12 Lane Group Flow (vph) 123 801 332 694 0 0 139 291 0 775 59 428 Turn Type Prot custom Perm Free Perm Permcustom Protected Phases 3 2 2 5 4 4 6 Permitted Phases 3 3 4 Free 4 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 9.0 77.0 77.0 28.3 32.0 120.0 32.0 32.0 36.2 Effective Green, g(s) 8.0 75.0 75.0 27.8 33.0 120.0 33.0 33.0 35.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.62 0.62 0.23 0.28 1.00 0.28 0.28 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 229 2192 949 797 266 1583 808 435 818 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.20 0.20 c0.20 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.18 c0.26 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.37 0.35 0.87 0.52 0.18 0.96 0.14 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 54.2 10.9 10.8 44.4 36.8 0.0 42.8 32.8 35.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.8 0.5 1.0 10.2 1.9 0.3 21.9 0.1 2.4 Delay (s) 63.0 11.4 11.8 54.6 38.7 0.3 64.8 32.9 37.8 Level of Service E B B D D A E C D Approach Delay (s) 16.5 54.6 12.7 57.8 Approach LOS B D B E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 36.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Burlingame Badminton Project Synchro 6 Report CHS Consulting Group Page 2 Existing PM Peak Hour 6: Broadway & US 101 SB offramp 3/21/2007 t/ Movement SWR2 La�f�,Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Volume (vph) 65 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 73 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Burlingame Badminton Project Synchro 6 Report CHS Consulting Group Page 3 Existing Plus PM Peak Hour 3: Millbrae AVE. & Rollins RD. si2�i2oo� � � � r "- �- '� T r' �► 1 � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations �j ��T � �j�j '�� j�j �' �' �j�j '� � 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 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 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 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow(perm) 1770 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 74 1122 182 397 1503 87 345 32 294 200 61 174 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 87 1320 214 422 1599 93 416 39 354 238 73 207 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 125 0 0 45 0 0 249 0 0 131 Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 1320 89 422 1599 48 416 39 105 238 73 76 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Split Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 7 7 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 7 Actuated Green, G(s) 11.4 47.6 47.6 20.0 56.2 56.2 16.9 16.9 16.9 13.5 13.5 13.5 Effective Green, g(s) 11.9 48.1 48.1 20.5 56.7 56.7 17.4 17.4 17.4 14.0 14.0 14.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.41 0.41 0.18 0.49 0.49 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.12 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 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 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 182 2109 656 607 2486 774 515 279 237 414 225 191 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.26 c0.12 c0.31 c0.12 0.02 c0.07 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.63 0.14 0.70 0.64 0.06 0.81 0.14 0.44 0.57 0.32 0.40 Uniform Delay, d1 49.1 26.8 21.1 44.8 22.1 15.6 47.7 42.8 44.9 48.2 46.7 47.1 Progression Factor 1.00 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 2.0 1.4 0.4 3.5 1.3 0.2 9.0 0.2 1.3 1.9 0.8 1.4 Delay (s) 51.1 28.3 21.5 48.3 23.4 15.8 56.7 43.0 46.2 50.1 47.5 48.5 Level of Service D C C D C B E D D D D D Approach Delay (s) 28.6 28.0 51.5 49.1 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 34.1 0.66 116.0 59.7% 15 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service C 12.0 B Burlingame Badminton Project Synchro 6 Report CHS Consulting Group Page 1 Existing Plus PM Peak Hour 6: Broadway & US 101 SB offramp 3/21/2007 � -► � '� �- `� t r' \► 1 .� ./ Movement EBL2 EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR2 SBL SBT SBR SWR Lane Configurations �j►j �'� � �'� � � �� , 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 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.98 0.85 0.97 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3329 1441 3438 1842 1583 3514 1583 2787 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3329 1441 3438 954 1583 2928 1583 2787 Volume (vph) 116 648 406 498 117 26 92 247 93 548 181 327 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 127 712 446 566 133 31 108 291 113 668 221 367 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 12 Lane Group Flow (vph) 127 801 332 699 0 0 139 291 0 781 61 428 Turn Type Prot custom Perm Free Perm Permcustom Protected Phases 3 2 2 5 4 4 6 Permitted Phases 3 3 4 Free 4 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 9.0 77.0 77.0 28.4 32.0 120.0 32.0 32.0 36.1 Effective Green, g(s) 8.0 75.0 75.0 27.9 33.0 120.0 33.0 33.0 35.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.62 0.62 0.23 0.28 1.00 0.28 0.28 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 229 2192 949 799 262 1583 805 435 815 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.20 0.20 c0.20 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.18 c0.27 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.37 0.35 0.87 0.53 0.18 0.97 0.14 0.53 Uniform Delay, d1 54.3 10.9 10.8 44.4 36.9 0.0 43.0 32.8 35.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.4 0.5 1.0 10.5 2.1 0.3 24.5 0.1 2.4 Delay (s) 63.6 11.4 11.8 54.9 39.0 0.3 67.5 32.9 37.9 Level of Service E B B D D A E C D Approach Delay (s) 16.7 54.9 12.8 59.9 Approach LOS B D B E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 36.8 0.76 120.0 78.6% 15 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service � 16.0 D Burlingame Badminton Project Synchro 6 Report CHS Consulting Group Page 2 Existing Plus PM Peak Hour 6: Broadway & US 101 SB offramp 3/21/2007 t/ Movement La��,Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Volume (vph) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS SWR2 1900 65 0.89 73 0 0 Intersection Summary Burlingame Badminton Project Synchro 6 Report CHS Consulting Group Page 3