new attachment 6 zab 12-10-09 page1of 36 · 2009. 12. 10. · wbfp site ite trip generation1 591 36...

100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 930-7100 Fax (925) 933-7090 www.fehrandpeers.com

October 8, 2009

Ms. Nance Rosencranz Director of Strategic Planning and Business Development LifeLong Medical Care PO Box 11247 Berkeley, CA 94712

Re: West Berkeley Family Practice Traffic and Parking Study

Dear Ms. Rosencranz:

This letter presents our findings concerning the traffic operations and parking supply near the West Berkeley Family Practice (Project) site in Berkeley, California. The site is at 2031 Sixth Street in Berkeley, California and is the largest primary care site within the LifeLong Medical Care organization. Due to the tightly constrained size and configuration at the current site, the current clinic is finding that the conditions are compromising the provision of quality patient care and exacerbating waiting times.

To alleviate these issues, LifeLong Medical Care is preparing to expand the 11,737 square-foot facility by 7,982 square feet. This study’s purpose is to determine the impact on the traffic operations at the nearby intersection of University Avenue/Sixth Street, and to ensure that the parking supply available to the site is adequate to serve the estimated demand. This study was scoped in consultation with LifeLong Medical Care and planning and traffic engineering staff from the City of Berkeley.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The current Project site provides medical care for people of all ages, including pediatric and prenatal care, mental health care, drop-in clinics for children and adults, nurse advice, and health education classes. Currently the clinic is approximately 12,000 square feet and provides care to roughly 6,600 patients in 28,000 patient-visits per year. The clinic also has about 55 staff members on-site daily. With the proposed expansion, the clinic will be 19,717 square feet, with the ability to serve about 40,000 patient-visits per year. Approximately 73 staff members will be on-site daily. Construction is expected to begin in 2010, with move-in scheduled for the end of 2011.

The Project study area is shown on Figure 1. (All figures are attached at the end of the report.)

MODE CHOICE SURVEY

Two surveys, one for patients and one for staff, were prepared by Fehr & Peers and sent to LifeLong Medical Care for distribution at the Project site. Clinic staff conducted the survey over an eight-day period from July 13th to July 20th and received 206 patient responses and 47 staff responses. There was a 50 percent response rate from patients and an 80 percent response rate from staff. Sample surveys can be seen in the attachments.

Table 1 shows the mode choice of both patients and staff, and Table 2 summarizes where drivers parked their vehicles.

ATTACHMENT 6 ZAB 12-10-09 Page1of 36

Ms. Nance Rosencranz October 8, 2009 of 11

Over three-quarters of the patient-visits are currently by private automobile, many of which park in the clinic’s fourteen-space parking lot. About 80 percent of the staff drive alone, while others bike or walk; those who drive generally park on the street surrounding the clinic.

The staff surveys convey that over 90 percent of staff arrive and depart during the traditional AM and PM peak periods (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM).

TABLE 1: MODE CHOICE

Mode Patients Staff

Drive Alone 52% 79%

Carpool1 11% 0%

Dropped Off / Picked Up 11% 2%

Motorcycle 1% 0%

Private Automobile Subtotal 75% 81%

Bus Only 10% 2%

BART Only 2% 2%

BART & Bus 1% 0%

Bicycle / Walk 12% 15%

Total 100% 100%

1. Average carpool occupancy is 1.45 patients per vehicle.

Source: Fehr & Peers, October 2009.

TABLE 2: PATIENT PARKING LOCATIONS

Location Patients1 Staff2

Clinic Lot 66% 3%

Other Lot 0% 3%

On Street (0-1 blocks) 21% 56%

On Street (1-2 blocks) 11% 30%

On Street (2+ blocks) 1% 8%

On Street (?) 1% 0%

Total 100% 100%

1. Percentage shown is number of people parking in the specified area of the 129 patients who answered.

2. Percentage shown is number of people parking in the specified area of the 36 staff who answered.




TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Existing Traffic Conditions

One intersection was selected for the traffic analysis, based on the size of the Project and the current operating condition of the intersection: University Avenue and Sixth Street. For the purpose of this study, existing traffic volumes in the West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan: Draft Existing Conditions Report (October, 2007) were used. In the AM peak hour, the major traffic movements are along University Avenue moving through the intersection. In the PM peak hour, these movements are still substantial, but there are also heavy movements from the north and south turning west toward the Interstate 80/580 freeway.

Figure 2 shows the existing traffic volumes, geometry, and traffic control at the intersection.

Project Trip Generation To estimate current trip generation of the site, Fehr & Peers obtained data on the operating characteristics of the site, including yearly patient visits, daily staff on site, operating hours, and typical day-of-week distribution for patient visits, along with the results of the mode choice survey. Daily Trip Generation Person Trips To calculate the number of daily patient trips, the number of yearly patient trips (28,000) was reduced to weekly trips (539) and then to weekday trips. About 10 percent of the typical patient visits occur on the weekends, so 18 percent (90 percent divided by 5 days per week) of the weekly 539 patient visits were assumed to occur on a typical weekday – 97 visits per weekday. Dividing two times the total daily visits (to account for patients coming to and leaving the site) by the square footage results in a trip generation rate of roughly 16.5 daily patient-trips per thousand square feet (ksf). Furthermore, each of the 55 staff on-site each day also make two trips, creating an additional 110 trips each day, or 9.4 trips per ksf. Dividing the sum of the patient trips and staff trips by the square footage results in a trip generation rate of 25.9 daily person trips per ksf. Vehicle Trips The mode choice surveys indicate that vehicle trips comprise 82 percent of all patient trips and 83 percent of all staff trips, after accounting for trips made by transit, walking or biking, as well as carpooling, and drop-off trips, which amount to two vehicle trips per person trip (the technical appendix contains the calculation of the vehicle factors.) Applying the corresponding reduction factors of 18 percent for patients, and 17 percent for staff, to the daily person-trip generation, results in a final trip generation rate of 21.3 daily vehicle trips per ksf. Peak Hour Trip Generation Person-Trips Since patient visits are evenly distributed throughout the day, there are an estimated 20 patient trips during each peak hour. Based on survey data, less than half of the staff arrive and leave during the AM and PM peak commute hours, resulting in approximately 20 staff trips during the peak hour. Combining the patient and staff trips results in a peak hour trip generation rate of 3.4 peak hour person trips per ksf.



Vehicle Trips Applying the reduction factors to account for non-automobile modes results in a final peak hour vehicle trip generation rate of 2.8 peak hour trips per ksf. Comparison to Other Trip Generation Rate Sources In order to ensure that this rate is reasonable for the site, several sources were consulted. The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th Edition contains rates for: hospital (code 610), clinic (code 630), and medical office building (MOB) (code 720). The daily rates range from 16.50 trips per ksf to 36.13 per ksf. These rates are supplemented by other studies Fehr & Peers has completed in Walnut Creek, Tracy, Oakland, Roseville, Palo Alto, and Hayward. These past studies show daily rates ranging from 13.31 to 40.71. (See Table 3).

TABLE 3: TRIP GENERATION RATE SOURCES

AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Source Land Use

Daily Trips (per ksf) In Out In Out

ITE Trip Generation1 Hospital 16.50 0.66 0.46 0.48 0.66

ITE Trip Generation1 Clinic 31.45 N/A N/A N/A N/A

ITE Trip Generation1 MOB 36.13 1.82 0.48 0.93 2.53

Fehr & Peers Observed2 Medical Center 19.68 – 30.61 0.61 – 1.69 0.31 – 0.61 0.34 – 0.90 0.57 – 1.65

Fehr & Peers Observed3 Hospital 13.31 0.62 – 0.86 0.20 – 0.42 0.23 – 0.58 0.58 – 0.80

Fehr & Peers Observed4 MOB 40.71 2.03 – 2.12 0.62 – 0.65 0.55 – 1.00 1.65 – 2.10

WBFP Site5 MOB/Clinic 21.3 2.8 2.8

1. Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation, Eighth Edition, Use #720

2. Rates based on data collected by Fehr & Peers at five sites

3. Rates based on data collected by Fehr & Peers at two sites

4. Rates based on data collected by Fehr & Peers at three sites

5. Rates based on data collected by Fehr & Peers at West Berkeley Family Practice site


Selected Trip Generation Rate It was decided that the ITE MOB rate, shown in bold in Table 3, should be used for the traffic analysis, because it is a standard rate supported by nationwide surveys, and is similar to the site-specific rate estimated by Fehr & Peers based on site characteristics. The ITE MOB average rate does not adjust for the size of the site; therefore, the linear regression equation provided in Trip Generation, 8th Edition was used instead. This equation was created using the same data that was used to calculate the average rate. The equation is as follows:

Daily Trips = 40.89 x (Square Footage) – 214.97



Using the ITE equation for daily trips and the peak hour average rates for hourly trips results in 326 more trips throughout the day due to the project, 18 of which occur during the AM peak hour and 27 of which occur during the PM peak hour. As shown in Table 4, the ITE based peak hour trip generation is slightly higher than the trip generation based on Fehr & Peers’ site-specific rates. Thus, the traffic operations analysis based on ITE rates for the PM peak hour is more conservative.

TABLE 4: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION

AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour

Trips Condition Rate Source Daily Trips

In Out In Out

Site-Specific Rate 250 33 33 Existing WBFP Site ITE Trip Generation1 265 21 6 11 30

Site Specific Rate 420 55 55 Expanded WBFP Site ITE Trip Generation1 591 36 9 18 50

Site-Specific Rate 170 17 5 6 16 Project Only Trips ITE Trip Generation1 326 15 3 7 20

1. Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation, Eighth Edition, Use #720. Equation used for daily trips; average rate used for peak hour trips


Trip Distribution and Assignment This traffic analysis conservatively assumes that all new project trips would travel through the Sixth Street and University Avenue intersection. The trips were proportioned based on the current movements to and from the south approach of the intersection. The resulting Project trip turning movements are shown on Figure 2. Intersection Level of Service

Traffic operations at the Sixth Street and University Avenue intersection were analyzed using the Synchro 7.0 software program. Synchro is based on procedures outlined in the Transportation Research Board's 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The analysis results include a descriptive term known as level of service (LOS). LOS is a measure of traffic operating conditions, which varies from LOS A (indicating free flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (representing over-saturated conditions where traffic flows exceed design capacity resulting in long queues and delays). These grades represent the perspective of drivers and are an indication of the comfort and convenience associated with driving.

The LOS is determined differently depending on the type of control at the intersection. For signalized intersections, the LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay of all movements measured in seconds per vehicle. Peak hour traffic volumes, lane configurations, and signal timing plans are used as inputs in the LOS calculations. Table 5 summarizes the relationship between the average control delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections.



TABLE 5: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHHOLDS

Level of Service

Signalized Intersection Control Delay (sec/veh)1

General Description

A 0 – 10.0 Little to no congestion or delays.

B 10.1 – 20.0 Limited congestion. Short delays.

C 20.1 – 35.0 Some congestion with average delays.

D 35.1 – 55.0 Significant congestion and delays.

E 55.1 – 80.0 Severe congestion and delays.

F > 80.0 Total breakdown with extreme delays.

Notes:

1. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and acceleration delay.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Chapter 16 (Signalized Intersections), Transportation Research Board, 2000.

Table 6 shows the LOS results for the existing, near-term, and cumulative cases analyzed. The results are discussed below. Existing and Existing Plus Project Cases AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements published in the West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan: Draft Existing Conditions Report were used to represent existing conditions. Using these volumes, the intersection currently operates at LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour. Project-generated traffic was added to the existing volumes to estimate intersection turning volumes after the completion of the project. With the project, the levels of service do not change and the average delay increases by approximately one second during both peak hours. (Refer to Figure 2 and Table 6). Near-Term and Near-Term Plus Project Cases The Project is estimated to be completed in 2012. To determine the background volumes for this scenario, the existing traffic volumes were adjusted to reflect estimated regional traffic growth, as well as to reflect traffic from recently approved local projects. For the regional growth, the existing volumes were increased by two percent, reflecting four years of one-half percent growth per year. For the traffic from local projects, a list of recently approved projects, along with the traffic studies prepared for those projects, was supplied by the City of Berkeley. Fehr & Peers determined the trip assignment from each project to the University/Sixth intersection, and added it to the intersection’s turning movements. Figure 2 shows the resulting traffic volumes. The technical appendix contains the specific traffic added from each project. Using the resulting Near-Term volumes, the intersection is projected to continue to operate at LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour. With the addition of Project traffic, the levels of service do not change and the average delay increases by approximately one second during the PM peak hour only. (Refer to Figure 2 and Table 6).



Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Cases AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements published in the West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan: Future Conditions Report were used for cumulative conditions. Using these volumes, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour. With the addition of project traffic, the levels of service do not change and the average delay increases by approximately one second during both peak hours. (Refer to figure 3 and Table 6).

TABLE 6: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY

Base Conditions Base Conditions + Project1 Change with Project Intersection

Peak Hour Control

Delay2 LOS2

V/C Ratio3

Control Delay2

LOS2 V/C Ratio3 Control Delay2

V/C Ratio3

Existing Conditions

AM 44 D 0.82 45 D 0.83 + 1 + 0.01 University Avenue and Sixth Street PM 86 F 1.10 87 F 1.11 + 1 + 0.01

Existing Conditions Plus Approved Projects

AM 51 D 0.87 51 D 0.88 - + 0.01 University Avenue and Sixth Street PM 91 F 1.13 92 F 1.13 + 1 -

Cumulative Conditions

AM 68 E 1.07 69 E 1.07 + 1 - University Avenue and Sixth Street PM 134 F 1.30 135 F 1.30 + 1 -

1. The Plus Project Scenario reflects the results from both project conditions – with both the ITE rates and with the Fehr & Peers approximation. Both trip generation estimation methods produce the same results

2. Signalized intersection level of service is based on weighted average control delay per vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, as calculated by the Synchro 7.0 software.

3. The volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio compares the demand volume at an intersection with the theoretical capacity of the intersection. The capacity of the intersection is based on the lane geometry and the allocation of green time to each movement at the intersection.

4. Bold indicates unacceptable conditions.


Traffic Impact Significance Determination The significance criteria established by the City of Berkeley in Guidelines for Development of Transportation Impact Reports for signalized intersections are used to identify potential significant impacts. The following criteria are used to determine if the proposed project would cause a significant impact: A significant traffic-related impact would occur at signalized intersections if the addition of project traffic results in:

Intersection operations degrade from LOS D to LOS E or worse and more than a 2-second increase in delay; or



More than a 3-second increase in delay at intersections operating at LOS E without and with the project; or

Intersection operations degrade from LOS E to LOS F and more than a 3-second increase in delay; or

At intersections operating at LOS F without the project, a change in the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio of more than 0.01.

Based on these criteria, the Project does not result in a significant impact on the intersection under any scenario, and mitigation is not needed. The Synchro worksheets used to complete this analysis are provided in the attachments.

PARKING IMPACT ANALYSIS

The following discussion summarizes the existing parking supply and demand, both in the Project site parking lot and on surrounding streets; estimates the current and future parking demand at the peak, mid-day period; discusses the impact of the Project on area parking supply; and discusses the potential mitigations for the Project’s parking deficit.

Existing Parking Supply and Occupancy

Fehr & Peers surveyed the streets within a one-to-two-block radius of the clinic to catalog the parking supply in the area, and the demand for parking during the clinic’s peak parking period, mid-afternoon. The area was surveyed on Wednesday, June 3, 2009 between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM The following streets were included in the survey:

University Avenue between Fifth Street and Seventh Street

Addison Street between Fourth Street and Eighth Street

Allston Way between Fifth Street and Seventh Street

Fifth Street between University Avenue and Allston Way

Sixth Street between University Avenue and Bancroft Way

Seventh Street between University Avenue and Allston Way

Also included in the survey were the 14 parking spaces currently in the WBFP parking lot.

Figure 4 shows the parking available in the area, as well as the restrictions on certain spaces, including metered spaces, spaces for the physically disabled, and time restricted spaces. Figure 5 shows the number of spaces available on each block, as well as the number occupied at the time of the survey. Table A-1, included in the attachments, provides these quantities and enumerates the restrictions for each block.

Overall, 345 parking spaces are provided in the study area, and about 292 were occupied during the survey. All 14 of the clinic’s current spaces were occupied during the data collection. Of the 53 unoccupied spaces, 23 were restricted by either meters or disabled parking signs. Thus, about 30 unrestricted spaces in the immediate area surrounding the site are available during what is estimated to be the peak period of demand for parking at the site. During this period, 90 percent of the unrestricted spaces were occupied.



Project Parking Demand

The following discussion is summarized in Table 7.

Site-Specific Estimate

To approximate demand for the current site, we estimated that the maximum number of patients that would need to park in the area at a certain time would be twice the average of the hourly rate for patient arrivals. This conservatively assumes that the average patient stay is two hours long, although survey data shows that the average duration of a patient’s visit is between 30 and 90 minutes. There are, on average, 97 patient visits per day arriving between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, resulting in roughly 10 patient visits per hour. Considering that roughly 64 percent of patients drive and park in the area, based on the travel mode survey, the estimated patient parking demand is 13 spaces. Considering that 79 percent of staff drive and park in the area, the 55 staff members would require 44 parking spaces. Thus, we estimate that currently the clinic’s peak parking demand is 57 parking spaces.

With the projections of 40,000 yearly visits and 73 full-time staff on site, the same methodology results in 138 patient visits per day, 18 of whom will need parking during the peak period, as well as 58 of the 73 staff members, totaling 76 parking spaces for which there will be demand. Thus, the estimated project parking demand is 19 spaces higher than the estimated current parking demand (76 future spaces minus 57 existing spaces).

City Code Requirement

Chapter 23, Section E.64 of the City of Berkeley Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance states that “[t]he district minimum standard parking requirement for commercial floor area is two spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area” unless the land use meets a special criterion, for which there are different requirements. For medical practitioner offices, the requirement is one space per 300 ksf, or 3.3 spaces per ksf. These requirements are applicable based on the standards of the West Berkeley Commercial District, which borders but does not include the site based on Plate 4 of the Official Zoning Maps in Chapter 23, Section F. According to these maps, the site is labeled as “R-4,” or part of the Multi-Family Residential District. The same specific-use requirements apply to hospitals and medical offices, but the district minimum for the West Berkeley Commercial District does not apply to the Multi-Family Residential District.

Currently the clinic provides 14 parking spaces on-site. By the standards for the medical practitioner office use, the clinic should provide 39 parking spaces (11.737 ksf x 3.33 spaces per ksf). With the proposed 7,982 square foot expansion, the clinic’s parking requirement would be 66 parking spaces, a net increase of 27 spaces over the current requirement.



TABLE 7: PARKING ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Parking Existing Future Net change

On-Site Supply 14 16 + 2

Estimated Demand 57 76 + 19

Deficit (43) (60) +17

City Code Requirement 39 66 + 27

Minus Parking Added +2 +25

Source: Fehr & Peers, October 2009

Project Parking Supply

The clinic is proposing to add two spaces as part of its expansion, which would reduce its deficit to 17 spaces using the site-specific demand estimate, or to 25 spaces using the City Code requirement.

Availability of On-Street Parking Vacancy to Serve Project Demand

Based on our demand estimates and the survey data, it appears that some patients and most staff who drive currently use near-by on-street spaces. In the parking survey, which covered a roughly two-block radius from the project site, there were approximately 30 vacant, unrestricted spaces in which additional patients and staff could park, including 15 vacant spaces within 500 feet of the site. While these would potentially satisfy the extra demand from the expansion of the clinic, City of Berkeley staff have stated that, since the Project is located in a residential area, existing vacancies should not be relied upon to serve the Project’s parking requirement.

Mitigations for Parking Deficit

LifeLong Medical Care has committed to mitigate the full parking deficit based on the site-specific demand estimate, 17 spaces, with additional off-site parking. LifeLong is in the process of securing additional parking in up to three off-site lots. The agreements currently being negotiated include 15 spaces in the lot immediately west of 824 University, which is located about 550 feet from the Project site, and 2 or more spaces as required by the City, in the 824 University lot behind the Chaat Indian Restaurant or in the 1900 Fourth Street lot across from Spenger’s Restaurant, located 800 feet from the Project site. (This lot has as more than sufficient capacity to serve LifeLong’s entire deficit, if needed). In addition to these two sites, Lifelong is in discussions for the lease of additional spaces at 920 University (La Quinta Motel), located 600 feet from the project site. This lot has 22 surplus spaces.

In addition, the applicant is considering implementation of several strategies to reduce the overall vehicle trip generation and parking demand of the proposed project. One option is to provide commuter check transit subsidies to staff members to encourage using alternate modes to work. While the nearest Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station is over one mile away, there are many bus connections along University Avenue that travel through Downtown Oakland and Downtown Berkeley. To make the BART option more appealing, LifeLong Medical Care may investigate organizing one or more vanpools to either the North Berkeley, Downtown Berkeley, or Ashby BART stations, and/or participate in a joint venture with other West Berkeley employers to provide similar service. The West Berkeley Shuttle Service currently provides shuttle service between the



Ashby BART station and West Berkeley south of Dwight Way, and the applicant is open to considering participation in this service if it extends closer to the Project site. Other options to reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips by staff to and from the site are to encourage carpooling, provide increased bike parking and shower facilities on-site.

Implementation of carpooling/vanpooling incentives, transit subsidies, and bike parking/on-site shower facilities has the potential to reduce vehicle trip generation and corresponding parking demand by 5 to 10 percent or more, based on available research and case studies nationwide. (One summary report on employer-based programs is included in the technical appendix, in a separate volume.) The actual reduction that may be achieved at the Project site cannot be quantified based on these studies, as each employment site is unique. However, the implementation of such measures is becoming more and more common as traffic congestion and concerns about climate change increase, and we understand that Lifelong Medical Care is committed to investigating all feasible options to reduce vehicle trips and parking demand.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The 7,982 foot expansion to the current West Berkeley Family Practice facility will increase peak hour trips to and from the clinic by over 50 percent, but will have little effect on the traffic operations at the intersection of University Avenue and Sixth Street, the closest major intersection. We conservatively assumed that all project trips would come into and leave the site through this intersection, and distributed them according to the existing proportions on each roadway segment. The additional trips do not have a significant impact on the operations at the intersection and no mitigation is needed.

Based on surveys conducted at the site and considering the operating characteristics of the site, it is estimated that the proposed project would have a peak parking demand of 19 additional vehicles. LifeLong Medical Care proposes to mitigate this deficit through a combination of two additional on-site spaces and up to 17 additional off-site spaces. In addition, LifeLong Medical Care will investigate and implement as feasible a number of trip reduction strategies, including carpool/vanpool incentives, transit incentives and/or subsidies, provision of bike lockers and shower facilities, and participation in an extended West Berkeley Shuttle service, if and when the service can be extended into the Project area.

Please call Ellen Poling at (925) 930-7100 if you have any questions or comments about this report.

Sincerely,

FEHR & PEERS

Ellen Poling, P.E. Dan Hennessey Senior Associate Transportation Engineer WC09-2651 Attachments: Figures 1 – 5 Technical Appendix (separate cover)


PROJECTSITE

4 th St

5 th St

6 th St

7 th St

8 th St

Addison St

Allston Way

Bancroft Way

University Ave

Not to Scale

West Berkeley Family Practice Traffic and Parking Study

FIGURE 1October 2009WC09-2651_1

PROJECT STUDY AREA


Six

th S

tree

t

University Avenue

210

(414

)13

5 (4

28)

37 (

51)87 (131)

1067 (884)352 (261)

383

(450

)22

2 (2

34)

77 (

88)

EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS

48 (45)997 (1225)45 (53)

A D G

sd

G

qe

r

6 th St6 th St666 ththth StStSSSt

Six

th S

tree

t

University Avenue

A D G

sd

G qzzezzzt qzzezzzt

qe

r21

1 (4

23)

136

(432

)38

(58

)87 (131)1067 (884)360 (264)

383

(450

)22

6 (2

36)

77 (

88)

EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS + PROJECT

48 (45)997 (1225)48 (55)


Six

th S

tree

t

University Avenue

1 (9

)1

(4)

1 (7

)

8 (3)

4 (2

)PROJECT ONLY

3 (2)

D

A

q e t

q

Six

th S

tree

t

University Avenue

203

(406

)13

2 (4

20)

34 (

50)82 (128)

989 (867)336 (256)

312

(441

)21

8 (2

29)

75 (

86)

EXISTING

47 (44)931 (1201)39 (52)

A D G

sd

G q e t

qe

r


Six

th S

tree

t

University Avenue

204

(415

)13

3 (4

24)

35 (

57)82 (128)

989 (867)344 (259)

312

(441

)22

2 (2

31)

75 (

86)

EXISTING + PROJECT

47 (44)931 (1201)42 (54)

A D G

sd

G q e t

qe

r

University Ave

4 th St

5 th St

7 th St

8 th St

Addison St

Allston Way

6 th St

Not to Scale

LEGEND

XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes

= Signalized Intersection

= Study Intersection

University Ave/6th St

SOURCES: Existing traffic volumes from West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan.Approved projects traffic volumes from traffic studies provided by City of Berkeley.



EXISTING AND NEAR-TERMINTERSECTION PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES


Six

th S

tree

t

University Avenue

245

(526

)14

4 (4

27)

71 (

98)96 (143)

1470 (1228)447 (310)

323

(469

)22

5 (2

36)

86 (

105)

CUMULATIVE

64 (58)1384 (1765)80 (97)

A D G

sd

G

qe

r


Six

th S

tree

t

University Avenue

246

(525

)14

5 (4

32)

72 (

105)

96 (143)1470 (1278)

455 (313)

323

(469

)22

9 (2

38)

86 (

105)

CUMULATIVE + PROJECT

64 (58)1384 (1765)83 (99)

A D G

sd

G qqzzezzztqqzzezzzt

qe

r

University Ave

4 th St

5 th St

7 th St

8 th St

Addison St

Allston Way

Bancroft Way

6 th St

Not to Scale

LEGEND

XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes

= Signalized Intersection

= Study Intersection

University Ave/6th St

SOURCES: Existing traffic volumes from West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan.



CUMULATIVE AND CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECTINTERSECTION PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES


441

1

1

1 28

6 2

1

34

4

9

1

1

1

41

1

1

1 28

6 2

1

34

4

9

1

1

1

Total Spaces in Study Area:Off-street Lot: 14

On-street: 331Total: 345

4 th St

5 th St

6 th St

7 th St

8 th St

Addison St

Allston Way

Bancroft Way

University Ave

Not to Scale

LEGEND

= Free

= Disabled Spaces

= 1 Hour Unmetered Parking

= 30 Minute Metered Parking

= 1 Hour Metered Parking

= Number of Spaces

= Passenger Loading Zone (7-10 AM, 2-6 PM)

XXSource:Survey conducted 1-2 PM, 06/03/2009



PARKING SUPPLY


4 th St

5 th St

6 th St

7 th St

8 th St

Addison St

Allston Way

Bancroft Way

University Ave

17 (1

6)17

(16)

19 (1

7)19

(17)

8 (6)8 (6)6 (4)6 (4)

10 (10)10 (10)9 (9)9 (9)

17 (1

6)17

(16)

13 (1

2)13

(12)

13 (1

1)13

(11)

20 (1

8)20

(18)

17 (1

5)17

(15)

21 (1

8)21

(18)

6 (0)6 (0) 14 (14)14 (14)

8 (8)8 (8)8 (8)8 (8)8 (6)8 (6) 10 (10)10 (10)9 (8)9 (8)10 (9)10 (9)10 (10)10 (10) 12 (11)12 (11)

16 (1

3)16

(13)

7 (7

)7

(7)

8 (5

)8

(5)

7 (4

)7

(4)

13 (1

0)13

(10)

12 (1

0)12

(10)

8 (2)8 (2) 7 (4)7 (4)2 (1)2 (1)

XX (YY)XX (YY)

Not to Scale

Source:Survey conducted 1-2 PM, 06/03/2009

LEGEND

= Supply (Occupied)

Total Supply: 345 Total Demand: 292 Net Vacant Spaces: 53



MID-DAY PARKING DEMAND


Appendix:

Sample Patient and Staff Surveys

Vehicle Reduction Factor Calculations

Approved Projects

Synchro Worksheets

Parking Survey Results

Trip Generation Sources


Date:________

WEST BERKELEY FAMILY PRACTICE CLINIC VISITOR SURVEY

For people arriving by car, please fill out only one form per car.

1. Please indicate time of arrival: _____________ AM PM

2. How did you get to the clinic today?

Drive Alone

Carpool

# clinic patients in car

Dropped Off By Car

Bus (AC Transit)

BART

Bicycle/Walk

Other (please specify) ____________________

3. If you were a dropped off, did the driver park in the area?

Parked in area

Did not park in area

4. If you arrived by car, where did you or the driver park?

Clinic Lot

Other Lot (where:___ ________)

On-street:

Within 1 block

Within 2 blocks

More than 2 blocks

Driver left the area and will return to pick me up

5. How long do you expect to be at the clinic?

_____________________________________________


Date:________

WEST BERKELEY FAMILY PRACTICE CLINIC STAFF SURVEY

1. Please indicate time of arrival: _____________ AM PM

2. How did you get to the clinic today?

Drove Alone

Drove a Carpool

Passenger in a Carpool

Dropped Off By Car

Bus (AC Transit)

BART

Bicycle/Walk

Other (please specify) ____________________

3. If you were in a carpool, how many people in the carpool? _____________

4. If you were dropped off, did the driver park in the area?

Parked in area

Did not park in area

5. If you drove, where did you park?

Clinic Lot

Other Lot (where:_____________________)

On-street:

Within 1 block

Within 2 blocks

More than 2 blocks

6. At what time does your shift at the clinic end?

_____________________________________________


Mode Patients Staff

Drive Alone 52% 79%

Carpool1

11% 0%

Dropped Off / Picked Up 11% 2%

Motorcycle 1% 0%

Private Automobile Subtotal 75% 81%

Bus Only 10% 2%

BART Only 2% 2%

BART & Bus 1% 0%

Bicycle / Walk 12% 15%Total 100% 100%

Patients

52% Drive Alone

11% Carpool 1.45 patients per vehicle

11% Picked Up/Drop Off 2 trips per patient

1% Motorcycle

1 - (0.52 + 0.11/1.45 + 0.11*2 + 0.01) = 0.18

18% Reduction for Patient Vehicle Trips

Patients

79% Drive Alone

2% Picked Up/Drop Off 2 trips per patient

1 - (0.79 + 0.02*2) = 0.17

17% Reduction for Patient Vehicle Trips


Mode Choice Reduction for Traffic Analysis

Mode Choice

1. Average carpool occupancy is 1.45 patients per vehicle.


Project In Out NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

651 Addison 13 42 2 2 21 10 3 2 2

740 Heinz 82 14 12 2

1800 San Pablo -31 2 1 1

2720 San Pablo -1 6

2747 San Pablo 4 16

2748 San Pablo 1 7

700 University 34 79 1 44 3 24 6 3 8

1885 University 34 60 8 26

1122 University 9 25 3 8

Total 145 251 3 0 2 0 0 65 3 58 9 5 47 0

Project In Out NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

651 Addison 49 34 2 2 17 8 10 7 7

2041 Center 29 14 8 4

740 Heinz 9 75 1 12

1800 San Pablo 0 -12 1 1

2720 San Pablo 6 4

2747 San Pablo -33 -32

2748 San Pablo 7 4

700 University 63 42 3 51 8 27 24 11 31

1885 University 96 65 24 26

1122 University 23 12 8 4

Total 249 206 5 0 2 0 0 68 8 77 34 18 85 0

AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

Approved Projects


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions

1: University Avenue & Sixth Street AM Peak Hour

Fehr & Peers Synchro 7 - Report

9/22/2009 Page 1

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 82 989 336 39 931 47 203 132 34 75 218 312

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3307 1719 3413 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3307 1719 3413 1770 1863 1583 1245 1863 1583

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.89

Adj. Flow (vph) 88 1063 361 42 1001 51 214 139 36 84 245 351

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 3 0 0 0 23 0 0 219

Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 1396 0 42 1049 0 214 139 13 84 245 132

Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Perm Perm Perm

Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 4

Permitted Phases 8 4 4

Actuated Green, G (s) 19.5 56.3 7.3 44.1 16.5 42.4 42.4 21.9 21.9 21.9

Effective Green, g (s) 19.5 56.3 7.3 44.1 16.5 42.4 42.4 21.9 21.9 21.9

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.47 0.06 0.37 0.14 0.35 0.35 0.18 0.18 0.18

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 279 1552 105 1254 243 658 559 227 340 289

v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.42 c0.02 0.31 c0.12 0.07 c0.13

v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.07 0.08

v/c Ratio 0.32 0.90 0.40 0.84 0.88 0.21 0.02 0.37 0.72 0.46

Uniform Delay, d1 44.4 29.2 54.2 34.7 50.8 27.1 25.3 43.0 46.2 43.7

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 8.7 11.0 6.7 33.6 0.7 0.1 4.6 12.4 5.1

Delay (s) 47.3 37.9 65.2 41.4 84.4 27.8 25.4 47.6 58.6 48.9

Level of Service D D E D F C C D E D

Approach Delay (s) 38.5 42.3 58.7 52.2

Approach LOS D D E D

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 44.3 HCM Level of Service D

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.1% ICU Level of Service D

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions + Project (ITE)



9/22/2009 Page 1


Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 82 989 344 42 931 47 204 133 35 75 222 312

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3305 1719 3413 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3305 1719 3413 1770 1863 1583 1244 1863 1583


Adj. Flow (vph) 88 1063 370 45 1001 51 215 140 37 84 249 351



Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%







Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 279 1551 105 1254 243 658 559 227 340 289


v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.07 0.08

v/c Ratio 0.32 0.91 0.43 0.84 0.88 0.21 0.02 0.37 0.73 0.46

Uniform Delay, d1 44.4 29.4 54.3 34.7 50.8 27.1 25.3 43.0 46.3 43.7



Delay (s) 47.3 38.5 66.6 41.4 85.1 27.9 25.4 47.6 59.4 48.9

Level of Service D D E D F C C D E D

Approach Delay (s) 39.0 42.4 59.0 52.5

Approach LOS D D E D





Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.7% ICU Level of Service D




HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions

1: University Avenue & Sixth Street PM Peak Hour


9/22/2009 Page 1


Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 128 867 256 52 1201 44 406 420 50 86 229 441

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3321 1719 3420 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3321 1719 3420 1770 1863 1583 931 1863 1583


Adj. Flow (vph) 135 913 269 54 1251 46 441 457 54 99 263 507



Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%







Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 185 1372 99 1242 324 785 667 193 387 329

v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.35 0.03 c0.38 c0.25 0.25 0.14

v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.11 c0.24

v/c Ratio 0.73 0.85 0.55 1.04 1.36 0.58 0.03 0.51 0.68 1.17

Uniform Delay, d1 56.2 34.4 59.6 41.4 53.1 28.8 22.1 45.7 47.5 51.5



Delay (s) 78.4 41.0 79.5 78.8 234.4 32.0 22.2 55.1 56.8 156.6

Level of Service E D E E F C C E E F

Approach Delay (s) 44.8 78.8 125.2 114.8

Approach LOS D E F F


HCM Average Control Delay 85.7 HCM Level of Service F



Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.1% ICU Level of Service F




HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions + Project (ITE)



9/22/2009 Page 1


Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 128 867 259 54 1201 44 415 424 57 86 231 441

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3319 1719 3420 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3319 1719 3420 1770 1863 1583 927 1863 1583


Adj. Flow (vph) 135 913 273 56 1251 46 451 461 62 99 266 507



Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%







Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 185 1371 99 1242 324 785 667 193 387 329

v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.35 0.03 c0.38 c0.25 0.25 0.14


v/c Ratio 0.73 0.85 0.57 1.04 1.39 0.59 0.04 0.51 0.69 1.17

Uniform Delay, d1 56.2 34.5 59.7 41.4 53.1 28.9 22.1 45.7 47.6 51.5



Delay (s) 78.4 41.2 81.0 78.8 247.4 32.1 22.2 55.1 57.2 157.5

Level of Service E D F E F C C E E F

Approach Delay (s) 45.0 78.9 131.2 115.3

Approach LOS D E F F









HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Ex. Conditions + Approved



9/22/2009 Page 1


Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 87 1067 352 45 997 48 210 135 37 77 222 383

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3310 1719 3414 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3310 1719 3414 1770 1863 1583 1241 1863 1583


Adj. Flow (vph) 94 1147 378 48 1072 52 221 142 39 87 249 430



Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%







Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 279 1553 105 1255 251 658 559 221 332 282

v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.45 c0.03 0.33 c0.12 0.08 0.13


v/c Ratio 0.34 0.96 0.46 0.89 0.88 0.22 0.02 0.39 0.75 0.76

Uniform Delay, d1 44.5 30.9 54.4 35.7 50.5 27.2 25.3 43.6 46.8 46.8



Delay (s) 47.8 46.8 68.1 45.7 83.3 27.9 25.4 48.8 61.2 63.9

Level of Service D D E D F C C D E E

Approach Delay (s) 46.8 46.6 58.1 61.3

Approach LOS D D E E





Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.4% ICU Level of Service E




HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Ex. Conditions + Approved + Project (ITE)



9/22/2009 Page 1


Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 87 1067 360 48 997 48 211 136 38 77 226 383

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3308 1719 3414 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3308 1719 3414 1770 1863 1583 1240 1863 1583


Adj. Flow (vph) 94 1147 387 52 1072 52 222 143 40 87 254 430



Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%







Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 279 1552 105 1255 251 658 559 221 332 282


v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.07 0.14

v/c Ratio 0.34 0.97 0.50 0.89 0.88 0.22 0.03 0.39 0.77 0.76

Uniform Delay, d1 44.5 31.0 54.6 35.7 50.5 27.2 25.3 43.6 46.9 46.8



Delay (s) 47.8 47.9 70.3 45.7 84.0 27.9 25.4 48.8 62.3 64.1

Level of Service D D E D F C C D E E

Approach Delay (s) 47.9 46.8 58.4 61.8

Approach LOS D D E E





Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.9% ICU Level of Service E




HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Ex. Conditions + Approved



9/22/2009 Page 1


Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 131 884 261 53 1225 45 414 428 51 88 234 450

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3320 1719 3420 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3320 1719 3420 1770 1863 1583 924 1863 1583


Adj. Flow (vph) 138 931 275 55 1276 47 450 465 55 101 269 517



Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%







Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 185 1371 99 1242 324 785 667 192 387 329

v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.36 0.03 c0.39 c0.25 0.25 0.14


v/c Ratio 0.75 0.86 0.56 1.06 1.39 0.59 0.03 0.53 0.70 1.21

Uniform Delay, d1 56.3 34.8 59.6 41.4 53.1 29.0 22.1 45.8 47.7 51.5



Delay (s) 79.9 42.3 80.2 85.7 246.1 32.3 22.2 55.8 57.6 170.1

Level of Service E D F F F C C E E F

Approach Delay (s) 46.1 85.5 130.9 122.9

Approach LOS D F F F









HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Ex. Conditions + Approved + Project (ITE)



9/22/2009 Page 1


Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 131 884 264 55 1225 45 423 432 58 88 236 450

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3320 1719 3420 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.49 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3320 1719 3420 1770 1863 1583 920 1863 1583


Adj. Flow (vph) 138 931 278 57 1276 47 460 470 63 101 271 517



Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%







Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 185 1371 99 1242 324 785 667 191 387 329

v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.36 0.03 c0.39 c0.26 0.25 0.15


v/c Ratio 0.75 0.87 0.58 1.06 1.42 0.60 0.04 0.53 0.70 1.21

Uniform Delay, d1 56.3 34.9 59.7 41.4 53.1 29.1 22.1 45.8 47.7 51.5



Delay (s) 79.9 42.4 81.8 85.7 259.2 32.5 22.2 55.9 57.9 170.1

Level of Service E D F F F C C E E F

Approach Delay (s) 46.2 85.5 136.8 122.9

Approach LOS D F F F









HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Year 2030 Conditions



9/22/2009 Page 1


Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 96 1470 447 80 1384 64 245 144 71 86 225 323

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3318 1719 3415 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.66 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3318 1719 3415 3433 1863 1583 1230 1863 1583


Adj. Flow (vph) 103 1581 481 86 1488 69 258 152 75 97 253 363



Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%







Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 143 1844 97 1807 269 505 429 196 297 252

v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.61 c0.05 0.46 c0.08 0.08 0.14


v/c Ratio 0.72 1.11 0.89 0.86 0.96 0.30 0.05 0.49 0.85 1.06

Uniform Delay, d1 53.6 26.6 56.2 24.4 55.1 34.7 32.3 46.0 49.1 50.5



Delay (s) 80.4 82.7 120.4 30.0 100.4 36.3 32.5 54.7 74.3 123.9

Level of Service F F F C F D C D E F

Approach Delay (s) 82.6 34.8 69.8 96.9

Approach LOS F C E F


HCM Average Control Delay 67.7 HCM Level of Service E







HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Year 2030 Conditions + Project (ITE)



9/22/2009 Page 1


Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 96 1470 455 83 1384 64 246 145 72 86 229 323

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3316 1719 3415 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.66 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3316 1719 3415 3433 1863 1583 1229 1863 1583


Adj. Flow (vph) 103 1581 489 89 1488 69 259 153 76 97 257 363



Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%







Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 143 1843 97 1807 269 505 429 196 297 252

v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.62 c0.05 0.46 c0.08 0.08 0.14


v/c Ratio 0.72 1.11 0.92 0.86 0.96 0.30 0.05 0.49 0.87 1.06

Uniform Delay, d1 53.6 26.6 56.3 24.4 55.1 34.8 32.3 46.0 49.2 50.5



Delay (s) 80.4 84.5 127.2 30.0 101.3 36.3 32.5 54.7 76.1 123.9

Level of Service F F F C F D C D E F

Approach Delay (s) 84.3 35.3 70.2 97.4

Approach LOS F D E F


HCM Average Control Delay 68.8 HCM Level of Service E







HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Year 2030 Conditions



9/22/2009 Page 1


Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 143 1278 310 97 1765 58 516 427 98 105 236 469

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3337 1719 3422 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.46 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3337 1719 3422 3433 1863 1583 856 1863 1583


Adj. Flow (vph) 154 1374 333 104 1898 62 543 449 103 118 265 527



Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%







Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 115 1557 86 1540 401 683 580 185 404 343

v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.51 0.06 c0.57 c0.16 0.24 0.14


v/c Ratio 1.34 1.09 1.21 1.27 1.35 0.66 0.07 0.64 0.66 1.33

Uniform Delay, d1 56.0 32.0 57.0 33.0 53.0 31.7 24.7 42.7 42.9 47.0



Delay (s) 255.8 81.6 220.7 160.5 228.0 36.6 24.9 58.4 51.0 213.7

Level of Service F F F F F D C E D F

Approach Delay (s) 96.1 163.5 130.4 146.2

Approach LOS F F F F





Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.1% ICU Level of Service G




HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Year 2030 Conditions + Project (ITE)



9/22/2009 Page 1


Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 143 1278 313 99 1765 58 525 431 105 105 238 469

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3337 1719 3422 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3337 1719 3422 3433 1863 1583 839 1863 1583


Adj. Flow (vph) 154 1374 337 106 1898 62 553 454 111 118 267 527



Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%







Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 115 1557 86 1540 401 683 580 182 404 343

v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.51 0.06 c0.57 c0.16 0.24 0.14


v/c Ratio 1.34 1.09 1.23 1.27 1.38 0.66 0.07 0.65 0.66 1.33

Uniform Delay, d1 56.0 32.0 57.0 33.0 53.0 31.8 24.7 42.8 43.0 47.0



Delay (s) 255.8 82.5 229.1 160.5 238.6 36.9 24.9 59.3 51.2 213.7

Level of Service F F F F F D C E D F

Approach Delay (s) 96.8 164.0 135.5 146.2

Approach LOS F F F F





Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.3% ICU Level of Service G




TABLE A-1: STUDY AREA PARKING SUPPLY, DEMAND, AND RESTRICTIONS

Street Between Side Total Parking

Spaces In Use Unused

Disabled Spaces

Metered/ Timed Spaces

East 17 15 2 - - Sixth Street

Bancroft Way and Allston Way West 20 18 2 1 -

East 13 11 2 - - Sixth Street

Allston Way and Addison Street West 13 12 1 - -

East 7 4 3 - 7 Sixth Street

Addison Street and University Avenue West 8 5 3 - -

East 17 16 1 - - Fifth Street


East 7 7 - - - Fifth Street


East 19 17 2 - - Seventh Street


East 12 10 2 - 4 Seventh Street


North 10 10 - 1 4 Allston Way

Fifth Street and Sixth Street South 9 9 - - -

North 8 6 2 1 - Allston Way

Sixth Street and Seventh Street South 6 4 2 - -

North 8 6 2 1 - Addison Street

Fourth Street and Fifth Street South 10 10 - - -

North 8 8 - - - Addison Street

Fifth Street and Sixth Street South 10 9 1 1 -

North 8 8 - 1 - Addison Street

Sixth Street and Seventh Street South 9 8 1 - 9

North 10 10 - - - Addison Street

Seventh Street and Eighth Street South 12 11 1 - -

North 6 - 6 - 6 University Avenue

Fifth Street and Sixth Street South 8 2 6 - 8

North 2 1 1 - 2 University Avenue

Sixth Street and Seventh Street South 7 4 3 1 2

WBFP Parking Lot 14 14 - 1 -

Total 345 292 53 8 42

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2009.


In Out Total In Out Total Daily

ITE Trip Generation (6th Edition) Hospital (610) 0.71 0.26 0.97 0.25 0.67 0.92 16.78


ITE Trip Generation (8th Edition) Hospital (610) 525 ksf (avg) 0.66 0.46 1.12 0.48 0.66 1.14 16.50

ITE Trip Generation (6th Edition) Clinic (630) 31.45



ITE Trip Generation (6th Edition) MOB (720) 1.94 0.49 2.43 0.99 2.67 3.66 36.13



Existing Walnut Creek Kaiser Medical Center (Observed) Medical Center 589 ksf 1.19 0.34 1.53 0.41 1.24 1.65 22.71

Existing Sutter Tracy Community Hospital (Observed) Medical Center 136 ksf 0.61 0.35 0.96 0.34 0.57 0.91

Existing Oakland Kaiser Medical Center (Observed) Medical Center 1200 ksf 0.92 0.31 1.22 0.37 1.02 1.39 19.68

Roseville Kaiser Medical Center (DKS) Medical Center 1.39 0.40 1.79 0.80 1.56 2.36 29.80

Existing Hayward Kaiser Medical Center (Observed 2006) Medical Center 375 ksf 1.69 0.61 2.30 0.90 1.65 2.54 30.61

AM Parking Demand PM Parking Demand

Existing Hayward Kaiser Hospital Use (Calibrated) Hospital 162 ksf 0.86 0.42 1.28 0.58 0.80 1.38 13.31

Existing Stanford University Medical Center (Observed) Hospital 1753 ksf 0.62 0.20 0.82 0.23 0.58 0.81 2.23 veh/ksf 2.22 veh/ksf

1.78 veh/ksf 1.78 veh/ksf

Existing Hayward Kaiser MOB Use (Calibrated) MOB 213 ksf 2.12 0.65 2.77 1.00 2.10 3.10 40.71

Existing Stanford University Medical Center (Observed) MOB 110 ksf 2.03 0.62 2.65 0.55 1.65 2.20 4.09 veh/ksf 4.36 veh/ksf

Existing Vacaville Kaiser Phase 1 (Observed) MOB 163 ksf 2.95

Project Land Use Size In Out Total In Out Total Daily



ITE Trip Generation (7th Edition) Clinic (630) 0.5 0.73 1.23 7.75

ITE Trip Generation (8th Edition) Clinic (630) 0.5 0.73 1.23 7.75



Existing Oakland Kaiser Medical Center (Observed) Medical Center 4072 Emp. 0.27 0.09 0.36 0.11 0.3 0.41 5.8

Existing Oakland Kaiser Hosptial Use (Calibrated) Hospital 2628 Emp. 0.21 0.09 0.3 0.06 0.17 0.23 4.64

Existing Oakland Kaiser MOB Use (Calibrated) MOB 1444 Emp. 0.36 0.1 0.46 0.2 0.53 0.73 7.95

San Francisco Kaiser Medical Center (EIP, April 1997) Medical Center 0.73 8.73

AM PM

Project Land Use Size

AM PM

Rate per ksf

Rate per employee


Average Hospital (610) Characteristics 640 ksf 1.02 daily patients/bed 460 patients/day 8.15 staff/daily patient

ITE Peak Period: 1:00 - 2:00 P.M.

Average Supply 4.7 spaces/bed, 0.82 spaces/employee

Rural Supply 4.9 spaces/bed, 0.95 spaces/employee

Suburban Supply 5.5 spaces/bed, 0.90 spaces/employee

Urban Supply 4.0 spaces/bed, 0.72 spaces/employee

Rural Demand 5.19 spaces per bed 85th, 4.08 average, 0.76 veh/employee average, 0.83 85th

Suburban Demand 7.63 spaces per bed 85th, 4.72 average, 0.83 veh/employee average, 1.09 85th

Urban Demand 4.92 spaces per bed 85th, 3.47 average, 0.60 veh/employee average, 0.83 85th

Average Clinic (630) Characteristics 10 GFA ksf

ITE Peak Period: 9:00 - 10:00 A.M.

1:00 - 2:00 P.M = 93% of peak

Average Supply 5.5 spaces/ksf GFA

Suburban/Urban Demand 4.74 spaces per ksf GFA 85th, 4.43 average

Average MOB (720) Characteristics 10 GFA ksf

ITE Peak Period: 10:00 A.M. - 12:00 P.M., 2:00 - 5:00 P.M.

1:00 - 2:00 P.M = 79% of peak

Average Supply 3.9 spaces/ksf GFA

Suburban/Urban Demand 4.30 spaces per ksf GFA 85th, 3.53 average

Current Site 12 ksf Patient Hours (8:00 am to 6:00 pm) 10

13 parking lot Staff Hours (7:00 am to 7:00 pm) 55

6600 patients Daily Trips Trip Gen Rate

27000 visits per ksf Daily Trips Daily Trip Gen Rate

90% M-F 93 7750 2007 28700 visits per ksf

90% M-F 99 8.25

Expanded Site 16.3 ksf 58.1 FTE

40000 visits 6600 patients

90% M-F 138 11500

15-16 spaces Option A 2008 26980 visits

26 spaces Option B 90% M-F 93 7.75

45.18 FTE

6600 patients

Future 45000 visits

90% M-F 156

73 FTE

20% of Daily Trips = 1.65 1.65

ITE Parking Generation (3rd Edition)


new attachment 6 zab 12-10-09 page1of 36 · 2009. 12. 10. · wbfp site ite trip generation1 591 36...

Documents