APPENDIX F-G 

Traffic Impact Analysis for the DesertXpress Project 

and Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis 

for Victorville Station Site 3 (VV3) 

FINAL REPORT

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Prepared by

February 2009

F-G-1
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Table of Contents

ii February 2009 

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.2 Operations, Maintenance, and Storage Facility Alternatives ........................................... 1-2

1.2 Relationship of Traffic Analysis Report to EIS .............................................................................. 1-3

1.3 Overview of Traffic Analysis Methodology .................................................................................... 1-3

2.0 TRANSPORTATION SETTING ........................................................................................................... 2-1

3.0 BASELINE TRAFFIC FORECASTS .................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 I-15 Mainline .......................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Victorville Area .......................................................................................................3-1

3.3 Las Vegas Area .......................................................................................................3-2

4.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC FORECASTS..................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Ridership Studies .......................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Rail Operating Plan ....................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 Rail Ridership Forecasts ............................................................................................................... 4-2

4.4 Mainline Traffic Reduction............................................................................................................. 4-2

4.5 Station Mode Share and Trip Generation ..................................................................................... 4-3

4.6 Operation and Maintenance Service Facilities ............................................................................. 4-5

5.0 I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Roadway Network ......................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Freeway Section and Ramp Junction Analysis Methodology ....................................................... 5-1

5.3 Existing Freeway Section Analysis ............................................................................................... 5-2

5.4 Existing Ramp Junction Analysis .................................................................................................. 5-5

5.5 Impact Analysis 5-6

5.6 2013 Opening Year Conditions ..................................................................................................... 5-6

5.6.1 Freeway Analysis ............................................................................................................. 5-6

1. 2013 Baseline Conditions ....................................................................................................... 5-6

2. 2013 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions .................................................................... 5-8

3. 2013 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions .................................................................. 5-10

5.6.2 Ramp Junction Analysis ................................................................................................. 5-12

1. 2013 Baseline Conditions ..................................................................................................... 5-12

2. 2013 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions .................................................................. 5-13

3. 2013 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions .................................................................. 5-13

5.7 2030 Cumulative Conditions ....................................................................................................... 5-14

5.7.1 Freeway Analysis ........................................................................................................... 5-14

1. 2030 Baseline Conditions ..................................................................................................... 5-14

2. 2030 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions .................................................................. 5-17

3. 2030 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions .................................................................. 5-20

5.7.2 Ramp Junction Analysis ................................................................................................. 5-22

1. 2030 Baseline Conditions ..................................................................................................... 5-22

2. 2030 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions .................................................................. 5-23

3. 2030 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions .................................................................. 5-23

6.0 VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATION ............................................................................................... 6-25

6.1 Victorville Station Location Option 1 ........................................................................................... 6-25

F-G-2
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Table of Contents

iii February 2009 

6.1.1 Existing Conditions......................................................................................................... 6-25

6.1.2 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 6-27

6.1.3 Existing plus Project Conditions ..................................................................................... 6-29

6.1.4 2013 Baseline Conditions (Opening Year Analysis) ...................................................... 6-33

6.1.5 2030 Cumulative Conditions .......................................................................................... 6-35

6.1.6 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 6-38

6.1.7 Queuing Analysis ........................................................................................................... 6-42

6.2 Victorville Station Location Option 2 ........................................................................................... 6-43

6.2.1 Existing Conditions......................................................................................................... 6-44

6.2.2 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 6-47

6.2.3 2013 Opening Year Conditions ...................................................................................... 6-50

6.2.4 2030 Cumulative Conditions .......................................................................................... 6-53

6.2.5 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 6-56

6.2.6 Queuing Analysis ........................................................................................................... 6-59

7.0 LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Downtown Station Location Alternative ........................................................................................ 7-1

7.1.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1.2 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................ 7-3

7.1.3 2013 Conditions (Opening Year Analysis) ....................................................................... 7-6

7.1.4 2030 Cumulative Conditions ............................................................................................ 7-9

7.1.5 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 7-13

7.2 Central Station Location “A” Alternative ...................................................................................... 7-19

7.2.1 Existing Conditions......................................................................................................... 7-20

7.2.2 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 7-23

7.2.3 2013 Conditions (Opening Year Analysis) ..................................................................... 7-23

7.2.4 2030 Cumulative Conditions .......................................................................................... 7-27

7.2.5 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 7-30

7.3 South Station Location Alternative .............................................................................................. 7-36

7.3.1 Existing Conditions......................................................................................................... 7-36

7.3.2 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 7-39

7.3.3 2013 Conditions (Opening Year Analysis) ..................................................................... 7-40

7.3.4 2030 Cumulative Conditions .......................................................................................... 7-44

7.3.5 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 7-47

7.4 Central Station Location “B” Alternative ...................................................................................... 7-55

7.4.1 Existing Conditions......................................................................................................... 7-56

7.4.2 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 7-58

2013 Conditions (Opening Year Analysis) .................................................................................. 7-60

7.4.3 2030 Cumulative Conditions .......................................................................................... 7-61

7.4.4 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 7-64

8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 8-1

Appendix

F-G-3
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Table of Contents

iv February 2009 

List of Figures

Figure 4-1 Proposed Maintenance Facility at Victorville (2 Alternatives) ........................................................... 4-6

Figure 4-2 Proposed Maintenance Facility at Las Vegas (3 Alternatives) ......................................................... 4-7

Figure 5-1 Analysis Freeway Sections .............................................................................................................. 5-3

Figure 5-2 I-15 Mainline Existing Peak Hour Volumes ...................................................................................... 5-4

Figure 5-3 I-15 Mainline 2013 plus DMU Peak Hour Volumes .......................................................................... 5-9

Figure 5-4 I-15 Mainline 2013 plus EMU Alternative Peak Hour Volumes ...................................................... 5-11

Figure 5-5 I-15 Mainline Future Year 2030 Geometry ..................................................................................... 5-15

Figure 5-6 I-15 Mainline 2030 No Build Peak Hour Volumes .......................................................................... 5-16

Figure 5-7 I-15 Mainline 2030 plus DMU Alternative Peak Hour Volumes ...................................................... 5-18

Figure 5-8 I-15 Mainline 2030 plus EMU Alternative Volumes ........................................................................ 5-21

Figure 6-1 Existing Intersection Lane Geometry – Victorville Station Location Alternative 1 .......................... 6-26

Figure 6-2 Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes – Victorville Station Location Alternative 1 .......................... 6-28

Figure 6-3 Trip Distribution - Victorville Station Location Alternative 1 ............................................................ 6-30

Figure 6-4 Future Year 2030 Intersection Geometry - Victorville Station Location Alternative 1 ..................... 6-32

Figure 6-5 Existing Intersection Lane Geometry - Victorville Station Location Alternative 2 ........................... 6-45

Figure 6-6 Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes - Victorville Station Location Alternative 2 ........................... 6-46

Figure 6-7 Trip Distribution – Victorville Station Location Alternative 2 ........................................................... 6-49

Figure 6-8 Future Year 2030 Intersection Lane Geometry – Victorville Station Location Alternative 2 ........... 6-54

Figure 7-1 Downtown Existing Geometry .......................................................................................................... 7-4

Figure 7-2 Downtown Trip Distribution .............................................................................................................. 7-7

Figure 7-3 Central “A” Existing Intersection Geometry .................................................................................... 7-22

Figure 7-4 Central Station “A” Trip Distribution ............................................................................................... 7-24

Figure 7-5 South Station Existing Intersection Geometry ................................................................................ 7-38

Figure 7-6 South Station Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................... 7-41

Figure 7-7 Central Station “B” Existing Geometry ........................................................................................... 7-57

Figure 7-8 Central Station “B” Trip Distribution ............................................................................................... 7-59

F-G-4
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Table of Contents

v February 2009 

List of Tables

Table 3-1 Future Forecast of California Section of I-15 .............................................................................................. 3-1

Table 3-2 Future Forecast of Nevada Section of I-15 ................................................................................................ 3-1

Table 4-1 Rail Ridership Ramp-Up Adjustments Annual Round Trips ....................................................................... 4-2

Table 4-2 Expected Number of Vehicle Reduction on I-15 ........................................................................................ 4-3

Table 4-3 Mode Share at Victorville Station ............................................................................................................... 4-3

Table 4-4 Mode Share at Las Vegas Station ............................................................................................................. 4-4

Table 4-5 Peak Hour Trips Generated for Victorville Station ...................................................................................... 4-4

Table 4-6 Peak Hour Trips Generated for Las Vegas Station .................................................................................... 4-5

Table 4-7 O & M Trip Generation in 2013 .................................................................................................................. 4-5

Table 4-8 O & M Trip Generation in 2030 for EMU .................................................................................................... 4-8

Table 4-9 O & M Trip Generation in 2030 for DMU .................................................................................................... 4-8

Table 5-1 Freeway Mainline and Ramp Junction Level of Service Thresholds ......................................................... 5-2

Table 5-2 HCM Analysis Assumptions – Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... 5-2

Table 5-3 Freeway Mainline Level of Service - Existing Conditions ........................................................................... 5-5

Table 5-4 Ramp Junction Level of Service – Existing Conditions .............................................................................. 5-6

Table 5-5 Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2013 Baseline Conditions ................................................................ 5-7

Table 5-6 Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions ............................................... 5-8

Table 5-7 Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions.............................................. 5-10

Table 5-8 Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2013 Baseline Conditions .................................................................. 5-12

Table 5-9 Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2013 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions ................................ 5-13

Table 5-10 Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions .............................. 5-14

Table 5-11 HCS Assumptions – 2030 Conditions .................................................................................................... 5-17

Table 5-12 Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2030 Baseline Conditions ............................................................ 5-17

Table 5-13 Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions ........................................... 5-19

Table 5-14 Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions............................................ 5-20

Table 5-15 Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2030 Baseline Conditions ................................................................ 5-22

Table 5-16 Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2030 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions .............................. 5-23

Table 5-17 Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions .............................. 5-24

Table 6-1 Intersection Level of Service Description ................................................................................................. 6-25

Table 6-2 Victorville Option 1 - Intersection Level of Service - Existing Conditions ................................................. 6-27

Table 6-3 Victorville Option 1 - Existing plus DMU Conditions LOS ......................................................................... 6-31

Table 6-4 Victorville Option 1 - Existing plus EMU Conditions LOS ......................................................................... 6-33

Table 6-5 Victorville Option 1 - 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS ............................................................................... 6-34

Table 6-6 Victorville Option 1 – 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS .............................................................. 6-34

Table 6-7 Victorville Option 1 – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS .............................................................. 6-35

Table 6-8 Victorville Option 1 - 2030 Baseline Conditions LOS ............................................................................... 6-36

Table 6-9 Victorville Option 1 – 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS .............................................................. 6-37

Table 6-10 Victorville Option 1 – 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS ............................................................ 6-37

Table 6-11 Victorville Option 1 - Existing plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ...................................................... 6-38

Table 6-12 Victorville Option 1 - Existing plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ....................................................... 6-39

Table 6-13 Victorville Option 1 – 2013 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS ............................................................ 6-40

Table 6-14 Victorville Option 1 - 2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ............................................ 6-40

Table 6-15 Victorville Option 1 - 2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS............................................. 6-41

Table 6-16 Victorville Option 1 – 2030 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS ............................................................ 6-42

Table 6-17 Victorville Option 1 – Queuing Analysis ................................................................................................. 6-43

Table 6-18 Victorville Option 2 - Existing Conditions LOS ....................................................................................... 6-44

F-G-5
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Table of Contents

vi February 2009 

Table 6-19 Victorville Option 2 – Existing plus DMU Conditions LOS ...................................................................... 6-48

Table 6-20 Victorville Option 2 – Existing plus EMU Conditions LOS ...................................................................... 6-50

Table 6-21 Victorville Option 2 – 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS ............................................................................ 6-51

Table 6-22 Victorville Option 2 – 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS ............................................................ 6-52

Table 6-23 Victorville Option 2 – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS ............................................................ 6-53

Table 6-24 Victorville Option 2 - 2030 Baseline Conditions LOS ............................................................................. 6-55

Table 6-25 Victorville Option 2 - 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS ............................................................. 6-55

Table 6-26 Victorville Option 2 - 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS ............................................................. 6-56

Table 6-27 Victorville Option 2 - Existing plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ....................................................... 6-57

Table 6-28 Victorville Option 2 - 2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ............................................ 6-57

Table 6-29 Victorville Option 2 - 2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS............................................. 6-58

Table 6-30 Victorville Option 2 - 2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS............................................. 6-59

Table 6-31 Victorville Option 2 – Queuing Analysis ................................................................................................. 6-60

Table 7-1 Downtown Station Location Alternative - Existing Conditions LOS ............................................................ 7-5

Table 7-2 Downtown Station Location Alternative - 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS .................................................. 7-8

Table 7-3 Downtown Station Location Alternative - 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS ................................. 7-9

Table 7-4 Downtown Station Location Alternative 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS .................................. 7-10

Table 7-5 Downtown Station Location Alternative 2030 Baseline Conditions LOS .................................................. 7-11

Table 7-6 Downtown Station Location Alternative - 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS ............................... 7-12

Table 7-7 Downtown Station Location Alternative - 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS ............................... 7-12

Table 7-8 Downtown Station Location Alternative 2013 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS .................................. 7-14

Table 7-9 Downtown Station Location Alternative 2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ................. 7-15

Table 7-10 Downtown Station Location Alternative 2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ............... 7-16

Table 7-11 Downtown Station Location Alternative 2030 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS ................................ 7-17

Table 7-12 Downtown Station Location Alternative 2030 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ............... 7-18

Table 7-13 Downtown Station Location Alternative 2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS .............. 7-19

Table 7-14 Central Station Location “A” Alternative - Existing Conditions LOS ....................................................... 7-21

Table 7-15 Central Station Location “A” Alternative – 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS............................................. 7-25

Table 7-16 Central Station Location “A” Alternative 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS ............................... 7-26

Table 7-17 Central Station Location “A” Alternative – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS ............................ 7-27

Table 7-18 Central Station Location “A” Alternative – 2030 Baseline Conditions LOS............................................. 7-28

Table 7-19 Central Station Location “A” Alternative 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS ............................... 7-29

Table 7-20 Central Station Location “A” Alternative 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS ............................... 7-30

Table 7-21 Central Station Location “A” Alternative 2013 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS ............................... 7-31

Table 7-22 Central Station Location “A” Alternative 2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ............... 7-32

Table 7-23 Central Station Location “A” Alternative 2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ............... 7-33

Table 7-24 Central Station Location “A” Alternative 2030 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS ............................... 7-34

Table 7-25 Central Station Location “A” Alternative 2030 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ............... 7-35

Table 7-26 Central Station Location “A” Alternative 2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ............... 7-36

Table 7-27 South Station Location Alternative Existing Conditions LOS .................................................................. 7-39

Table 7-28 South Station Location Alternative 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS ...................................................... 7-42

Table 7-29 South Station Location Alternative 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS ....................................... 7-43

Table 7-30 South Station Location Alternative 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS ....................................... 7-44

Table 7-31 South Station Location Alternative 2030 Baseline Conditions LOS ....................................................... 7-45

Table 7-32 South Station Location Alternative 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS ....................................... 7-46

Table 7-33 South Station Location Alternative 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS ....................................... 7-47

Table 7-34 South Station Location Alternative 2013 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS ...................................... 7-48

Table 7-35 South Station Location Alternative 2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS....................... 7-49

Table 7-36 South Station Location Alternative 2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ...................... 7-50

Table 7-37 South Station Location Alternative 2030 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS ....................................... 7-52

Table 7-38 South Station Location Alternative - 2030 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ................... 7-53

F-G-6
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Table of Contents

vii February 2009 

Table 7-39 South Station Location Alternative 2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ....................... 7-55

Table 7-40 Central Station Location “B” Alternative - Existing Conditions LOS ....................................................... 7-56

Table 7-41 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS................................................ 7-60

Table 7-42 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS ............................... 7-61

Table 7-43 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS ............................... 7-62

Table 7-44 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2030 Baseline Conditions ........................................................ 7-62

Table 7-45 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS ............................... 7-63

Table 7-46 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS ............................... 7-64

Table 7-47 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2013 Baseline Mitigation Conditions ....................................... 7-65

Table 7-48 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions ....................... 7-66

Table 7-49 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions ....................... 7-66

Table 7-50 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2030 Baseline Mitigation Conditions ....................................... 7-67

Table 7-51 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2030 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions ...................... 7-68

Table 7-52 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions ....................... 7-69

Table 8-1 Project Mitigations – DMU Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 8-2

Table 8-2 Project Mitigations – EMU Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 8-5

F-G-7
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 1.0 – INTRODUCTION

1-1 February 2009

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report analyzes the potential traffic impacts that could result from the proposal by

DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC, to construct and operate a high-speed passenger railroad

between Victorville, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada. DesertXpress would finance and own

the system and be responsible for the project’s development, construction, operation, and

maintenance. Approvals by several federal agencies, including the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Surface Transportation Board

(STB), and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) would be necessary to implement the

project, including the granting of permission to use of public lands and/or highway rights-of-way.

1.1 Project Description

1.1.1 Overview

The project would construct nearly 200 miles of new, high quality exclusive double track railroad

with no at-grade crossings. The route would either be immediately alongside or in the median of

Interstate 15 (I-15) and/or within existing railroad corridors/rights-of-way. There would be two

passenger stations; one at each end of the line, in Victorville, California, and Las Vegas,

Nevada.

DesertXpress would provide trains departing both ends of the line at least hourly and as

frequently as every 20 minutes on Fridays and Sundays. DesertXpress would travel at speeds

up to 150 mph. The 200-mile trip would take between 1 hour and 45 minutes and 2 hours, and

would operate every day of the year. The trains would be based on high speed trains used in

Europe and customized for the high desert. Each car would be self-propelled to provide the high

power-to-weight ratio needed o negotiate the alignment’s relatively steep grades.

ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES

From Victorville, a completely separate, dedicated two-track passenger railway would be

constructed, largely following the north side or median of I-15, making maximum use of excess

freeway right-of-way. At Mountain Pass, there are two alignment options. One option would

divert south of the I-15 corridor and traverse at grade a three mile portion of the Mojave National

Preserve. East of the Preserve near Primm, this option would rejoin the I-15 corridor, continuing

northeasterly toward metropolitan Las Vegas. The second option would divert north of the I-15

corridor at Mountain Pass and pass through the Clark Range in two tunnels, 1,300 feet and

5,000 feet in length respectively, to rejoin the I-15 corridor near Primm. Near Sloan Road, one

alignment option continues in the I-15 corridor to reach Las Vegas, while another option would

diverge from the I-15 corridor and generally follow or be located within the existing Union Pacific

Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way to reach Las Vegas.

EQUIPMENT ALTERNATIVES

Two technology alternatives are under consideration: a diesel-electric multiple unit train (DMU)

and an electric multiple unit train (EMU). The two technology options would have similar right-ofF-G-8
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 1.0 – INTRODUCTION

1-2 February 2009

way width requirements as well as the same construction footprint. However, the EMU option

would also include overhead catenary wires and supports, three electrical substations, and

approximately seventeen transformers, all of which would be located within the right-of-way

and/or within construction easement areas.

STATION ALTERNATIVES

Two passenger stations would be constructed, one in Victorville located along the west side of I15 near the Stoddard Wells Road interchanges, and the other in Las Vegas at one of four

possible locations.

Two sites north of central Victorville are being considered for the Victorville station. Site 1 is

located just north of the southern Stoddard Wells Road exit (Exit #154); Site 2 is located to the

northwest of the northern Stoddard Wells Road exit (Exit #157). The two site options are located

about 1.5 miles apart. The facilities directly associated with the either station site would occupy

about 60 to 70 acres and would have a parking capacity for approximately 13,000 to 18,000

vehicles in self-parking lots, valet parking areas, and a proposed parking structure. The

Victorville station would offer train ticketing, baggage handling, and hotel room check-in for Las

Vegas resorts.

In Las Vegas, the terminal station would be designed to serve as a multi-modal facility with

convenient access to rental cars, hotel shuttles, and taxis. The four options are being

considered for the Las Vegas passenger station are:

x Southern Station, along Polaris Road, between West Russell Road and West Hacienda

Drive, across I-15 from the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino

x Central Station A, between West Flamingo Road and West Twain Avenue, adjacent to

the Rio Suites Hotel property

x Central Station B, south of West Flamingo Road, in an area along the UPRR right of way

that is currently occupied by industrial and light industrial uses

x Downtown Station, in the City of Las Vegas, along South Main Street between West

Bonneville Avenue and Boulder Avenue

Note that the Southern Station option could not be utilized if the UPRR alignment option north of

Sloan Road was selected.

1.1.2 Operations, Maintenance, and Storage Facility Alternatives

A 50-acre train maintenance and storage facility and operations center would be built in

Victorville. The facility would include a train washing facility, repair shop, parts storage, trains

storage tracks, operations control center, meeting rooms and administrative offices. OMSF site

option 1 is located in the City of Victorville southwest of proposed Victorville station site 1.

OMSF site option 2 is located north of Victorville station site option 2, west of I-15 and south of

the Dale Evans Parkway interchange.

F-G-9
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 1.0 – INTRODUCTION

1-3 February 2009

A light maintenance, storage, cleaning, and inspection facility would also be built near the

northern terminus of the project. Three site options are under consideration for the Las Vegas

area maintenance and storage facility:

x Sloan Road - located approximately 5 miles south of Sloan Road, on the east side of I15, between the I-15 freeway and South Las Vegas Boulevard (Nevada State Route

604), near where Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) crosses from east to west side of I-15.

x Wigwam Avenue – located west of the I-15 freeway about one half mile south of Blue

Diamond Boulevard (Nevada State Route 160).

x Robindale Avenue – also located west of the I-15 freeway, about one half mile south of

Blue Diamond Boulevard.

1.2 Relationship of Traffic Analysis Report to EIS

An EIS is being prepared by the FRA in cooperation with STB, BLM, FHWA, the California

Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT)

to evaluate the impacts of the DesertXpress proposal. The FRA has authority to regulate the

safety of railroads, under 49 U.S.C. 20101 et seq. The BLM has approval authority over the use

of public lands under their control under 43 U.S.C. 1761, the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act (FLPMA). The STB has jurisdiction, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10501(b), over the

construction, acquisition, operation, and abandonment of rail lines, railroad rates and services,

and rail carrier consolidations and mergers. The FHWA has jurisdiction over the use of and/or

modification of Interstate highway right of way under 23 CFR 1.23. On June 25, 2007, the STB

issued a declaratory order in finding that the proposed construction and operation of the

interstate high-speed passenger rail system is not subject to state and local environmental

review and land use and other permitting requirements because of the Federal preemption

authority in 49 U.S.C. 10501(b).

This Traffic Analysis Report has been prepared by DMJM Harris for DesertXpress Enterprises.

The research and analysis for preparing this report was conducted in coordination with the

FRA’s EIS consultant, CirclePoint. This report will be provided to CirclePoint for their use in

preparing the transportation section of the EIS, as well as other sections.

1.3 Overview of Traffic Analysis Methodology

This report quantifies the potential impact of the DesertXpress project in terms of vehicular

traffic on surrounding roadway facilities. The project represents the introduction of a new mode

of travel in the Southern California to Las Vegas corridor. As such, the project will have the

effect of shifting travelers from one mode to another. The size of these shifts have been

forecast in a rail ridership report prepared for DesertXpress Enterprises and peer-reviewed by a

firm hired by the FRA’s EIS consultant. (see below). The first step of the rail ridership study

was to forecast the annual number of trips by each existing mode between Southern California

and Las Vegas through 2035. Existing modes included air, auto, and bus. The ridership study

then applied rail diversion factors to each mode to develop rail ridership. These rail ridership

F-G-10
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 1.0 – INTRODUCTION

1-4 February 2009

forecasts are the basis for the traffic analysis. Note that the rail ridership study only included

trips that originate in Southern California.

The traffic analysis focused on three separate areas which were selected based on likely

changes in traffic patterns. One focus area is the I-15 freeway mainline, which will experience a

reduction in traffic due to introduction of DesertXpress. Trips that were formerly made by auto

will be diverted to the train, thereby reducing the number of vehicles on I-15 between Victorville

and Las Vegas.

South of Victorville, the rail project will have a negligible effect on mainline freeway traffic

volumes. Since I-15 is essentially the only route to Las Vegas, all auto and bus trips must pass

through Victorville. Rail trips that otherwise would have been made by the auto and bus modes

will use I-15 to reach Victorville from Southern California. These trips would be on I-15 south of

Victorville whether or not the rail project is built. With the rail project, these trips will leave the

freeway at Victorville and switch to the rail mode. Trips diverted from the air mode to the rail

mode most likely will access the Victorville station via the auto mode. The diverted air trips are

not currently using I-15 south of Victorville. Instead, persons making a trip to Las Vegas by air

travel to the most convenient airport. To use the rail mode, these travelers will now use I-15

south of Victorville to reach the rail station. However, the ridership study indicates that only

11% of the forecast rail trips would be diverted from the air mode. Applying this factor to the

2013 forecast rail ridership and converting from person-trips to vehicle trips, this works out to

only 63 additional vehicles in the peak hour, peak direction on the segment of I-15 south of

Victorville. This is less than 1% of the existing southbound PM peak hourly volume of 6490

vehicles in this section.

The other two focus areas are near the proposed station sites in Victorville and Las Vegas,

respectively, and specifically the local roadway intersections. In these areas, the stations will

act to concentrate trips that would otherwise remain on the freeway (in Victorville) or be

dispersed on the local road network (Las Vegas). For the station areas, the DesertXpress

project will increase the number of vehicles on the local roadways.

Two horizon years were selected for the traffic analysis: 2013 and 2030. DesertXpress is

expected to begin operating in 2013. The out-year of 2030 was selected because it is about 20

years after the start of construction, and because it was the farthest year in the future for which

regional travel forecasts were available for the metropolitan Las Vegas area. In the Victorville

area, intersections were also analyzed for existing conditions. This was done due to uncertainty

regarding the completion date of the South Stoddard Wells Road interchange relative to the

opening date of the DesertXpress rail project.

The traffic analysis uses outputs from regional travel models as the baseline “without-project”

traffic volumes. With-project traffic volumes were calculated by either subtracting (for the I-15

mainline) or adding (for the station areas) project-related vehicle trips to the baseline traffic

volumes. For the I-15 mainline, baseline future volumes were obtained from the respective

regional travel models in each state, as reviewed and agreed upon by the two state DOTs. In

Victorville, baseline future traffic volumes were obtained from the Victor Valley travel demand

model recently prepared for the City of Victorville. This model was based on the SCAG 2004

RTP model. Note that the Victorville model produces 2035 forecasts, which were factored back

F-G-11
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 1.0 – INTRODUCTION

1-5 February 2009

by DMJM Harris to be compatible with the 2030 horizon year. In the Las Vegas area, future

baseline volumes were obtained from the RTC travel demand model. The RTC model included

future roadway improvement projects as identified in their Regional Transportation Plan 2009 –

2030.

F-G-12
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 2.0 – TRANSPORTATION SETTING

2-1 February 2009

2.0 TRANSPORTATION SETTING

Today, over one-third of the 38 million annual Las Vegas visitors come from Southern

California. The transportation system serving these trips consists of:

x The freeway network of Southern California, feeding auto trips to I-15 at Victorville.

x Interstate 15, the only direct roadway available, is only two lanes in each direction for

most of its length, and has not been modified since it was constructed about 50 years

ago.

x Airlines and airports such as LAX, Burbank, Ontario, and John Wayne with flights to

McCarran.

x Buses that use the freeway network.

Most travelers drive, leaving their point of origin and traveling by the most convenient route to

Victorville. Though they used many different routes to reach Victorville, at the point where they

cross the Mojave River, all of them are on I-15, where they will stay until they reach the I-215

beltway in Las Vegas. At this point, they will begin to exit the freeway and make their way to the

final destination at a resort or hotel.

According to the project’s ridership study (see below), the projected travel demand from

Southern California to Las Vegas in the year 2012 will be 18.2 million trips. The study found

that DesertXpress would potentially capture over 20 percent of the total trips between southern

California and Las Vegas in the first full start up year. Most of these trips would be diverted

from private automobiles that would otherwise use I-15 between Victorville and Las Vegas.

In the future, Interstate 15 will remain in its existing configuration for most the distance between

Victorville and Las Vegas, except for capacity improvements in the urban areas. Caltrans is

planning the following improvements to the I-15 freeway that would add capacity1

:

x Widen bridge over Mojave River in Victorville; reconstruct D Street, E Street, and South

Stoddard Wells Road interchanges.

x Widen approximately 1 mile of freeway to 6 lanes and reconstruct an interchange in

Barstow.

x Add several truck lanes in sections with steep grades.

NDOT is planning the following improvements to I-152

:

x “NEON” project in the City of Las Vegas, includes reconstruction of Charleston

interchange, local access improvements, and a HOV direct connector from US 95 to I15.

x “I-15 South” project from Sloan Road to Tropicana Avenue, includes new interchanges

at Bermuda Road, Starr Ave. and Cactus Road, plus reconstruction of Sloan Road

interchange.

1

 Email communication from Caltrans District 8, February, 28, 2008

2

 NDOT Quarterly Report for Major Projects, March 31, 2008

F-G-13
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 2.0 – TRANSPORTATION SETTING

2-2 February 2009

In addition, NDOT has a planning study underway of potential upgrades to I-15 and parallel

roadways between I-215 and US 95, called the Urban Resort Corridor Study.

Clark County is considering a new airport in the Ivanpah Valley to supplement McCarran airport.

Though planning has not advanced far enough to provide specifics, the new airport project has

triggered consideration of adding roadway capacity in the I-15 corridor, either through freeway

widening and/or construction of a new arterial roadway.

In the Victorville area, planning is underway for the High Desert Corridor (HDC) roadway

project. This facility would intersect with I-15 between the Stoddard Wells Road interchanges at

a freeway-to-freeway interchange. This section of the HDC is part of a longer facility envisioned

to run from I-5 near Lancaster and Palmdale to east of Victorville. The section between I-15

and US 395 would be one of the earlier phases constructed.

Also near Victorville, the city is preparing a specific plan for the North Mojave area, which

stretches along I-15 from the Mojave River to the north of the Dale Evans Parkway interchange.

The specific plan area overlaps the alternative DesertXpress station and operations facility sites.

As will be discussed in the following sections, the preliminary specific plan land use concepts

have been included in the Victor Valley area travel demand model, and the future no-project

traffic volumes used in the present analysis include a substantial level of development in this

area. However, planning work is not complete on the plan, and the roadway system to support

the specific plan development has not been fully defined. As a result, the assumed roadway

geometry should be considered as preliminary.

F-G-14
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 3.0 – BASELINE TRAFFIC FORECASTS

3-1 February 2009

3.0 BASELINE TRAFFIC FORECASTS

In order to determine the project impact (to be discussed in subsequent sections) in the two

horizon years, future background traffic volumes needed to be obtained. Project volumes are

then added to these future volumes before comparison of level of service can be made between

the ‘with’ and ‘without’ project scenarios. The comparison results would be the project impact.

3.1 I-15 Mainline

Traffic volumes on I-15 in 2030 were obtained from the area wide model of San Bernardino

Association of Governments (SANBAG) and Regional Transportation Commission of Southern

Nevada (RTC) for the sections in California and Nevada respectively. These volumes had been

reviewed by Caltrans and NDOT. These numbers were then used to interpolate for traffic

volume in 2013 based on existing traffic counts. Existing counts for the California section of I-15

were published 2006 peak hour volumes by Caltrans; RTC provided 2005 volumes for the

Nevada section. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 show the forecast volumes on I-15.

Table 3-1

Future Forecast of California Section of I-15

Table 3-2

Future Forecast of Nevada Section of I-15

3.2 Victorville Area

City of Victorville provided the 2035 3-hour peak volumes for local intersections around the

proposed station locations. Growth factors for 2013 and 2030 were derived through straight line

interpolation from the calibration year of 2005 and applied to existing turning movement counts

collected for this project in 2006. These volumes were then adjusted to balance the ‘in’ and ‘out’

numbers. A peak hour factor of 0.28 was used whenever necessary according to the San

Bernardino County CMP Guidelines 2005. A total of 13 intersections were analyzed for the two

proposed station location alternatives.

NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB

Primm to Sloan 2,945 2,945 3,776 3,776 4,674 5,111 6,366 5,834 8,348 9,713 11,870 10,206

Sloan to I-215 3,772 2,824 3,786 4,662 7,520 6,904 7,285 9,242 15,483 15,573 14,720 18,974

AM PM

2005

Section

2013

AM PM

2030

AM PM

NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB

No. Jct. Stoddard

Wells to Jct. I-40 3,335 2,795 2,250 4,560 3,756 3,147 2,533 5,134 4,777 4,003 3,221 6,529

Jct. I-40 to Nevada

State Line 2,465 2,065 1,659 3,361 2,842 2,382 1,915 3,881 3,760 3,150 2,537 5,143

Section

2006 2013 2030

AM PM AM PM AM PM

F-G-15
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 3.0 – BASELINE TRAFFIC FORECASTS

3-2 February 2009

3.3 Las Vegas Area

Future 2030 average daily traffic volumes (ADT) of local intersection volumes around the

proposed station locations in Las Vegas were provided by RTC. Straight line interpolation was

used to obtain the 2013 growth factors. Turning movement counts at intersections under Clark

County jurisdiction were collected for this project in 2008 while the City of Las Vegas provided

turn volumes for intersections under its jurisdiction. There were four alternatives for the

proposed station location, giving a total of 48 intersections being analyzed.

F-G-16
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 4.0 – PROJECT TRAFFIC FORECASTS

4-1 February 2009

4.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC FORECASTS

4.1 Ridership Studies

Ridership projections for the project were developed through a comprehensive travel demand

modeling process commissioned by DesertXpress Enterprises. This forecast was prepared by

URS and independently peer-reviewed by Stear Davies and Gleave (SDG). The URS study

incorporated a comprehensive travel demand model that divided the Southern California area

into zones (by postal zip codes), computed travel times and costs from those zones for the

automobile and air travel modes, and then compared those modes to the time and cost of

DesertXpress. The study also utilized an internet-based stated preference survey of selected

Southern California residents (carried out in July 2005) to estimate how many existing auto and

air trips to Las Vegas could potentially be diverted to DesertXpress.

Subsequently, the FRA’s EIS consultants hired Cambridge Systematics (CSI) to independently

review the URS study and SDG peer review. The Cambridge Systematics study examined and

evaluated the methodologies employed in the URS ridership study and confirmed that the URS

work was done in a professional manner using widely accepted travel forecasting tools. CSI

noted that numerous factors could alter the findings of the URS ridership study in both positive

and negative directions. Following consideration of all of these factors and their relative potential

to alter the findings, CSI concluded that the ridership forecast numbers prepared by URS should

be adjusted downwards by a factor of about 10 percent overall for use in the EIS. CSI prepared

a reduced forecast which is being used for all of the EIS studies that require a travel forecast,

including noise, air quality, energy, and traffic. The CSI./URS report was also the source for

average auto occupancy.

4.2 Rail Operating Plan

The preliminary operations plan used for the traffic analysis assumes that trains would operate

between approximately 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., 365 days per year. There would be ten cars per train.

Passenger capacities for DMU trains would be 478 passengers. EMU trains, which have slightly

longer and wider cars, would have a capacity of 675 passengers.

Depending upon the direction of travel and the specific alignment and station locations, one-way

travel times are in the range of 100 minutes for the EMU technology option to 116 minutes for

the DMU technology option. DMU average speeds would be approximately 100 mph while EMU

average speeds would be approximately 112 mph, enabling a shorter travel time for the EMU

technology option (98 minutes for the EMU; 109 minutes for the DMU). Trains would depart

from both ends of the line at 20 minute headways during peak hours and once per hour during

off-peak periods.

Rail passengers would have the option of using a full-service valet parking and baggage

service, where they would be greeted at the Victorville station as if they were arriving at their

hotel in Las Vegas. Staff in Victorville would park their car, check them into their hotel and

F-G-17
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 4.0 – PROJECT TRAFFIC FORECASTS

4-2 February 2009

forward their bags to their room. On arriving in Las Vegas, these passengers would take a hotel

shuttle to their resort, where they would find their bags in their room.

4.3 Rail Ridership Forecasts

The URS and CSI rail ridership forecasts assumed that DesertXpress would begin operation in

2012. Since these forecasts were prepared, it has become apparent that 2013 would be a more

likely opening date. Part of the URS forecast methodology assumed that there would be a

“ramp-up” period for rail ridership covering the first two years of operation. This was

implemented by discounting the total rail market to 60% in the first year and 80% in the second

year of operation. As shown in Table 4-1, Wilbur Smith Associates, as part of their review of the

rail operation plan for the EIS consultant, adjusted the CSI forecasts to a 2013 opening date.

This table also shows the annual rail round trips that were used in the traffic analysis.

Table 4-1

Rail Ridership Ramp-Up Adjustments Annual Round Trips

4.4 Mainline Traffic Reduction

As discussed earlier, the proposed DesertXpress rail service is aimed to reduce traffic between

southern California and Las Vegas. As such, it is envisaged that traffic along I-15 between the

proposed Victorville station and Las Vegas would decrease when the service begins in 2013.

Two train types were considered for this project, each with a different capacity. As a result, the

potential traffic reduction on I-15 would vary. Table 4-2 shows the expected volume reduction

for the peak direction during peak hour. Following assumptions were made in arriving at the

mainline traffic reduction.

Project Assumptions: Average daily trips were calculated from annual trips by dividing by 365.

Using data from the URS report, DH calculated the number of rail trips diverted from the auto,

air and bus modes.

F-G-18
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 4.0 – PROJECT TRAFFIC FORECASTS

4-3 February 2009

Table 4-2

Expected Number of Vehicle Reduction on I-15

Alternativ

e

Year

Average

Annual

Daily Rail

One-way

Trips

Daily Trips

Diverted

From Auto

Daily Trips

Diverted

From Bus

Daily

Diverted

Auto

Volume

Daily

Diverted

Bus Volume

Total Daily

Diverted

Volume

Total Volume

Reduction in

Peak Hour of

Peak Direction

DEMU 2013 11,098 9,988 1,110 4,060 18 4,097 410

DEMU 2030 29,732 26,759 2,973 10,878 50 10,977 1,098

EMU 2013 14,089 12,680 1,409 5,154 23 5,201 520

EMU 2030 37,745 33,970 3,774 13,809 63 13,935 1,393

Trips diverted from the auto and bus modes to rail will reduce traffic on the section of I-15

between Victorville and Las Vegas.

Rail trips diverted from auto were converted to vehicle trips using an average vehicle occupancy

rate of 2.46 persons per vehicle.

Rail trips diverted from bus were converted to vehicle trips using an average vehicle occupancy

rate of 60 persons per bus.

Peak hour diverted vehicle volumes were derived from average daily diverted vehicle volumes

by applying the highway peak hour factor of 10%.

It is assumed that 90% of the reduced trips would be auto trips and 10% would be bus trips.

The occupancy for one car is 2.46 passengers and that for bus is 60 passengers. The peak

hour volume in the peak direction is assumed to be 10% of the daily trips.

4.5 Station Mode Share and Trip Generation

The expected number of passengers using the project’s stations will arrive or leave the station

via 5 modes. Tables 4-3 and 4-4 present the mode share for Victorville and Las Vegas Station

respectively, together with the assumed occupancy.

Table 4-3

Mode Share at Victorville Station

Mode Occupancy

(passenger/car) Spilt % PCE1

Self Drive 2.4 75%

Kiss & Ride 1 5%

Charter Bus 10 4% 1.5

Shuttle Bus 3 11%

Taxi 1 5%

Total 100%

1

Passenger Car Equivalent

F-G-19
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 4.0 – PROJECT TRAFFIC FORECASTS

4-4 February 2009

Table 4-4

Mode Share at Las Vegas Station

Mode

Occupancy

(passenger/car) Spilt % PCE

Rental/Car 1.5 21%

Kiss & Ride 1 7%

Charter Bus 15 5% 1.5

Shuttle Bus 2 35%

Taxi 1 32%

Total 100%

The number of trips generated at the proposed stations depends on the type of train system

selected for operation. EMU has a higher capacity of 675 passengers at full load whereas the

capacity of DMU is 478. The train station would operate in the off-peak mode for both directions

(outbound/inbound) on Monday to Thursday and on Saturday. For the Victorville Station, it

would operate at peak mode during Friday for the outbound direction and the inbound direction

would operate in off-peak mode. On Sunday, it would operate in peak mode for the inbound

direction and off-peak mode for outbound. The Las Vegas Station on the other hand, would

operate at peak mode for its inbound direction on Friday and off-peak mode for outbound. The

outbound direction on Sunday would be peak and the inbound direction would operate at offpeak.

When both directions are operating as off-peak mode (Monday – Thursday and Saturday), it is

assumed that the headway for each train would be 60 minutes, at full loading capacity. On days

when one direction is operating at peak mode, the off-peak direction train would operate at 20-

minute headway at only 69% capacity. The peak direction train would also operate at 20-minute

headway but at 100% capacity. Table 4-5 and 4-6 show the number of peak hour trips (in terms

of cars) generated at each station for each technology alternative.

Table 4-5

Peak Hour Trips Generated for Victorville Station

Trips In Trips Out Total Trips Trips In Trips Out Total Trips

Mon-Thurs, Sat

(arrive/depart)

342 342 685 Mon-Thurs, Sat

(arrive/depart)

243 243 486

Friday

(peak=depart, offpeak= arrive)

993 739 1732

Friday

(peak=depart, offpeak= arrive)

704 524 1227

Sunday

(peak=arrive, offpeak=depart)

739 993 1732

Sunday

(peak=arrive, offpeak=depart)

524 704 1227

EMU DMU

F-G-20
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 4.0 – PROJECT TRAFFIC FORECASTS

4-5 February 2009

Table 4-6

Peak Hour Trips Generated for Las Vegas Station

Station employees are included in the trip generation numbers, as are vehicles serving the

station for deliveries, maintenance, etc. Note that some access modes such as kiss and ride

generate both an in and out trip, while other modes such as self park generate only an inbound

or outbound trip. This accounts for the relatively higher trip figures for the Las Vegas Station

when compared to the Victorville Station.

4.6 Operation and Maintenance Service Facilities

Alternative locations have been proposed for the O & M facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas.

Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show the proposed location options. A third alternative location in Las

Vegas, near Sloan Road is not shown on the map.

Employees at these facilities would be divided into three shifts. Only the day and night shift

employees would commute during the peak hour of the adjacent street. The day shift would

work 7:00 am to 3:30 pm and the night shift starts at 11:00 pm and works to 7:30 am. It is

assumed that 15% of the day shift would arrive after 7:00 am, constituting inbound trips. All the

night shift employees would leave during the AM peak, making up the outbound station trips.

No O & M generated trips would be added to the PM peak commute. Assuming each employee

drives alone, Tables 4-7, 4-8 and 4-9 shows the number of trips generated at both facilities in

2013 and 2030. In 2030, the DMU fleet would be larger than the EMU fleet, leading to higher

trip volumes for the DMU alternative.

Table 4-7

O & M Trip Generation in 2013

 Station

Location

Inbound Trips Outbound Trips

Total

Employees

(Day Shift)

Trips @

15%

Employees

(Night Shift)

Trips @

100%

Victorville 60 9 40 40 49

Las Vegas 11 2 22 22 24

Trips In Trips Out Total Trips Trips In Trips Out Total Trips

Off Peak

(arrive/depart) 528 528 1056 Off Peak(arrive/depart) 374 374 749

Friday

(peak=arrive, offpeak=depart)

1136 1537 2673

Friday

(peak=arrive, offpeak=depart)

803 1089 1892

Sunday

(peak=depart, offpeak=arrive)

1537 1136 2673

Sunday

(peak=depart, offpeak=arrive)

1089 803 1892

EMU DMU

F-G-21
Victorville

OMSF

Alternative 2

Victorville

OMSF

Alternative 1A

15

STODDARD FRONTAGE

WELLS

RD

RD

QUARRY RD

STODDARD WELLS

RD

18

DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 4-1

(2 Alternatives)

PROPOSED MAINTENANCE FACILITY AT VICTORVILLE

Maintenance facilities Victorville.ai

F-G-22
DESERT XPRESS LAS VEGAS

Figure 4-2

(2 Alternatives)

PROPOSED MAINTENANCE FACILITY AT LAS VEGAS

Las Vegas Maintenance Sites rev1.ai

15

ROBINDALE

WINDMILL LN

WARM SPRINGS RD

RD

AV

AV

AV

AV

AV

FORD

WIGWAM

TORINO

PEBBLE

MOBERLY

BLUE DIAMOND RD

BLVD VALLEY VIEW

LAS VEGAS BLVD

DEAN MARTIN DR DEAN MARTIN DR

BERMUDA RD

?

Las Vegas

MSF

Robindale Road

Alternative

Las VegasMSFWigwam AvenueAlternative

F-G-23
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 4.0 – PROJECT TRAFFIC FORECASTS

4-8 February 2009

Table 4-8

O & M Trip Generation in 2030 for EMU

Station

Location

Inbound Trips Outbound Trips

Total

Employees

(Day Shift)

Trips @

15%

Employees

(Night Shift)

Trips @

100%

Victorville 79 12 53 53 64

Las Vegas 14 2 29 29 31

Table 4-9

O & M Trip Generation in 2030 for DMU

Station

Location

Inbound Trips Outbound Trips

Total

Employees

(Day Shift)

Trips @

15%

Employees

(Night Shift)

Trips @

100%

Victorville 109 16 72 72 89

Las Vegas 20 3 40 40 43

The number of trips generated by the proposed O&M facilities in 2013 would be less than 50

trips. Based on the San Bernardino County CMP and Caltrans guidelines, intersection analysis

would not be necessary at the Victorville Station. Since the station location at Victorville Station

would be served primarily by I-15, with less than 100 trips in 2030, intersection analysis on I-15

ramps would not be necessary as well. The proposed locations in Las Vegas are away from the

high traffic area and the amount of trips generated is also less than 50 peak hour trips for both

the horizon years. While RTC does not have guidelines on the minimum number of trips

required for analysis, based on the California agencies’ criteria, detailed evaluation of the local

intersections would not be necessary as well.

F-G-24
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS

5-1 February 2009

5.0 I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS

5.1 Roadway Network

Regional Access. Currently I-15 is the only significant surface transportation route between

Victorville and Las Vegas. The general number of traffic lanes on I-15 is described below:

x Victorville to Barstow - 3 lanes each way with a 4th southbound truck lane between

Barstow and the summit,

x Barstow to I-40 - 3 lanes each way plus some auxiliary lanes,

x I-40 to Baker - 2 lanes each way,

x Baker to State Line - 2 lanes each way with a truck lane approaching Halloran Summit

(~17 miles north of Baker) and at Mountain Pass (~15 miles south of the State Line),

x State Line to I-215 - 3 southbound lanes and 2 northbound lanes, with an additional

northbound lane currently being constructed,

x I-215 to Flamingo Road in Las Vegas - 3 lanes each way plus auxiliary lanes, and

x North of Flamingo Road in Las Vegas - 4 lanes each way.

5.2 Freeway Section and Ramp Junction Analysis Methodology

The operating conditions for the freeway mainline were evaluated using the Highway Capacity

Manual (HCM) methodology. For freeway mainlines, this methodology determines LOS based

on the density of the freeway section, which is the number of vehicles within a given section of

roadway for a period of time (presented in passenger cars per mile per lane, or pc/mi/ln).3

Density values of LOS A through E assume stable non-breakdown operations, while LOS F

signifies that a breakdown condition exists or is expected to occur. For the freeway-ramp

junctions, the level of service is based on the amount of vehicles in the area of the freeway

directly downstream of the analysis ramp, combining the mainline volume with the ramp volume.

Density values of LOS A through E assume stable non-breakdown operations, while LOS F

signifies that a breakdown condition exists or is expected to occur. In California and Nevada

LOS E and F are considered unacceptable service conditions. Table 5-1 presents the

definitions LOS threshold values for freeway sections and the ramp junctions.

3

 Density is not computed when free-flow speed is less than 55 mph. Under LOS F conditions, free-flow

speed drops to below 55 mph.

F-G-25
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS

5-2 February 2009

Table 5-1

 Freeway Mainline and Ramp Junction Level of Service Thresholds

Level of Service Freeway Density Range

(pc/mi/ln)

Ramp (Merge and Diverge

area) Density Range (pc/mi/ln)

A 0 to 11  10

B > 11 to 18 > 10 to 20

C > 18 to 26 > 20 to 28

D > 26 to 35 > 28 to 35

E > 35 to 45 > 35

F > 50 Demand exceeds capacity

SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000.

5.3 Existing Freeway Section Analysis

Interstate 15 (I-15) mainline conditions were evaluated for the following sections for weekday

AM and PM peak hours:

1. North Stoddard Wells to Junction I-40 (California)

2. Junction I-40 to Nevada State Line (California)

3. Primm to Sloan (Nevada)

4. Sloan to I-215 (Nevada)

These sections are also indicated on Figure 5-1.

For the mainline analysis sections in California, volumes for existing (year 2007) conditions

were obtained by interpolating between year 2006 and year 2030 volumes provided by the San

Bernardino Association of Government’s (SANBAG) travel demand model. Similarly for the

mainline analysis sections in Nevada, volumes for existing (year 2007) conditions were obtained

by interpolating between year 2005 and year 2030 volumes provided by Regional

Transportation Commission (RTC) travel demand model. The mainline section AM and PM

peak hour volumes are presented on Figure 5-2.

The following assumptions were made for the mainline HCM analysis (Table 5-2).

Table 5-2

HCM Analysis Assumptions – Existing Conditions

Description California Nevada

Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90

Terrain Level Level

Trucks and Buses (%) 20 10

Driver population adjustment 1.0 1.0

Measured Free Flow Speed 70.0 70.0

Number of Lanes

North Stoddard Wells to Junction I-40 (NB, SB)

Junction I-40 to Nevada State line (NB, SB)

Primm to Sloan (NB, SB)

Sloan to I-215 (NB, SB)

3 NB, 3 SB

2 NB, 2 SB

3 NB, 3 SB

3 NB, 3 SB

SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

F-G-26
NEVADA CALIFORNIA 14 58

10

40

5

10

15

15

15

210

405

395

95 93

395

RIVERSIDE

PALM SPRINGS

SAN

BERNARDINO

SANTA

ANA

VICTORVILLE

BARSTOW

PALMDALE

LAS VEGAS

DESERT XPRESS

Figure 5-1

I-15 MAINLINE ANALYSIS SECTIONS

I-15 Mainline Analysis Secs.ai

SECTION 1

SECTION 2 SECTION 3

SECTION 4

SECTION 2

F-G-27
NEVADA CALIFORNIA 14 58

10

40

5

10

15

15

15

210

405

395

95 93

395

RIVERSIDE

PALM SPRINGS

SAN

BERNARDINO

SANTA

ANA

VICTORVILLE

BARSTOW

PALMDALE

LAS VEGAS

DESERT XPRESS

Figure 5-2

AM (PM) Peak Hour

I-15 MAINLINE EXISTING VOLUMES

I-15 Mainline existing volumes.ai

>

SECTION 1

SECTION 2

SECTION 3

SECTION 4

4709 (4661)

3377 (4424)

2519 (1695)

xx (xx) = AM (PM) volumes

3395 (2290)

3844 (5807)

3486 (4290)

2110 (3436)

2845 (4642)

SECTION 1

SECTION 2

SECTION 3

SECTION 4

F-G-28
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS

5-5 February 2009

Based on the assumptions listed in Table 5-2 and existing peak hour volumes shown on Figure

5-2, level of service analysis was performed on the freeway mainline sections. Table 5-3

presents the results of the analysis.

Table 5-3

Freeway Mainline Level of Service - Existing Conditions

No. Section

Peak

Hour

NB SB

LOS Density LOS Density

1 North Stoddard Wells to

Junction I-40

AM C 19.8 B 16.6

PM B 13.3 D 28.4

2 Junction I-40 to Nevada

State line

AM C 22.1 C 18.4

PM B 14.8 D 33.5

3 Primm to Sloan AM C 18.8 C 19.4

PM C 25.1 C 24.2

4 Sloan to I-215 AM D 27.1 C 21.4

PM D 26.8 E 38.7

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

Notes:

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service

c) Density reported in pc/mi/ln

As indicated in Table 5-3, all the freeway sections operate at acceptable conditions in the AM

and PM peak hours except Section 4 from Sloan to I-215 that operates at LOS E in the

southbound direction during the PM peak hour.

The unacceptable condition indicates that the travel speeds along the freeway section are low,

with delays to traffic and breakdown in flow.

5.4 Existing Ramp Junction Analysis

In accordance with Chapter 6 of this report, the ramp junction analysis is performed for the PM

peak hour only as done for the intersection analysis. Ramp junctions were evaluated at both of

the proposed station locations in Victorville. The following ramp-junctions were evaluated for the

PM peak hour conditions. Ramp junctions 1 through 4 indicate merge and diverge areas at the

station location alternative 1 and ramp junctions 5 through 8 are near the station location

alternative 2.

1. I-15 NB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells (Diverge analysis)

2. I-15 SB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells (Diverge analysis)

3. I-15 NB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells (Merge analysis)

4. I-15 SB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells (Merge analysis)

5. I-15 NB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells (Diverge analysis)

6. I-15 SB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells (Diverge analysis)

7. I-15 NB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells (Merge analysis)

8. I-15 SB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells (Merge analysis)

F-G-29
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS

5-6 February 2009

For the above ramp junctions, volumes for existing (year 2007) conditions were obtained by

interpolating between year 2006 and year 2035 volumes provided by the San Bernardino

Association of Government’s (SANBAG) travel demand model. The existing ramp junction

volumes are presented in the Appendix. Table 5-4 presents the results of the ramp junction

analysis. HCS calculation sheets are provided in the Appendix.

Table 5-4

Ramp Junction Level of Service – Existing Conditions

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells B 18.4

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells D 28.2

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells B 18.5

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells D 31.0

5 I-15 NB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells B 17.5

6 I-15 SB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells C 27.9

7 I-15 NB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells B 17.5

8 I-15 SB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells D 29.7

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

Notes:

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln

As indicated in Table 5-4, all the ramp junctions would operate at acceptable conditions.

5.5 Impact Analysis

This section presents the assessment of transportation impacts due to the proposed project on

the freeway mainline. The impacts were assessed for the following scenarios:

x 2013 Opening Year Conditions;

x 2013 Opening Year plus Project Conditions;

x 2030 Cumulative Baseline Conditions; and,

x 2030 Cumulative Baseline plus Project Conditions

5.6 2013 Opening Year Conditions

5.6.1 Freeway Analysis

1. 2013 Baseline Conditions

For the mainline analysis sections in California, volumes for opening (year 2013) conditions

were obtained by interpolating between year 2006 and year 2030 volumes provided by the San

Bernardino Association of Government’s (SANBAG) travel demand model. Similarly for the

F-G-30
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS

5-7 February 2009

mainline analysis sections in Nevada, volumes for opening (year 2013) conditions were

obtained by interpolating between year 2005 and year 2030 volumes provided by Regional

Transportation Commission (RTC) travel demand model. I-15 mainline volumes for analysis

sections are presented in the Appendix.

Table 5-5 presents the results of 2013 Baseline conditions for the freeway mainline.

Table 5-5

Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2013 Baseline Conditions

No. Section

Peak

Hour

NB SB

LOS Density LOS Density

1 North Stoddard Wells

to Junction I-40

AM C 21.9 C 18.3

PM B 14.7 D 33.3

2 Junction I-40

to Nevada State line

AM C 25.4 C 20.8

PM B 16.7 E 43.6

3 Primm to Sloan AM D 26.9 D 30.5

PM F >45.0 E 39.1

4 Sloan to I-215

AM F >45.0 F >45.0

PM F >45.0 F >45.0

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service

c) Density reported in pc/mi/ln

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions

As indicated in Table 5-5, the following freeway sections would operate at unacceptable

conditions:

AM Peak Hour:

x #4. Sloan to I-215 in the northbound and southbound directions (LOS F)

PM Peak Hour:

x #2. Junction I-40 to Nevada State Line in southbound direction (LOS E)

x #3. Primm to Sloan in the northbound and southbound directions (LOS F and E

respectively)

x #4. Sloan to I-215 in the northbound and southbound directions (LOS F)

The unacceptable conditions indicate that the travel speeds along the freeway are low, with

delays to traffic and breakdown in flow.

F-G-31
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS

5-8 February 2009

2. 2013 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions

Based on the mainline traffic reduction for the DMU alternative presented in Section 4.2, the

project trips associated with the alternative were reduced from the 2013 Baseline volumes to

generate 2013 Baseline plus DMU alternative volumes, presented in Figure 5-3.

For analysis purposes, existing mainline geometry was assumed for year 2013. Based on the

assumptions presented in Table 5-2 and mainline volumes presented in Figure 5-3, HCS

analysis has been performed. Table 5-6 presents the results of 2013 Baseline plus DMU

alternative conditions for the freeway mainline sections.

Table 5-6

Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions

No. Section

Peak

Hour

2013 Baseline

Conditions

2013 Baseline

plus DMU Conditions

NB SB NB SB

LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density

1 North Stoddard Wells

to Junction I-40

AM C 21.9 C 18.3 C 19.5 B 15.9

PM B 14.7 D 33.3 B 12.4 D 29.1

2 Junction I-40 to

Nevada State line

AM C 25.4 C 20.8 C 21.3 B 17.2

PM B 16.7 E 43.6 B 13.1 D 34.1

3 Primm to Sloan AM D 26.9 D 30.5 C 24.0 D 27.1

PM F >45.0 E 39.1 E 41.0 D 33.7

4 Sloan to I-215 AM F >45.0 F >45.0 F > 45.0 F > 45.0

PM F >45.0 F >45.0 F > 45.0 F > 45.0

Note: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service

c) Density reported in pc/mi/ln

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions

Comparing the HCS analysis results from 2013 Baseline conditions to 2013 Baseline plus DMU

conditions, it can be seen from Table 5-6 the following freeway section operating conditions

improve from unacceptable to acceptable conditions with the reduction in volume with the DMU

project alternative:

PM Peak Hour:

x #2. Section from Junction I-40 to Nevada State Line improves from LOS E to LOS D in

the southbound direction.

x #3. Section from Primm to Sloan improves from LOS E to LOS D in the southbound

direction.

F-G-32
NEVADA CALIFORNIA 14 58

10

40

5

10

15

15

15

210

405

395

95 93

395

RIVERSIDE

PALM SPRINGS

SAN

BERNARDINO

SANTA

ANA

VICTORVILLE

BARSTOW

PALMDALE

LAS VEGAS

DESERT XPRESS

Figure 5-3

AM (PM) Peak Hour

I-15 MAINLINE 2013 PLUS DMU ALTERNATIVE VOLUMES

2013 + DEMU volumes rev1.ai

>

7110 (6875)

4264 (5956)

2432 (1505)

xx (xx) = AM (PM) volumes

3346 (2123)

6494 (8832)

4701 (5424)

1972 (3471)

2737 (4724)

SECTION 1

SECTION 2

SECTION 3

SECTION 4

F-G-33
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS

5-10 February 2009

However, the following sections continue to operate at unacceptable level of service under 2013

Baseline plus DMU conditions:

AM Peak Hour:

x #4. Sloan to I-215 in the northbound and southbound directions (LOS F)

PM Peak Hour:

x #3. Primm to Sloan in the northbound direction (LOS F to LOS E)

x #4. Sloan to I-215 in the northbound and southbound directions (LOS F)

3. 2013 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions

Based on the mainline traffic reduction for the EMU alternative presented in Section 4.2, the

project trips associated with the alternative were reduced from the 2013 Baseline volumes to

generate 2013 Baseline plus EMU alternative volumes, presented in Figure 5-4.

For analysis purposes, existing mainline geometry was assumed for year 2013. Based on the

assumptions presented in Table 5-2 and mainline volumes presented in Figure 5-4, HCS

analysis has been performed. Table 5-7 presents the results of 2013 Baseline plus the EMU

alternative conditions for the freeway mainline sections.

Table 5-7

Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions

No. Section

Peak

Hour

2013 Baseline

Conditions

2013 Baseline

plus EMU Conditions

NB SB NB SB

LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density

1 North Stoddard Wells

to Junction I-40

AM C 21.9 C 18.3 C 18.8 B 15.3

PM B 14.7 D 33.3 B 11.7 D 28.1

2 Junction I-40 to

Nevada State line

AM C 25.4 C 20.8 C 20.3 B 16.3

PM B 16.7 E 43.6 B 12.2 D 32.2

3 Primm to Sloan

AM D 26.9 D 30.5 C 23.3 D 26.2

PM F >45.0 E 39.1 E 39.3 D 32.6

4 Sloan to I-215

AM F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0

PM F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service

c) Density reported in pc/mi/ln

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions

F-G-34
NEVADA CALIFORNIA 14 58

10

40

5

10

15

15

15

210

405

395

95 93

395

RIVERSIDE

PALM SPRINGS

SAN

BERNARDINO

SANTA

ANA

VICTORVILLE

BARSTOW

PALMDALE

LAS VEGAS

DESERT XPRESS

Figure 5-4

AM (PM) Peak Hour

I-15 MAINLINE 2013 PLUS EMU ALTERNATIVE VOLUMES

2013 + EMU volumes rev1.ai

>

7000 (6765)

4154 (5846)

2322 (1395)

xx (xx) = AM (PM) volumes

3236 (2013)

6384 (8722)

4591 (5314)

1862 (3361)

2627 (4614)

SECTION 1

SECTION 2

SECTION 3

SECTION 4

F-G-35
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS

5-12 February 2009

Comparing the HCS analysis results from 2013 Baseline conditions to 2013 Baseline plus EMU

conditions, it can be seen from Table 5-7 the following freeway section operating conditions

improve from unacceptable to acceptable conditions with the reduction in volume with the EMU

project alternative:

PM Peak Hour:

x #2. Section from Junction I-40 to Nevada State Line improves from LOS E to LOS D in

the southbound direction.

x #3. Section from Primm to Sloan improves from LOS E to LOS D in the southbound

direction.

However, the following sections continue to operate at unacceptable level of service under 2013

Baseline plus EMU conditions:

AM Peak Hour:

x #4. Sloan to I-215 in the northbound and southbound directions (LOS F)

PM Peak Hour:

x #3. Primm to Sloan in the northbound direction (LOS F to LOS E)

x #4. Sloan to I-215 in the northbound and southbound directions (LOS F)

5.6.2 Ramp Junction Analysis

1. 2013 Baseline Conditions

The future year 2013 baseline volumes were obtained by interpolating between the existing year

and future year 2035 travel demand volumes. The 2013 baseline condition volumes are

presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, existing geometry was assumed for the

future year 2013 conditions. Table 5-8 presents the results of the ramp junction analysis for

2013 baseline conditions. HCS calculation sheets are provided in the Appendix.

Table 5-8

Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2013 Baseline Conditions

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 41.5

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 47.5

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 48.3

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 69.7

5 I-15 NB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 38.8

6 I-15 SB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 47.0

7 I-15 NB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 44.1

F-G-36
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS

5-13 February 2009

Location LOS DR

8 I-15 SB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 65.3

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

Notes:

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln

As indicated in Table 5-8, all the ramp junctions operate at unacceptable level of service

conditions under this scenario. This indicates that the existing ramp configuration would not be

able to handle the future volume growth in the area.

2. 2013 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions

The DMU project alternative volumes were added to the 2013 baseline volumes to obtain the

2013 baseline plus DMU alternative condition volumes. These volumes are presented in the

Appendix. Table 5-9 presents the results of the ramp junction analysis for 2013 baseline plus

DMU conditions. HCS calculation sheets are provided in the Appendix.

Table 5-9

Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2013 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 42.3

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 47.5

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 48.5

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 73.4

5 I-15 NB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 39.8

6 I-15 SB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 47.0

7 I-15 NB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 44.2

8 I-15 SB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 68.4

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

Notes:

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln

Comparing results from tables 5-8 and 5-9, it can be noted that all the ramp junctions continue

to operate at unacceptable conditions under this scenario. The densities at the ramp influence

area only increase with the addition of the DMU project volumes.

3. 2013 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions

The EMU project alternative volumes were added to the 2013 baseline volumes to obtain the

2013 baseline plus EMU alternative condition volumes. These volumes are presented in the

F-G-37
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS

5-14 February 2009

Appendix. Table 5-10 presents the results of the ramp junction analysis for 2013 baseline plus

EMU conditions. HCS calculation sheets are provided in the Appendix.

Table 5-10

Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 42.7

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 47.5

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 48.6

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 74.9

5 I-15 NB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 40.3

6 I-15 SB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 47.0

7 I-15 NB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 44.3

8 I-15 SB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 69.7

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

Notes:

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln

Comparing results from tables 5-8 and 5-10, it can be noted that all the ramp junctions continue

to operate at unacceptable conditions under this scenario. The densities at the ramp influence

area only increase with the addition of the EMU project volumes.

5.7 2030 Cumulative Conditions

This section presents the analysis of 2030 Cumulative conditions without and with project (both

DMU and EMU options).

5.7.1 Freeway Analysis

1. 2030 Baseline Conditions

For the mainline analysis sections in California, cumulative conditions volumes for the future

year 2030 were obtained from the San Bernardino Association of Government’s (SANBAG)

travel demand model. Similarly for the mainline analysis sections in Nevada, cumulative

conditions volumes for the future year 2030 were obtained from the Regional Transportation

Commission (RTC) travel demand model.

Future year 2030 lane configuration for all the analysis sections is presented in Figure 5-5. The

mainline section AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented on Figure 5-6.

F-G-38
NEVADA CALIFORNIA 14 58

10

40

5

10

15

15

15

210

405

395

95 93

395

RIVERSIDE

PALM SPRINGS

SAN

BERNARDINO

SANTA

ANA

VICTORVILLE

BARSTOW

PALMDALE

LAS VEGAS

DESERT XPRESS

Figure 5-5

I-15 MAINLINE FUTURE YEAR 2030 GEOMETRY

2030 Mainline Geometry rev1.ai

>

SECTION 1

SECTION 2 SECTION 3

SECTION 4

F-G-39
NEVADA CALIFORNIA 14 58

10

40

5

10

15

15

15

210

405

395

95 93

395

RIVERSIDE

PALM SPRINGS

SAN

BERNARDINO

SANTA

ANA

VICTORVILLE

BARSTOW

PALMDALE

LAS VEGAS

DESERT XPRESS

Figure 5-6

AM (PM) Peak Hour

I-15 MAINLINE 2030 NO BUILD VOLUMES

2030 No Build Volumes rev1.ai

>

15,483 (14,720)

8348 (11,870)

3760 (2537)

xx (xx) = AM (PM) volumes

4777 (3221)

15,573 (18,974)

9713 (10,206)

3150 (5143)

4003 (6529)

SECTION 1

SECTION 2

SECTION 3

SECTION 4

F-G-40
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS

5-17 February 2009

Table 5-11

HCS Assumptions – 2030 Conditions

Description California Nevada

Peak Hour Factor

Number of Lanes

 North Stoddard Wells to Junction I-40 (NB, SB)

 Junction I-40 to Nevada State line (NB, SB)

 Primm to Sloan (NB, SB)

 Sloan to I-215 (NB, SB)

0.95

3 NB, 3 SB

2 NB, 2 SB

0.95

4 NB, 4 SB

5 NB, 5 SB

SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

Based on the assumptions presented in Table 5-11 and mainline volumes presented in

Figure 5-6, HCS analysis has been performed. Table 5-12 presents the results of 2030

Baseline condition analysis for the freeway mainline sections.

Table 5-12

Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2030 Baseline Conditions

No. Section

Peak

Hour

NB SB

LOS Density LOS Density

1 North Stoddard Wells

to Junction I-40

AM D 27.4 C 22.2

PM B 17.8 F >45.0

2 Junction I-40

to Nevada State line

AM E 35.8 D 27.0

PM C 21.0 F >45.0

3 Primm to Sloan AM E 40.6 F >45.0

PM F >45.0 F >45.0

4 Sloan to I-215 AM F >45.0 F >45.0

PM F >45.0 F >45.0

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service

c) Density reported in pc/mi/ln

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions

As indicated in Table 5-12, all the freeway sections operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS E

or F), except section 1 in the northbound direction in the AM and PM peak hours, in the

southbound direction in the AM peak hour and section 2 in southbound direction during the AM

peak hour as well as in the northbound direction during the PM peak hour.

2. 2030 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions

Based on the mainline traffic reduction for DMU alternative presented in Section 4.2, the project

trips associated with the alternative were reduced from the 2030 Baseline volumes to generate

2030 Baseline plus DMU alternative volumes, presented in Figure 5-7.

F-G-41
NEVADA CALIFORNIA 14 58

10

40

5

10

15

15

15

210

405

395

95 93

395

RIVERSIDE

PALM SPRINGS

SAN

BERNARDINO

SANTA

ANA

VICTORVILLE

BARSTOW

PALMDALE

LAS VEGAS

DESERT XPRESS

Figure 5-7

AM (PM) Peak Hour

I-15 MAINLINE 2030 PLUS DMU ALTERNATIVE VOLUMES

2030 + DEMU volumes rev1.ai

>

14,385 (13,622)

7250 (10,772)

2662 (1439)

xx (xx) = AM (PM) volumes

3679 (2123)

14,475 (17,876)

8615 (9108)

2052 (4045)

2905 (5431)

SECTION 1

SECTION 2

SECTION 3

SECTION 4

F-G-42
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS

5-19 February 2009

Based on the assumptions presented in Table 5-11 and mainline volumes presented in

Figure 5-7, HCS analysis has been performed. Table 5-13 presents the results of 2030

Baseline plus DMU alternative conditions for the freeway mainline sections.

Table 5-13

Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions

No. Section

Peak

Hour

2030 Baseline

Conditions

2030 Baseline plus

DMU Conditions

NB SB NB SB

LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density

1

North Stoddard

Wells to Junction

I-40

AM D 27.4 C 22.2 C 20.3 B 16.0

PM B 17.8 F >45.0 B 11.7 D 33.4

2 Junction I-40 to

Nevada State line

AM E 35.8 D 27.0 C 22.1 B 17.0

PM C 21.0 F >45.0 B 11.9 E 42.2

3 Primm to Sloan

AM E 40.6 F >45.0 D 30.9 E 44.0

PM F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0

4 Sloan to I-215

AM F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0

PM F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service

c) Density reported in pc/mi/ln

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions

Comparing the HCS analysis results from 2030 Baseline conditions to 2030 Baseline plus DMU

conditions, it can be seen from Table 5-13 that following freeway section operating conditions

improve from unacceptable to acceptable conditions with the reduction in volume with the DMU

project alternative:

AM Peak Hour:

x #2. Section from Junction I-40 to Nevada State Line improves from LOS E to LOS C in

the northbound direction.

x #3. Section from Primm to Sloan improves from LOS E to LOS D in the northbound

direction.

It can also be noted from Table 5-13 that sections 2 and 3 improve operating conditions from

LOS F to LOS E in the southbound direction.

PM Peak Hour:

x #1. Section from North Stoddard Wells to Junction I-40 improves from LOS F to LOS D

in the southbound direction.

F-G-43
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS

5-20 February 2009

All the other freeway sections operating at unacceptable conditions under the 2030 Baseline

conditions continue to operate at unacceptable conditions under the 2030 DMU project

conditions.

3. 2030 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions

Based on the mainline traffic reduction for EMU alternative presented in Section 4.2, the project

trips associated with the alternative were reduced from the 2030 Baseline volumes to generate

2030 Baseline plus EMU alternative volumes, presented in Figure 5-8.

Based on the assumptions presented in Table 5-11 and mainline volumes presented in

Figure 5-8, HCS analysis has been performed. Table 5-14 presents the results of 2030

Baseline plus EMU alternative conditions for the freeway mainline sections.

Table 5-14

Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions

No. Section

Peak

Hour

2030 Baseline

Conditions

2030 Baseline

plus EMU Conditions

NB SB NB SB

LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density

1

North Stoddard

Wells to Junction

I-40

AM D 27.4 C 22.2 C 18.7 B 14.4

PM B 17.8 F >45.0 A 10.1 D 30.4

2

Junction I-40 to

Nevada State

line

AM E 35.8 D 27.0 C 19.6 B 14.5

PM C 21.0 F >45.0 A 9.5 E 35.6

3 Primm to Sloan

AM E 40.6 F >45.0 D 29.0 E 40.3

PM F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0

4 Sloan to I-215

AM F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0

PM F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service

c) Density reported in pc/mi/ln

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions

Comparing the HCS analysis results from 2030 Baseline conditions to 2030 Baseline plus EMU

conditions, it can be seen from Table 5-14 that following freeway section operating conditions

improve from unacceptable to acceptable conditions with the reduction in volume with the EMU

project alternative:

AM Peak Hour:

x #2. Section from Junction I-40 to Nevada State Line improves from LOS E to LOS C in

the northbound direction..

F-G-44
NEVADA CALIFORNIA 14 58

10

40

5

10

15

15

15

210

405

395

95 93

395

RIVERSIDE

PALM SPRINGS

SAN

BERNARDINO

SANTA

ANA

VICTORVILLE

BARSTOW

PALMDALE

LAS VEGAS

DESERT XPRESS

Figure 5-8

AM (PM) Peak Hour

I-15 MAINLINE 2030 PLUS EMU ALTERNATIVE VOLUMES

2030 + EMU volumes rev1.ai

>

14,090 (13,327)

6955 (10,477)

2367 (1144)

xx (xx) = AM (PM) volumes

3384 (1828)

14,180 (17,581)

8320 (8813)

1757 (3750)

2610 (5136)

SECTION 1

SECTION 2

SECTION 3

SECTION 4

F-G-45
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS

5-22 February 2009

x #3. Section from Primm to Sloan improves from LOS E to LOS D in the northbound

direction.

It can also be noted from Table 5-14 that section 3 improves operating conditions from LOS F to

LOS E in the southbound direction.

PM Peak Hour:

x #1. Section from North Stoddard Wells to Junction I-40 improves from LOS F to LOS D

in the southbound direction.

It can also be noted from Table 5-10 that section 2 improves operating conditions from LOS F to

LOS E in the southbound direction.

All the other freeway sections operating at unacceptable conditions under the 2030 Baseline

conditions continue to operate at unacceptable conditions under the 2030 EMU project

conditions. Although it can be noted from Table 5-14 that freeway section 2 improves from

LOS F to LOS E.

5.7.2 Ramp Junction Analysis

1. 2030 Baseline Conditions

The future year 2030 baseline volumes were obtained by interpolating between the existing year

and future year 2035 travel demand volumes. The 2030 baseline condition volumes are

presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, existing geometry was assumed for the

mainline and two lanes were considered for the on- and off-ramps. Table 5-15 presents the

results of the ramp junction analysis for 2013 baseline conditions. HCS calculation sheets are

provided in the Appendix.

Table 5-15

Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2030 Baseline Conditions

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 96.8

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 115.5

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 118.4

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 163.1

5 I-15 NB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 84.3

6 I-15 SB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 116.7

7 I-15 NB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 106.1

8 I-15 SB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 156.7

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

Notes:

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln

F-G-46
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS

5-23 February 2009

As indicated in Table 5-15, all the ramp junctions operate at unacceptable conditions under this

scenario. This indicates that the future ramp configuration would not be able to handle the

future volume growth in the area

2. 2030 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions

The DMU project alternative volumes were added to the 2030 baseline volumes to obtain the

2030 baseline plus DMU alternative condition volumes. These volumes are presented in the

Appendix. Table 5-16 presents the results of the ramp junction analysis for 2030 baseline plus

DMU conditions. HCS calculation sheets are provided in the Appendix.

Table 5-16

Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2030 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 99.9

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 115.7

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 118.6

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 166.8

5 I-15 NB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 87.9

6 I-15 SB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 116.9

7 I-15 NB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 106.3

8 I-15 SB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 159.8

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

Notes:

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln

Comparing results from tables 5-15 and 5-16, it can be noted that all the ramp junctions

continue to operate at unacceptable conditions under this scenario. The densities at the ramp

influence area only increase with the addition of the DMU project volumes.

3. 2030 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions

The EMU project alternative volumes were added to the 2030 baseline volumes to obtain the

2030 baseline plus EMU alternative condition volumes. These volumes are presented in the

Appendix. Table 5-17 presents the results of the ramp junction analysis for 2030 baseline plus

EMU conditions. HCS calculation sheets are provided in the Appendix.

F-G-47
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS

5-24 February 2009

Table 5-17

Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2030 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 101.2

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 115.8

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 118.7

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 168.3

5 I-15 NB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 89.3

6 I-15 SB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 117.0

7 I-15 NB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 106.3

8 I-15 SB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 161.0

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

Notes:

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln

Comparing results from tables 5-15 and 5-17, it can be noted that all the ramp junctions

continue to operate at unacceptable conditions under this scenario. The densities at the ramp

influence area only increase with the addition of the EMU project volumes.

F-G-48
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-25 February 2009

6.0 VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATION

6.1 Victorville Station Location Option 1

The proposed station in Victorville would be located along the west side of I-15 between the two

existing Stoddard Wells Road interchanges. Access to this station would be via the two existing

Stoddard Wells Road interchanges.

6.1.1 Existing Conditions

EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK

The two Stoddard Wells Road interchanges with I-15 will provide the most direct regional

access to the proposed Victorville train station. Currently, Stoddard Wells Road has a single

travel lane in each direction and because of the relatively low traffic volumes intersections in the

area are stop controlled. The existing lane geometry at the Victorville study intersections is

shown in Figure 6-1.

EXISTING TRANSIT CONDITIONS

The Victor Valley Transit Authority (VVTA) provides local transit service throughout the Victor

Valley, including Victorville and San Bernardino County communities. The only bus line

operating in the vicinity of the proposed station location is Route 22.

Route 22- Helendale is a local service running between Silver Lakes Market and Lorene

Transfer with approximately 120 minute headways from 6:00 AM to 8:00PM, Monday to

Saturday.

EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

The intersection analysis was performed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)

methodologies, a requirement of the San Bernardino Congestion Management Program (CMP),

which was implemented using SYNCHRO Version 7 software. Level of Service designation and

corresponding delay thresholds are provided in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1

Intersection Level of Service Description

Level of Service

Signalized Intersections

Delay Thresholds

Unsignalized Intersections

Delay Thresholds

A  10  10

B > 10 and  20 > 10 and  15

C > 20 and  35 > 15 and  25

D > 35 and  55 > 25 and  35

E > 55 and  80 > 35 and  50

F > 80 > 50

Notes: Delay reported in seconds per vehicle SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.

F-G-49
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 6-1

Victorville Station Alternative 1

EXISTING INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRY

existing geometry.ai

STODDARD WELLS RD

STODDARD WELLS RD

OUTER HIGHWAY

15

?

4

1

2

3

I-15 Ramps

Outer Hwy I-15 SB Off Stoddard Wells Rd

Stoddard Wells Rd

Stoddard Wells Rd

Outer Hwy

I-15 SB On

Stoddard Wells Rd Stoddard Wells Rd

PROPOSED

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Alternative 1

F-G-50
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-27 February 2009

In Victorville, level of service values A through D are considered satisfactory service levels, and

LOS E and F conditions are considered unsatisfactory service levels. Unsignalized

intersections are considered to operate at unsatisfactory conditions if one approach operates at

LOS E or F and Caltrans peak hour volume signal warrants are met.

Based on the station location, the following intersections were identified for analysis purposes

as shown on Figure 6-1:

x Outer Highway & I-15 NB Ramps

x Outer Highway & Stoddard Wells Rd

x Stoddard Wells Rd & I-15 SB Off-Ramp

x Stoddard Wells Rd & I-15 SB On-Ramp

Afternoon peak hour turning movement counts were obtained at the study intersections and are

shown in Figure 6-2. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) conditions were analyzed for weekday

PM peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) at the study intersections. The results of the analysis are

presented in Table 6-2. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix.

Table 6-2

Victorville Option 1 - Intersection Level of Service - Existing Conditions

Intersection Traffic Control

Existing Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway & I-15 NB Ramps Unsignalized2 C (WB)3 16.3

2 Outer Highway & Stoddard Wells Rd Unsignalized2 B (EB)3 12.7

3 Stoddard Wells Rd & I-15 SB On-Ramp Unsignalized2 B (WB)3 10.4

4 Stoddard Wells Rd & I-15 SB Off-Ramp Unsignalized2 B (WB)3 11.9

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. EB=Eastbound, WB=Westbound

As indicated in Table 6-2, all the analysis intersections have acceptable conditions (LOS D or

better) under existing conditions.

6.1.2 Impact Analysis

This section presents the assessment of transportation impacts due to the proposed project.

The transportation conditions were assessed for the following scenarios:

x Existing plus Project Conditions;

x 2013 Opening Year Conditions;

x 2013 Opening Year plus Project (DMU and EMU alternatives) Conditions;

x 2030 Cumulative Baseline Conditions; and,

x 2030 Cumulative Baseline plus Project (DMU and EMU alternatives) Conditions

F-G-51
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 6-2

Victorville Station Alternative 1

EXISTING INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES

existing volumes alt 1.ai

STODDARD WELLS RD

STODDARD WELLS RD

OUTER HIGHWAY

15

?

4

1

2

3

I-15 Ramps

Outer Hwy I-15 SB Off

Stoddard Wells Rd

Stoddard Wells Rd

Stoddard Wells Rd

Outer Hwy

I-15 SB On Ramp

Stoddard Wells Rd Stoddard Wells Rd

14

12

5

317

23

16

3

2

24

23

116

202

46

85

270

23654

117

97

195105

2

10

7

165

6

165

F-G-52
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-29 February 2009

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

The following are the significance criteria used by the City of Victorville and San Bernardino

County CMP guidelines for the determination of impacts associated with a proposed project:

x If the proposed site adds 5% or more to the peak hour traffic of an intersection.

x Level of service C will be the design objective for capacity and under no

circumstances will less than level of service D be accepted.

PROJECT TRAVEL DEMAND

The Victor Valley Area Transportation Study (VVATS) travel demand forecasting model was

used to develop the base “no-project” travel forecasts for future year 2013 and 2030 traffic

analysis. The City of Victorville provided future year 2035 travel forecasts from the model to

DMJM Harris. DMJM Harris has applied a straight line methodology to interpolate the

intermediate year growth factors for each network link in the model. The calculated growth

factors were applied to the existing volumes to generate analysis year volumes. The growth

factor calculations are presented in the Appendix. The project-related trips were then added to

the future year base volumes to determine the “with project conditions”.

TRIP DISTRIBUTION

The overall trip distribution for the station is shown in Figure 6-3. This station is served primarily

by I-15 and Stoddard Wells Road. Due to its proximity to the southern I-15 / Stoddard Wells

Road interchange, it is assumed that all vehicle trips generated by the proposed station would

use this interchange. Hence, no project traffic is assigned to the northern I-15 / Stoddard Wells

Road interchange.

6.1.3 Existing plus Project Conditions

EXISTING PLUS DIESEL ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (DMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-3, project trips accessing the station were

assigned to the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for

existing conditions are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the

existing volumes to generate the Existing plus DMU volumes.

Based on the Existing plus DMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level of

service analysis was performed. Table 6-3 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO

analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 6-3, the intersections of Outer highway and I-15 northbound ramps and

Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 southbound off-ramp operate at unacceptable conditions, while

all other intersections operate at acceptable conditions.

F-G-53
15 STODDARD

OUTER

WELLS HIGHWAY

(Private Haul Road)

RD

?

DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 6-3

Alternative 1

VICTORVILLE STATION TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Victorville Station trip distribution 1.ai

PROPOSED

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Alternative 1

85%

5%

10%

(to Hwy 18)

F-G-54
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-31 February 2009

 Table 6-3

Victorville Option 1 - Existing plus DMU Conditions LOS

Intersection Traffic Control

Existing Conditions

Existing plus DMU

Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway & I-15 NB

Ramps Unsignalized2 C (WB)3 16.3 F (WB)3 -

2 Outer Highway & Stoddard

Wells Road Unsignalized2 B (EB)3 12.7 D (EB)3 32.5

3 Stoddard Wells Road & I-15

SB On-Ramp Unsignalized2 B (WB)3 10.4 D (WB)3 25.1

4 Stoddard Wells Road & I-15

SB Off-Ramp Unsignalized2 B (WB)3 11.9 F (WB)3 179.5

5 Stoddard Wells Road &

Station Access #14 Signalized - - B 15.7

6 Stoddard Wells Road &

Station Access #24 Unsignalized2 --A0

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. EB=Eastbound, WB=Westbound

4. See Figure 6-4 for locations

Comparing the results of the Existing plus DMU conditions to the Existing conditions level of

service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, the intersections of Outer

highway and I-15 northbound ramps and Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 southbound off-ramp

deteriorate from acceptable (LOS C or better) to unacceptable (LOS F) conditions. As the

project trips add more than 5% of the existing volume to these intersections, project impacts at

these intersections are considered to be significant.

EXISTING PLUS ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (EMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-3, project trips for EMU alternative

conditions were calculated. These project trips were added to the existing volumes to generate

the Existing plus EMU volumes. Based on the Existing plus EMU volumes and the existing

geometry, intersection level of service analysis was performed. Table 6-4 presents the results

of the analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 6-4, all the intersections, except those at the station access roads, operate

at unacceptable conditions (LOS F).

Comparing the results of the Existing plus EMU conditions to the Existing conditions level of

service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, all the existing intersections

deteriorate from acceptable (LOS C or better) to unacceptable (LOS F) conditions. As the

project trips add more than 5% of the existing volume to these intersections, project impacts at

these intersections are considered to be significant.

F-G-55
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 6-4

Victorville Station Alternative 1

FUTURE YEAR 2030 INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRY

Victorville 2030 geometry 1.ai

STODDARD WELLS RD Station Access #1

Station Access #2

STODDARD WELLS RD FRONTAGE RD

OUTER HIGHWAY

15

?

7

8

5

6

Stoddard Wells Rd

I-15 Ramps

I-15 Off

Frontage Rd

Stoddard

Wells Rd

Traffic SignalStop Sign

Stoddard Wells Rd

100’

Station Access #2

Stoddard

Wells Rd

100’

300’

300’300’150’

150’

150’

350’

200’ 100’

Station

Access #1

PROPOSED

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Alternative 1

F-G-56
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-33 February 2009

Table 6-4

Victorville Option 1 - Existing plus EMU Conditions LOS

Intersection Traffic Control

Existing

Conditions

Existing plus

EMU Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway & I-15

NB Ramps Unsignalized2

 C (WB)3 16.3 F (WB)3 -

2 Outer Highway &

Stoddard Wells Road Unsignalized2 B (EB)3 12.7 F (EB)3 335.8

3 Stoddard Wells Road &

I-15 SB On-Ramp Unsignalized2

 B (WB)3 10.4 F (WB)3 204.6

4 Stoddard Wells Road &

I-15 SB Off-Ramp Unsignalized2

 B (WB)3 11.9 F (WB)3 839.2

5 Stoddard Wells Road &

Station Access #14 Signalized - - C 22.5

6 Stoddard Wells Road &

Station Access #24 Unsignalized2 --A0

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. EB=Eastbound, WB=Westbound

4. See Figure 6-4 for location

6.1.4 2013 Baseline Conditions (Opening Year Analysis)

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2013 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor on the existing

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, existing

intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions.

Based on the 2013 base volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level service analysis

was performed. Table 6-5 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets

are provided in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 6-5, all the intersections except Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 SB Offramp operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS F) during the analysis period.

2013 BASELINE PLUS DIESEL-ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (DMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-2, project trips accessing the station were

assigned to the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base volumes

to generate the 2013 base plus DMU volumes.

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus DMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level

service analysis was performed. Table 6-6 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO

analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix.

F-G-57
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-34 February 2009

Table 6-5

Victorville Option 1 - 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline

Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway & I-15 NB Ramps Unsignalized2 F (WB)3 324.0

2 Outer Highway & Stoddard Wells Road Unsignalized2 F (EB)3 154.9

3 Stoddard Wells Rd. & I-15 SB On-Ramp Unsignalized2 F (WB)3 113.4

4 Stoddard Wells Rd. & I-15 SB Off-Ramp Unsignalized2 C (WB)3 20.5

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. EB=Eastbound, WB=Westbound

Table 6-6

Victorville Option 1 – 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS

Intersection Traffic Control

2013 Baseline

Conditions

2013 Baseline

plus DMU

Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway &

I-15 NB Ramps Unsignalized2 F (WB)3

 324.0 F (WB)3 -

2 Outer Highway &

Stoddard Wells Road Unsignalized2 F (EB)3

 154.9 F (EB)3 -

3 Stoddard Wells Road &

I-15 SB On-Ramp Unsignalized2 F (WB)3

 113.4 F (WB)3 -

4 Stoddard Wells Road &

I-15 SB Off-Ramp Unsignalized2 C (WB)3

 20.5 F (WB)3 -

5 Stoddard Wells Road &

Station Access #14 Signalized - - B 14.9

6 Stoddard Wells Road &

Station Access #24 Unsignalized2 - - A 0.0

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. EB=Eastbound, WB=Westbound

4. See Figure 6-4 for location

As indicated in Table 6-6, all the intersections except station access roads operate at

unacceptable conditions during the analysis period.

Comparing the results of 2013 Baseline plus DMU conditions to the 2013 Baseline conditions

level of service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, intersections already

operating at LOS F would worsen with higher delays. As the project trips account for more than

5% of the volume at these intersections, project impacts at these intersections are considered to

be significant.

F-G-58
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-35 February 2009

2013 BASELINE PLUS ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (EMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-2, project trips accessing the station were

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base

conditions volumes to generate the 20103 baseline plus EMU volumes.

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus EMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level

service analysis was performed. Table 6-7 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO

analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix.

Table 6-7

Victorville Option 1 – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline

Conditions

2013 Baseline plus

EMU Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway &

I-15 NB Ramps Unsignalized2 F (WB)3 324.0 F (WB)3 -

2 Outer Highway &

Stoddard Wells Rd Unsignalized2 F (EB)3 154.9 F (EB)3 -

3 Stoddard Wells Rd &

I-15 SB On-Ramp Unsignalized2 F (WB)3 113.4 F (WB)3 -

4 Stoddard Wells Rd &

I-15 SB Off-Ramp Unsignalized2 C (WB)3 20.5 F (WB)3 -

5 Stoddard Wells Rd &

Station Access #14 Signalized - - D 38.6

6 Stoddard Wells Rd &

Station Access #24 Unsignalized2 - - A 0.2

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. EB=Eastbound, WB=Westbound

4. See Figure 6-4 for location

As indicated in Table 6-7, all the intersections except station access roads operate at

unacceptable conditions during the analysis period.

Comparing the results of 2013 Baseline plus EMU conditions to the 2013 Baseline conditions

level of service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, intersections already

operating at LOS F would worsen with higher delays. As the project trips account for more than

5% of the volume at these intersections, project impacts at these intersections are considered to

be significant.

6.1.5 2030 Cumulative Conditions

Under this scenario, the proposed improvements include a new Stoddard Wells Road

interchange at existing southerly Stoddard Wells ramps as shown in Figure 6-4. Improvements

F-G-59
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-36 February 2009

also include signalized intersections at the ramp interchange locations. Based on the arterial

lane geometry information provided by the City of Victorville travel demand model, intersection

geometry presented in Figure 6-4 was assumed for future year 2030.

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2030 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor on the existing

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix.

Based on the future base volumes and geometry presented in Figure 6-4, intersection level

service analysis was performed. Table 6-8 presents the results of intersection operating

conditions for future year 2030 baseline conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are

presented in the Appendix.

Table 6-8

Victorville Option 1 - 2030 Baseline Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2030 Baseline

Conditions

LOS Delay1

7 Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 SB Ramps Signalized F 102.9

8 Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 NB Ramps Signalized F 216.4

Notes: Delay reported in seconds per vehicle SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

As indicated in Table 6-8, all the intersections operate at unacceptable conditions during the

analysis period.

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-3, project trips accessing the station were

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus DMU volumes.

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus DMU volumes geometry presented in Figure 6-4, intersection

level service analysis was performed. Table 6-9 presents the results of the analysis.

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 6-9, all the intersections except Stoddard Wells Road at Station Access #2

operate at unacceptable conditions during the analysis period.

Comparing the results of 2030 Baseline plus DMU conditions to the 2030 Baseline conditions

level of service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, intersections already

operating at LOS F would continue to operate at LOS F.

F-G-60
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-37 February 2009

Table 6-9

Victorville Option 1 – 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS

Intersection Traffic Control

2030 Baseline

Conditions

2030 Baseline

DMU Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

5 Stoddard Wells Road &

Station Access #1 Signalized - - E 58.6

6 Stoddard Wells Road &

Station Access #2 Unsignalized - - A 0.0

7 Stoddard Wells Road &

I-15 SB Ramps Signalized F 102.9 F 192.8

8 Stoddard Wells Road &

I-15 NB Ramps Signalized F 216.4 F 162.1

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-3, project trips accessing the station were

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus EMU volumes.

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus EMU volumes geometry presented in Figure 6-4, intersection

level service analysis was performed. Table 6-10 presents the results of the analysis.

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

Table 6-10

Victorville Option 1 – 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS

Intersection Traffic Control

2030 Baseline

Conditions

2030 Baseline EMU

Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

5 Stoddard Wells Road

& Station Access #1 Signalized - - F 95.6

6 Stoddard Wells Road

& Station Access #2 Unsignalized - - A 0.0

7 Stoddard Wells Road

& I-15 SB Ramps Signalized F 102.9 F 261.4

8 Stoddard Wells Road

& I-15 NB Ramps Signalized F 216.4 F 214.3

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

F-G-61
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-38 February 2009

As indicated in Table 6-10, all the intersections except Stoddard Wells Road at Station

Access #2 operate at unacceptable conditions during the analysis period.

Comparing the results of 2030 Baseline plus EMU conditions to the 2030 Baseline conditions

level of service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, intersections already

operating at LOS F would continue to operate at LOS F.

6.1.6 Mitigation Measures

EXISTING PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 6-3, intersections at Outer Highway and I-15 northbound ramps and

Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 southbound on-ramp are significantly impacted by the proposed

project. To mitigate these intersections, the following mitigation measures are proposed:

x #1: Signalize intersection of Outer Highway at I-15 northbound ramps.

x #4: Signalize intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 southbound off-ramp.

After applying the above mitigation measures to the existing roadway network, the intersection

level of service was calculated. Table 6-11 presents the results of the Existing plus DMU

mitigation conditions analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

The signal warrant analysis at both these intersections indicates that the warrant for peak hour

(Warrants 3A and 3B) are met. The signal warrant analysis worksheets are provided in the

Appendix. As indicated in Table 6-11, signalization at both the impacted intersections improves

the operating conditions to acceptable levels (LOS C).

Table 6-11

Victorville Option 1 - Existing plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

Existing plus DMU

Mitigation

Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 20.9

4 Stoddard Wells Rd & I-15 SB Off-Ramp Signalized C 20.4

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

EXISTING PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 6-4, all the existing intersections except project access roads are

significantly impacted by the proposed project. To mitigate these intersections, following

mitigation measures are proposed:

x #1: Signalize intersection of Outer Highway at I-15 northbound ramps.

x #2: Signalize intersection of Outer Highway at Stoddard Wells Road and add a

northbound left turn lane and a southbound right turn lane.

F-G-62
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-39 February 2009

x #3: Signalize the intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 southbound on-ramp.

x #4: Signalize the intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 southbound off-ramp.

After applying the above mitigation measures to the existing roadway network, intersection level

of service was calculated. Table 6-12 presents the results of the Existing plus EMU mitigation

conditions analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. The signal

warrant analysis indicates that the warrant for peak hour (Warrants 3A and 3B) are met for

intersections 1, 2 and 4 and only Warrant 3B is satisfied for intersection 3. The signal warrant

analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix.

Table 6-12

Victorville Option 1 - Existing plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

Existing plus EMU

Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized B 16.4

2 Outer Highway & Stoddard Wells Rd Signalized C 25.3

3 Stoddard Wells Rd & I-15 SB On-Ramp Signalized D 41.7

4 Stoddard Wells Rd & I-15 SB Off-Ramp Signalized A 7.3

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 6-12, installing traffic signals at both the impacted intersections improves

the operating conditions to acceptable levels (LOS D or better).

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 6-5, three study intersections operate at unacceptable conditions in the

2013 baseline conditions. To improve operating conditions at these intersections and

accommodate the future volume growth, following mitigation measures are proposed:

x #1: Signalize the intersection of Outer Highway at I-15 northbound ramps and add an

eastbound right turn lane.

x #2: Signalize the intersection of Outer Highway at Stoddard Wells Road and add a

northbound left turn lane and southbound right turn lane.

x # 3: Signalize the intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 southbound on-ramp and

add a southbound left turn lane.

After applying above mitigation measures to the existing roadway network, intersection level of

service was calculated. Table 6-13 presents the results of 2013 baseline mitigation conditions

analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. The signal warrant

analysis indicates that the warrant for peak hour (Warrants 3A and 3B) are met for intersections

1 and 2 and only Warrant 3B is satisfied for intersection 3. The signal warrant analysis

worksheets are provided in the Appendix.

F-G-63
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-40 February 2009

As indicated in Table 6-13, applying the proposed mitigation measures at the impacted

intersections improves the operating conditions to acceptable levels (LOS C or better).

Table 6-13

Victorville Option 1 – 2013 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline

Mitigation Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized A 8.9

2 Outer Highway & Stoddard Wells Rd Signalized C 22.5

3 Stoddard Wells Rd & I-15 SB On-Ramp Signalized A 7.2

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2013 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 6-6, four study intersections operate at unacceptable conditions in the

2013 baseline plus DMU conditions. To improve the operating conditions at these intersections,

along with the mitigation measures identified in the 2013 Baseline conditions, the following

mitigation measures are proposed:

x # 1: Add a second eastbound right turn lane at Outer highway and I-15 northbound

ramps intersection.

x # 4: Signalize intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 southbound off-ramp

After applying the mitigation measures from 2013 baseline conditions and the mitigation

measures suggested above to the existing roadway network, intersection level of service was

calculated. Table 6-14 presents the results of 2013 baseline plus DMU mitigation conditions

analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. The signal warrant

analysis at intersection 4 indicates that the warrant for peak hour (Warrants 3A and 3B) is met.

The signal warrant analysis worksheet is provided in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 6-14, the impacted intersections operating conditions improve to

acceptable levels (LOS B or better).

Table 6-14

Victorville Option 1 - 2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline plus

DMU Mitigation

Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized A 8.3

2 Outer Highway & Stoddard Wells Rd Signalized B 11.4

3 Stoddard Wells Rd & I-15 SB On-Ramp Signalized B 15.2

4 Stoddard Wells Rd & I-15 SB Off-Ramp Signalized A 7.8

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

F-G-64
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-41 February 2009

2013 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 6-7, four study intersections operate at unacceptable conditions in the

2013 baseline plus EMU conditions. To improve the operating conditions at these intersections,

along with the mitigation measures identified in the 2013 Baseline conditions, following

mitigation measure are proposed:

x #1: Add a second eastbound right turn lane at Outer Highway and I-15 northbound

ramps intersection.

x #2: Add a second northbound left turn lane and second southbound right turn lane at

Stoddard Wells Road and Outer Highway intersection.

x #3: Add a southbound left turn lane at Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 southbound onramp intersection.

x #4: Signalize the intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 southbound off-ramp

After applying mitigation measures from 2013 baseline conditions and the mitigation measrues

suggested above to the existing roadway network, intersection level of service was calculated.

Table 6-15 presents the results of 2013 baseline plus EMU mitigation conditions analysis.

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. The signal warrant analysis at

intersection 4 indicates that the warrant for peak hour (Warrants 3A and 3B) is met. The signal

warrant analysis worksheet is provided in the Appendix.

Table 6-15

Victorville Option 1 - 2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline

plus EMU

Mitigation

Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized B 19.5

2 Outer Highway & Stoddard Wells Road Signalized B 16.4

3 Stoddard Wells Road & I-15 SB On-Ramp Signalized C 28.8

4 Stoddard Wells Road & I-15 SB Off-Ramp Signalized B 27.5

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 6-15, the impacted intersections operating conditions improve to

acceptable levels (LOS C or better).

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 6-8, both the study intersections operate at unacceptable conditions in the

2030 baseline conditions. To mitigate these intersections and accommodate the future volume

growth, following mitigation measures are proposed:

x #7: Add an eastbound left turn lane and an eastbound through lane to the intersection of

Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 southbound ramps.

F-G-65
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-42 February 2009

x #8: Add an eastbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn late at the intersection of

Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 northbound ramps.

After applying above mitigations to the existing roadway network, the intersection level of

service was calculated. Table 6-16 presents the results of 2030 baseline mitigation conditions

analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

Table 6-16

Victorville Option 1 – 2030 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2030 Baseline Mitigation

Conditions

LOS Delay1

7 Stoddard Wells Rd and I-15 SB Ramps Signalized E 61.5

8 Stoddard Wells Rd and I-15 NB Ramps Signalized F 83.4

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 6-16, both the study intersections continue to operate at unacceptable

conditions even when mitigated.

The addition of project volumes at these intersections operating at unacceptable conditions

would only worsen the operating conditions. Hence mitigation analysis for 2030 Baseline plus

DMU and 2030 Baseline plus EMU conditions was not performed. However, the intersection of

Stoddard Wells Road at Station Access #1 can be mitigated under the DMU and EMU

conditions with the addition of third southbound lane. With this mitigation, the intersection

operating condition improves to LOS C with 25.3 seconds of delay under DMU conditions and to

LOS D with 49.6 seconds of delay under EMU conditions.

6.1.7 Queuing Analysis

Queuing analysis was performed to identify the required length of turn pockets under the future

year 2030 cumulative conditions at the ramp locations. Table 6-17 presents the results of

queuing analysis for 2030 baseline and project conditions with and without mitigations. Queuing

analysis worksheets are included in the Appendix.

It can be noted from table 6-17 that the queue lengths under the mitigated conditions are

considerably lower than the baseline conditions. However, some of the turn pockets experience

higher queues under the mitigated conditions than the baseline conditions. This occurs

because of the signal timing, which provides more green time to the heavier traffic volumes

movements to bring the operating conditions at the intersection to acceptable levels. For

example, under the 2030 baseline conditions, the westbound left-turn and right-turn queue

lengths are shorter than the 2030 mitigated conditions.

F-G-66
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-43 February 2009

Table 6-17

Victorville Option 1 – Queuing Analysis

Intersection Movement

95th % queue length (ft)

2030 2030 + DMU 2030 + EMU

Baseline Conditions

7 Stoddard Wells Rd & I15 SB Ramps

EBL

EBR

WBL

WBR

NBL

SBL

947

33

82

54

200

141

1050

63

83

156

336

211

1048

7

76

265

348

223

8 Stoddard Wells Rd & I15 NB Ramps

EBL

WBR

NBL

NBR

412

21

289

1861

430

23

829

1768

464

25

1011

1882

With Mitigations

7 Stoddard Wells Rd & I15 SB Ramps

EBL

EBR

WBL

WBR

NBL

SBL

608

22

115

323

197

139

718

m29

102

228

290

180

846

43

130

346

312

173

8 Stoddard Wells Rd & I15 NB Ramps

EBL

WBR

NBL

NBR

187

21

269

1207

175

21

347

997

218

26

414

1155

SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

6.2 Victorville Station Location Option 2

The proposed station in Victorville would be located along the west side of I-15 between the two

existing Stoddard Wells Road interchanges. Access to this station would be via the existing

northerly Stoddard Wells Road interchange.

F-G-67
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-44 February 2009

6.2.1 Existing Conditions

EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK

The two Stoddard Wells Road interchanges with I-15 will provide the most direct regional

access to the proposed Victorville train station. Currently the Stoddard Wells Road in this area

has a single travel lane in each direction and because of the relatively low traffic volumes,

intersections in the area are stop controlled. The existing lane geometry at the Victorville study

intersections is shown in Figure 6-5.

EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

Based on the station location options, following intersections in the vicinity of the station location

were identified for analysis purposes:

x Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 NB Ramps

x Stoddard Wells Road and Quarry Road

x I-15 SB Ramps and Quarry Road

The afternoon peak hour turning movement counts were obtained at the study intersections and

are presented in Figure 6-6.

Intersection Level of Service (LOS) conditions were analyzed for weekday PM peak period (4:00

PM to 6:00 PM) at the study intersections. The results of the analysis are presented in

Table 6-18. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix.

Table 6-18

Victorville Option 2 - Existing Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

Existing Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Rd and I-15 NB Ramps Unsignalized2 A (SB) 10.0

2 Stoddard Wells Rd and Quarry Road Unsignalized2 A (SB) 8.6

3 I-15 SB Ramps and Quarry Road Unsignalized2 A (WB) 8.8

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. SB=Southbound, WB=Westbound

As indicated in Table 6-18, all the study intersections operate at acceptable conditions under

existing conditions.

In Victorville, LOS A through D is considered satisfactory levels, and LOS E and F conditions

are considered unsatisfactory service levels. Unsignalized intersections are considered to

operate at unsatisfactory conditions if one approach operates at LOS E or F and Caltrans peak

hour volume signal warrants are met.

F-G-68
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 6-5

Victorville Station Alternative 2

EXISTING INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRY

existing geometry alt 2.ai

STODDARD WELLS RD

VICTORVILLE

QUARRY

RD

STODDARD WELLS RD

OUTER HIGHWAY

SAUGUS RD LOS PADRES RD

SOLANO RD

GRUDLEY ST

LAMADA ST

15

?

1

3

2

Stoddard Wells Rd

I-15 Ramps

Outer Hwy

I-15 Ramps

Victorville Quarry Rd

Stoddard Wells Rd

Victorville

Quarry Rd

PROPOSED

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Alternative 2

F-G-69
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 6-6

Victorville Station Alternative 2

EXISTING INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES

existing volumes alt 2.ai

STODDARD WELLS RD

VICTORVILLE

QUARRY

RD

STODDARD WELLS RD

OUTER HIGHWAY

SAUGUS RD LOS PADRES RD

SOLANO RD

GRUDLEY ST

LAMADA ST

15

?

1

2

3

Stoddard Wells Rd

I-15 Ramps

Outer Hwy

I-15 Ramps

Victorville Quarry Rd

Stoddard Wells Rd

Victorville

Quarry Rd

23

3

98

00

39

9818

05

012314

1

11

1

208

50

55

F-G-70
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-47 February 2009

6.2.2 Impact Analysis

This section presents the assessment of transportation impacts due to the proposed project.

The transportation conditions were assessed for the following scenarios:

x Existing plus Project Conditions;

x 2013 Opening Year Conditions;

x 2013 Opening Year plus Project Conditions;

x 2030 Cumulative Baseline Conditions; and,

x 2030 Cumulative Baseline plus Project Conditions.

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

The following are the significance criteria used by the City of Victorville and San Bernardino

County CMP guidelines for the determination of impacts associated with a proposed project:

x If the proposed site adds 5% or more to the peak hour traffic of an intersection.

x Level of service C will be the design objective for capacity and under no

circumstances will less than level of service D be accepted.

PROJECT TRAVEL DEMAND

The Victor Valley Area Transportation Study (VVATS) travel demand forecasting model was

used to develop the base “no-project” travel forecasts for future year 2013 and 2030 traffic

analysis. The City of Victorville provided future year 2035 travel forecasts from the model to

DMJM Harris. DMJM Harris has applied a straight line method to interpolate the intermediate

year growth factors for each network link in the model. The calculated growth factors were

applied to the existing volumes to generate analysis year volumes. The growth factor

calculations are presented in the Appendix. The project-related trips were then added to the

future year base volumes to determine the “with project conditions”.

TRIP DISTRIBUTION

The overall trip distribution for the station is shown in Figure 6-7. This station is served primarily

by I-15 and Stoddard Wells Road. Due to its proximity to the northern I-15 / Stoddard Wells

Road interchange, it is assumed that all vehicles generated by the proposed station would use

this interchange. Hence, no project traffic is assigned to the southern I-15 / Stoddard Wells

Road interchange.

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS

a) Existing plus Diesel Electric Multiple Unit (DMU) Alternative Conditions

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-7, project trips accessing the station

were assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative

conditions for existing conditions are presented in the Appendix. These project trips

were added to the existing volumes to generate the Existing plus DMU volumes.

F-G-71
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-48 February 2009

Based on the Existing plus DMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level of

service analysis was performed. Table 6-19 presents the results of the analysis.

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 6-19, all the study intersections operate at acceptable conditions

under existing plus DMU project conditions.

Table 6-19

Victorville Option 2 – Existing plus DMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

Existing

Conditions

Existing plus DMU

Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1

Stoddard Wells Road & I15 NB Ramps Unsignalized2 A (SB) 10.0 D (SB) 28.8

2

Stoddard Wells Road &

Quarry Road Unsignalized2 A (SB) 8.6 C (SB) 25.0

3 I-15 SB Ramps & Quarry

Road Unsignalized2 A (WB) 8.8 B (WB) 10.8

4 Quarry Road & Station

Access #1 Unsignalized2 - - A (NB) 9.3

5

Stoddard Wells Road &

Station Access #2 Unsignalized2 - - B (SB) 13.4

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound, WB=Westbound

b) Existing plus Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) Alternative Conditions

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-7, project trips accessing the station

were assigned to the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative

conditions for existing conditions are presented in the Appendix. These project trips

were added to the existing volumes to generate the Existing plus EMU volumes.

Based on the Existing plus EMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level of

service analysis was performed. Table 6-20 presents the results of the analysis.

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 6-20, all the study intersections operate at acceptable conditions

except Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 northbound ramps and Stoddard Wells Road and

Quarry Road intersections.

F-G-72
15 STODDARD

OUTER

WELLS HIGHWAY

(Private Haul Road)

RD

?

DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 6-7

Alternative 2

VICTORVILLE STATION TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Victorville Station trip distribution 2.ai

PROPOSED

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Alternative 2

95%

5%

F-G-73
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-50 February 2009

Table 6-20

Victorville Option 2 – Existing plus EMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

Existing

Conditions

Existing plus

EMU Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Road &

I-15 NB Ramps Unsignalized2 A (SB) 10.0 F (NB) -

2 Stoddard Wells Road &

Quarry Road Unsignalized2 A (SB) 8.6 F (SB) 63.2

3 I-15 SB Ramps & Quarry

Road Unsignalized2 A (WB) 8.8 B (WB) 12.0

4 Quarry Road & Station

Access #1 Unsignalized2 - - A (NB) 9.9

5 Stoddard Wells Road &

Station Access #2 Unsignalized2 - - C (SB) 19.9

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound, WB=Westbound

Comparing the results of the Existing plus EMU conditions to the Existing conditions level of

service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, intersections approaches at

Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 northbound ramps and Stoddard Wells Road at Quarry Road

deteriorate from acceptable (LOS A) to unacceptable (LOS F) conditions. As the project trips

add more than 5% of the existing volumes at these intersections, project impacts at these

intersections are considered to be significant.

6.2.3 2013 Opening Year Conditions

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2013 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor on the existing

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, the

existing intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions. Based on the

future base volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level of service analysis was

performed.

Table 6-21 presents the results of intersection operating conditions for future year 2013 baseline

conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

F-G-74
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-51 February 2009

Table 6-21

Victorville Option 2 – 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline

Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Rd and I-15 NB Ramps Unsignalized2 C (SB) 17.3

2 Stoddard Wells Rd and Quarry Road Unsignalized2 A (SB) 9.4

3 I-15 SB Ramps and Quarry Road Unsignalized2 A (WB) 9.6

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. SB=Southbound, WB=Westbound

As indicated in Table 6-21, all the study intersections continue to operate at acceptable

conditions under 2013 Baseline conditions.

2013 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-7, project trips accessing the station were

assigned to the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2013 baseline plus DMU volumes. For analysis purposes,

the existing intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions.

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus DMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level of

service analysis was performed. Table 6-22 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO

analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 6-22, intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 northbound ramps

operates at unacceptable conditions (LOS F) while all others operate at acceptable conditions

(LOS D or better).

F-G-75
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-52 February 2009

Table 6-22

Victorville Option 2 – 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS

Intersection Traffic Control

2013 Baseline

Conditions

2013 Baseline

DMU Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Rd and I-15

NB Ramps Unsignalized2 C (SB) 3 17.3 F (NB3

) -

2 Stoddard Wells Rd and

Quarry Road Unsignalized2 A (SB) 3 9.4 D (SB) 3 34.2

3 I-15 SB Ramps and Quarry

Road Unsignalized2 A (WB) 3 9.6 C (WB) 3 16.0

4 Quarry Road and Station

Access #1 Unsignalized2 - - A (NB) 3 9.3

5 Stoddard Wells Road and

Station Access #2 Unsignalized2 - - C (SB) 3 15.9

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. NB= Northbound, SB=Southbound, WB=Westbound

Comparing the results of 2013 Baseline plus DMU conditions to the 2013 Baseline conditions

level of service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, intersections

approaches at Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 northbound ramps deteriorates from acceptable

(LOS C) to unacceptable (LOS F) conditions. As the project trips add more than 5% of the

existing volume at these intersections, the project impacts at these intersections are considered

to be significant.

2013 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-7, project trips accessing the station were

assigned to the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2013 baseline plus EMU volumes.

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus EMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level of

service analysis was performed. Table 6-23 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO

analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 6-23, intersections of Stoddard Wells Road at northbound ramps

intersection and Stoddard Wells Road at Quarry Road intersection operate at unacceptable

conditions while all others operate at acceptable conditions.

Comparing the results of 2013 Baseline plus EMU conditions to the 2013 Baseline conditions

level of service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, intersections of

Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 northbound ramps and Stoddard Wells Road at Quarry Road

deteriorate from acceptable (LOS C or better) to unacceptable (LOS F) conditions. As the

project trips add more than 5% of existing volume at these intersections, project impacts at

these intersections are considered to be significant.

F-G-76
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-53 February 2009

Table 6-23

Victorville Option 2 – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline

Conditions

2013 Baseline EMU

Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Rd

and I-15 NB Ramps Unsignalized2 C (SB) 3 17.3 F (NB) 3 -

2 Stoddard Wells Rd

and Quarry Road Unsignalized2 A (SB) 3 9.4 F (SB) 3 141.8

3 I-15 SB Ramps and

Quarry Road Unsignalized2

 A (WB) 3 9.6 C (WB) 3 22.3

4 Quarry Road and

Station Access #1 Unsignalized2 - - D (NB) 3 26.5

5

Stoddard Wells

Road and Station

Access #2

Unsignalized2 - - A (NB) 3 9.9

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. NB= Northbound, SB=Southbound, WB=Westbound

6.2.4 2030 Cumulative Conditions

Under this scenario, the proposed improvements include signalization at all study intersections.

Future year 2030 roadway geometry and signal control are presented in Figure 6-8.

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2030 base volumes were calculated by applying a growth factor to the existing year

volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix.

Based on the future base volumes and geometry presented in Figure 6-8, intersection level of

service analysis was performed. Table 6-24 presents the results of intersection operating

conditions for future year 2030 baseline conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are

presented in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 6-24, all the study intersections operate at acceptable conditions under

this scenario.

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-7, project trips accessing the station were

assigned to the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus DMU volumes.

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus DMU volumes and geometry presented in Figure 6-8,

intersection level of service analysis was performed. Table 6-25 presents the results of the

analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

F-G-77
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 6-8

Victorville Station Alternative 2

FUTURE YEAR 2030 INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRY

Victorville 2030 geometry 2.ai

STODDARD WELLS RD

VICTORVILLE

QUARRY

QUARRY

RD

RD

Station

Access #1

Station Access #2

STODDARD WELLS RD

OUTER HIGHWAY

SAUGUS RD LOS PADRES RD

SOLANO RD

GRUDLEY ST

15

?

1

3

5

2

4

Stoddard Wells Rd

150’150’

150’150’ 150’

150’

350’

I-15 Ramps

Outer Hwy

Quarry Rd

Quarry Rd

Station Access #2

I-15 Ramps

Victorville

Quarry Rd

Stoddard

Wells Rd

Victorville

Quarry Rd

Stoddard

Wells Rd

Station

Access #1

Traffic SignalStop Sign

50’

250’ 150’

150’

150’

PROPOSED

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Alternative 2

F-G-78
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-55 February 2009

Table 6-24

Victorville Option 2 - 2030 Baseline Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2030 Baseline

Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Rd and I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 28.3

2 Stoddard Wells Rd and Quarry Road Signalized B 19.2

3 I-15 SB Ramps and Quarry Road Signalized C 31.2

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 6-25, all the study intersections operate at acceptable conditions under

this scenario.

Table 6-25

Victorville Option 2 - 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2030 Baseline

Conditions

2030 Baseline DMU

Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Road

& I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 28.3 D 49.4

2 Stoddard Wells Road

& Quarry Road Signalized B 19.2 B 15.4

3 I-15 SB Ramps &

Quarry Road Signalized C 31.2 C 22.9

4 Quarry Road &

Station Access #1 Unsignalized2 - - A (NB) 3 2.6

5 Stoddard Wells Road

& Station Access #2 Signalized - - A 7.3

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. NB= Northbound, SB=Southbound, WB=Westbound

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-7, project trips accessing the station were

assigned to the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus EMU volumes.

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus EMU volumes geometry presented in Figure 6-8, intersection

level of service analysis was performed. Table 6-26 presents the results of the analysis.

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 6-26, all the study intersections operate at acceptable conditions except

the Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 northbound ramps intersection.

F-G-79
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-56 February 2009

Table 6-26

Victorville Option 2 - 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2030 Baseline

Conditions

2030 Baseline EMU

Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Road

& I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 28.3 F 99.2

2 Stoddard Wells Road

& Quarry Road Signalized B 19.2 B 19.6

3 I-15 SB Ramps &

Quarry Road Signalized C 31.2 C 23.9

4 Quarry Road &

Station Access #1 Unsignalized2 - - A (NB) 3 2.8

5 Stoddard Wells Road

& Station Access #2 Signalized - - B 11.0

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. NB= Northbound, SB=Southbound, WB=Westbound

Comparing the results of 2030 Baseline plus EMU conditions to the 2030 Baseline conditions

level of service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, intersection of

Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 northbound ramps and deteriorates from acceptable (LOS C) to

unacceptable (LOS F) conditions.

6.2.5 Mitigation Measures

EXISTING PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 6-20, two existing intersections are significantly impacted by the proposed

project. To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation measures are proposed:

x # 1: Signalize intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 northbound ramps.

x # 2: Signalize intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at Quarry Road.

After applying above mitigation measures to the existing roadway network, the intersection level

of service was calculated. Table 6-27 presents the results of Existing plus EMU mitigation

conditions analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 6-27, intersections of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 northbound ramps and

Stoddard Wells Road at Quarry Road operate at acceptable conditions (LOS B or better) with

mitigation measures.

F-G-80
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-57 February 2009

Table 6-27

Victorville Option 2 - Existing plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

Existing plus EMU

Mitigation

Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Rd and I-15 NB Ramps Signalized B 12.9

2 Stoddard Wells Rd and Quarry Road Signalized A 6.8

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

The signal warrant analysis at intersection 1 indicates that the warrant for peak hour (Warrants

3A and 3B) is met while it is not satisfied at intersection 2. The signal warrant analysis

worksheets are provided in the Appendix.

2013 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 6-22, one study intersection operates at unacceptable conditions in the

2013 baseline plus DMU conditions. To mitigate this intersection, following mitigation measure

is proposed:

x # 1: Signalize intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 northbound ramps.

After applying above mitigation measure to the existing roadway network, the intersection level

of service was calculated. Table 6-28 presents the results of 2013 baseline plus DMU

mitigation conditions analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

The signal warrant analysis at intersection 1 indicates that the warrant for peak hour (Warrants

3A and 3B) is met. The signal warrant analysis worksheets is provided in the Appendix.

Table 6-28

Victorville Option 2 - 2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline plus

DMU Mitigation

Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Rd and I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 22.8

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 6-28, intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 northbound ramps

operates at acceptable conditions (LOS C) with the mitigation measures.

F-G-81
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-58 February 2009

2013 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 6-23, two study intersections operate at unacceptable conditions in the

2013 baseline plus EMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation

measures are proposed:

x # 1: Signalize the intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 northbound ramps and

add northbound left turn lane.

x # 2: Signalize the intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at Quarry Road.

After applying above mitigation measures to the existing roadway network, the intersection level

of service was calculated. Table 6-29 presents the results of 2013 baseline plus EMU mitigation

conditions analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 6-29, the intersections of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 northbound ramps

and Stoddard Wells Road at Quarry Road operate at acceptable conditions (LOS C or better)

with mitigation measures.

Table 6-29

Victorville Option 2 - 2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline plus

EMU Mitigation

Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Rd and I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 31.0

2 Stoddard Wells Rd and Quarry Rd Signalized A 9.5

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

The signal warrant analysis at intersection 1 indicates that the warrant for peak hour (Warrants

3A and 3B) is met while it is not satisfied at intersection 2. The signal warrant analysis

worksheets are provided in the Appendix

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 6-26, one study intersection operates at unacceptable conditions in the

2030 baseline plus EMU conditions. To mitigate this intersection, following mitigation measure

is proposed:

x #11: Add a second southbound right turn lane at the intersection of Stoddard Wells

Road at I-15 northbound ramps.

After applying above mitigation to the 2030 base roadway network, the intersection level of

service was calculated. Table 6-30 presents the results of 2030 baseline plus EMU mitigation

conditions analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

F-G-82
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-59 February 2009

Table 6-30

Victorville Option 2 - 2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2030 Baseline plus EMU

Mitigation Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Rd &

I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 50.2

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 6-30, intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 northbound ramps

operates at acceptable conditions (LOS D) with mitigation measure.

6.2.6 Queuing Analysis

Queuing analysis was performed to identify the required length of turn pockets under the future

year 2030 cumulative conditions at the ramp locations. Table 6-31 presents the results of

queuing analysis for 2030 baseline and project conditions with and without mitigation measures.

The queuing analysis worksheets are included in the Appendix.

It can be noted from table 6-31 that the queue lengths under the mitigated conditions are

considerably shorter than the baseline conditions.

F-G-83
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS

6-60 February 2009

Table 6-31

Victorville Option 2 – Queuing Analysis

Intersection Movement

95th % queue length (ft)

2030 2030 + DMU 2030 + EMU

Baseline Conditions

1 Stoddard Wells Rd & I15 NB Ramps

EBL

EBR

WBL

WBR

NBL

NBR

SBL

SBR

35

170

119

16

178

43

146

36

59

68

165

20

230

51

105

712

98

62

235

30

343

36

216

1379

3 I-15 SB Ramps &

Quarry Rd

NBR

SBL

51

4

52

60

348

109

With Mitigations

1 Stoddard Wells Rd & I15 NB Ramps

EBL

EBR

WBL

WBR

NBL

NBR

SBL

SBR

N/A N/A 72

66

199

24

284

46

216

542

3 I-15 SB Ramps &

Quarry Rd

NBR

SBL

N/A N/A 298

109

SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

F-G-84
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-1 February 2009

7.0 LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7.1 Downtown Station Location Alternative

The proposed Downtown station would be located east of I-15 in the downtown area. This

station is bounded by Union Pacific Railroad to the west, South Main Street to the east, West

Charleston Boulevard to the south and West Bonneville Avenue to the north. The proposed

downtown station can be accessed from I-15 via ramps located at South Grand Central

Parkway and West Charleston Boulevard and from I-515 via ramps located at North Las Vegas

Boulevard.

7.1.1 Existing Conditions

Local Access. The existing local access roadway network for Las Vegas, Nevada near the

proposed station locations are described below. These descriptions were adopted from

“Roadway Functional Classification” map published by Federal Aid Highway System of Nevada

in 2004. This map is included in the Appendix.

Las Vegas Boulevard is a two-way north-south minor arterial. The roadway generally

has three lanes in each direction with sidewalks on both sides of the street in the study

area. In the vicinity of the proposed Downtown station location, this street provides

access to I-515 via the ramps located north of the station.

Main Street is a two-way north-south minor arterial. This roadway extends between Las

Vegas Boulevard / 5th Street at the north and Las Vegas Boulevard / E St. Louis Avenue

intersection at the south. In the vicinity of the proposed Downtown station location, this

street generally has one lane in each direction with sidewalks on both sides of the street.

On-street parking is permitted on the east side of the street.

Grand Central Parkway is a two-way north-south minor collector. This roadway

extends between Main Street at the north and Charleston Boulevard at the south. In the

vicinity of the proposed Downtown station location, this street generally has two lanes in

each direction with a sidewalk on the west side of the street. On-street parking is

generally not permitted on both sides of the street.

Martin Luther King Boulevard is a two-way north-south minor arterial. This roadway

extends between Craig Road at the north and Oakey Boulevard at the south. In the

vicinity of the proposed Downtown station location, this street generally has two lanes in

each direction with a sidewalk on the west side of the street. On-street parking is

generally not permitted on both sides of the street. Southbound I-15 from the Downtown

station can be accessed via the ramps on Martin Luther King Boulevard south of

Charleston Avenue.

Rancho Drive is a two-way north-south roadway that extends between highway 95 at

the north and I-15 at the south. In the vicinity of the proposed Downtown station

location, this street generally has two lanes in each direction and a center turning lane,

F-G-85
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-2 February 2009

with sidewalks on both sides of the street. On-street parking is generally not permitted

on both sides of the street.

Bonneville Avenue/Alta Drive is a two-way east-west minor arterial. Bonneville

Avenue extends from east of I-15 to Charleston Boulevard. On the west of I-15,

Bonneville Avenue continues as Alta Drive and extends west outside the project limits.

Charleston Boulevard is a two-way east-west principal arterial. This roadway extends

from west of Decatur Boulevard to east of Las Vegas Boulevard. In the vicinity of the

proposed Downtown station location, this street generally has three lanes in each

direction with sidewalks on the both sides of the street. On-street parking is generally

not permitted on both sides of the street.

EXISTING TRANSIT CONDITIONS

The proposed station locations in Las Vegas, Nevada are well served by public transit.

Following section describes the various transit facilities operating near the proposed station

locations:

x The 103-Decatur is a 24-hour bus service running along Decatur Boulevard. This

service runs from Decatur/Rome to Decatur/Tropicana with approximately 20 minute

headways from 5:00AM to 8:00PM and 40-60 minute headways for the rest during

weekdays.

x The 104-Valley View/ Torrey Pines is running from Alexander/ Rancho to South Strip

Transfer Terminal with approximately 30 minute headways from 4:30 AM to 7:00 PM and

40-60 minute headways for the rest during weekdays.

x The 105-Martin L. King is a 24-hour bus service running along Martin Luther King Blvd.

This service runs from Camino Al Norte/ Ann to Downtown Transportation Center with

approximately 30 minute headways from 5:00AM to 8:00 PM and 60 minute headways

for the rest during weekdays.

x The 113-Las Vegas Blvd is a 24-hour service running along Las Vegas Blvd. This

service connects from Las Vegas Blvd (Wal-mart Supercenter) to Downtown

Transportation Center. This service runs with approximately 30 minute headways.

x The 204-Sahara is a 24 hour bus service running along Sahara Avenue. This service

runs from Sahara/ Fort Apache to Sahara/ Sloan intersection with approximately 20

minute headways from 5:00 AM to 8:00 PM and approximately 30-60 minute headways

for the rest of the weekdays.

x The 206-Charleston is a 24- hour bus service running along Charleston Blvd. This

service runs from the Red Rock Station to the Charleston and Sloan intersection with

approximately 45 minute headways for the weekdays and 20-35 minute headways for

the weekends and holidays.

F-G-86
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-3 February 2009

x The 207-Alta/Stewart is running from Rainbow/ Westcliff to Bonanza/ Nellis with

approximately 60 minute headways for Eastbound. For the Westbound, it runs

approximately 30 minute headways from 5:30 AM to 6:30 PM and 40-60 minute

headways for the rest during weekdays.

x The Deuce-Las Vegas Blvd is a 24-hour bus service running along Las Vegas Blvd.

This service runs from Las Vegas/ Stewart to South Strip Transfer Terminal Center

(SSTT) with 7 minute headways from 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM and 8-17 minute headways

at all other times. This service stops at virtually every hotel, casino and every quarter

mile in each direction along the Las Vegas Strip.

EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS

On-Street parking is generally not permitted on any street in the local roadway network near the

proposed station location, except the east side of Main Street.

EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

The intersection analysis was performed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)

methodologies, a requirement of the Regional Transportation Commission, which was

implemented using SYNCHRO Version 7 software. Level of Service thresholds and

corresponding delays for signalized and unsignalized intersections are provided in Table 6-1.

In Clark County, LOS A through D is considered satisfactory levels, and LOS E and F conditions

are considered unsatisfactory service levels. Unsignalized intersections are considered to

operate at unsatisfactory conditions if one approach operates at LOS E or F and peak hour

volume signal warrants are met.

Based on the station location options, intersections in the vicinity of the station location were

identified for analysis purposes. Figure 7-1 presents the existing lane geometry at the study

intersections. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) conditions were analyzed for weekday PM

peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) at the study intersections. The results of the analysis are

presented in Table 7-1. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 7-1, all the study intersections operate at acceptable conditions except two

intersections along Martin Luther King at Charleston Boulevard and I-15 SB on-ramp and Grand

Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard that operate at unacceptable conditions

(LOS F).

7.1.2 Impact Analysis

This section presents the assessment of transportation impacts due to the proposed project.

The transportation conditions were assessed for the following scenarios:

x 2013 Opening Year Conditions;

x 2013 Opening Year plus Project (DMU and EMU alternatives) Conditions;

x 2030 Cumulative Baseline Conditions; and,

x 2030 Cumulative Baseline plus Project (DMU and EMU alternatives) Conditions

F-G-87
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED LAS VEGAS DOWNTOWN STATION

Figure 7-1

Downtown Station

EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY

Downtown Geometry rev2.ai

95

15

515

W. BONANZA

MESQUITE AV

ALTA DR

CHARLESTON BLVD

CHARLESTON BLVD

WALDMAN AV

OAKEY BLVD OAKEY BLVD

FRANKLIN AV

SHADOW LN

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BLVD

DESERT LN

RANCHO DR

E. BONANZA

FREMONT

BRIDGER

CLARK

GARCES

GASS

HOOVER

E. BONNEVIILLE

BONNEVIILLE

E. OGDEN

ST

AV

AV

AV

AV

AV

AV

AV

S. MAIN

N. MAIN

1ST

3RD

CASINO CENTER

4TH

6TH

7TH

9TH

10TH

11TH

S.

MARYLAND

PKWY

PKWY

DR

DISCOVERY

CENTRAL

GRAND

LAS

VEGAS BLVD

S. MAIN ST

S. MAIN ST

S. 6TH ST

S. 13TH ST WYOMING AV

ST. LOUIS AV

ST

ST

RD

RD

?

Clark

County

Government

Center

Las Vegas

Premium

Outlets

IRON

HORSE CT

PROPOSED

DOWNTOWN

STATION

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8 9

10

11 12 13

14

Ogden Av

1

Main St

Bonneville Av

150’

60’

90’

125’

2

Main St

Bonneville Av

130’130’

100’100’

100’

100’

100’

70’

70’

3

Grand Central Pkwy

I-15 SB Off Ramp

5

M L King Jr Bl

Bonneville Av

Alta Dr

100’

100’

100’

100’

100’

100’

200’

4

M L King Jr Bl

Charleston Bl

200’

200’

500’500’

120’

270’

270’

6

M L King Jr Bl

Iron Horse Ct

I-5 NB Ramps

7

Grand Central Pkwy

Charleston Bl

180’180’

100’

100’

290’

175’

175’

320’ 8

Grand Central Pkwy

Charleston Bl

9

Main St

Las Vegas Bl 175’

100’

150’

150’

125’

125’

14

Main St

450’

190’

230’

180’

200’

Charleston Bl

13

Las Vegas Blvd

Charleston Blvd

125’

220’

220’

125’

12

4th St

150’

125’

100’

175’

Charleston Bl

11

Casino Center Blvd

I-15 SB On Ramp

10

M L King Jr Bl

F-G-88
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-5 February 2009

Table 7-1

Downtown Station Location Alternative - Existing Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

Existing

Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 N. Main St & S. Grand Central Pkwy Signalized B 14.1

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St Signalized D 52.1

3 E. Bonneville & S. Grand Central Pkwy Signalized C 30.7

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK Signalized D 54.6

5 S. MLK & I-15 SB Off-Ramp Signalized A 9.5

6 S. MLK & W. Charleston Signalized F 117.3

7 S. Grand Central Pkwy & Iron Horse Ct / I-15 NB ramps Signalized B 16.9

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston Signalized E 71.2

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston Signalized D 53.2

10 S. MLK & I-15 SB On-Ramp Unsignalized2 F (NB)3 85.1

11 Casino Center & Charleston Signalized A 9.7

12 4th Street & Charleston Signalized B 10.5

13 Las Vegas Blvd & Charleston Signalized D 46.0

14 S. Las Vegas Blvd & S. Main St Signalized D 39.8

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. NB=Northbound

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

The following are the significance criteria required by the Regional Transportation Commission

in Nevada for the determination of impacts associated with a proposed project:

x Level of service C will be the design objective for capacity and under no circumstances

will less than level of service D be accepted for site and non-site traffic.

PROJECT TRAVEL DEMAND

The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) travel demand forecasting model was used to

develop the base “no-project” travel forecasts for the future year 2013 and 2030 traffic analysis.

RTC provided future year 2030 travel forecasts from the model to DMJM Harris. DMJM Harris

has applied a straight line method to interpolate the intermediate year growth factors. The

calculated growth factors were applied to the existing volumes to generate analysis year

volumes. The growth factor calculations are presented in the Appendix. The additional projectrelated trips were then added to the future year base volumes to determine the “with project

conditions”.

TRIP DISTRIBUTION

The overall trip distribution for the station is shown in Figure 7-2. This station is served primarily

by I-15 and Main Street in the north-south direction and Charleston Road and Bonneville

Avenue in the east-west direction. Passengers at the train station would mainly originate or end

their trips in commercial developments along ‘the Strip’. As such, most traffic would be using

F-G-89
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-6 February 2009

local streets instead of the freeways. Most traffic would head south as the station location is at

the northern end of ‘The Strip’. Most traffic coming from I-15 would use the Charleston Road

interchange. Only a small percentage would use the on/off ramp of I-515.

7.1.3 2013 Conditions (Opening Year Analysis)

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2013 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor on the existing

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, existing

intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions.

Based on the 2013 base volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level service analysis

was performed. Table 7-2 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets

are provided in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 7-2, intersections along Martin Luther King at Bonneville Avenue,

Charleston Boulevard and I-15 SB on-ramp and intersections of Bonneville Avenue at Main

Street, Grand Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard operate at unacceptable conditions

(LOS E or F). All other intersections operate at acceptable conditions.

2013 BASELINE PLUS DIESEL-ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (DMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-2, project trips accessing the station were

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base volumes

to generate the 2013 base plus DMU volumes.

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus DMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level

service analysis was performed. Table 7-3 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO

analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 7-3, the intersections along Martin Luther King at Bonneville Avenue,

Charleston Boulevard and I-15 SB on-ramp and the intersections of Bonneville Avenue at Main

Street and Grand Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard continue to operate at unacceptable

conditions (LOS F), while the intersection of Main Street at Charleston deteriorates from

acceptable (LOS D) to unacceptable conditions (LOS F) with the addition of project volumes.

All other intersections operate at acceptable conditions.

F-G-90
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED LAS VEGAS DOWNTOWN STATION

Figure 7-2

DOWNTOWN STATION TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Downtown Station Trip Distribution.ai

95

15

515

W. BONANZA

MESQUITE AV

ALTA DR

CHARLESTON BLVD

CHARLESTON BLVD

WALDMAN AV

OAKEY BLVD OAKEY BLVD

FRANKLIN AV

SHADOW LN

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BLVD

DESERT LN

RANCHO DR

E. BONANZA

FREMONT BRIDGER

CLARK

GARCES

GASS

HOOVER

E. BONNEVIILLE

BONNEVIILLE

E. OGDEN

ST

AV

AV

AV

AV

AV

AV AV

S. MAIN

N. MAIN

1ST

3RD

CASINO CENTER

4TH

6TH 7TH

9TH 10TH 11TH

S.

MARYLAND

PKWY

PKWY

DR

DISCOVERY

CENTRAL

GRAND LAS

VEGAS

BLVD

S. MAIN ST

S. MAIN ST

S. 6TH ST

S. 13TH ST WYOMING AV

ST. LOUIS AV

ST

ST

RD

RD

?

Clark

County

Government

Center

Las Vegas

Premium

Outlets

IRON HORSE

CT

PROPOSED

DOWNTOWN

STATION

40%

10%

10%

10%

10%

10%

10%

F-G-91
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-8 February 2009

Table 7-2

Downtown Station Location Alternative - 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline

Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 N. Main St & S. Grand Central Pkwy Signalized B 13.2

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St Signalized F 82.2

3 E. Bonneville & S. Grand Central Pkwy Signalized C 34.2

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK Signalized E 56.3

5 S. MLK & I-15 SB Off-Ramp Signalized B 10.8

6 S. MLK & W. Charleston Signalized E 60.0

7 S. Grand Central Pkwy & Iron Horse Ct / I-15 NB

ramps Signalized B 18.1

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston Signalized E 79.2

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston Signalized D 54.9

10 S. MLK & I-15 SB On-Ramp Unsignalized2

 F (NB)3 154.3

11 Casino Center & Charleston Signalized A 9.9

12 4th Street & Charleston Signalized B 10.9

13 Las Vegas Blvd & Charleston Signalized D 46.8

14 S. Las Vegas Blvd & S. Main St Signalized D 40.3

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. NB=Northbound

2013 BASELINE PLUS ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (EMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-2, project trips accessing the station were

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2013 baseline plus EMU volumes.

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus EMU volumes and geometry presented in Figure 7-1,

intersection level service analysis was performed. Table 7-4 presents the results of the

analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 7-4, the intersections along Martin Luther King at Bonneville Avenue,

Charleston Boulevard and I-15 SB on-ramp and the intersections of Grand Central Parkway at

Charleston Boulevard and Bonneville at Main Street continue to operate at unacceptable

conditions (LOS F) with the addition of project volumes. The intersection of Main Street at

Charleston Boulevard deteriorates from acceptable conditions (LOS D) to unacceptable

conditions (LOS F) with the addition of project volumes. All other intersections operate at

acceptable conditions (LOS D or better).

F-G-92
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-9 February 2009

Table 7-3

Downtown Station Location Alternative - 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

2013 Baseline

Conditions

2013 Baseline

plus DMU

Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 N. Main St & S. Grand Central Pkwy B 13.2 B 16.4

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St F 82.2 F 96.2

3 E. Bonneville & S. Grand Central Pkwy C 34.2 C 33.9

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK E 56.3 E 56.2

5 S. MLK & I-15 SB Off-Ramp B 10.8 B 13.3

6 S. MLK & W. Charleston E 60.0 F 101.4

7 S. Grand Central Pkwy & Iron Horse Ct / I-15 NB ramps B 18.1 B 19.7

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston E 79.2 F 96.0

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston D 54.9 F 163.8

10 S. MLK & I-15 SB On-Ramp F (NB)3 154.3 F (NB)3 236.7

11 Casino Center & Charleston A 9.9 A 9.7

12 4th Street & Charleston B 10.9 B 11.1

13 Las Vegas Blvd & Charleston D 46.8 D 49.3

14 S. Las Vegas Blvd & S. Main St D 40.3 D 46.4

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. NB=Northbound

7.1.4 2030 Cumulative Conditions

In the future year 2030, the proposed roadway improvements in the vicinity of the Downtown

station location include the following:

x Interchange reconfiguration at Charleston Boulevard and I-15 northbound and

southbound ramps. This interchange will be configured as a Single Point Urban

Interchange (SPUI) at Charleston Boulevard.

x Intersection of Martin Luther King Boulevard at Charleston Boulevard would be grade

separated in the future.

x Bonneville Avenue would be one-way in the eastbound direction west of Main Street.

Due to the above roadway improvements, the existing southbound on and off ramp intersections

at Martin Luther King Boulevard, the existing northbound ramps at Iron Horse Court and Grand

Central Parkway and the existing at grade intersection at Martin Luther King Boulevard and

Charleston Boulevard would not be analyzed under the 2030 cumulative conditions. Hence for

SYNCHRO analysis, intersections 5, 6, 7 and 10 from previous scenarios were replaced by

intersection 15 for the 2030 Cumulative (Baseline, DMU and EMU) conditions.

F-G-93
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-10 February 2009

Table 7-4

Downtown Station Location Alternative

2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

2013 Baseline

Conditions

2013 Baseline

plus EMU

Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 N. Main St & S. Grand Central Pkwy B 13.2 B 17.9

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St F 82.2 F 103.6

3 E. Bonneville & S. Grand Central Pkwy C 34.2 C 33.8

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK E 56.3 E 56.1

5 S. MLK & I-15 SB Off-Ramp B 10.8 B 15.5

6 S. MLK & W. Charleston E 60.0 F 125.7

7 S. Grand Central Pkwy & Iron Horse Ct / I-15 NB ramps B 18.1 C 20.9

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston E 79.2 F 105.7

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston D 54.9 F 240.8

10 S. MLK & I-15 SB On-Ramp F (NB)3 154.3 F (NB)3 280.2

11 Casino Center & Charleston A 9.9 A 9.7

12 4th Street & Charleston B 10.9 B 11.2

13 Las Vegas Blvd & Charleston D 46.8 D 51.2

14 S. Las Vegas Blvd & S. Main St D 40.3 D 49.2

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. NB=Northbound

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2030 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor on the existing

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix.

Based on the future base volumes and future analysis intersections, level of service analysis

was performed. Table 7-5 presents the results of intersection operating conditions for future

year 2030 baseline conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 7-5, the intersections of Bonneville at Main Street, Bonneville at Martin

Luther King Boulevard, Grand Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard, Main Street at

Charleston Boulevard and the new SPUI interchange at Charleston Boulevard operate at

unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F). All the other intersections operate at acceptable

conditions during the analysis period.

F-G-94
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-11 February 2009

Table 7-5

Downtown Station Location Alternative

2030 Baseline Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2030 Baseline

Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 N. Main St & S. Grand Central Pkwy Signalized B 13.4

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St Signalized E 66.7

3 E. Bonneville & S. Grand Central Pkwy Signalized D 48.1

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK Signalized E 65.8

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston Signalized F 97.6

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston Signalized E 66.5

11 Casino Center & Charleston Signalized B 10.6

12 4th Street & Charleston Signalized B 12.0

13 Las Vegas Blvd & Charleston Signalized D 50.2

14 S. Las Vegas Blvd & S. Main St Signalized D 41.8

15 I-15 ramps & Charleston Signalized E 56.9

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-2, project trips accessing the station were

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus DMU volumes.

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus DMU volumes and future analysis intersections, level service

analysis was performed. Table 7-6 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO analysis

worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 7-6, the intersections of Bonneville at Main Street, Bonneville at Martin

Luther King Boulevard, Grand Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard, Main Street at

Charleston Boulevard and the new SPUI interchange at Charleston Boulevard continue to

operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) with the addition of project traffic. All the other

intersections operate at acceptable conditions during the analysis period.

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-2, project trips accessing the station were

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus EMU volumes.

F-G-95
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-12 February 2009

Table 7-6

Downtown Station Location Alternative - 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

2030 Baseline

Conditions

2030 Baseline plus

DMU Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 N. Main St & S. Grand Central Pkwy B 13.4 B 15.2

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St E 66.7 F 86.3

3 E. Bonneville & S. Grand Central Pkwy D 48.1 D 47.9

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK E 65.8 E 71.3

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston F 97.6 F 152.1

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston E 66.5 F 237.5

11 Casino Center & Charleston B 10.6 B 10.7

12 4th Street & Charleston B 12.0 B 11.8

13 Las Vegas Blvd & Charleston D 50.2 D 50.9

14 S. Las Vegas Blvd & S. Main St D 41.8 D 47.3

15 I-15 ramps & Charleston E 56.9 F 80.8

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus EMU volumes and future analysis intersections, level service

analysis was performed. Table 7-7 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO analysis

worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

Table 7-7

Downtown Station Location Alternative - 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

2030 Baseline

Conditions

2030 Baseline plus EMU

Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 N. Main St & S. Grand Central Pkwy B 13.4 B 16.1

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St E 66.7 F 95.2

3 E. Bonneville & S. Grand Central Pkwy D 48.1 D 47.8

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK E 65.8 E 74.1

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston F 97.6 F 177.2

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston E 66.5 F 327.5

11 Casino Center & Charleston B 10.6 B 10.7

12 4th Street & Charleston B 12.0 B 11.8

13 Las Vegas Blvd & Charleston D 50.2 D 51.3

14 S. Las Vegas Blvd & S. Main St D 41.8 D 52.6

15 I-15 ramps & Charleston E 56.9 F 93.9

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

F-G-96
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-13 February 2009

As indicated in Table 7-7, the intersections of Bonneville at Main Street, Bonneville at Martin

Luther King Boulevard, Grand Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard, Main Street at

Charleston Boulevard and the new SPUI interchange at Charleston Boulevard continue to

operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) with the addition of project traffic. All the other

intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the analysis period.

7.1.5 Mitigation Measures

It should be noted that the proposed mitigations suggested in this section have not been field

verified.

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-2, the intersections along Martin Luther King at Bonneville Avenue,

Charleston Boulevard and I-15 SB on-ramp, the intersections of Bonneville Avenue at Main

Street and Grand Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard operate with unacceptable

conditions (LOS E or F). To mitigate these intersections, the following mitigations measures are

proposed:

x #2. Bonneville/Main Street

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

x #4. Bonneville/S. Martin Luther King Boulevard

- Add second eastbound left turn lane.

x #6. Charleston/S. Martin Luther King Boulevard

- Optimize network offset and signal timing.

x #8. Grand Central Parkway/W. Charleston Boulevard

- Optimize network offset and signal timing.

x #10. S. Martin Luther King Boulevard/ I-15 southbound On-ramp

- Signalize the intersection.

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-8 presents the

results of 2013 Baseline mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in

the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 7-8, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D or

better) with mitigations.

F-G-97
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-14 February 2009

Table 7-8

Downtown Station Location Alternative

2013 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2030 Baseline

Mitigation Conditions

LOS Delay1

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St Signalized D 47.3

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK Signalized D 35.2

6 S. MLK & W. Charleston Signalized D 43.4

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston Signalized C 24.6

10 S. MLK & I-15 SB On-Ramp Signalized A 4.7

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2013 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-3, the intersections along Martin Luther King at Bonneville Avenue,

Charleston Boulevard and I-15 SB on-ramp and the intersections of Bonneville Avenue at Main

Street, Grand Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard and Main Street at Charleston operate

with unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under 2013 Baseline plus DMU conditions. To

mitigate these intersections, the following mitigations measures are proposed:

x #2. Bonneville/Main Street

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

x #4. Bonneville/S. Martin Luther King Boulevard

- Add second eastbound left turn lane.

x #6. Charleston/S. Martin Luther King Boulevard

- Optimize network offset and signal timing.

x #8. Grand Central Parkway/W. Charleston Boulevard

- Optimize network offset and signal timing.

x #9. Main Street/Charleston Boulevard

- Add second eastbound left turn lane.

- Add exclusive dual southbound right turn lanes.

x #10. S. Martin Luther King Boulevard/ I-15 southbound On-ramp

- Signalize the intersection.

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-9 presents the

results of 2013 Baseline plus DMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are

presented in the Appendix.

F-G-98
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-15 February 2009

Table 7-9

Downtown Station Location Alternative

2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline plus

DMU Mitigation

Conditions

LOS Delay1

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St Signalized D 47.1

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK Signalized D 35.2

6 S. MLK & W. Charleston Signalized D 50.4

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston Signalized D 38.0

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston Signalized D 52.2

10 S. MLK & I-15 SB On-Ramp Signalized A 8.4

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-9, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D or

better) with mitigations.

2013 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-4, the intersections along Martin Luther King at Bonneville Avenue,

Charleston Boulevard and I-15 SB on-ramp and the intersections of Grand Central Parkway at

Charleston Boulevard and Main Street at Charleston Boulevard operate with unacceptable

conditions (LOS E or F) under 2013 Baseline plus EMU conditions. To mitigate these

intersections, following mitigations measures are proposed:

x #2. Bonneville/Main Street

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

x #4. Bonneville/S. Martin Luther King Boulevard

- Add second eastbound left turn lane.

x #6. Charleston/S. Martin Luther King Boulevard

- Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane.

x #8. Grand Central Parkway/W. Charleston Boulevard

- Optimize network offset and signal timing.

x #9. Main Street/Charleston Boulevard

- Add fourth westbound through lane.

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

- Add second eastbound left turn lane.

- Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane.

- Add exclusive dual southbound right turn lanes.

x #10. S. Martin Luther King Boulevard/ I-15 southbound On-ramp

F-G-99
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-16 February 2009

- Signalize the intersection.

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-10 presents

the results of 2013 Baseline plus EMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are

presented in the Appendix.

Table 7-10

Downtown Station Location Alternative

2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline plus EMU

Mitigation Conditions

LOS Delay1

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St Signalized D 52.1

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK Signalized D 35.1

6 S. MLK & W. Charleston Signalized D 48.5

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston Signalized D 40.5

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston Signalized D 49.4

10 S. MLK & I-15 SB On-Ramp Signalized B 12.2

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-10, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D

or better) with mitigations.

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-5, intersections of Bonneville at Main Street, Bonneville at Martin Luther

King Boulevard, Grand Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard, Main Street at Charleston

Boulevard and the new SPUI interchange at Charleston Boulevard operate at unacceptable

conditions (LOS E or F) under 2030 Baseline conditions. To mitigate these intersections,

following mitigations measures are proposed:

x #2. Bonneville/Main Street

- Optimize network offset and signal timing.

x #4. Bonneville/S. Martin Luther King Boulevard

- Add exclusive southbound right turn lane.

x #8. Grand Central Parkway/W. Charleston Boulevard

- Add second eastbound left turn lane.

- Add third southbound right turn lane.

x #9. Main Street/Charleston Boulevard

- Optimize network offset and signal timing.

F-G-100
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-17 February 2009

x #15. I-15 Ramps/Charleston Boulevard (SPUI Interchange)

- Optimize network offset and signal timing.

Applying the above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-11

presents the results of 2030 Baseline mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are

presented in the Appendix.

Table 7-11

Downtown Station Location Alternative

2030 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2030 Baseline

Mitigation Conditions

LOS Delay1

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St Signalized D 43.6

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK Signalized D 49.0

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston Signalized D 42.6

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston Signalized D 53.9

15 I-15 ramps & Charleston Signalized D 45.4

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-11, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D)

with mitigations.

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-6, the intersections of Bonneville at Main Street, Bonneville at Martin

Luther King Boulevard, Grand Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard, Main Street at

Charleston Boulevard and the new SPUI interchange at Charleston Boulevard operate at

unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under 2030 Baseline plus DMU conditions. To mitigate

these intersections, following mitigations measures are proposed:

x #2. Bonneville/Main Street

- Optimize network offset and signal timing.

x #4. Bonneville/S. Martin Luther King Boulevard

- Add exclusive southbound right turn lane.

x #8. Grand Central Parkway/W. Charleston Boulevard

- Add second eastbound left turn lane.

- Add fourth westbound through lane.

- Add third southbound right turn lane.

F-G-101
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-18 February 2009

x #9. Main Street/Charleston Boulevard

- Add two eastbound left turn lanes.

- Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane.

- Add exclusive dual southbound right turn lanes.

x #15. I-15 Ramps/Charleston Boulevard (SPUI Interchange)

- Add third southbound left turn lane.

Applying the above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-12

presents the results of 2030 Baseline plus DMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis

worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

Table 7-12

Downtown Station Location Alternative

2030 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2030 Baseline plus

DMU Mitigation

Conditions

LOS Delay1

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St Signalized D 50.6

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK Signalized D 52.4

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston Signalized D 40.0

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston Signalized D 52.5

15 I-15 ramps & Charleston Signalized D 49.6

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-12, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D)

with mitigations.

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-7, the intersections of Bonneville at Main Street, Bonneville at Martin

Luther King Boulevard, Grand Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard, Main Street at

Charleston Boulevard and the new SPUI interchange at Charleston Boulevard operate at

unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under 2030 Baseline plus EMU conditions. To mitigate

these intersections, the following mitigations measures are proposed:

x #2. Bonneville/Main Street

- Optimize network offset and signal timing.

x #4. Bonneville/S. Martin Luther King Boulevard

- Add exclusive southbound right turn lane.

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

x #8. Grand Central Parkway/W. Charleston Boulevard

F-G-102
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-19 February 2009

- Add second eastbound left turn lane.

- Add fourth westbound through lane.

- Add third southbound right turn lane.

x #9. Main Street/Charleston Boulevard

- Add two eastbound left turn lanes.

- Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane.

- Add second northbound left turn lane.

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane.

- Add two westbound through lanes.

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

- Add exclusive dual southbound right turn lanes.

- Add second southbound left turn lane.

x #15. I-15 Ramps/Charleston Boulevard (SPUI Interchange)

- Add third southbound left turn lane.

- Add fourth westbound through lane.

Applying the above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-13

presents the results of 2030 Baseline plus EMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis

worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

Table 7-13

Downtown Station Location Alternative

2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2030 Baseline plus

EMU Mitigation

Conditions

LOS Delay1

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St Signalized D 53.5

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK Signalized D 41.4

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston Signalized D 51.8

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston Signalized D 52.6

15 I-15 ramps & Charleston Signalized D 48.1

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-13, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D)

with mitigations.

7.2 Central Station Location “A” Alternative

The proposed Central Station would be located west of I-15, near the existing Rio Suites Hotel

and Casino. This station is bounded by South Valley View Boulevard to the west, the Union

Pacific Railroad to the east, West Flamingo Road (Route – 592) to the south and West Twain

F-G-103
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-20 February 2009

Avenue to the north. The proposed Central “A” station can be accessed from I-15 via ramps

located at Flamingo Road.

7.2.1 Existing Conditions

EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK

For other north-south streets description, refer to section 7.1.1.

Industrial Boulevard is a two-way north-south minor arterial. This roadway extends from north

of Sahara Avenue to Twain Avenue where it merges into Dean Martin Drive. In the vicinity of

the proposed Central “A” station, this street generally has two lanes in each direction with

sidewalk on the east side of the street. On-street parking is generally not permitted on both

sides of the street.

Valley View Boulevard is a two-way north-south minor arterial. This roadway extends from

Washington Avenue at the north to Flamingo Road at the south. In the vicinity of the proposed

Central “A” station location, this street generally has two lanes in each direction and a center

turning lane, with sidewalks on both sides of the street. On-street parking is generally not

permitted on both sides of the street.

For other north-south streets description, refer to section 7.1.1.

Spring Mountain Road is a two-way east-west minor collector. This roadway extends from

east of Decatur Blvd to Las Vegas Boulevard Avenue where it merges into Sands Avenue. In

the vicinity of the proposed Central “A” Station location, this street generally has three lanes in

each direction with sidewalks on the both sides of the street. On-street parking is generally not

permitted on both sides of the street.

Twain Avenue is a two-way east-west minor collector. This roadway extends from Town

Center Drive to the east of Frank Sinatra Drive. In the vicinity of the proposed Central “A”

Station location, this street generally has three lanes in the westbound direction and two lanes

in the eastbound direction with sidewalks on the both sides of the street. On-street parking is

generally not permitted on both sides of the street.

Flamingo Road is a two-way east-west minor arterial. This roadway extends from south of

Desert Inn Road/ Red Rock Ranch Road to Stephanie St. In the vicinity of the proposed Central

“A” Station location, this street generally has three lanes in each direction with sidewalks on the

both sides of the street. On-street parking is generally not permitted on both sides of the street.

EXISTING TRANSIT CONDITIONS

Refer to section 7.1.1 under for other transit lines serving the area.

x The 202-Flamingo is a 24-hour bus service running along Flamingo Road from Grand

Canyon Parkway Shopping Center to Harmon/ Boulder Hwy with approximately 10-15

minute headways from 5:00 AM to 7:00 PM and 20-30 minute headways for the rest

during weekdays.

F-G-104
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-21 February 2009

x The 203-Spring Mountain/Twain is running from Durango/ Tropicana to Flamingo/

Pecos with approximately 30-minute headways from 5:30 AM to 6:30 PM and 40-60

minute headways for the rest during weekdays.

EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS

On-street parking is generally not permitted on any street in the local roadway network near the

proposed station location.

EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

Based on the station location options, intersections in the vicinity of the station location were

identified for analysis purposes. The existing lane geometry at the study intersections is shown

in Figure 7-3. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) conditions were analyzed for weekday PM

peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). The results of the analysis are presented in Table 7-14.

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix.

Table 7-14

Central Station Location “A” Alternative - Existing Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

Existing Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 Spring Mountain & Polaris Signalized C 24.6

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View Signalized D 53.0

3 W. Twain & Procyon Unsignalized2 B (SB) 3 11.8

4 W. Twain & Polaris Signalized C 25.7

5 W. Twain & Dean Marin Dr/Industrial Signalized C 30.9

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra Signalized C 31.0

7 W. Twain & Frank Sinatra Signalized C 20.4

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 27.7

9 W. Flamingo & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized A 7.2

10 W. Flamingo & S. Valley View Signalized D 38.2

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 41.1

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. SB=Southbound

As indicated in Table 7-14, all intersections operate at acceptable conditions in the existing

conditions (LOS D or better).

F-G-105
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED LAS VEGAS CENTRAL STATION

Figure 7-3

Central Station Alternative A

EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY

Central Geometry - Alt 1 rev1.ai

15

SIRIUS AV

W. DESERT INN RD

MOUNTAIN RD

HIGHLAND DR

PINKS PL

POLLUX AV

CINDER LN

SPRING

W. TWAIN AV

W. VIKING RD

W. FLAMINGO RD

COMPLEX

DRIVE

DR

RIO

HOTEL

ROCHELLE AV

E. FLAMINGO RD

PROCYON ST

POLARIS AV

ALDEBARAN

RANCHO

VIEW BLVD S. VALLEY

WYNN ST

ARVILLE ST

E. DESERT INN RD

COUNTRY CLUB PARADISE RD

IDA AV

WINNICK AV

ALBERT AV

WESTERN

STARDUST RD

HIGHLAND

LAS VEGAS BLVD S

SANDS AV

HUGHES

HOWARD

MANHATTAN ST

RD

DESERT

INN DIO

INDUSTRIAL

DEAN MARTIN DR

FRANK

DR SINATRA

LAS VEGAS BOULEVARD S

KOVAL LN

AUDRIE ST

HARMON AV HARMON AV HARMON AV

POLARIS AV

AV

CONVENTION CENTER

?

PROPOSED

CENTRAL

STATION

1

2 3

4

5

6

7

8 9

10

11

Spring Mtn Rd

1

Polaris Av

400’

100’

140’

125’

125’

Twain Av

130’

110’

125’ 160’

2

Valley View Bl

Twain Av

50’

3

Procyon St

500’115’115’

180’120’

80’

80’

Twain Av

4

Polaris Av

Twain Av

225’225’

165’

110’

200’

200’

5

Industrial Rd

Dean Martin Dr

Frank Sinatra Dr

6

Industrial Rd

Twain Av

7

Frank Sinatra Dr

Flamingo Rd

325’325’

530’

430’

430’

430’

530’ 8

I-15 NB Ramps 250’ 250’

200’

Flamingo Rd

9

I-15 SB On Ramp

I-15 SB Off Ramp

200’

400’

400’

150’

100’

200’200’200’

100’

315’315’

Flamingo Rd

10

Valley View Bl

W. Flamingo Rd

11

Hotel Rio Dr

150’775’

300’150’

350’

240’

F-G-106
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-23 February 2009

7.2.2 Impact Analysis

This section presents the assessment of transportation impacts due to the proposed project.

The transportation conditions were assessed for the following scenarios:

x 2013 Opening Year Conditions;

x 2013 Opening Year plus Project Conditions;

x 2030 Cumulative Baseline Conditions; and,

x 2030 Cumulative Baseline plus Project Conditions

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

The following are the significance criteria required by the Regional Transportation Commission

in Nevada for the determination of impacts associated with a proposed project:

x Level of service C will be the design objective for capacity and under no circumstances

will less than level of service D be accepted for site and non-site traffic.

PROJECT TRAVEL DEMAND

The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) travel demand forecasting model was used to

develop the base “no-project” travel forecasts for future year 2013 and 2030 traffic analysis.

RTC provided future year 2030 travel forecasts from the model to DMJM Harris. DMJM Harris

has applied a straight line method to interpolate the intermediate year growth factors. The

calculated growth factors were applied to the existing volumes to generate analysis year

volumes. The growth factor calculations are presented in the Appendix. The additional projectrelated trips were then added to the future year base volumes to determine the “with project

conditions”.

TRIP DISTRIBUTION

The overall trip distribution for the station is shown in Figure 7-4. This station is served primarily

by I-15, Industrial Road – Dean Martin Drive in the north-south direction and Flamingo Road,

Twain Avenue and Spring Mountain Road in the east-west direction. Most train passengers

would have origins or destinations at the commercial developments on ‘The Strip’; only a small

percentage of 10% would travel to/from the west of the proposed location. A good proportion of

vehicles heading towards the commercial developments on ‘The Strip’ would choose to use

Industrial Road / Dean-Martin Drive as travel time on Las Vegas Boulevard tends to be higher.

7.2.3 2013 Conditions (Opening Year Analysis)

Under the future with project conditions, station access from Twain Avenue will be located east

of the Twain Avenue and Polaris Avenue intersection. It should be noted that this intersection

would be analyzed in “with-project conditions” and is designated as intersection 12 on the

SYNCHRO network.

F-G-107
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED LAS VEGAS CENTRAL STATION

Figure 7-4

CENTRAL STATION A TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Central Station Trip Distribution.ai

15

SIRIUS AV

W. DESERT INN RD

MOUNTAIN RD

HIGHLAND DR

PINKS PL

POLLUX AV

CINDER LN

SPRING

W. TWAIN AV

W. VIKING RD

W. FLAMINGO RD

COMPLEX

DRIVE

DR

RIO

HOTEL

ROCHELLE AV

E. FLAMINGO RD

PROCYON ST

POLARIS AV

ALDEBARAN

RANCHO

VIEW BLVD S. VALLEY

WYNN ST

ARVILLE ST

E. DESERT INN RD

COUNTRY CLUB PARADISE RD

IDA AV

WINNICK AV

ALBERT AV

WESTERN

STARDUST RD

HIGHLAND

LAS VEGAS BLVD S

SANDS AV

HUGHES

HOWARD

MANHATTAN ST

RD

DESERT

INN DIO

INDUSTRIAL

DEAN MARTIN DR

LAS VEGAS BOULEVARD S

KOVAL LN

AUDRIE ST

HARMON AV HARMON AV HARMON AV

POLARIS AV

AV

CONVENTION CENTER

?

PROPOSED

CENTRAL

STATION

15% 10%

10%

10%

10%

15% 20% (local)

10%

(local)

(I-15)

F-G-108
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-25 February 2009

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2013 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor on the existing

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, existing

intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions. Based on the future base

volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level service analysis was performed.

Table 7-15 presents the results of intersection operating conditions for future year 2013 baseline

conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

Table 7-15

Central Station Location “A” Alternative – 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline

Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 Spring Mountain & Polaris Signalized C 24.9

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View Signalized E 59.3

3 W. Twain & Procyon Unsignalized2 B (SB) 3 12.0

4 W. Twain & Polaris Signalized C 26.5

5 W. Twain & Dean Martin Dr/Industrial Signalized C 30.4

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra Signalized D 36.2

7 W. Twain & Frank Sinatra Signalized C 20.2

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 29.5

9 W. Flamingo & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized A 7.5

10 W. Flamingo & S. Valley View Signalized D 41.6

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 39.1

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. SB=Southbound

As indicated in Table 7-15, all the intersections operate at acceptable conditions except

intersection of Twain Avenue at Valley View.

2013 BASELINE PLUS DIESEL-ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (DMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-4, project trips accessing the station were

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2013 baseline plus DMU volumes. For analysis purposes,

existing intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions.

F-G-109
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-26 February 2009

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus DMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level

service analysis was performed. Table 7-16 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO

analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

Table 7-16

Central Station Location “A” Alternative

2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

2013 Baseline

Conditions

2013 Baseline plus DMU

Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Spring Mountain & Polaris C 24.9 C 24.9

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View E 59.3 E 62.9

3 W. Twain & Procyon B (SB) 3 12.0 B (SB)3 12.4

4 W. Twain & Polaris C 26.5 C 29.5

5 W. Twain & Dean Martin Dr/Industrial C 30.4 E 62.1

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra D 36.2 D 45.9

7 W. Twain & Frank Sinatra C 20.2 C 23.4

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps C 29.5 E 57.3

9 W. Flamingo & I-15 SB Ramps A 7.5 A 9.0

10 W. Flamingo & S. Valley View D 41.6 D 42.6

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Dr D 39.1 E 76.5

12 W. Twain & Station Access - - B 13.1

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. SB=Southbound

As indicated in Table 7-16, intersections of Twain at Valley View continues to operate at

unacceptable conditions (LOS E) while intersections of Twain at Dean Martin Drive, Flamingo at

I-15 northbound ramps and Flamingo at Hotel Rio Drive deteriorate from acceptable conditions

(LOS D or better) in 2013 baseline conditions to unacceptable conditions (LOS E) with the

addition of project volumes.

2013 BASELINE PLUS ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (EMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-4, project trips accessing the station were

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus EMU volumes.

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus EMU volumes and geometry presented in Figure 7-3,

intersection level service analysis was performed. Table 7-17 presents the results of the

analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

F-G-110
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-27 February 2009

Table 7-17

Central Station Location “A” Alternative – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

2013 Baseline

Conditions

2013 Baseline plus EMU

Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Spring Mountain & Polaris C 24.9 C 24.9

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View E 59.3 E 64.8

3 W. Twain & Procyon B (SB) 3 12.0 B (SB) 3 12.5

4 W. Twain & Polaris C 26.5 C 30.4

5 W. Twain & Dean Martin Dr/Industrial C 30.4 F 94.6

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra D 36.2 E 55.9

7 W. Twain & Frank Sinatra C 20.2 C 24.8

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps C 29.5 E 76.4

9 W. Flamingo & I-15 SB Ramps A 7.5 B 10.1

10 W. Flamingo & S. Valley View D 41.6 D 42.9

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Dr D 39.1 F 105.7

12 W. Twain & Station Access - - C 31.7

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. SB=Southbound

As indicated in Table 7-17, intersections of Twain at Valley View continues to operate at

unacceptable conditions (LOS E) while intersections of Twain at Dean Martin Drive, Industrial at

Frank Sinatra, Flamingo at I-15 northbound ramps and Flamingo at Hotel Rio Drive deteriorate

from acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) in 2013 baseline conditions to unacceptable

conditions (LOS E) with the addition of project volumes.

7.2.4 2030 Cumulative Conditions

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2030 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor to the existing

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, existing

intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2030 conditions.

Based on the future base volumes and geometry presented in Figure 7-3, intersection level

service analysis was performed. Table 7-18 presents the results of intersection operating

conditions for future year 2030 baseline conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are

presented in the Appendix.

F-G-111
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-28 February 2009

Table 7-18

Central Station Location “A” Alternative – 2030 Baseline Conditions LOS

Intersection Traffic Control

2030 Baseline Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 Spring Mountain & Polaris Signalized C 26.1

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View Signalized E 70.8

3 W. Twain & Procyon Unsignalized2 B (SB) 3 12.5

4 W. Twain & Polaris Signalized C 28.2

5 W. Twain & Dean Martin Dr/Industrial Signalized D 38.1

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra Signalized E 61.2

7 W. Twain & Frank Sinatra Signalized B 17.0

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 37.9

9 W. Flamingo & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized A 8.6

10 W. Flamingo & S. Valley View Signalized F 95.8

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 39.1

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. SB=Southbound

As indicated in Table 7-18, intersections of Twain at Valley View, Industrial at Frank Sinatra and

Flamingo at Valley View operate with unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under the analysis

scenario.

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-4, project trips accessing the station were

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus DMU volumes.

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus DMU volumes geometry presented in Figure 7-3, intersection

level service analysis was performed. Table 7-19 presents the results of the analysis.

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 7-19, intersections of Twain Avenue at Valley View, Industrial at Frank

Sinatra and Flamingo at Valley View continue to operate with unacceptable conditions (LOS E

or F) while intersections of Twain at Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Avenue, Flamingo at I-15

northbound ramps, and Flamingo at Hotel Rio Drive deteriorate from acceptable (LOS D) to

unacceptable (LOS E or F) conditions with the addition of project volumes.

F-G-112
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-29 February 2009

Table 7-19

Central Station Location “A” Alternative

2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

2030 Baseline

Conditions

2030 Baseline plus DMU

Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Spring Mountain & Polaris C 26.1 C 26.1

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View E 70.8 E 76.1

3 W. Twain & Procyon B (SB) 3 12.5 B (SB) 3 12.8

4 W. Twain & Polaris C 28.2 C 30.5

5 W. Twain & Dean Martin Dr/Industrial D 38.1 F 105.4

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra E 61.2 E 79.5

7 W. Twain & Frank Sinatra B 17.0 C 22.4

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps D 37.9 E 71.8

9 W. Flamingo & I-15 SB Ramps A 8.6 B 10.9

10 W. Flamingo & S. Valley View F 95.8 F 95.9

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Dr D 39.1 E 77.2

12 W. Twain & Station Access Road - - B 13.1

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. SB=Southbound

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-4, project trips accessing the station were

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus EMU volumes.

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus EMU volumes geometry presented in Figure 7-3, intersection

level service analysis was performed. Table 7-20 presents the results of the analysis.

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 7-20, intersections of Twain Avenue at Valley View, Industrial at Frank

Sinatra and Flamingo at Valley View continue to operate with unacceptable conditions (LOS E

or F) while intersections of Twain at Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Avenue, Flamingo at I-15

northbound ramps, and Flamingo at Hotel Rio Drive deteriorate from acceptable (LOS D) to

unacceptable (LOS E or F) conditions with the addition of project volumes.

F-G-113
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-30 February 2009

Table 7-20

Central Station Location “A” Alternative

2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

2030 Baseline

Conditions

2030 Baseline plus EMU

Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Spring Mountain & Polaris C 26.1 C 26.1

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View E 70.8 E 79.1

3 W. Twain & Procyon B (SB) 3 12.5 B (SB) 3 13.0

4 W. Twain & Polaris C 28.2 C 31.3

5 W. Twain & Dean Martin Dr/Industrial D 38.1 F 142.2

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra E 61.2 F 90.4

7 W. Twain & Frank Sinatra B 17.0 C 25.4

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps D 37.9 F 92.1

9 W. Flamingo & I-15 SB Ramps A 8.6 B 11.9

10 W. Flamingo & S. Valley View F 95.8 F 95.8

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Dr D 39.1 F 107.2

12 W. Twain & Station Access Road - - D 35.8

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. SB=Southbound

7.2.5 Mitigation Measures

It should be noted that the proposed mitigations suggested in this section have not been field

verified.

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-15, the intersection of Twain Avenue at Valley View operates at

unacceptable conditions under 2013 Baseline conditions. To mitigate this intersection, following

mitigation measure is proposed:

x #2. Twain Avenue & Valley View

- Optimize network offset.

Applying above mitigation, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-21 presents the

results of 2013 Baseline mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in

the Appendix.

F-G-114
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-31 February 2009

Table 7-21

Central Station Location “A” Alternative

2013 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline

Conditions

LOS Delay1

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View Signalized D 48.4

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-21, the intersection of Twain at Valley View operates at acceptable

conditions (LOS D) with mitigations.

2013 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-16, the intersections of Twain at Valley View, Twain at Dean Martin

Drive, Flamingo at I-15 northbound ramps and Flamingo at Hotel Rio Drive operate with

unacceptable conditions under 2013 Baseline plus DMU conditions. To mitigate these

intersections, following mitigation measures are proposed:

x #2. Twain Avenue & Valley View

- Optimize network offset.

x #5. Twain Avenue & Dean Martin Drive/Industrial

- Optimize network offset.

x #8. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps

- Optimize network offset.

x #11. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Drive

- Add third southbound left turn lane.

- Add fourth westbound through lane.

- Add second westbound right turn lane.

- Add fourth eastbound through lane.

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-22 presents

the results of 2013 Baseline plus DMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are

presented in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 7-22, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D)

with mitigations.

F-G-115
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-32 February 2009

Table 7-22

Central Station Location “A” Alternative

2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2030 Baseline plus

DMU Mitigation

Conditions

LOS Delay1

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View Signalized D 49.8

5 W. Twain & Dean Martin Dr/Industrial Signalized D 51.3

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 51.0

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Drive Signalized D 40.4

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2013 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-17, the intersections of Twain at Valley View, Twain at Dean Martin

Drive, Industrial at Frank Sinatra, Flamingo at I-15 northbound ramps and Flamingo at Hotel Rio

Drive operate with unacceptable conditions (LOS E of F) under 2013 Baseline plus EMU

conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation measures are proposed:

x #2. Twain Avenue & Valley View

- Optimize network offset.

x #5. Twain Avenue & Dean Martin Drive/Industrial

- Add second southbound right turn lane.

x #6. Industrial & Frank Sinatra

- Add second westbound right turn lane

x #8. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps

- Add third eastbound right turn lane

x #11. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Drive

- Add third southbound left turn lane.

- Add fourth westbound through lane.

- Add second westbound right turn lane.

- Add fourth eastbound through lane.

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-23 presents

the results of 2013 Baseline plus EMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are

presented in the Appendix.

F-G-116
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-33 February 2009

Table 7-23

Central Station Location “A” Alternative

2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline plus

EMU Conditions

LOS Delay1

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View Signalized D 50.5

5 W. Twain & Dean Martin Dr/Industrial Signalized C 26.5

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra Signalized C 22.5

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 42.0

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 48.0

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-23, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D

or better) with mitigations.

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-18, the intersections of Twain at Valley View, Industrial at Frank Sinatra

and Flamingo at Valley View operate with unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under 2030

Baseline conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation measures are

proposed:

x #2. Twain Avenue & Valley View

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

x #6. Industrial & Frank Sinatra

- Add second westbound right turn lane

x #10. Flamingo & Valley View

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane.

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-24 presents

the results of 2030 Baseline mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented

in the Appendix.

F-G-117
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-34 February 2009

Table 7-24

Central Station Location “A” Alternative

2030 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2030 Baseline

Conditions

LOS Delay1

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View Signalized D 50.5

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra Signalized C 25.5

10 W. Flamingo & S. Valley View Signalized D 50.4

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-24, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D

or better) with mitigations.

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-19, the intersections of Twain Avenue at Valley View, Industrial at Frank

Sinatra, Flamingo at Valley View, Twain at Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Avenue, Flamingo at I15 northbound ramps, and Flamingo at Hotel Rio Drive operate at unacceptable conditions

(LOS E or F) under 2030 Baseline plus DMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections,

following mitigation measures are proposed:

x #2. Twain Avenue & Valley View

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

x #5. Twain Avenue & Dean Martin Drive/Industrial

- Add second southbound right turn lane.

x #6. Industrial & Frank Sinatra

- Add second westbound right turn lane

x #8. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps

- Add third eastbound left turn lane

x #10. Flamingo & Valley View

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane.

x #11. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Drive

- Add third southbound left turn lane.

- Add fourth westbound through lane.

Applying the above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-25

presents the results of 2030 Baseline plus DMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis

worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

F-G-118
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-35 February 2009

Table 7-25

Central Station Location “A” Alternative

2030 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline plus

DMU Conditions

LOS Delay1

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View Signalized D 53.7

5 W. Twain & Dean Martin Dr/Industrial Signalized C 26.5

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra Signalized C 26.3

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 47.5

10 W. Flamingo & S. Valley View Signalized D 48.3

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 46.0

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-25, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D

or better) with mitigations.

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-20, the intersections of Twain Avenue at Valley View, Industrial at Frank

Sinatra, Flamingo at Valley View, Twain at Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Avenue, Flamingo at

I-15 northbound ramps, and Flamingo at Hotel Rio Drive operate at unacceptable conditions

under 2030 Baseline plus EMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation

measures are proposed:

x #2. Twain Avenue & Valley View

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

x #5. Twain Avenue & Dean Martin Drive/Industrial

- Add second southbound right turn lane.

x #6. Industrial & Frank Sinatra

- Add second westbound right turn lane.

x #8. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps

- Add third eastbound left turn lane.

- Add fourth westbound through lane.

x #10. Flamingo & Valley View

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane.

x #11. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Drive

- Add third southbound left turn lane.

- Add fourth westbound through lane.

- Add second westbound right turn lane.

F-G-119
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-36 February 2009

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-26 presents

the results of 2030 Baseline plus EMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are

presented in the Appendix.

Table 7-26

Central Station Location “A” Alternative

2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline plus

EMU Conditions

LOS Delay1

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View Signalized D 54.6

5 W. Twain & Dean Martin Dr/Industrial Signalized C 24.5

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra Signalized C 29.0

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 40.6

10 W. Flamingo & S. Valley View Signalized D 49.3

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 50.1

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-26, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D

or better) with mitigations.

7.3 South Station Location Alternative

The proposed South Station would be located west of I-15, to the south end of the Strip. This

station is bounded by Polaris Avenue to the west, I-15 to the east, West Russell Road to the

south and West Hacienda Avenue to the north. The proposed south station can be accessed

from I-15 via ramps located at West Russell Road.

7.3.1 Existing Conditions

EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK

For north-south streets description, refer to section 7.1.1.

Tropicana Avenue is a two-way east-west principal arterial. This roadway extends from south

of Town Center Drive to the north of Broadbent Boulevard. In the vicinity of the proposed South

Station location, this street generally has three lanes in each direction with sidewalks on the

both sides of the street. On-street parking is generally not permitted on both sides of the street.

Hacienda Avenue is a two-way east-west minor collector. This roadway extends from Wynn

Road to Dean Martin Drive where it merges Mandalay Bay Road. In the vicinity of the proposed

South Station location, this street generally has two lanes in each direction with sidewalks on

F-G-120
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-37 February 2009

the both sides of the street. On-street parking is generally not permitted on both sides of the

street.

Mandalay Bay Road is a two-way east-west minor collector. This roadway extends from Dean

Martin Drive to Las Vegas Blvd where it merges Hacienda Ave. In the vicinity of the proposed

South Station location, this street generally has three lanes in each direction with sidewalks on

the both sides of the street. On-street parking is generally not permitted on both sides of the

street.

Russell Road is a two-way east-west minor arterial. This roadway extends from John

Boulevard to west of Las Vegas Boulevard. In the vicinity of the proposed South Station

location, this street generally has three lanes in each direction with sidewalks on the both sides

of the street. On-street parking is generally not permitted on both sides of the street.

EXISTING TRANSIT CONDITIONS

Refer to section 7.1.1 under for other transit lines serving the area.

x The 201-Tropicana is a 24-hour bus service running along Tropicana Avenue. This

service connects Andover on the east (east of I-515) to Durango Avenue intersection on

the west (west of I-15). This service runs with approximately 15 minute headways from

5:00 AM to 8:00 PM and approximately 20-60 minute headways for the rest during

weekdays.

EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS

On-Street parking is generally not permitted on any street in the local roadway network near

the proposed station location.

EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

Based on the station location options, intersections in the vicinity of the station location were

identified for analysis purposes. The existing lane geometry at the study intersections is shown

in Figure 7-5. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) conditions were analyzed for weekday PM

peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). The results of the analysis are presented in Table 7-27.

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix.

F-G-121
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED LAS VEGAS SOUTH STATION

Figure 7-5

South Station

EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY

South Geometry rev1.ai

15

TOMPKINS AV TOMPKINS AV

PALMS CENTER

TROPICANA AV

TROPICANA AV

BELL DR

HACIENDA HACIENDA

FOUR SEASONS

MANDALAY BAY

RENO AV RENO AV

AV

AV

AV

RD

DR

LN

MESA VISTA

DIABLO

QUAIL

OQUENDO

PONDEROSA WY

ALI BABA

DEWEY DR

W. RUSSELL RD

PROCYON ST

PROCYON ST

POLARIS AV POLARIS AV

INDUSTRIAL RD

BLVD VALLEY VIEW

WYNN RD WYNN RD

ARVILLE ST ARVILLE ST

KOVAL LN

AUDRIE ST

LAS VEGAS BLVD

DEAN MARTIN DR

FRANK

FRANK

SINATRA DR

SINATRA DR

LAS VEGAS BOULEVARD S

HARMON AV HARMON AV HARMON AV

CENTURY PARK

?

McCARRAN

INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT

PROPOSED

SOUTH

STATION

1 2 3

4

5 6 7

8 9 10

11

Tropicana Av

1

Valley View Bl 160’

130’170’

100’

600’

190’

190’

175’

175’

175’

Tropicana Av

2

Dean Martin Dr 230’ 230’

140’

100’

155’

155’

Tropicana Av

470’470’

110’

600’600’ 3

I-15 NB Ramps

Aldebaran

4

Dean Martin Dr

Hacienda Av

5

Aldebaran

Hacienda Av

6

Polaris Av

115’

75’

115’

115’

80’

80’

Hacienda Av

7

Valley View Bl

Russell Rd

115’

175’

150’

8

Polaris Av

160’

560’

250’

250’

360’

360’

160’

Russell Rd

9

I-15 SB Ramps

230’230’

Russell Rd

10

I-15 NB Ramps

11

Tropicana Av

SB Ramps

700’

F-G-122
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-39 February 2009

Table 7-27

South Station Location Alternative

Existing Conditions LOS

Intersection Traffic Control

Existing Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View Signalized E 55.2

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 52.6

3 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 26.4

4 Dean Martin Dr & Circulation Unsignalized2 C (EB) 3 16.9

5 Aldebaran & W. Hacienda Unsignalized2 B (SB) 3 12.9

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave Unsignalized2 F (NB) 3 128.8

7 W. Hacienda & S. Valley View Signalized C 24.1

8 W. Russell & Polaris Signalized D 46.2

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized E 68.1

10 W. Russell & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 33.5

11 W. Tropicana & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized B 15.4

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. EB=Eastbound, NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound

As indicated in Table 7-27, the signalized intersections of Tropicana at Valley View and I-15

southbound ramps at Russell Road and unsignalized intersection of Hacienda at Polaris operate

at unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under the existing conditions.

7.3.2 Impact Analysis

This section presents the assessment of transportation impacts due to the proposed project.

The transportation conditions were assessed for the following scenarios:

x 2013 Opening Year Conditions;

x 2013 Opening Year plus Project Conditions;

x 2030 Cumulative Baseline Conditions; and,

x 2030 Cumulative Baseline plus Project Conditions

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

The following are the significance criteria required by the Regional Transportation Commission

of Southern Nevada for the determination of impacts associated with a proposed project:

x Level of service C will be the design objective for capacity and under no circumstances

will less than level of service D be accepted for site and non-site traffic.

F-G-123
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-40 February 2009

PROJECT TRAVEL DEMAND

The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) travel demand forecasting model was used to

develop the base “no-project” travel forecasts for future year 2013 and 2030 traffic analysis.

RTC provided future year 2030 travel forecasts from the model to DMJM Harris. DMJM Harris

has applied a straight line method to interpolate the intermediate year growth factors. The

calculated growth factors were applied to the existing volumes to generate analysis year

volumes. The growth factor calculations are presented in the Appendix. The additional projectrelated trips were then added to the future year base volumes to determine the “with project

conditions”.

TRIP DISTRIBUTION

The overall trip distribution for the station is shown in Figure 7-6. This station is served primarily

by I-15, Industrial Road – Dean Martin Drive and Frank Sinatra Drive in the north-south

direction. Industrial Road – Dean Martin Drive and Frank Sinatra Drive provided an alternative

to Las Vegas Boulevard on which travel time tends to be high. Most passengers of the

proposed DesertXpress train would contribute to local traffic with origin or destination on or near

‘The Strip’. As a result, only a small percentage would make use of the freeway system.

7.3.3 2013 Conditions (Opening Year Analysis)

Under the future with project conditions, project trips along Dean Martin Drive would access the

station by turning at Circulation Road and making left turns at the Hacienda/CirculationAldebaran and Hacienda/Polaris intersections. Under the existing conditions, there is no left

turn lane at Hacienda/Circulation-Aldebaran intersection. The project would add a left turn lane

at this intersection. It should be noted that this intersection would be analyzed with a

northbound left turn lane under “with-project conditions”.

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2013 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor on the existing

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, existing

intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions. Based on the future base

volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level service analysis was performed.

Table 7-28 presents the results of intersection operating conditions for future year 2013 baseline

conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix.

F-G-124
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED LAS VEGAS SOUTH STATION

Figure 7-6

SOUTH STATION TRIP DISTRIBUTION

South Study Trip Distribution.ai

15

TOMPKINS AV TOMPKINS AV

PALMS CENTER

TROPICANA AV

BELL DR

HACIENDA HACIENDA

FOUR SEASONS

MANDALAY BAY

RENO AV RENO AV

AV

AV

AV

RD

DR

LN

MESA VISTA

DIABLO

QUAIL

OQUENDO

PONDEROSA WY

ALI BABA

DEWEY DR

W. RUSSELL RD

PROCYON ST

PROCYON ST

POLARIS AV POLARIS AV

INDUSTRIAL RD

BLVD VALLEY VIEW

WYNN RD WYNN RD

ARVILLE ST ARVILLE ST

KOVAL LN

AUDRIE ST

LAS VEGAS BLVD

DEAN MARTIN DR

FRANK

FRANK

SINATRA DR

SINATRA DR

LAS VEGAS BOULEVARD S

HARMON AV HARMON AV HARMON AV

CENTURY PARK

?

McCARRAN

INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT

PROPOSED

SOUTH

STATION

10%

10%

(I-15)

15%

10%

(I-15)

5%

5%

25%

10%

10%

F-G-125
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-42 February 2009

Table 7-28

South Station Location Alternative

2013 Baseline Conditions LOS

Intersection Traffic Control

2013 Baseline

Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View Signalized E 70.3

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr Signalized E 59.8

3 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 31.3

4 Dean Martin Dr & Circulation Unsignalized2 C (EB) 3 18.2

5 Circulation/Aldebaran & W. Hacienda Unsignalized2 B (SB) 3 13.8

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave Unsignalized2 F (NB) 3 336.9

7 W. Hacienda & S. Valley View Signalized D 35.2

8 W. Russell & Polaris Signalized D 52.9

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized F 83.1

10 W. Russell & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 36.4

11 W. Tropicana & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized B 16.2

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle e

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. EB=Eastbound, NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound

As indicated in Table 7-28, signalized intersections of Tropicana at Valley View, Tropicana at

Dean Martin Drive and I-15 southbound ramps at Russell Road and unsignalized intersection of

Hacienda at Polaris operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under the 2013 baseline

conditions.

2013 BASELINE PLUS DIESEL-ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (DMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-6, project trips accessing the station were

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2013 baseline plus DMU volumes. For analysis purposes,

existing intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions.

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus DMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level

service analysis was performed. Table 7-29 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO

analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

F-G-126
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-43 February 2009

Table 7-29

South Station Location Alternative

2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

2013 Baseline

Conditions

2013 Baseline plus DMU

Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View E 70.3 E 74.7

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr E 59.8 E 70.5

3 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps C 31.3 C 31.5

4 Dean Martin Dr & Circulation C (EB) 3 18.2 C (EB) 3 18.8

5 Circulation/Aldebaran & W. Hacienda B (SB) 3 13.8 F (NB) 3 232.1

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave F (NB) 3 336.9 F (NB) 3 -

7 W. Hacienda & S. Valley View D 35.2 D 40.1

8 W. Russell & Polaris D 52.9 F 327.7

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps F 83.1 F 89.1

10 W. Russell & I-15 NB Ramps D 36.4 D 37.5

11 W. Tropicana & I-15 SB Ramps B 16.2 B 18.0

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. EB=Eastbound, NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound

As indicated in Table 7-29, signalized intersections of Tropicana at Valley View, Tropicana at

Dean Martin Drive and I-15 southbound ramps at Russell Road and unsignalized intersection of

Hacienda at Polaris continue to operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F). However,

intersections at Hacienda/Circulation-Aldebaran and Russell at Polaris deteriorate from

acceptable (LOS D or better) to unacceptable conditions (LOS F) with the addition of project

volumes.

2013 BASELINE PLUS ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (EMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-6, project trips accessing the station were

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus EMU volumes.

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus EMU volumes and geometry presented in Figure 7-5,

intersection level service analysis was performed. Table 7-30 presents the results of the

analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

F-G-127
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-44 February 2009

Table 7-30

South Station Location Alternative

2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

2013 Baseline

Conditions

2013 Baseline plus EMU

Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View E 70.3 E 76.4

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Marin Dr E 59.8 E 76.7

3 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps C 31.3 C 31.6

4 Dean Marin Dr & Circulation C (EB) 3 18.2 C (EB) 3 19.0

5 Circulation/Aldebaran &

W. Hacienda B (SB) 3 13.8 F (NB) 3 -

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave F (NB) 3 336.9 F (NB) 3 -

7 W. Hacienda & S. Valley View D 35.2 D 42.4

8 W. Russell & Polaris D 52.9 F 550.8

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps F 83.1 F 94.9

10 W. Russell & I-15 NB Ramps D 36.4 D 38.9

11 W. Tropicana & I-15 SB Ramps B 16.2 B 19.0

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. EB=Eastbound, NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound

As indicated in Table 7-30, signalized intersections of Tropicana at Valley View, Tropicana at

Dean Martin Drive and I-15 southbound ramps at Russell Road and unsignalized intersection of

Hacienda at Polaris continue to operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F). However,

intersections at Hacienda/Circulation-Aldebaran and Russell at Polaris deteriorate from

acceptable (LOS D or better) to unacceptable conditions (LOS F) with the addition of project

volumes.

7.3.4 2030 Cumulative Conditions

Under the future with project conditions, project trips along Dean Martin Drive would access the

station by turning at Circulation Road and making left turns at the Hacienda/CirculationAldebaran and Hacienda/Polaris intersections. Under existing conditions, there is no left turn

lane at Hacienda/Circulation-Aldebaran intersection. The project would add a left turn lane at

this intersection. It should be noted that this intersection would be analyzed with a northbound

left turn lane under “with-project conditions”.

F-G-128
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-45 February 2009

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2030 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor on the existing

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, existing

intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2030 conditions.

Based on the future base volumes and geometry presented in Figure 7-5, intersection level

service analysis was performed. Table 7-31 presents the results of intersection operating

conditions for future year 2030 baseline conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are

presented in the Appendix.

Table 7-31

South Station Location Alternative

2030 Baseline Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2030 Baseline

Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View Signalized F 425.2

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr Signalized F 80.0

3 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized E 78.3

4 Dean Martin Dr & Circulation Unsignalized2 C (EB) 3 24.9

5 Circulation/Aldebaran & W. Hacienda Unsignalized2 C (SB) 3 17.3

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave Unsignalized2 F (NB) 3 -

7 W. Hacienda & S. Valley View Signalized F 618.8

8 W. Russell & Polaris Signalized F 81.3

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized F 144.1

10 W. Russell & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized E 67.7

11 W. Tropicana & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized C 20.7

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. EB=Eastbound, NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound

As indicated in Table 7-31, all the intersections operate at unacceptable conditions during the

analysis period except two unsignalized intersections of Dean Martin Drive at Aldebaran and

Hacienda at Circulation/Aldebaran.

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-6, project trips accessing the station were

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus DMU volumes.

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus DMU volumes geometry presented in Figure 7-5, intersection

level service analysis was performed. Table 7-32 presents the results of the analysis.

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

F-G-129
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-46 February 2009

Table 7-32

South Station Location Alternative

2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

2030 Baseline

Conditions

2030 Baseline

plus DMU

Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View F 425.2 F 423.4

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr F 80.0 F 95.4

3 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps E 78.3 E 78.4

4 Dean Martin Dr & Circulation C (EB) 3 24.9 D (EB) 3 26.0

5 Circulation/Aldebaran & W. Hacienda C (SB) 3 17.3 F (SB) 3 -

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave F (NB) 3 - F (NB) 3 -

7 W. Hacienda & S. Valley View F 618.8 F 617.4

8 W. Russell & Polaris F 81.3 F 472.6

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps F 144.1 F 158.0

10 W. Russell & I-15 NB Ramps E 67.7 F 90.8

11 W. Tropicana & I-15 SB Ramps C 20.7 C 23.9

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. EB=Eastbound, NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound

As indicated in Table 7-32, all the intersections continue to operate at unacceptable conditions

during the analysis period except the unsignalized intersection of Dean Martin and Aldebaran

that operates at acceptable conditions (LOS D). However, intersection of Hacienda/CirculationAldebaran deteriorates from LOS C to LOS F with the addition of project volumes.

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-6, project trips accessing the station were

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus EMU volumes.

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus EMU volumes geometry presented in Figure 7-5, intersection

level service analysis was performed. Table 7-33 presents the results of the analysis.

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

F-G-130
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-47 February 2009

Table 7-33

South Station Location Alternative

2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

2030 Baseline

Conditions

2030 Baseline plus

EMU Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View F 425.2 F 422.4

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr F 80.0 F 103.2

3 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps E 78.3 E 78.4

4 Dean Martin Dr & Circulation C (EB) 3 24.9 D (EB) 3 26.5

5 Circulation/Aldebaran & W. Hacienda C (SB) 3 17.3 F (SB) 3 -

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave F (NB) 3 - F (NB) 3 -

7 W. Hacienda & S. Valley View F 618.8 F 617.2

8 W. Russell & Polaris F 81.3 F 818.7

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps F 144.1 F 164.8

10 W. Russell & I-15 NB Ramps E 67.7 F 103.6

11 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps C 20.7 C 25.3

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. EB=Eastbound, NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound

As indicated in Table 7-33, all the intersections continue to operate at unacceptable conditions

during the analysis period except the unsignalized intersection of Dean Martin and Aldebaran

that operates at acceptable conditions (LOS D). However, the intersection of

Hacienda/Circulation-Aldebaran deteriorates from LOS C to LOS F with the addition of project

volumes.

7.3.5 Mitigation Measures

It should be noted that the feasibility of the proposed mitigations suggested in this section have

not been field verified.

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-28, intersections of Tropicana at Valley View, Tropicana at Dean Martin

Drive, I-15 southbound ramps at Russell Road, and Hacienda at Polaris operate at

unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under the 2013 baseline conditions. To mitigate these

intersections, following mitigation measures are proposed:

x #1. Tropicana/Valley View

- Add exclusive southbound free right turn lane.

x #2. Tropicana & Dean Martin Drive/Industrial

- Optimize signal offset along Tropicana.

F-G-131
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-48 February 2009

x #6. Hacienda/Polaris

- Signalize this intersection.

x #9. Russell/I-15 SB Ramps

- Optimize signal offset along Russell Road.

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-34 presents

the results of 2013 Baseline mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented

in the Appendix.

Table 7-34

South Station Location Alternative

 2013 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline

Mitigation Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View Signalized D 41.3

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 50.0

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave Signalized A 7.5

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized D 44.4

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-34, all intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D or better)

with mitigations.

2013 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-29, intersections of Tropicana at Valley View, Tropicana at Dean Martin

Drive and I-15 southbound ramps at Russell Road, Hacienda at Polaris, Hacienda/CirculationAldebaran and Russell at Polaris operate with unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under 2013

Baseline plus DMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following mitigations measures

are proposed:

x #1. Tropicana & Valley View

- Add exclusive southbound free right turn lane

x #2. Tropicana & Dean Martin Drive/Industrial

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane.

x #5. Hacienda & Aldebaran

- Signalize this intersection.

F-G-132
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-49 February 2009

x #6. Hacienda & Polaris

- Signalize this intersection.

- Add exclusive northbound left turn lane.

x #8. Russell/Polaris

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane.

- Add southbound dual left turn lanes.

x #9. Russell/I-15 SB Ramps

- Optimize signal offsets along Russell Road.

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-35 presents

the results of 2013 Baseline plus DMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are

presented in the Appendix.

Table 7-35

South Station Location Alternative

2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection Traffic Control

2013 Baseline plus

DMU Mitigation

Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View Signalized D 49.0

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 40.6

5 Circulation/Aldebaran & W. Hacienda Signalized B 11.0

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave Signalized D 37.5

8 W. Russell & Polaris Signalized C 31.7

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized D 37.4

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-35, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D

or better) with mitigations.

2013 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-30, intersections of Tropicana at Valley View, Tropicana at Dean Martin

Drive, I-15 southbound ramps at Russell Road, Hacienda at Polaris, Hacienda/CirculationAldebaran and Russell at Polaris operate with unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under 2013

Baseline plus EMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation measures

are proposed:

x #1. Tropicana & Valley View

- Add exclusive southbound free right turn lane.

F-G-133
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-50 February 2009

x #2. Tropicana & Dean Martin Drive/Industrial

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane.

x #5. Hacienda & Aldebaran

- Signalize this intersection.

x #6. Hacienda & Polaris

- Signalize this intersection.

- Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane.

- Add second westbound left turn lane.

- Add exclusive northbound left turn lane.

x #8. Russell/Polaris

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane.

- Add southbound dual left turn lanes.

- Add exclusive southbound right turn lane.

x #9. Russell/I-15 SB Ramps

- Add second southbound right turn lane.

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-36 presents

the results of 2013 Baseline plus EMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are

presented in the Appendix.

Table 7-36

South Station Location Alternative

2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline plus

EMU Mitigation

Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View Signalized D 54.4

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 43.0

5 Circulation/Aldebaran & W. Hacienda Signalized A 9.2

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave Signalized D 44.7

8 W. Russell & Polaris Signalized D 47.3

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized D 49.1

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-36, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D

or better) with mitigations.

F-G-134
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-51 February 2009

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-31, the intersections along Tropicana at Valley View, Dean Martin Drive,

and I-15 northbound ramps, the intersections along Hacienda at Valley View and Polaris, and

the intersections along Russell Road at Polaris, I-15 northbound ramps and I-15 southbound

ramps operate with unacceptable conditions under 2030 Baseline conditions. To mitigate these

intersections, following mitigation measures are proposed:

x #1. Tropicana & Valley View

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

- Add exclusive southbound free right turn lane.

- Add second southbound left turn lane.

x #2. Tropicana & Dean Martin Drive/Industrial

- Add fourth eastbound through lane.

- Add fourth westbound through lane.

x #3. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps

- Add second northbound right turn lane.

x #6. Hacienda & Polaris

- Signalize this intersection.

x #7. Hacienda & Valley View

- Add second eastbound left turn lane.

- Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane.

- Add third eastbound through lane.

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

- Add third westbound through lane.

- Add second northbound left turn lane.

- Add third northbound through lane.

x #8. Russell & Polaris

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane.

- Add exclusive southbound left turn lane.

x #9. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps

- Add second southbound right turn lane.

x #10. Russell/I-15 NB Ramps

- Optimize signal offset along Russell Road.

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-37 presents

the results of 2030 Baseline mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented

in the Appendix.

F-G-135
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-52 February 2009

Table 7-37

South Station Location Alternative

2030 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2030 Baseline

Mitigation Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View Signalized D 51.7

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Marin Dr Signalized D 53.4

3 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 45.7

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave Signalized B 16.1

7 W. Hacienda & S. Valley View Signalized D 49.8

8 W. Russell & Polaris Signalized D 37.1

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized D 48.9

10 W. Russell & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 50.0

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-37, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D

or better) with mitigations.

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-32, all the intersections operate at unacceptable conditions during the

analysis period except the unsignalized intersection of Dean Martin and Aldebaran that operates

at acceptable conditions (LOS D). To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation

measures are proposed:

x #1. Tropicana & Valley View

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

- Add second westbound left turn lane.

- Add exclusive southbound free right turn lane.

- Add second southbound left turn lane.

x #2. Tropicana & Dean Martin Drive/Industrial

- Add fourth eastbound through lane.

- Add fourth westbound through lane.

x #3. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps

- Add second northbound right turn lane.

x #5. Hacienda & Aldebaran

- Signalize this intersection.

x #6. Hacienda & Polaris

- Signalize this intersection.

- Add exclusive northbound left turn lane.

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane.

F-G-136
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-53 February 2009

x #7. Hacienda & Valley View

- Add two additional eastbound left turn lanes.

- Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane.

- Add third eastbound through lane.

- Add second westbound left turn lane.

- Add second northbound left turn lane.

x #8. Russell & Polaris

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane.

- Add three southbound left turn lanes.

x #9. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps

- Add second eastbound right turn lane.

- Add second southbound right turn lane.

x #10. Russell/I-15 NB Ramps

- Add second northbound left turn lane.

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-38 presents

the results of 2030 Baseline plus DMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are

presented in the Appendix.

Table 7-38

South Station Location Alternative -

2030 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2030 Baseline plus

DMU Mitigation

Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View Signalized D 49.5

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 43.6

3 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 46.2

5 Circulation/Aldebaran & W. Hacienda Signalized A 7.1

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave Signalized C 27.1

7 W. Hacienda & S. Valley View Signalized D 54.0

8 W. Russell & Polaris Signalized D 54.2

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized C 32.4

10 W. Russell & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 49.6

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

F-G-137
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-54 February 2009

As indicated in Table 7-38, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D

or better) with mitigations.

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-33, all the intersections operate at unacceptable conditions during the

analysis period except unsignalized intersection of Dean Martin and Aldebaran that operates at

acceptable conditions (LOS D). To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation measures

are proposed:

x #1. Tropicana & Valley View

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

- Add second westbound left turn lane.

- Add second southbound left turn lane.

- Add exclusive southbound free right turn lane.

x #2. Tropicana & Dean Martin Drive/Industrial

- Add fourth eastbound through lane.

- Add fourth westbound through lane.

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

- Add third northbound through lane.

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane.

x #3. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps

- Add second northbound right turn lane.

x #5. Hacienda & Aldebaran

- Signalize this intersection.

x #6. Hacienda & Polaris

- Signalize this intersection.

- Add two additional westbound left turn lanes.

- Add exclusive northbound left turn lane.

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane.

x #7. Hacienda & Valley View

- Add two additional eastbound left turn lanes.

- Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane.

- Add third eastbound through lane.

- Add second westbound left turn lane

- Add second northbound left turn lane.

- Add second southbound left turn lane.

x #8. Russell & Polaris

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane.

- Add three southbound left turn lanes.

F-G-138
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-55 February 2009

x #9. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps

- Add second eastbound right turn lane.

- Add second westbound left turn lane.

- Add second southbound right turn lane.

x #10. Russell/I-15 NB Ramps

- Add third eastbound left turn lane.

- Add second northbound left turn lane.

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-39 presents

the results of 2030 Baseline plus EMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are

presented in the Appendix.

Table 7-39

South Station Location Alternative

2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS

Intersection Traffic Control

2030 Baseline plus

EMU Mitigation

Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View Signalized D 50.4

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 41.5

3 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 46.0

5 Circulation/Aldebaran & W. Hacienda Signalized A 6.2

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave Signalized D 39.5

7 W. Hacienda & S. Valley View Signalized D 53.7

8 W. Russell & Polaris Signalized D 40.9

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized D 44.2

10 W. Russell & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 36.4

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-39, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D

or better) with mitigations.

7.4 Central Station Location “B” Alternative

The proposed Central Station Alternative “B” would be located west of I-15, near the existing

Rio Suites Hotel and Casino. This station is bounded by Union Pacific Railroad and Polaris

Avenue to the west, Dean Martin Drive to the east, Hotel Rio Drive to the North and West

Harmon Avenue to the South. The proposed central station can be accessed from I-15 via

ramps located at Flamingo Road and Tropicana Avenue.

F-G-139
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-56 February 2009

7.4.1 Existing Conditions

EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK

x Las Vegas Boulevard Refer to Section 7.1.1

x Flamingo Road Refer to Section 7.2.1

x Tropicana Avenue Refer to Section 7.3.1

EXISTING TRANSIT CONDITIONS

x Deuce-Las Vegas Blvd Refer to Section 7.1.1

x 202-Flamingo Refer to Section 7.2.1

x 201-Tropicana Refer to Section 7.3.1

EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS

On-Street parking is generally not permitted on any street in the local roadway network near the

proposed station location.

EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

Based on the station location options, intersections in the vicinity of the station location were

identified for analysis purposes. The existing lane geometry at the study intersections is shown

in Figure 7-7. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) conditions were analyzed for weekday PM

peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). The results of the analysis are presented in Table 7-40.

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix.

Table 7-40

Central Station Location “B” Alternative - Existing Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

Existing Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 40.9

2 Flamingo/I-15 SB Ramps Signalized A 7.2

3 Flamingo/I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 27.1

4 Hotel Rio Dr/Dean Martin Dr Signalized C 24.1

5 W Harmon Ave/Polaris Ave Signalized C 20.2

6 W Tropicana Ave/Polaris Ave Signalized B 11.4

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 53.6

8 Tropicana/I-15 SB Ramps Signalized B 15.3

9 Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 26.5

10 W Harmon Ave/Aldebaran Ave Signalized B 11.7

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

F-G-140
15

MOUNTAIN RD

HIGHLAND DR

POLLUX AV

CINDER LN

SPRING

W. TWAIN AV

W. VIKING RD

W. FLAMINGO RD

COMPLEX

DRIVE

DR

RIO

ROCHELLE AV

E. FLAMINGO RD

Y PROC

POLAR

A ALDEB

VIEW BLVD S. VALLEY

WYNN ST

ARVILLE ST

COUNTRY CLUB PARADISE RD

IDA AV

WINNICK AV

ALBERT AV

SANDS AV

HUGHES

HOWARD

MANHATTAN ST

INDUSTRIA

DEAN MARTIN DR

KOVAL LN

AUDRIE ST

HARMON AV

HARMON AV HARMON AV

POLARIS AV

ALDEBARAN AV BUSINESS LN

?

TOMPKINS AV TOMPKINS AV

PALMS CENTER

TROPICANA TROPICANA AV AV

BELL DR

DR

DR

HACIENDA

HACIENDA

FOUR SEASONS

MANDALAY BAY

RENO AV RENO AV

AV

AV

LN

MESA VISTA

ALI BABA

PROCYON ST

PROCYON ST

POLARIS AV

LARIS AV O

INDUSTRIAL RD

BLVD Y VIEW E

WYNN RD

WYNN RD

ARVILLE ST ARVILLE ST

KOVAL LN

AUDRIE ST

LAS VEGAS BLVD

DEAN MARTIN

FRANK SINATRA McCARRAN

INTERNATIONAL

HOTEL

DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED LAS VEGAS CENTRAL STATION

Figure 7-7

Central Station Alternative B

EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY

Central Geometry - Alt 2.ai

PROPOSED

CENTRAL

STATION

1

4

2 3

10 5

6 7 8 9 600’

175’

175’

Tropicana Av

7

Dean Martin Dr

230’230’

140’

155’

155’

Tropicana Av

6

Polaris Av

W. Flamingo Rd

1

Hotel Rio Dr

150’775’

300’150’

140’

375’

240’

W. Harmon Av

5

Polaris Av

10

W. Harmon Av

Aldebaran Av driveway 130’ 200’

150’

120’

Hotel Rio Dr

4

Dean Martin Dr

230’

200’

200’

200’

100’

2

Flamingo Rd

SB Ramps

250’250’

530’530’

430’

430’

430’

430’

430’

325’

200’

Flamingo Rd

3

NB Ramps

Tropicana Av

8

SB Ramps

700’

470’

600’600’

Tropicana Av

9

NB Ramps

F-G-141
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-58 February 2009

As indicated in Table 7-40, all intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D or better)

in the existing conditions.

7.4.2 Impact Analysis

This section presents the assessment of transportation impacts due to the proposed project.

The transportation conditions were assessed for the following scenarios:

x 2013 Opening Year Conditions;

x 2013 Opening Year plus Project (DMU and EMU alternatives) Conditions;

x 2030 Cumulative Baseline Conditions; and,

x 2030 Cumulative Baseline plus Project (DMU and EMU alternatives) Conditions

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

The following are the significance criteria required by the Regional Transportation Commission

of Southern Nevada for the determination of impacts associated with a proposed project:

x Level of service C will be the design objective for capacity and under no circumstances

will less than level of service D be accepted for site and non-site traffic.

PROJECT TRAVEL DEMAND

The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) travel demand forecasting model was used to

develop the base “no-project” travel forecasts for future year 2013 and 2030 traffic analysis.

RTC provided future year 2030 travel forecasts from the model to DMJM Harris. DMJM Harris

has applied a straight line method to interpolate the intermediate year growth factors. The

calculated growth factors were applied to the existing volumes to generate analysis year

volumes. The growth factor calculations are presented in the Appendix. The additional

project-related trips were then added to the future year base volumes to determine the “with

project conditions”.

TRIP DISTRIBUTION

The overall trip distribution for the station is shown in Figure 7-8. This station is served primarily

by I-15 and Industrial Road – Dean Martin Drive in the north-south direction; Flamingo Road

and Tropicana Avenue serve the east-east direction. Most trips to/from the commercial

developments on ‘The Strip’ would use Tropicana Avenue and Flamingo Road due to

accessibility.

F-G-142
15

MOUNTAIN RD

HIGHLAND DR

POLLUX AV

CINDER LN

SPRING

W. TWAIN AV

W. VIKING RD

W. FLAMINGO RD

COMPLEX

DRIVE

DR

RIO

ROCHELLE AV

E. FLAMINGO RD

Y PROC

POLAR

A ALDEB

VIEW BLVD S. VALLEY

WYNN ST

ARVILLE ST

COUNTRY CLUB PARADISE RD

IDA AV

WINNICK AV

ALBERT AV

SANDS AV

HUGHES

HOWARD

MANHATTAN ST

INDUSTRIA

DEAN MARTIN DR

LAS VEGAS BOULEVARD S

KOVAL LN

AUDRIE ST

HARMON AV

HARMON AV HARMON AV

POLARIS AV

ALDEBARAN AV BUSINESS LN

?

TOMPKINS AV TOMPKINS AV

PALMS CENTER

TROPICANA TROPICANA AV AV

BELL DR

DR

DR

HACIENDA

HACIENDA

FOUR SEASONS

MANDALAY BAY

RENO AV RENO AV

AV

AV

LN

MESA VISTA

ALI BABA

PROCYON ST

PROCYON ST

POLARIS AV

LARIS AV O

INDUSTRIAL RD

BLVD Y VIEW E

WYNN RD

WYNN RD

ARVILLE ST ARVILLE ST

KOVAL LN

AUDRIE ST

LAS VEGAS BLVD

DEAN MARTIN

FRANK SINATRA McCARRAN

INTERNATIONAL

HOTEL

DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED LAS VEGAS CENTRAL STATION

Figure 7-8

CENTRAL STATION B TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Central Station Trip Distribution Alt 2.ai

PROPOSED

CENTRAL

STATION

5%

5%

10%

10%

30%

30%

(I-15)

10%

(I-15)

F-G-143
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-60 February 2009

2013 Conditions (Opening Year Analysis)

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2013 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor on the existing

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, existing

intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions. Based on the future base

volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level service analysis was performed.

Table 7-41 presents the results of intersection operating conditions for future year 2013 baseline

conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

Table 7-41

Central Station Location “B” Alternative

2013 Baseline Conditions LOS

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 39.0

2 Flamingo/I-15 SB Signalized A 7.5

3 Flamingo/I-15 NB Signalized C 29.0

4 Hotel Rio Dr/Dean Martin Dr Signalized C 24.5

5 W Harmon Ave/Polaris Ave Signalized C 20.6

6 W Tropicana Ave/Polaris Ave Signalized B 12.7

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr Signalized E 60.2

8 Tropicana/I-15 SB Ramp Signalized B 16.2

9 Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramp Signalized C 31.2

10 W Harmon Ave/Aldebaran Ave Signalized B 11.6

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-41, all the intersections operate at acceptable conditions except

intersection of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive that operates at unacceptable conditions

(LOS E) under 2013 Baseline conditions.

2013 BASELINE PLUS DIESEL-ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (DMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-8, project trips accessing the station were

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2013 baseline plus DMU volumes. For analysis purposes,

existing intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions.

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus DMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level

service analysis was performed. Table 7-42 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO

analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

F-G-144
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-61 February 2009

Table 7-42

Central Station Location “B” Alternative

2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

2013 Baseline

Conditions

2013 Baseline plus

DMU Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr D 39.0 F 180.0

2 Flamingo/I-15 SB A 7.5 A 7.4

3 Flamingo/I-15 NB C 29.0 D 38.5

4 Hotel Rio Dr/Dean Martin Dr C 24.5 D 46.9

5 W Harmon Ave/Polaris Ave C 20.6 C 22.8

6 W Tropicana Ave/Polaris Ave B 12.7 C 20.7

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr E 60.2 F 115.3

8 Tropicana/I-15 SB Ramp B 16.2 B 15.5

9 Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramp C 31.2 C 34.0

10 W Harmon Ave/Aldebaran Ave B 11.6 C 22.0

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-42, intersection of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive continues to

operate at unacceptable conditions while intersection of Flamingo at Hotel Rio Drive

deteriorates from acceptable conditions (LOS D) to unacceptable conditions (LOS F) with

addition of the project volumes.

2013 BASELINE PLUS ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (EMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-8, project trips accessing the station were

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2013 baseline plus EMU volumes.

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus EMU volumes and geometry presented in Figure 7-7,

intersection level service analysis was performed. Table 7-43 presents the results of the

analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 7-43, intersection of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive continues to

operate at unacceptable conditions while intersections of Flamingo at Hotel Rio Drive

deteriorates from acceptable conditions (LOS D) to unacceptable conditions (LOS F) and Hotel

Rio Drive at Dean Martin Drive deteriorates from acceptable (LOS C) to unacceptable (LOS F)

conditions with addition of the project volumes.

7.4.3 2030 Cumulative Conditions

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2030 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor on the existing

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, existing

intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2030 conditions.

F-G-145
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-62 February 2009

Table 7-43

Central Station Location “B” Alternative

2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

2013 Baseline Conditions

2013 Baseline plus

EMU Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr D 39.0 F 293.4

2 Flamingo/I-15 SB A 7.5 A 7.7

3 Flamingo/I-15 NB C 29.0 D 45.5

4 Hotel Rio Dr/Dean Martin Dr C 24.5 F 87.6

5 W Harmon Ave/Polaris Ave C 20.6 C 25.7

6 W Tropicana Ave/Polaris Ave B 12.7 C 26.5

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr E 60.2 F 149.7

8 Tropicana/I-15 SB Ramp B 16.2 B 15.4

9 Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramp C 31.2 D 35.7

10 W Harmon Ave/Aldebaran Ave B 11.6 C 23.7

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

Based on the future base volumes and geometry presented in Figure 7-7, intersection level

service analysis was performed. Table 7-44 presents the results of intersection operating

conditions for future year 2030 baseline conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are

presented in the Appendix.

Table 7-44

Central Station Location “B” Alternative

2030 Baseline Conditions

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2030 Baseline Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 39.1

2 Flamingo/I-15 SB Signalized A 8.6

3 Flamingo/I-15 NB Signalized D 37.9

4 Hotel Rio Dr/Dean Martin Dr Signalized C 26.6

5 W Harmon Ave/Polaris Ave Signalized B 18.7

6 W Tropicana Ave/Polaris Ave Signalized B 17.6

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr Signalized F 80.2

8 Tropicana/I-15 SB Ramp Signalized C 20.7

9 Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramp Signalized E 77.0

10 W Harmon Ave/Aldebaran Ave Signalized B 11.8

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

F-G-146
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-63 February 2009

As indicated in Table 7-44, all the study intersections operate at acceptable conditions except

intersections of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive and Tropicana Avenue at I-15

northbound ramps that operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under 2030 Baseline

conditions.

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-8, project trips accessing the station were

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus DMU volumes.

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus DMU volumes geometry presented in Figure 7-7, intersection

level service analysis was performed. Table 7-45 presents the results of the analysis.

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 7-45, the intersections of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive and

Tropicana Avenue at I-15 northbound ramps continue to operate at unacceptable conditions

(LOS E or F). However, the intersections of Flamingo Road at Hotel Rio Drive deteriorate from

LOS D to LOS F and Flamingo Road at I-15 northbound ramps deteriorates from LOS D to

LOS E with the addition of project volumes.

Table 7-45

Central Station Location “B” Alternative

2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

2030 Baseline

Conditions

2030 Baseline plus

DMU Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr D 39.1 F 185.7

2 Flamingo/I-15 SB A 8.6 A 8.7

3 Flamingo/I-15 NB D 37.9 E 55.4

4 Hotel Rio Dr/Dean Martin Dr C 26.6 D 49.2

5 W Harmon Ave/Polaris Ave B 18.7 C 24.3

6 W Tropicana Ave/Polaris Ave B 17.6 C 27.8

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr F 80.2 F 146.1

8 Tropicana/I-15 SB Ramp C 20.7 C 20.1

9 Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramp E 77.0 F 85.3

10 W Harmon Ave/Aldebaran Ave B 11.8 C 22.9

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-8, project trips accessing the station were

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year

F-G-147
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-64 February 2009

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus EMU volumes.

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus EMU volumes geometry presented in Figure 7-7, intersection

level service analysis was performed. Table 7-46 presents the results of the analysis.

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix.

Table 7-46

Central Station Location “B” Alternative

2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS

Intersection

2030 Baseline

Conditions

2030 Baseline plus

EMU Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr D 39.1 F 301.2

2 Flamingo/I-15 SB A 8.6 A 9.0

3 Flamingo/I-15 NB D 37.9 E 64.4

4 Hotel Rio Dr/Dean Martin Dr C 26.6 F 87.0

5 W Harmon Ave/Polaris Ave B 18.7 C 27.5

6 W Tropicana Ave/Polaris Ave B 17.6 D 35.0

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr F 80.2 F 181.2

8 Tropicana/I-15 SB Ramp C 20.7 C 20.1

9 Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramp E 77.0 F 87.6

10 W Harmon Ave/Aldebaran Ave B 11.8 C 23.8

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-46, the intersections of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive and

Tropicana Avenue at I-15 northbound ramps continue to operate at unacceptable conditions

(LOS E or F). However, the intersections of Flamingo Road at Hotel Rio Drive deteriorates from

LOS D to LOS F, Flamingo Road at I-15 northbound ramps deteriorates from LOS D to

LOS E and Hotel Rio Drive at Dean Martin Drive deteriorates from LOS C to LOS F with the

addition of project volumes.

7.4.4 Mitigation Measures

It should be noted that the feasibility of the proposed mitigations suggested in this section have

not been field verified.

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-41, all the intersections operate at acceptable conditions except the

intersection of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive that operates at unacceptable conditions

(LOS E) under 2013 Baseline conditions. To mitigate this intersection, following mitigation

measure is proposed:

x #7. Tropicana Avenue & Dean Martin Drive

- Optimize signal offset along Tropicana Avenue.

F-G-148
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-65 February 2009

Applying above mitigation, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-47 presents the

results of 2013 Baseline mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in

the Appendix.

Table 7-47

Central Station Location “B” Alternative

2013 Baseline Mitigation Conditions

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline Mitigation

Conditions

LOS Delay1

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 46.1

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-47, the intersection of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive operates

at acceptable conditions (LOS D) with mitigation.

2013 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-42, the intersections of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive and

Flamingo Road at Hotel Rio Drive operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS F) under 2013

Baseline plus DMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation measures

are proposed:

x #1. Flamingo Road & Hotel Rio Drive

- Add fourth eastbound through lane.

- Add second westbound left turn lane.

- Add second northbound right turn lane.

x #7. Tropicana Avenue & Dean Martin Drive

- Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane.

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-48 presents

the results of 2013 Baseline plus DMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are

presented in the Appendix.

As indicated in Table 7-48, all the impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS

D) with mitigations.

2013 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-43, the intersections of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive,

Flamingo at Hotel Rio Drive and Hotel Rio Drive at Dean Martin Drive operate at unacceptable

conditions under 2013 Baseline plus EMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following

mitigation measures are proposed:

F-G-149
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-66 February 2009

Table 7-48

Central Station Location “B” Alternative

2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline plus DMU

Mitigation Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 46.1

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 49.0

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

x #1. Flamingo Road & Hotel Rio Drive

- Add fourth eastbound through lane.

- Add second westbound left turn lane.

- Add fourth westbound through lane.

- Add second northbound right turn lane.

x #4. Hotel Rio Drive & Dean Martin Drive

- Modify eastbound right turn to have overlap phasing.

x #7. Tropicana Avenue & Dean Martin Drive

- Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane.

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane.

- Add third southbound left turn lane.

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-49 presents

the results of 2013 Baseline plus EMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are

presented in the Appendix.

Table 7-49

Central Station Location “B” Alternative

2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2013 Baseline plus EMU

Mitigation Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 51.6

4 Hotel Rio Dr/Dean Martin Dr Signalized C 30.5

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 42.2

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-49, all the impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS

D or better) with mitigations.

F-G-150
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-67 February 2009

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-44, the intersections of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive and

Tropicana Avenue at I-15 northbound ramps operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F)

under 2030 Baseline conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation measures

are proposed:

x #7. Tropicana Avenue & Dean Martin Drive

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane.

x #9. Tropicana Avenue & I-15 NB Ramps

- Optimize signal offsets along Tropicana Avenue.

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-50 presents

the results of 2030 Baseline mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented

in the Appendix.

Table 7-50

Central Station Location “B” Alternative

2030 Baseline Mitigation Conditions

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2030 Baseline Mitigation

Conditions

LOS Delay1

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 54.0

9 Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 46.3

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-50, all the impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS

D) with mitigations.

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-45, the intersections of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive,

Tropicana Avenue at I-15 northbound ramps, Flamingo Road at Hotel Rio Drive and Flamingo

Road at I-15 northbound ramps operate at unacceptable conditions under 2030 Baseline plus

DMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation measures are proposed:

x #1. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Drive

- Add fourth eastbound through lane.

- Add fourth westbound through lane.

- Stripe existing northbound through lane as share through right lane.

x #3. Flamingo Road & I-15 NB Ramps

- Optimize signal offsets along Flamingo Road.

x #7. Tropicana Avenue & Dean Martin Drive

F-G-151
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-68 February 2009

- Add fourth eastbound through lane.

- Add fourth westbound through lane.

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane.

- Add third southbound left turn lane.

x #9. Tropicana Avenue & I-15 NB Ramps

- Add second northbound right turn lane.

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-51 presents

the results of 2030 Baseline plus DMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are

presented in the Appendix.

Table 7-51

Central Station Location “B” Alternative

 2030 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2030 Baseline plus DMU

Mitigation Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 42.5

3 Flamingo/I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 51.4

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 42.8

9 Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 51.4

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-51, all the impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS

D) with mitigations.

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-46, the intersections of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive,

Tropicana Avenue at I-15 northbound ramps, Flamingo Road at Hotel Rio Drive, Flamingo Road

at I-15 northbound ramps and Hotel Rio Drive at Dean Martin Drive operate at unacceptable

conditions under 2030 Baseline plus EMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following

mitigation measures are proposed:

x #1. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Drive

- Add fourth eastbound through lane.

- Add fourth westbound through lane.

- Stripe existing northbound through lane as share through right lane.

x #3. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps

- Add fourth westbound through lane.

x #4. Hotel Rio Drive & Dean Martin Drive

- Add second northbound left turn lane.

F-G-152
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS

7-69 February 2009

x #7. Tropicana Avenue & Dean Martin Drive

- Add fourth eastbound through lane.

- Add fourth westbound through lane.

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane.

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane.

- Add third southbound left turn lane.

x #9. Tropicana Avenue & I-15 NB Ramps

- Add second northbound right turn lane.

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-52 presents

the results of 2030 Baseline plus EMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are

presented in the Appendix.

Table 7-52

Central Station Location “B” Alternative

2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions

Intersection

Traffic

Control

2030 Baseline plus EMU

Mitigation Conditions

LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 48.4

3 Flamingo/I-15 NB Signalized D 37.0

4 Hotel Rio Dr/Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 54.2

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 47.1

9 Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramp Signalized D 54.4

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 7-52, all the impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS

D) with mitigations.

F-G-153
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 8.0 –SUMMARY

8-1 February 2009

8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The preceding analysis indicates that implementation of the DesertXpress project would result

in a reduction in traffic on Interstate 15 between Victorville and Las Vegas, when compared to

the no-project condition. This reduction ranges from 400 to 500 vehicles per peak hour in the

peak direction in 2013, and 1,100 to 1,400 vehicles in 2030, depending on whether the DMU or

EMU alternative is selected.

In the areas around the proposed rail stations, the DesertXpress project would result in higher

traffic volumes through some nearby intersections. In general, these higher volumes can be

mitigated by adding signalization and/or adding lanes to the intersection approaches. Tables 8-

1 and 8-2 summarize the mitigation measures recommended for the DMU and EMU alternatives

respectively.

The following paragraphs describe the mitigation measures identified for the EMU alternative in

2013 for each alternative station site:

Victorville Station – Option 1: Signalize all four intersections that comprise the South

Stoddard Wells Road interchange with I-15, and add a left turn lane to the southbound approach

of the southbound ramp intersection.

Victorville Station – Option 2: Signalize the two intersections on Stoddard Wells Road that

serve the I-15 interchange, and add a left turn lane to the northbound approach of the

northbound ramp intersection.

Las Vegas Station – Downtown Alternative: At Main Street/Charleston Boulevard, which is

the primary intersection serving the station, add:

x Fourth westbound through lane.

x Exclusive westbound right turn lane.

x Second eastbound left turn lane.

x Exclusive eastbound right turn lane.

x Exclusive dual southbound right turn lanes.

Also add a right turn lane to the eastbound approach of the Charleston Boulevard/South Martin

Luther King Boulevard intersection.

Las Vegas Station – Central Location “A” Alternative: Add the following to the Flamingo

Road/Hotel Rio Drive intersection, which would be one of the primary access points to the

station:

x Third southbound left turn lane.

x Fourth westbound through lane.

x Second westbound right turn lane.

x Fourth eastbound through lane.

F-G-154
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 8.0 –SUMMARY

8-2 February 2009

Add one right turn lane to one approach at each of the following intersections: Twain

Avenue/Dean Martin Drive/Industrial, Industrial/Frank Sinatra Drive, and Flamingo

Road/Northbound I-15 Ramps.

Las Vegas Station – South Alternative: At the Polaris Avenue/Hacienda Avenue intersection,

add one turn lane to the eastbound, westbound and northbound approaches. At the Polaris

Avenue/Russell Road intersection, add the following:

x Exclusive eastbound right turn lane.

x Second westbound left turn lane.

x Exclusive northbound left turn lane.

Signalize the Hacienda Avenue/Aldebaran intersection. Add a right turn lane to the southbound

approach of the Russell Road/Southbound I-15 Ramps intersection. At the Tropicana

Avenue/Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road intersection, add right turn lanes to the westbound

and northbound approaches. (Note that of the four Las Vegas alternatives, this location is in the

least developed neighborhood with the lowest-capacity existing street system.)

Las Vegas Station – Central Location “B” Alternative: Add the following to the Flamingo

Road/Hotel Rio Drive intersection, which would be one of the primary access points to the

station:

x Fourth eastbound through lane.

x Second westbound left turn lane.

x Fourth westbound through lane.

x Second northbound right turn lane.

At Tropicana Avenue/Dean Martin Drive add one lane to each approach.

Table 8-1

Project Mitigations – DMU Alternatives

Station Location

Alternative Existing 2013 2030

Victorville

Option 1

#1. Outer Highway & I-15 NB

Ramps

í Signalize

#4. Stoddard Wells Road & I15 SB Off-ramp

í Signalize

#5. Stoddard Wells Road &

Station Access #1

í Add third southbound

through lane

#7 & #8. Stoddard Wells

Road & i-15 Ramps

í Future intersections

cannot be mitigated under

2030 Baseline (No build)

conditions.

F-G-155
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 8.0 –SUMMARY

8-3 February 2009

Station Location

Alternative Existing 2013 2030

Victorville

Option 2

No mitigations required under

this scenario.

#1. Stoddard Wells Road & I15 NB Ramps

í Signalize

No mitigations required under

this scenario.

Downtown Station

Location

Alternative

No analysis performed for

Existing plus DMU project

conditions.

 #9. Main Street / Charleston

Boulevard

í Add second eastbound

left turn lane

í Add exclusive dual

southbound right turn

lanes

 #8. Grand Central Parkway /

W. Charleston Boulevard

í Add fourth westbound

through lane.

#9. Main Street/Charleston

Boulevard

í Add third eastbound left

turn lane.

í Add exclusive eastbound

right turn lane.

#15. I15 Ramps/Charleston

Boulevard (SPUI

Interchange)

í Add third southbound left

turn lane

Central Station

Location "A"

No analysis performed for

Existing plus DMU project

conditions.

 #5. Twain Avenue & Dean

Martin Drive/Industrial

í Optimize network offset.

#8. Flamingo & I-15 NB

Ramps

í Optimize network offset.

#11. Flamingo & Hotel Rio

Drive

í Add third southbound left

turn lane.

í Add fourth westbound

through lane.

í Add second westbound

right turn lane.

í Add fourth eastbound

through lane.

 #5. Twain Avenue & Dean

Martin Drive/Industrial

í Add second southbound

right turn lane.

#8. Flamingo & I-15 NB

Ramps

í Add third eastbound left

turn lane

South Station

Location

No analysis performed for

Existing plus DMU project

conditions.

 #2. Tropicana & Dean

Martin Drive/Industrial

í Add exclusive westbound

right turn lane.

í Add exclusive northbound

right turn lane.

#5. Hacienda & Aldebaran

í Signalize this intersection.

#6. Hacienda & Polaris

í Add exclusive northbound

left turn lane.

#8. Russell/Polaris

í Add exclusive westbound

right turn lane.

 #1. Tropicana & Valley View

í Add second westbound

left turn lane.

#6. Hacienda & Polaris

í Add exclusive northbound

right turn lane.

#7. Hacienda & Valley View

í Add third eastbound left

turn lane.

í Add second westbound

left turn lane.

#8. Russell & Polaris

í Add third southbound left

turn lane.

F-G-156
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 8.0 –SUMMARY

8-4 February 2009

Station Location

Alternative Existing 2013 2030

í Add exclusive northbound

right turn lane.

í Add southbound dual left

turn lanes.

#9. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps

í Add second eastbound

right turn lane.

#10. Russell/I-15 NB Ramps

í Add second north-bound

left turn lane.

Central Station

Location "B"

No analysis performed for

Existing plus DMU project

conditions.

 #1. Flamingo Road & Hotel

Rio Drive

í Add fourth eastbound

through lane.

í Add second westbound

left turn lane.

í Add second northbound

right turn lane.

#7. Tropicana Avenue &

Dean Martin Drive

í Add exclusive eastbound

right turn lane.

 #1. Flamingo & Hotel Rio

Drive

í Add fourth westbound

through lane.

í Stripe existing northbound

through lane as shared

through/right lane.

#3. Flamingo Road & I-15 NB

Ramps

í Optimize signal offsets

along Flamingo Road.

#7. Tropicana Avenue &

Dean Martin Drive

í Add fourth eastbound

through lane.

í Add fourth westbound

through lane.

í Add exclusive westbound

right turn lane.

í Add third southbound left

turn lane.

#9. Tropicana Avenue & I-15

NB Ramps

í Add second northbound

right turn lane.

F-G-157
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 8.0 –SUMMARY

8-5 February 2009

Table 8-2

Project Mitigations – EMU Alternatives

Station Location

Alternative Existing 2013 2030

Victorville Option 1 #1. Outer Highway & I-15 NB

Ramps

í Signalize

 #2. Outer Highway &

Stoddard Wells Road

í Signalize

í Add northbound left turn

lane

í Add south-bound right

turn lane

 #3. Stoddard Wells Road & I15 SB On-ramp

í Signalize

 #4. Stoddard Wells Road & I15 SB Off-ramp

í Signalize

#5. Stoddard Wells Road &

Station Access #1

í Add third southbound

through lane

#7 & #8. Stoddard Wells

Road & i-15 Ramps

Future intersections cannot

be mitigated under 2030

Baseline (No build)

conditions.

Victorville Option 2 #1. Stoddard Wells Road & I15 NB Ramps

í Signalize

#2. Stoddard Wells Road &

Quarry Road

í Signalize

 #1. Stoddard Wells Road & I15 NB Ramps

í Add northbound left turn

lane

 #1. Stoddard Wells Road & I15 NB Ramps

í Add second southbound

right turn lane

Downtown Station

Location

Alternative

No analysis performed for

Existing plus EMU project

conditions.

 #6. Charleston/S. Martin

Luther King Boulevard

í Add exclusive eastbound

right turn lane.

#9. Main Street/Charleston

Boulevard

í Add fourth westbound

through lane.

í Add exclusive westbound

right turn lane.

í Add second eastbound

left turn lane.

í Add exclusive eastbound

right turn lane.

í Add exclusive dual

southbound right turn

lanes.

 #4. Bonneville/S. Martin

Luther King Boulevard

í Add exclusive westbound

right turn lane.

#8. Grand Central

Parkway/W. Charleston

Boulevard

í Add fourth westbound

through lane.

#9. Main Street/Charleston

Boulevard

í Add third eastbound left

turn lane.

í Add second northbound

left turn lane.

í Add exclusive

northbound right turn

lane.

F-G-158
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 8.0 –SUMMARY

8-6 February 2009

Station Location

Alternative Existing 2013 2030

í Add fifth westbound

through lane.

í Add second southbound

left turn lane.

#15. I-15 Ramps / Charleston

Boulevard (SPUI

Interchange)

í Add third southbound left

turn lane.

í Add fourth westbound

through lane.

Central Station

Location "A"

 No analysis performed for

Existing plus EMU project

conditions.

 #5. Twain Avenue & Dean

Martin Drive/Industrial

í Add second southbound

right turn lane.

#6. Industrial & Frank Sinatra

í Add second westbound

right turn lane

#8. Flamingo & I-15 NB

Ramps

í Add third eastbound right

turn lane

#11. Flamingo & Hotel Rio

Drive

í Add third southbound left

turn lane.

í Add fourth westbound

through lane.

í Add second westbound

right turn lane.

í Add fourth eastbound

through lane.

#8. Flamingo & I-15 NB

Ramps

í Add third eastbound left

turn lane.

í Add fourth westbound

through lane.

South Station

Location

 No analysis performed for

Existing plus EMU project

conditions.

 #2. Tropicana & Dean

Martin Drive/Industrial

í Add exclusive westbound

right turn lane.

í Add exclusive northbound

right turn lane.

#5. Hacienda & Aldebaran

í Signalize this intersection.

#6. Hacienda & Polaris

í Add exclusive eastbound

right turn lane.

í Add second westbound

left turn lane.

í Add exclusive northbound

left turn lane.

#8. Russell/Polaris

 #1. Tropicana & Valley View

í Add second westbound

left turn lane.

#2. Tropicana & Dean Martin

Drive/Industrial

í Add exclusive westbound

right turn lane.

í Add third northbound

through lane.

í Add exclusive northbound

right turn lane.

#6. Hacienda & Polaris

í Add third westbound left

turn lane.

í Add exclusive northbound

right turn lane.

F-G-159
Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 8.0 –SUMMARY

8-7 February 2009

Station Location

Alternative Existing 2013 2030

í Add exclusive westbound

right turn lane.

í Add exclusive northbound

right turn lane.

í Add southbound dual left

turn lanes.

í Add exclusive

southbound right turn

lane.

#9. Russell/I-15 SB Ramps

í Add second southbound

right turn lane.

#7. Hacienda & Valley View

í Add third eastbound left

turn lane.

í Add second westbound

left turn lane

í Add second southbound

left turn lane.

#8. Russell & Polaris

í Add third southbound left

turn lane.

#9. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps

í Add second eastbound

right turn lane.

í Add second westbound

left turn lane.

#10. Russell/I-15 NB Ramps

í Add third eastbound left

turn lane.

í Add second northbound

left turn lane.

Central Station

Location "B"

No analysis performed for

Existing plus EMU project

conditions.

 #1. Flamingo Road & Hotel

Rio Drive

í Add fourth eastbound

through lane.

í Add second westbound

left turn lane.

í Add fourth westbound

through lane.

í Add second northbound

right turn lane.

#4. Hotel Rio Drive & Dean

Martin Drive

í Modify eastbound right

turn to have overlap

phasing.

#7. Tropicana Avenue &

Dean Martin Drive

í Add exclusive eastbound

right turn lane.

í Add exclusive westbound

right turn lane.

í Add exclusive northbound

right turn lane.

í Add third southbound left

turn lane.

 #1. Flamingo & Hotel Rio

Drive

í Stripe existing northbound

through lane as shared

through/right lane.

#3. Flamingo & I-15 NB

Ramps

í Add fourth westbound

through lane.

#4. Hotel Rio Drive & Dean

Martin Drive

í Add second northbound

left turn lane.

#7. Tropicana Avenue &

Dean Martin Drive

í Add fourth eastbound

through lane.

í Add fourth westbound

through lane.

#9. Tropicana Avenue & I-15

NB Ramp

í Add second northbound

right turn lane.

F-G-160
Victorville Station Site 3 (VV3) 

Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis 

DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

1 April 2010 

Victorville Station Location Option 3 

The proposed station in Victorville would be located along the west side of I-15 near the 

Dale Evans Parkway interchange. Access to this station would be via the Dale Evans 

Parkway ramps. 

EXISTING RAMP JUNCTION ANALYSIS 

Ramp junction analysis is performed for the PM peak hour only as done for the 

intersection analysis. The following ramp junctions were evaluated. 

1. I-15 NB Off-ramp to Dale Evans Parkway (Diverge analysis) 

2. I-15 SB Off-ramp to Dale Evans Parkway (Diverge analysis) 

3. I-15 NB On-ramp from Dale Evans Parkway (Merge analysis) 

4. I-15 SB On-ramp from Dale Evans Parkway (Merge analysis) 

For the above ramp junctions, volumes for existing (year 2009) conditions were obtained 

by interpolating between year 2006 and year 2035 volumes provided by the San 

Bernardino Association of Government’s (SANBAG) travel demand model. These 

volumes were used to perform the analysis. Table 1 presents the results of the ramp 

junction analysis. HCS calculation sheets are provided in the Appendix. 

Table 1 

Ramp Junction Level of Service – Existing Conditions 

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Dale Evans Parkway B 16.0 

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Dale Evans Parkway C 26.6 

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Dale Evans Parkway B 16.1 

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Dale Evans Parkway C 26.3 

SOURCE: AECOM, 2010. 

Notes: 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln

As indicated in Table 1, all the ramp junctions operate at acceptable conditions under 

existing conditions. 

RAMP JUNCTION IMPACT ANALYSIS 

2013 Baseline Conditions 

The future year 2013 baseline volumes were obtained by interpolating between the 

existing year and future year 2035 travel demand volumes from SANBAG. For analysis 

purposes, existing geometry was assumed for the future year 2013 conditions. Table 2 

presents the results of the ramp junction analysis for 2013 baseline conditions. HCS 

calculation sheets are provided in the Appendix. 

F-G-161
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

2 April 2010 

Table 2 

Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2013 Baseline Conditions 

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Dale Evans Parkway B 18.8 

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Dale Evans Parkway D 28.8 

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Dale Evans Parkway B 18.8 

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Dale Evans Parkway D 29.6 

SOURCE: AECOM, 2010. 

Notes: 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln

As indicated in Table 2, all the ramp junctions operate at acceptable conditions under 

2013 baseline conditions. 

2013 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions 

The DMU project alternative volumes were added to the 2013 baseline volumes to 

obtain the 2013 baseline plus DMU alternative condition volumes. These volumes were 

used to perform the analysis. Table 3 presents the results of the ramp junction analysis 

for 2013 baseline plus DMU conditions. HCS calculation sheets are provided in the 

Appendix. 

Table 3 

Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2013 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions 

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Dale Evans Parkway C 23.4 

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Dale Evans Parkway D 29.0 

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Dale Evans Parkway C 22.2 

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Dale Evans Parkway D 30.2 

SOURCE: AECOM, 2010. 

Notes: 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln

As indicated in Table 3, all the ramp junctions continue to operate at acceptable 

conditions under 2013 baseline plus DMU project alternative conditions. 

F-G-162
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

3 April 2010 

2013 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions 

The EMU project alternative volumes were added to the 2013 baseline volumes to 

obtain the 2013 baseline plus EMU alternative condition volumes. These volumes were 

used to perform the analysis. Table 4 presents the results of the ramp junction analysis 

for 2013 baseline plus EMU conditions. HCS calculation sheets are provided in the 

Appendix. 

Table 4 

Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions 

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Dale Evans Parkway C 25.3 

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Dale Evans Parkway D 29.1 

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Dale Evans Parkway C 23.6 

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Dale Evans Parkway D 34.8 

SOURCE: AECOM, 2010. 

Notes: 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln

As indicated in Table 4, all the ramp junctions continue to operate at acceptable 

conditions under 2013 baseline plus EMU project alternative conditions. 

2030 Baseline Conditions 

The future year 2030 baseline volumes were obtained by interpolating between the 

existing year and future year 2035 travel demand volumes from SANBAG. For analysis 

purposes, existing geometry was assumed for the on- and off-ramps and three lanes 

were assumed for the freeway mainline. Table 5 presents the results of the ramp 

junction analysis for 2030 baseline conditions. HCS calculation sheets are provided in 

the Appendix. 

Table 5 

Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2030 Baseline Conditions 

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Dale Evans Parkway D 28.2 

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Dale Evans Parkway E 35.5

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Dale Evans Parkway D 29.1 

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Dale Evans Parkway F 41.6

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions SOURCE: AECOM, 2009. 

Notes: 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln

F-G-163
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

4 April 2010 

As indicated in Table 5, northbound on and off-ramp junctions operate at acceptable 

conditions (LOS D), while southbound on and off-ramp junctions operate at 

unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F). 

2030 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions 

The DMU project alternative volumes were added to the 2030 baseline volumes to 

obtain the 2030 baseline plus DMU alternative condition volumes. These volumes were 

used to perform the analysis. Table 6 presents the results of the ramp junction analysis 

for 2030 baseline plus DMU conditions. HCS calculation sheets are provided in the 

Appendix. 

Table 6 

Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2030 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions 

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Dale Evans Parkway D 32.0 

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Dale Evans Parkway E 35.6

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Dale Evans Parkway D 32.4 

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Dale Evans Parkway F 42.2

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions SOURCE: AECOM, 2009. 

Notes: 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service 

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln

Comparing results from tables 5 and 6, it can be noted that the southbound on and offramp junctions continue to operate at unacceptable conditions under this scenario. The 

densities at the ramp influence area only increase with the addition of the DMU project 

volumes. 

2030 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions 

The EMU project alternative volumes were added to the 2030 baseline volumes to 

obtain the 2030 baseline plus EMU alternative condition volumes. These volumes were 

used to perform the analysis. Table 7 presents the results of the ramp junction analysis 

for 2030 baseline plus DMU conditions. HCS calculation sheets are provided in the 

Appendix. 

Comparing results from tables 5 and 7, it can be noted that the southbound on and offramp junctions continue to operate at unacceptable conditions under this scenario. The 

densities at the ramp influence area only increase with the addition of the EMU project 

volumes. 

F-G-164
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

5 April 2010 

Table 7 

Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2030 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions 

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Dale Evans Parkway D 33.5 

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Dale Evans Parkway E 35.7

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Dale Evans Parkway D 33.7 

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Dale Evans Parkway F 46.5

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions SOURCE: AECOM, 2009. 

Notes: 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound

b) LOS = Level of Service

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln

EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK AROUND THE STATION LOCATION

The Dale Evans Parkway interchanges with I-15 will provide the most direct regional 

access to the proposed Victorville train station location option 3. Currently this roadway 

has a single travel lane in each direction; because of the relatively low traffic volume, 

intersections in the area are stop controlled. The existing lane geometry at the 

Victorville study intersections is shown in Figure 1. 

EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

Based on the station location, the following existing intersections in the station vicinity 

have been identified for analysis: 

 Dale Evans Parkway and I-15 NB Ramps 

 Dale Evans Parkway and I-15 SB Ramps 

The evening peak hour turning movement counts were obtained at these study 

intersections on Thursday, May 28 2009. These volumes are presented in Figure 2. 

Intersection LOS for the weekday PM peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) was calculated 

for the study intersections. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 8. 

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 8, both the study intersections operate at acceptable conditions 

under existing conditions. 

 

F-G-165
2

DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 1

Victorville Station Alternative 3

EXISTING INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRY

Dale Evans Pkwy

1

15

Dale Evans Pkwy

DALE EVANS PARKWAY

 W

N

S

E

I-15 SB On-Ramp

I-15 NB On-Ramp

PROPOSED

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Alternative 3

Stop Sign

F-G-166
2

DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 2

Victorville Station Alternative 3

EXISTING INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Dale Evans Pkwy

1

DALE EVANS PARKWAY

I-15 NB On-Ramp 4931

1721

0 136

PROPOSED

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Alternative 3

15

Dale Evans Pkwy I-15 SB On-Ramp

2

32

 0

4

143 13

 W

N

S

E

Stop Sign

F-G-167
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

8 April 2010 

Table 8 

Victorville Option 3 - Existing Conditions LOS 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control 

Existing Conditions 

LOS Delay1

1 I-15 Northbound Ramps / Dale Evans 

Parkway Unsignalized2 A (NB) 9.3

2 I-15 Southbound Ramps / Dale Evans 

Parkway Unsignalized2 A (SB) 9.8

Notes: Source: AECOM, 2009. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. SB=Southbound, WB=Westbound 

In Victorville, LOS A through D are considered satisfactory levels and LOS E and F 

conditions are considered unsatisfactory service levels. Unsignalized intersections are 

considered to operate at unsatisfactory conditions if one approach operates at LOS E or 

F and Caltrans peak hour volume signal warrants are met. 

Impact Analysis 

This section presents the assessment of transportation impacts due to the proposed 

project. The transportation conditions were assessed for the following scenarios: 

 Existing plus Project Conditions; 

 2013 Opening Year Conditions; 

 2013 Opening Year plus Project Conditions; 

 2030 Cumulative Baseline Conditions; and, 

 2030 Cumulative Baseline plus Project Conditions. 

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

The following are the significance criteria used by the City of Victorville and San 

Bernardino County CMP guidelines for the determination of impacts associated with a 

proposed project: 

 If the proposed site adds 5% or more to the peak hour traffic of an 

intersection. 

 Level of service C will be the design objective for capacity and under no 

circumstances will less than level of service D be accepted. 

PROJECT TRAVEL DEMAND

The Victor Valley Area Transportation Study (VVATS) travel demand forecasting model 

was used to develop the base “no-project” travel forecasts for future year 2013 and 2030 

traffic analysis. The City of Victorville provided future year 2035 travel forecasts from the 

model to AECOM. AECOM has applied a straight line method to interpolate the 

intermediate year volumes for project purpose. The project-related trips were then 

added to the future year base volumes to determine the “with project conditions”.

F-G-168
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

9 April 2010 

TRIP DISTRIBUTION

The overall trip distribution for the station is shown in Figure 3. This station is served 

primarily by I-15 and Dale Evans Parkway. Due to its proximity to the northern I-15 / 

Dale Evans Parkway interchange, it is assumed that all vehicles generated by the 

proposed station would use this interchange. 

There are a total of 5 station accesses leading to 7 parking areas within the station 

boundary. Project trip distribution within the station boundary is based on the proportion 

of parking spaces served by each access. It is assumed that all non self-drive 

passengers will use Parking Area 6 and self-drive passengers will use all 7 parking 

areas. As a result, trips by self-drive passengers will be accounted for at all 5 accesses 

whereas non self-drive passenger trips will only be accounted for at Intersection 3 

(Station Access #1 / Dale Evans Parkway) that provides direct access to parking area 6. 

Half of area 6 is assumed to be assigned for uses other than self-drive passengers. 

Table 9 presents the number of parking spaces in each area and the corresponding 

portion used for distributing self-drive trips. The proposed parking layout and allocation 

plan is presented in Figure 4. It can be seen that each parking access is shared 

between two parking areas. 

Table 9 

Self-Drive Trip Distribution 

6 1 6021 3011 0.22

5 1872 1872 0.14

4 1134 1134 0.08

3 2272 2272 0.17

2 2442 2442 0.18

1 2117 2117 0.16

7 670 670 0.05

Total 16528 13518 1

Self Drive 

Proportion 2

Self-drive # 

spaces

Total # 

spaces

Parking 

Area

Notes: 

1. Remaining 3010 parking spaces are assumed to be used by non self-drive 

passengers. 

2. Self-drive proportion determined by parking spaces allocation to be used for trip 

assignment at study intersections. 

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS

Existing plus Diesel Electric Multiple Unit (DMU) Alternative Conditions 

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 3 and the parking distribution, 

project trips accessing the station were assigned at the study intersections. The 

project trips for DMU alternative conditions are presented in the Appendix. 

These project trips were added to the existing volumes to generate the Existing 

plus DMU volumes. 

F-G-169
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 3

 Victorville Station Alternative 3

VICTORVILLE STATION TRIP DISTRIBUTION

DALE EVANS PARKWAY

5 %

15 % 80 %

PROPOSED

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Alternative 3

15

 W

N

S

E

F-G-170
15

DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 4

Victorville Station Alternative 3

STATION PARKING LAYOUT AND ALLOCATION

 W

S

N

E

P-1

P-7

P-3 P-2

P-4

P-5

P-6

PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION (Alternative 3)

Dale Evans Pkwy

Station Access #1

Station Access #2 Station Access #3 Station Access #4 Station Access #5 Future Road

6,021Spaces

1,872Spaces

1,134Spaces

2,272Spaces

2,442Spaces

2,117Spaces

670Spaces

F-G-171
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

12 April 2010 

Based on the Existing plus DMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection 

level of service analysis was performed. Table 10 presents the results of the 

analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 10, both ramp intersections operate at unacceptable level 

of service (LOS F) under this scenario. All the other intersections operate at 

acceptable conditions. 

Table 10

Victorville Option 3 – Existing plus DMU Conditions LOS 

Intersection

Traffic 

Control

Existing 

Conditions

Existing plus DMU 

Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 I-15 Northbound Ramps / 

Dale Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 A (NB) 9.3 F (NB) 163.4 

2 I-15 Southbound Ramps / 

Dale Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 A (SB) 9.8 F (SB) 115.3 

3 

Station Access #1 / Dale 

Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 - - B (NB) 12.6 

4 

Station Access #2 / Dale 

Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 - - A (NB) 9.6 

5 

Future Street / Dale 

Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 - - A (NB) 9.1 

6 

Future Street / Station 

Access #3 Unsignalized2 - - A (WB) 9.3 

7 

Future Street / Station 

Access #4 Unsignalized2 - - A (WB) 9.0 

8 

Future Street / Station 

Access #5 Unsignalized2 - - A (WB) 8.7 

Notes: Source: AECOM, 2009. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound, WB=Westbound

4. Intersections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 exist with Project conditions only

Comparing the results of the Existing plus DMU conditions to the Existing conditions 

level of service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, intersections 

approaches at Dale Evans Parkway at I-15 northbound and southbound ramps 

deteriorate from acceptable (LOS A) to unacceptable (LOS F) conditions. As the project 

trips add more than 5% of the existing volumes at these intersections, project impacts at 

these intersections are considered to be significant. 

Existing plus Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) Alternative Conditions 

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 3 and the parking distribution, 

project trips accessing the station were assigned to the analysis intersections. 

The project trips for EMU alternative conditions are presented in the Appendix. 

F-G-172
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

13 April 2010 

These project trips were added to the existing volumes to generate the Existing 

plus EMU volumes. 

Based on the Existing plus EMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection 

level of service analysis was performed. Table 11 presents the results of the 

analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 11, both ramp intersections operate at unacceptable level 

of service (LOS F) under this scenario. All the other intersections operate at 

acceptable conditions. 

Table 11

Victorville Option 3 – Existing plus EMU Conditions LOS 

Intersection

Traffic 

Control

Existing 

Conditions

Existing plus EMU 

Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 I-15 Northbound Ramps / 

Dale Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 A (NB) 9.3 F (NB) 529.5 

2 I-15 Southbound Ramps / 

Dale Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 A (SB) 9.8 F (SB) 567.8 

3 

Station Access #1 / Dale 

Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 - - C (NB) 19.4 

4 

Station Access #2 / Dale 

Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 - - B (NB) 10.4 

5 

Future Street / Dale 

Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 - - A (NB) 9.5 

6 

Future Street / Station 

Access #3 Unsignalized2 - - A (WB) 9.8 

7 

Future Street / Station 

Access #4 Unsignalized2 - - A (WB) 9.4 

8 

Future Street / Station 

Access #5 Unsignalized2 - - A (WB) 8.8 

Notes: Source: AECOM, 2009. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound, WB=Westbound

4. Intersections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 exist with Project conditions only

Comparing the results of the Existing plus EMU conditions to the Existing 

conditions level of service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project 

volumes, intersections approaches at Dale Evans Parkway at I-15 northbound 

and southbound ramps deteriorate from acceptable (LOS A) to unacceptable 

(LOS F) conditions. As the project trips add more than 5% of the existing 

volumes at these intersections, project impacts at these intersections are 

considered to be significant. 

F-G-173
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

14 April 2010 

2013 Opening Year Conditions 

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS (NO PROJECT) 

Future year 2013 base volumes were calculated by linear interpolation between the 

existing year (traffic counts) and future year volumes (horizon year of SANBAG travel 

demand model). These volumes are presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, 

the existing intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions at the 

ramp locations and future intersections were assumed to be stop controlled as 

presented in Figure 5. Based on the future base volumes and the geometry presented 

in Figure 5, intersection level of service analysis was performed. 

It should be noted that, intersections 3, 4 and 8 do not exist without Project and, 

intersections 6 and 7 are T-intersections without the fourth leg leading into the Project 

site under 2013 Baseline Conditions. 

Table 12 presents the results of intersection operating conditions for future year 2013 

baseline conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

Table 12

Victorville Option 3 – 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS 

Intersection Traffic Control 

2013 Baseline 

Conditions 

LOS Delay1

1 I-15 Northbound Ramps / Dale Evans 

Parkway Unsignalized2 B (NB) 12.0

2 I-15 Southbound Ramps / Dale Evans 

Parkway Unsignalized2 C (SB) 15.5

5 Future Street / Dale Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 C (SB) 16.0 

6 Future Street / Station Access #3 Unsignalized2 B (EB) 11.9 

7 Future Street / Station Access #4 Unsignalized2 B (EB) 13.2 

Notes: Source: AECOM, 2009. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound, EB=Eastbound, WB=Westbound 

4. Intersections 6 and 7 are T-intersections under 2013 Baseline conditions 

As indicated in Table 12, all the study intersections continue to operate at acceptable 

conditions under 2013 Baseline conditions. 

2013 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 3 and the parking distribution, project 

trips accessing the station were assigned to the analysis intersections. The project trips 

for DMU alternative conditions for year 2013 are presented in the Appendix. These 

project trips were added to the 2013 base conditions volumes to generate the 2013 

baseline plus DMU volumes. 

F-G-174
2

DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 5

Victorville Station Alternative 3

FUTURE YEAR 2013 INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRY

1

Dale Evans Pkwy

DALE EVANS PARKWAY

I-15 SB On-Ramp

I-15 NB On-Ramp

3

4

5

Stop Sign

Station

Access #1

Station

Access #2

Dale Evans Pkwy

Access # 1

Dale Evans Pkwy

Access # 2

Station

Access #3

15

6

7

8

Dale Evans Pkwy

Station

Access #4

Station

Access #5

PROPOSED

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Alternative 3

Access # 3

Access # 4

Access # 5

 W

N

S

E

Future Road

Future Road

100’

100’

100’

100’

100’

100’

50’

100’

100’

100’

NOTES:Station Accesses at intersections 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 exist under project conditions only.

Dale Evans Pkwy

F-G-175
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

16 April 2010 

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus DMU volumes and the geometry presented in Figure 5, 

intersection level of service analysis was performed. Table 13 presents the results of 

the analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 13, the intersections of Dale Evans Parkway at I-15 northbound 

ramps, I-15 southbound ramps and Future Street operate at unacceptable conditions 

(LOS F) while all other intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D or better). 

Table 13

Victorville Option 3 – 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS 

Intersection

Traffic 

Control

2013 Baseline 

Conditions

2013 Baseline plus 

DMU Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 I-15 Northbound Ramps / 

Dale Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 B (NB) 12.0 F (NB) 586.3 

2 I-15 Southbound Ramps / 

Dale Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 C (SB) 15.5 F (SB) 666.9 

3 

Station Access #1 / Dale 

Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 - - C (NB) 19.3 

4 

Station Access #2 / Dale 

Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 - - B (NB) 11.7 

5 

Future Street / Dale 

Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 C (SB) 16.0 F (NB) -

6 

Future Street / Station 

Access #3 Unsignalized2 B (EB) 11.9 C (EB) 21.7 

7 

Future Street / Station 

Access #4 Unsignalized2 B (EB) 13.2 D (EB) 27.6 

8 

Future Street / Station 

Access #5 Unsignalized2 - - B (WB) 11.5 

Notes: Source: AECOM, 2009. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound, EB=Eastbound, WB=Westbound

4. Intersections 6 and 7 are T-intersections under 2013 Baseline conditions

5. Intersection 3, 4 and 8 exist with Project conditions only

Comparing the results of 2013 Baseline plus DMU conditions to the 2013 Baseline 

conditions level of service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, 

approaches at the intersections of Dale Evans Parkway at I-15 northbound ramps, I-15 

southbound ramps and the future street deteriorate from acceptable (LOS C or better) to 

unacceptable (LOS F) conditions. As the project trips add more than 5% of the 2013 

baseline volumes at the intersections, the project impacts at these intersections are 

considered to be significant. 

F-G-176
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

17 April 2010 

2013 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 3 and the parking distribution, project 

trips accessing the station were assigned to the analysis intersections. The project trips 

for EMU alternative conditions for year 2013 are presented in the Appendix. These 

project trips were added to the 2013 base conditions volumes to generate the 2013 

baseline plus EMU volumes. 

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus EMU volumes and the geometry presented in Figure 5, 

intersection level of service analysis was performed. Table 14 presents the results of 

the analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 14, all the intersections operate at unacceptable levels of services 

(LOS E or F) except intersections 4, 6 and 8. 

Comparing the results of 2013 Baseline plus EMU conditions to the 2013 Baseline 

conditions level of service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, 

approaches at the above mentioned intersections deteriorate from acceptable (LOS C or 

better) to unacceptable (LOS E or F) conditions. As the project trips add more than 5% 

of the 2013 Baseline volumes at the intersections, the project impacts at these 

intersections are considered to be significant. 

Table 14

Victorville Option 3 – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS 

Intersection

Traffic 

Control

2013 Baseline 

Conditions

2013 Baseline plus 

EMU Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 I-15 Northbound Ramps / 

Dale Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 B (NB) 12.0 F (NB) -

2 I-15 Southbound Ramps / 

Dale Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 C (SB) 15.5 F (SB) -

3 

Station Access #1 / Dale 

Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 - - F (NB) 65.1 

4 

Station Access #2 / Dale 

Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 - - B (NB) 13.0 

5 

Future Street / Dale 

Evans Parkway Unsignalized2 C (SB) 16.0 F (NB) -

6 

Future Street / Station 

Access #3 Unsignalized2 B (EB) 11.9 D (EB) 29.9 

7 

Future Street / Station 

Access #4 Unsignalized2 B (EB) 13.2 E (EB) 40.7 

8 

Future Street / Station 

Access #5 Unsignalized2 - - B (WB) 12.0 

Notes: Source: AECOM, 2009. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound, EB=Eastbound, WB=Westbound

4. Intersections 6 and 7 are T-intersections under 2013 Baseline conditions

5. Intersection 3, 4 and 8 exist with Project conditions only

6. Operating conditions at intersections 1, 2 and 5 breakdown under 2013 baseline + EMU project 

conditions, hence no delay reported.

F-G-177
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

18 April 2010 

2030 Cumulative Conditions 

Under this scenario, the proposed improvements include signalization at all study 

intersections. Future year 2030 roadway geometry and signal control are presented in 

Figure 6. 

Future year 2030 base volumes were calculated by linear interpolation between the 

existing year (traffic counts) and future year volumes (SANBAG travel demand model). 

These volumes are presented in the Appendix. 

It should be noted that, intersections 3, 4 and 8 do not exist without Project while 

intersections 6 and 7 are T-intersections without the fourth leg leading into the Project 

site under 2030 Baseline Conditions. 

Using the future base volumes and the proposed geometry presented in Figure 6, 

intersection level of service analysis was performed. Table 15 presents the results of 

intersection operating conditions for future year 2030 baseline conditions. SYNCHRO 

analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 15, all the study intersections operate at acceptable conditions 

(LOS D or better) under this scenario. 

Table 15

Victorville Option 3 - 2030 Baseline Conditions LOS 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control 

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

LOS Delay1

1 I-15 Northbound Ramps / Dale Evans Parkway Signalized C 30.8 

2 I-15 Southbound Ramps / Dale Evans Parkway Signalized C 24.3 

5 Future Street / Dale Evans Parkway Signalized D 49.3 

6 Future Street / Station Access #3 Signalized A 7.4 

7 Future Street / Station Access #4 Signalized B 12.4 

Notes: Source: AECOM, 2009. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. Intersections 6 and 7 are T-intersections under 2030 Baseline conditions 

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 3 and the parking distribution, project 

trips accessing the station were assigned to the analysis intersections. The project trips 

for DMU alternative conditions for year 2030 are presented in the Appendix. These 

project trips were added to the 2030 base conditions volumes to generate the 2030 

baseline plus DMU volumes. 

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus DMU volumes and the geometry presented in Figure 6, 

intersection level of service analysis was performed. Table 16 presents the results of 

the analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

F-G-178
2

DALE EVANS PARKWAY 3

4

Traffic Signal

Station

Access #1

Station

Access #2

Station

Access #3

15

6

7

8

Access #5

PROPOSED

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Alternative 3

 W

N

S

E

Future Road 5

Station

Access #4

Station 1

DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 6

Victorville Station Alternative 3

FUTURE YEAR 2030 INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRY

Dale Evans Pkwy I-15 NB On-Ramp

Dale Evans Pkwy

I-15 SB On-Ramp

Dale Evans Pkwy

Access # 1

Dale Evans Pkwy

Access # 2

Dale Evans Pkwy

Future Road

Access # 3 Future Road

Access # 4

Access # 5

Future Road

Future Road

150’

225’

300’

300’

200’

200’

100’

150’

100’

100’

100’

100’

200’

100’

NOTES:Station Accesses at intersections #3, #4, #6, #7 and #8 exist under project conditions only.

F-G-179
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

20 April 2010 

As indicated in Table 16, the intersections of Dale Evans Parkway at I-15 northbound 

ramps, southbound ramps and at Future Street operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS 

E or F) while all other intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS B or better). 

Table 16

Victorville Option 3 - 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS 

Intersection

Traffic 

Control

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

2030 Baseline plus 

DMU Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 I-15 Northbound Ramps / 

Dale Evans Parkway Signalized C 30.8 F 89.9 

2 I-15 Southbound Ramps / 

Dale Evans Parkway Signalized C 24.3 F 83.0 

3 

Station Access #1 / Dale 

Evans Parkway Signalized - - B 18.5 

4 

Station Access #2 / Dale 

Evans Parkway Signalized - - B 13.4 

5 

Future Street / Dale 

Evans Parkway Signalized D 49.3 E 56.6 

6 

Future Street / Station 

Access #3 Signalized A 7.4 A 9.1 

7 

Future Street / Station 

Access #4 Signalized B 12.4 B 15.5 

8 

Future Street / Station 

Access #5 Signalized - - A 6.5 

Notes: Source: AECOM, 2009. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. Intersections 6 and 7 are T-intersections under 2030 Baseline conditions 

4. Intersection 3, 4 and 8 exist with Project conditions only 

Comparing the results of 2030 Baseline plus DMU conditions to the 2030 Baseline 

conditions level of service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, 

the above mentioned intersections deteriorate from acceptable (LOS C or better) to 

unacceptable (LOS E or F) conditions. As the project trips add more than 5% of the 

2030 Baseline volumes at the intersections, the project impacts at these intersections 

are considered to be significant. 

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 3 and the parking distribution, project 

trips accessing the station were assigned to the analysis intersections. The project trips 

for EMU alternative conditions for year 2030 are presented in the Appendix. These 

project trips were added to the 2030 base conditions volumes to generate the 2030 

baseline plus EMU volumes. 

Based on the 2030 Baseline volumes and the proposed geometry presented in Figure 6, 

intersection level of service analysis was performed. Table 17 presents the results of 

the analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

F-G-180
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

21 April 2010 

As indicated in Table 17, the intersections of Dale Evans Parkway at I-15 northbound 

ramps, I-15 southbound ramps and at Future Street operate at unacceptable conditions 

(LOS E or F) while all other intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS C or 

better). 

Table 17

Victorville Option 3 - 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS 

Intersection

Traffic 

Control

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

2030 Baseline plus 

EMU Conditions

LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 I-15 Northbound Ramps / 

Dale Evans Parkway Signalized C 30.8 F 162.3 

2 I-15 Southbound Ramps / 

Dale Evans Parkway Signalized C 24.3 F 150.6 

3 

Station Access #1 / Dale 

Evans Parkway Signalized - - C 31.4 

4 

Station Access #2 / Dale 

Evans Parkway Signalized - - B 13.6 

5 

Future Street / Dale 

Evans Parkway Signalized D 49.3 E 58.7 

6 

Future Street / Station 

Access #3 Signalized A 7.4 A 9.5 

7 

Future Street / Station 

Access #4 Signalized B 12.4 B 15.8 

8 

Future Street / Station 

Access #5 Signalized - - A 8.2 

Notes: Source: AECOM, 2009. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach

3. Intersections 6 and 7 are T-intersections under 2030 Baseline conditions 

4. Intersection 3, 4 and 8 exist with Project conditions only 

Comparing the results of 2030 Baseline plus EMU conditions to the 2030 Baseline 

conditions level of service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, 

the above mentioned intersections deteriorate from acceptable (LOS D or better) to 

unacceptable (LOS E or F) conditions. As the project trips add more than 5% of the 

2030 Baseline volumes at the intersections, the project impacts at these intersections 

are considered to be significant. 

Mitigation Measures 

EXISTING PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 10, two existing intersections at the ramp locations are significantly 

impacted by the proposed project. To mitigate the impacts at these intersections, the 

following mitigation measures are proposed: 

F-G-181
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

22 April 2010 

 # 1: Signalize the intersection of Dale Evans Parkway at I-15 northbound ramps. 

 # 2: Signalize the intersection of Dale Evans Parkway at I-15 southbound ramps. 

A traffic signal warrant analysis was performed at these intersections to study if a signal 

can be considered as mitigation measure. The traffic signal warrant analysis at 

intersections 1 and 2 indicates that the warrant for peak hour (Warrants 3A and 3B) is 

met. The signal warrant analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 18, both intersections would operate at acceptable conditions (LOS 

B) with mitigation measures. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the 

Appendix. 

Table 18

Victorville Option 3 - Existing plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control 

Existing plus DMU 

Mitigation 

Conditions 

LOS Delay1

1 I-15 Northbound Ramps / Dale Evans 

Parkway Signalized B 14.1

2 I-15 Southbound Ramps / Dale Evans 

Parkway Signalized B 11.5

Notes: Source: AECOM, 2009

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

EXISTING PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 11, two existing intersections at the ramp locations are significantly 

impacted by the proposed project. To mitigate these intersections, the following 

mitigation measures are proposed: 

 # 1: Signalize intersection of Dale Evans Parkway at I-15 northbound ramps. 

 # 2: Signalize intersection of Dale Evans Parkway at I-15 southbound ramps. 

A traffic signal warrant analysis was performed at these intersections to study if a signal 

can be considered as mitigation measure. The traffic signal warrant analysis at 

intersections 1 and 2 indicates that the warrant for peak hour (Warrants 3A and 3B) is 

met. The signal warrant analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 19, both intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS C or 

better) with mitigation measures. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the 

Appendix. 

F-G-182
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

23 April 2010 

Table 19

Victorville Option 3 - Existing plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control 

Existing plus EMU 

Mitigation 

Conditions 

LOS Delay1

1 I-15 Northbound Ramps / Dale Evans 

Parkway Signalized C 20.3

2 I-15 Southbound Ramps / Dale Evans 

Parkway Signalized B 17.0

Notes: Source: AECOM, 2009

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2013 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 13, three study intersections operate at unacceptable conditions in 

the 2013 baseline plus DMU conditions. To mitigate this intersection, the following 

mitigation measures are proposed: 

 # 1: Signalize intersection of Dale Evans Parkway at I-15 northbound ramps and 

add one northbound left turn lane. 

 # 2: Signalize intersection of Dale Evans Parkway at I-15 southbound ramps and 

add an eastbound right turn lane and a westbound left turn lane. 

 #5: Signalize intersection of Dale Evans Parkway at Future Street. 

A traffic signal warrant analysis was performed at these intersections to study if a signal 

can be considered as mitigation measure. The traffic signal warrant analysis at 

intersections 1, 2 and 5 indicates that the warrant for peak hour (Warrants 3A and 3B) is 

met. The signal warrant analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 

Table 20

Victorville Option 3 - 2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control 

2013 Baseline plus 

DMU Mitigation 

Conditions 

LOS Delay1

1 I-15 Northbound Ramps / Dale Evans 

Parkway Signalized C 22.6

2 I-15 Southbound Ramps / Dale Evans 

Parkway Signalized C 30.9

5 Future Street / Dale Evans Parkway Signalized D 50.3 

Notes: Source: AECOM, 2009 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

F-G-183
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

24 April 2010 

As indicated in Table 20, all the impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions 

(LOS D or better) with the mitigation measures. 

2013 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 14, five study intersections operate at unacceptable conditions in 

the 2013 baseline plus EMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections, the following 

mitigation measures are proposed: 

 # 1: Signalize intersection of Dale Evans Parkway at I-15 northbound ramps and 

add two northbound left turn lanes. 

 # 2: Signalize intersection of Dale Evans Parkway at I-15 southbound ramps and 

add an eastbound right turn lane, second westbound through lane and a 

westbound left turn lane. 

 #3: Signalize intersection of Dale Evans Parkway at Station Access #1 and add 

second westbound left turn lane. 

 #5: Signalize intersection of Dale Evans Parkway at Future Street and add 

second westbound left turn lane. 

 #7: Signalize intersection of Future Street at Station Access #4. 

A traffic signal warrant analysis was performed at these intersections to study if a signal 

can be considered as mitigation measure. The traffic signal warrant analysis at 

intersections 1, 2, 3 and 5 indicates that the warrant for peak hour (Warrants 3A and 3B) 

is met, but intersection 7 does not meet peak hour warrant. However, given the 

estimated high future volumes, it is proposed that the intersection be signalized to 

enhance safety. The signal warrant analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 

Table 21

Victorville Option 3 - 2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control 

2013 Baseline plus 

EMU Mitigation 

Conditions 

LOS Delay1

1 I-15 Northbound Ramps / Dale Evans 

Parkway Signalized C 21.5

2 I-15 Southbound Ramps / Dale Evans 

Parkway Signalized C 33.8

3 Station Access #1 / Dale Evans Parkway Signalized C 26.9 

5 Future Street / Dale Evans Parkway Signalized D 39.6 

7 Future Street / Station Access #4 Signalized B 16.7 

Notes: Source: AECOM, 2009 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 21, all the impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions 

(LOS D or better) with the mitigation measures. 

F-G-184
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

25 April 2010 

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 16, three study intersections operate at unacceptable conditions in 

the 2030 baseline plus DMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections, the following 

mitigation measures are proposed: 

 # 1: At the intersection of Dale Evans Parkway at I-15 northbound ramps add 

second northbound left turn lane. 

 # 2: At the intersection of Dale Evans Parkway at I-15 southbound ramps 

optimize the intersection timing. 

 # 5: At the intersection of Dale Evans Parkway at Future Street optimize the 

intersection timing 

After applying above mitigation to the 2030 roadway network, the intersection level of 

service was calculated. Table 22 presents the results of 2030 baseline plus DMU 

mitigation conditions analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the 

Appendix. 

Table 22

Victorville Option 3 - 2030 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control 

2030 Baseline plus 

DMU Mitigation 

Conditions 

LOS Delay1

1 I-15 Northbound Ramps / Dale Evans 

Parkway Signalized C 22.8

2 I-15 Southbound Ramps / Dale Evans 

Parkway Signalized D 54.8

5 Future Street / Dale Evans Parkway Signalized D 54.2 

Notes: Source: AECOM, 2009 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 22, all the impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions 

(LOS D or better) with the mitigation measures. 

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 17, three study intersections operate at unacceptable conditions in 

the 2030 baseline plus EMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections, the following 

mitigation measures are proposed: 

 # 1: At the intersection of Dale Evans Parkway at I-15 northbound ramps add 

second northbound left turn lane. 

 # 2: At the intersection of Dale Evans Parkway at I-15 southbound ramps add 

second eastbound right turn lane. 

 # 5: At the intersection of Dale Evans Parkway at Future Street add third 

westbound left turn lane 

F-G-185
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

26 April 2010 

After applying above mitigation to the 2030 roadway network, the intersection level of 

service was calculated. Table 23 presents the results of 2030 baseline plus EMU 

mitigation conditions analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the 

Appendix. 

Table 23

Victorville Option 3 - 2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control 

2030 Baseline plus 

EMU Mitigation 

Conditions 

LOS Delay1

1 I-15 Northbound Ramps / Dale Evans 

Parkway Signalized D 40.7

2 I-15 Southbound Ramps / Dale Evans 

Parkway Signalized C 30.6

5 Future Street / Dale Evans Parkway Signalized D 53.0 

Notes: Source: AECOM, 2009 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 23, all the impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions 

(LOS D or better) with the mitigation measures. 

Queuing Analysis 

Queuing analysis was performed to identify the required length of turn pockets under the 

future year 2030 cumulative conditions at the ramp locations. Table 24 presents the 

results of queuing analysis for 2030 baseline and project conditions with and without 

mitigation measures. The queuing analysis worksheets are included in the Appendix. 

It can be noted from Table 24 that the queue lengths under the mitigated conditions are 

considerably shorter than the baseline conditions. 

F-G-186
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

27 April 2010 

Table 24

Victorville Option 3 – Queuing Analysis 

Intersection Movement

95th % queue length (ft)

2030 2030 + DMU 2030 + EMU

Baseline Conditions 

1 I-15 Northbound Ramps 

/ Dale Evans Parkway 

EBL 

NBL 

261 

124 

254 

697 

251 

944 

2 

I-15 Southbound 

Ramps / Dale Evans 

Parkway

EBR 

WBL 

SBL 

86 

286 

203 

528 

133 

203 

715 

116 

203 

5 

Future Street / Dale 

Evans Parkway

WBL 

NBL 

NBR 

SBL 

316 

360 

173 

324 

634 

319 

253 

324 

763 

322 

559 

324 

With Mitigations 

1 I-15 Northbound Ramps 

/ Dale Evans Parkway 

EBL 

NBL 

NA 

NA 

236 

264 

342 

547 

2 

I-15 Southbound 

Ramps / Dale Evans 

Parkway

EBR 

WBL 

SBL 

NA 

NA 

NA 

381 

326 

244 

261 

374 

349 

5 

Future Street / Dale 

Evans Parkway

WBL 

NBL 

NBR 

SBL 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

562 

443 

304 

407 

414 

414 

244 

390 

Source: AECOM, 2009.

Summary and Conclusions 

In the areas around the proposed rail station, the DesertXpress project would result in 

higher traffic volumes through some nearby intersections. In general, these higher 

volumes can be mitigated by adding signalization and/or travel lanes to the intersection 

approaches. Tables 25 and 26 summarize the mitigation measures recommended for 

the DMU and EMU alternatives respectively. 

F-G-187
DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Victorville Station Location Option 3 

28 April 2010 

Table 25

Project Mitigations – DMU Alternatives 

Station 

Location 

Alternative Existing 2013 2030

Victorville 

Option 3

 

#1 Dale Evans 

Parkway & I-15 NB 

Ramps 

− Signalize 

 

#2 Dale Evans 

Parkway & I-15 SB 

Ramps 

− Signalize 

 

#1 Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB 

Ramps 

− Add northbound left turn lane

 

#2 Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB 

Ramps 

− Add eastbound right turn lane 

− Add westbound left turn lane

#5 Dale Evans Parkway & Future 

Street 

− Signalize 

#1 Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 

NB Ramps 

− Add second northbound 

left turn lane 

 

#2 Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 

SB Ramps 

− Optimize signal timing 

#5 Dale Evans Parkway & 

Future Street 

− Optimize signal timing 

Table 26

Project Mitigations – EMU Alternatives 

Station 

Location 

Alternative

Existing 2013 2030

Victorville 

Option 3

#1 Dale Evans 

Parkway & I-15 NB 

Ramps 

− Signalize 

 

#2 Dale Evans 

Parkway & I-15 SB 

Ramps 

− Signalize 

 

#1 Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB 

Ramps 

− Add two northbound left turn 

lanes 

 

#2 Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB 

Ramps 

− Add eastbound right turn lane 

− Add second westbound through 

lane 

− Add westbound left turn lane

#3 Dale Evans Parkway & Station 

Access #1

− Signalize 

− Add second westbound left turn 

lane 

#5 Dale Evans Parkway & Future 

Street 

− Signalize 

− Add second westbound left turn 

lane 

#7 Future Street & Station Access 

#4 

− Signalize 

#1 Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 

NB Ramps 

− Add second northbound 

left turn lane 

 

#2 Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 

SB Ramps 

− Add second eastbound 

right turn lane 

#5 Dale Evans Parkway & 

Future Street 

− Add third westbound left 

turn lane 

F-G-188
HCS Analysis Worksheets

Ramp Analysis

F-G-189
F-G-190
Ramp Analysis

Existing Conditions

NB

F-G-191
F-G-192
Dale Evans PkwyNBOff-Ramp-PM.txt

 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 03/31/2010Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 NBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy(Off-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: Existing 2009Description: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis DivergeNumber of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 2194 vph_________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 157 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? YesVolume on adjacent ramp 165 vphPosition of adjacent ramp DownstreamType of adjacent ramp OnDistance to adjacent ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 2194 157 165 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90Peak 15-min volume, v15 609 44 46 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00

Page 1

Dale Evans PkwyNBOff-Ramp-PM.txt

Flow rate, vp 2682 176 185 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = 0.00 (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.685 Using Equation 5 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 1892 pc/h 12 R F R FD_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 2682 7200 No Fi F v 1892 4400 No 12 v = v - v 2506 7200 No FO F R v 176 2000 No R_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 16.0 pc/mi/ln R 12 DLevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence B_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.444 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 58 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 76.8 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 62.2 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

Page 2

F-G-193
Dale Evans PkwyNBOn-Ramp-PM.txt

 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Merge Analysis________________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 03/31/2010Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 NBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy (on-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: Existing 2009Description: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis 64.0Number of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 2194 vph__________________________________On Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 165 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? YesVolume on adjacent Ramp 157 vphPosition of adjacent Ramp UpstreamType of adjacent Ramp OffDistance to adjacent Ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 2194 165 157 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90Peak 15-min volume, v15 609 46 44 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade % % % Length mi mi miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00

Page 1

Dale Evans PkwyNBOn-Ramp-PM.txt

Flow rate, vp 2682 185 176 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Merge Areas_________________________ L = (Equation 25-2 or 25-3) EQ P = 0.591 Using Equation 1 FM v = v (P ) = 1586 pc/h 12 F FM_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v 2867 7200 No FO v 1771 4600 No R12_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 5.475 + 0.00734 v + 0.0078 v - 0.00627 L = 16.1 pc/mi/ln R R 12 ALevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence B_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, M = 0.309 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 61.4 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 67.9 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 63.7 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

Page 2

F-G-194
Ramp Analysis

Existing Conditions

SB

F-G-195
F-G-196
Dale Evans PkwySBOff-Ramp-PM.txt

 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 03/31/2010Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 SBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy SB(Off-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: Existing 2009Description: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis DivergeNumber of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 3954 vph_________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 194 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? YesVolume on adjacent ramp 201 vphPosition of adjacent ramp DownstreamType of adjacent ramp OnDistance to adjacent ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 3954 194 201 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90Peak 15-min volume, v15 1098 54 56 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00

Page 1

Dale Evans PkwySBOff-Ramp-PM.txt

Flow rate, vp 4833 218 226 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = 0.00 (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.629 Using Equation 5 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3122 pc/h 12 R F R FD_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 4833 7200 No Fi F v 3122 4400 No 12 v = v - v 4615 7200 No FO F R v 218 2000 No R_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 26.6 pc/mi/ln R 12 DLevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence C_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.448 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 57 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 74.0 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 62.4 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

Page 2

F-G-197
Dale Evans PkwySBOn-Ramp-PM.txt

 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Merge Analysis________________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 03/31/2010Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 SBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy (on-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: Existing 2009Description: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis 62.9Number of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 3954 vph__________________________________On Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 201 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? YesVolume on adjacent Ramp 194 vphPosition of adjacent Ramp UpstreamType of adjacent Ramp OffDistance to adjacent Ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 3954 201 194 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90Peak 15-min volume, v15 1098 56 54 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade % % % Length mi mi miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00

Page 1

Dale Evans PkwySBOn-Ramp-PM.txt

Flow rate, vp 4833 226 218 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Merge Areas_________________________ L = (Equation 25-2 or 25-3) EQ P = 0.591 Using Equation 1 FM v = v (P ) = 2859 pc/h 12 F FM_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v 5059 7200 No FO v 3085 4600 No R12_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 5.475 + 0.00734 v + 0.0078 v - 0.00627 L = 26.3 pc/mi/ln R R 12 ALevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence C_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, M = 0.371 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 59.6 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 64.7 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.5 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

Page 2

F-G-198
Ramp Analysis

2013 Base and Project Conditions

F-G-199
F-G-200
Ramp Analysis

2013 Base

NB

F-G-201
F-G-202
Dale Evans PkwyNBOff-Ramp-PM.txt

 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 03/31/2010Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 NBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy(Off-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2013 No BuildDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis DivergeNumber of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 2602 vph_________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 258 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? YesVolume on adjacent ramp 222 vphPosition of adjacent ramp DownstreamType of adjacent ramp OnDistance to adjacent ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 2602 258 222 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90Peak 15-min volume, v15 723 72 62 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00

Page 1

Dale Evans PkwyNBOff-Ramp-PM.txt

Flow rate, vp 3180 290 249 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = 0.00 (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.667 Using Equation 5 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 2218 pc/h 12 R F R FD_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 3180 7200 No Fi F v 2218 4400 No 12 v = v - v 2890 7200 No FO F R v 290 2000 No R_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 18.8 pc/mi/ln R 12 DLevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence B_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.454 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 57 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 76.8 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 62.1 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

Page 2

F-G-203
Dale Evans PkwyNBOn-Ramp-PM.txt

 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Merge Analysis________________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 03/31/2010Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 NBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy (on-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2013 No BuildDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis 63.7Number of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 2602 vph__________________________________On Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 222 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? YesVolume on adjacent Ramp 258 vphPosition of adjacent Ramp UpstreamType of adjacent Ramp OffDistance to adjacent Ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 2602 222 258 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90Peak 15-min volume, v15 723 62 72 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade % % % Length mi mi miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00

Page 1

Dale Evans PkwyNBOn-Ramp-PM.txt

Flow rate, vp 3180 249 290 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Merge Areas_________________________ L = (Equation 25-2 or 25-3) EQ P = 0.591 Using Equation 1 FM v = v (P ) = 1881 pc/h 12 F FM_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v 3429 7200 No FO v 2130 4600 No R12_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 5.475 + 0.00734 v + 0.0078 v - 0.00627 L = 18.8 pc/mi/ln R R 12 ALevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence B_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, M = 0.319 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 61.1 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 67.1 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 63.2 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

Page 2

F-G-204
Ramp Analysis

2013 + EMU

NB

F-G-205
F-G-206
Dale Evans PkwyNBOff-Ramp-PM.txt

 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 03/31/2010Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 NBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy(Off-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2013 EMUDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis DivergeNumber of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 3396 vph_________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 1052 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? YesVolume on adjacent ramp 259 vphPosition of adjacent ramp DownstreamType of adjacent ramp OnDistance to adjacent ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 3396 1052 259 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90Peak 15-min volume, v15 943 292 72 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00

Page 1

Dale Evans PkwyNBOff-Ramp-PM.txt

Flow rate, vp 4151 1181 291 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = 0.00 (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.602 Using Equation 5 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 2969 pc/h 12 R F R FD_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 4151 7200 No Fi F v 2969 4400 No 12 v = v - v 2970 7200 No FO F R v 1181 2000 No R_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 25.3 pc/mi/ln R 12 DLevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence C_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.534 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 55 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 76.1 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 59.7 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

Page 2

F-G-207
Dale Evans PkwyNBOn-Ramp-PM.txt

 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Merge Analysis________________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 03/31/2010Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 NBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy (on-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2013 EMUDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis 63.1Number of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 3396 vph__________________________________On Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 259 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? YesVolume on adjacent Ramp 1052 vphPosition of adjacent Ramp UpstreamType of adjacent Ramp OffDistance to adjacent Ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 3396 259 1052 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90Peak 15-min volume, v15 943 72 292 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade % % % Length mi mi miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00

Page 1

Dale Evans PkwyNBOn-Ramp-PM.txt

Flow rate, vp 4151 291 1181 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Merge Areas_________________________ L = (Equation 25-2 or 25-3) EQ P = 0.591 Using Equation 1 FM v = v (P ) = 2455 pc/h 12 F FM_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v 4442 7200 No FO v 2746 4600 No R12_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 5.475 + 0.00734 v + 0.0078 v - 0.00627 L = 23.6 pc/mi/ln R R 12 ALevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence C_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, M = 0.347 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 60.3 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 65.7 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 62.2 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

Page 2

F-G-208
Ramp Analysis

2013 + DEMU

NB

F-G-209
F-G-210
Dale Evans PkwyNBOff-Ramp-PM.txt

 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 03/31/2010Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 NBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy(Off-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2013 DEMUDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis DivergeNumber of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 3165 vph_________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 821 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? YesVolume on adjacent ramp 248 vphPosition of adjacent ramp DownstreamType of adjacent ramp OnDistance to adjacent ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 3165 821 248 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90Peak 15-min volume, v15 879 228 69 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00

Page 1

Dale Evans PkwyNBOff-Ramp-PM.txt

Flow rate, vp 3868 921 278 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = 0.00 (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.621 Using Equation 5 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 2751 pc/h 12 R F R FD_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 3868 7200 No Fi F v 2751 4400 No 12 v = v - v 2947 7200 No FO F R v 921 2000 No R_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 23.4 pc/mi/ln R 12 DLevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence C_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.511 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 56 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 76.3 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 60.4 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

Page 2

F-G-211
Dale Evans PkwyNBOn-Ramp-PM.txt

 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Merge Analysis________________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 03/31/2010Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 NBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy (on-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2013 DEMUDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis 63.3Number of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 3165 vph__________________________________On Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 248 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? YesVolume on adjacent Ramp 821 vphPosition of adjacent Ramp UpstreamType of adjacent Ramp OffDistance to adjacent Ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 3165 248 821 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90Peak 15-min volume, v15 879 69 228 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade % % % Length mi mi miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00

Page 1

Dale Evans PkwyNBOn-Ramp-PM.txt

Flow rate, vp 3868 278 921 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Merge Areas_________________________ L = (Equation 25-2 or 25-3) EQ P = 0.591 Using Equation 1 FM v = v (P ) = 2288 pc/h 12 F FM_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v 4146 7200 No FO v 2566 4600 No R12_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 5.475 + 0.00734 v + 0.0078 v - 0.00627 L = 22.2 pc/mi/ln R R 12 ALevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence C_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, M = 0.337 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 60.6 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 66.1 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 62.6 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

Page 2

F-G-212
Ramp Analysis

2013 Base

SB

F-G-213
F-G-214
Dale Evans PkwySBOff-Ramp-PM.txt

 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 03/31/2010Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 SBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy (Off-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2013 No BuildDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis DivergeNumber of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 4337 vph_________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 290 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? YesVolume on adjacent ramp 344 vphPosition of adjacent ramp DownstreamType of adjacent ramp OnDistance to adjacent ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 4337 290 344 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90Peak 15-min volume, v15 1205 81 96 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00

Page 1

Dale Evans PkwySBOff-Ramp-PM.txt

Flow rate, vp 5301 325 386 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = 0.00 (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.613 Using Equation 5 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3373 pc/h 12 R F R FD_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 5301 7200 No Fi F v 3373 4400 No 12 v = v - v 4976 7200 No FO F R v 325 2000 No R_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 28.8 pc/mi/ln R 12 DLevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.457 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 57 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.2 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 62.1 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

Page 2

F-G-215
Dale Evans PkwySBOn-Ramp-PM.txt

 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Merge Analysis________________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 03/31/2010Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 SBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy (on-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2013 No BuildDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis 62.4Number of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 4337 vph__________________________________On Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 344 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? YesVolume on adjacent Ramp 290 vphPosition of adjacent Ramp UpstreamType of adjacent Ramp OffDistance to adjacent Ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 4337 344 290 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90Peak 15-min volume, v15 1205 96 81 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade % % % Length mi mi miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00

Page 1

Dale Evans PkwySBOn-Ramp-PM.txt

Flow rate, vp 5301 386 325 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Merge Areas_________________________ L = (Equation 25-2 or 25-3) EQ P = 0.591 Using Equation 1 FM v = v (P ) = 3136 pc/h 12 F FM_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v 5687 7200 No FO v 3522 4600 No R12_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 5.475 + 0.00734 v + 0.0078 v - 0.00627 L = 29.6 pc/mi/ln R R 12 ALevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, M = 0.418 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 58.3 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 64.0 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 60.3 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

Page 2

F-G-216
Ramp Analysis

2013 + EMU

SB

F-G-217
F-G-218
Dale Evans PkwySBOff-Ramp-PM.txt

 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 03/31/2010Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 SBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy SB(Off-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2013 EMUDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis DivergeNumber of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 4387 vph_________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 340 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? YesVolume on adjacent ramp 935 vphPosition of adjacent ramp DownstreamType of adjacent ramp OnDistance to adjacent ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 4387 340 935 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90Peak 15-min volume, v15 1219 94 260 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00

Page 1

Dale Evans PkwySBOff-Ramp-PM.txt

Flow rate, vp 5362 382 1049 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = 0.00 (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.608 Using Equation 5 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3412 pc/h 12 R F R FD_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 5362 7200 No Fi F v 3412 4400 No 12 v = v - v 4980 7200 No FO F R v 382 2000 No R_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 29.1 pc/mi/ln R 12 DLevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.462 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 57 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.1 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 62.0 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

Page 2

F-G-219
Dale Evans PkwySBOn-Ramp-PM.txt

 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Merge Analysis________________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 03/31/2010Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 SBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy (on-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2013 EMUDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis 61.2Number of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 4387 vph__________________________________On Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 935 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? YesVolume on adjacent Ramp 340 vphPosition of adjacent Ramp UpstreamType of adjacent Ramp OffDistance to adjacent Ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 4387 935 340 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90Peak 15-min volume, v15 1219 260 94 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade % % % Length mi mi miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00

Page 1

Dale Evans PkwySBOn-Ramp-PM.txt

Flow rate, vp 5362 1049 382 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Merge Areas_________________________ L = (Equation 25-2 or 25-3) EQ P = 0.591 Using Equation 1 FM v = v (P ) = 3172 pc/h 12 F FM_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v 6411 7200 No FO v 4221 4600 No R12_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 5.475 + 0.00734 v + 0.0078 v - 0.00627 L = 34.8 pc/mi/ln R R 12 ALevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, M = 0.552 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.6 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 63.9 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 57.4 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

Page 2

F-G-220
Ramp Analysis

2013 + DEMU

SB

F-G-221
F-G-222
Dale Evans PkwySBOff-Ramp-PM.txt

 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 03/31/2010Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 SBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy SB(Off-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2013 DEMUDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis DivergeNumber of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 4372 vph_________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 325 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? YesVolume on adjacent ramp 394 vphPosition of adjacent ramp DownstreamType of adjacent ramp OnDistance to adjacent ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 4372 325 394 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90Peak 15-min volume, v15 1214 90 109 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00

Page 1

Dale Evans PkwySBOff-Ramp-PM.txt

Flow rate, vp 5344 365 442 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = 0.00 (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.610 Using Equation 5 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3400 pc/h 12 R F R FD_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 5344 7200 No Fi F v 3400 4400 No 12 v = v - v 4979 7200 No FO F R v 365 2000 No R_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 29.0 pc/mi/ln R 12 DLevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.461 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 57 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.1 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 62.0 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

Page 2

F-G-223
Dale Evans PkwySBOn-Ramp-PM.txt

 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Merge Analysis________________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 03/31/2010Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 SBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy (on-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2013 DEMUDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis 62.3Number of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 4372 vph__________________________________On Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 394 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? YesVolume on adjacent Ramp 325 vphPosition of adjacent Ramp UpstreamType of adjacent Ramp OffDistance to adjacent Ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 4372 394 325 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90Peak 15-min volume, v15 1214 109 90 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade % % % Length mi mi miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00

Page 1

Dale Evans PkwySBOn-Ramp-PM.txt

Flow rate, vp 5344 442 365 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Merge Areas_________________________ L = (Equation 25-2 or 25-3) EQ P = 0.591 Using Equation 1 FM v = v (P ) = 3161 pc/h 12 F FM_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v 5786 7200 No FO v 3603 4600 No R12_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 5.475 + 0.00734 v + 0.0078 v - 0.00627 L = 30.2 pc/mi/ln R R 12 ALevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, M = 0.429 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 58.0 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 63.9 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 60.1 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

Page 2

F-G-224
Ramp Analysis

2030 Base and Project Conditions

F-G-225
F-G-226
Ramp Analysis

2030 Base

NB

F-G-227
F-G-228
 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1

Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 06/04/2009Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 NBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy(Off-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2030 No BuildDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis DivergeNumber of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 4336 vph_________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 689 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes

Volume on adjacent ramp 466 vphPosition of adjacent ramp DownstreamType of adjacent ramp OnDistance to adjacent ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 4336 689 466 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95Peak 15-min volume, v15 1141 181 123 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00Flow rate, vp 5021 733 495 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = 0.00 (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.601 Using Equation 5 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3309 pc/h 12 R F R FD_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 5021 7200 No Fi F v 3309 4400 No 12 v = v - v 4288 7200 No FO F R v 733 2000 No

F-G-229
 R

_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 28.2 pc/mi/ln R 12 DLevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.494 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 56 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 74.0 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.2 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

F-G-230
 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1

Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Merge Analysis________________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 06/04/2009Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 NBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy (on-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2030 No BuildDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis 62.3Number of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 4336 vph__________________________________On Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 466 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes

Volume on adjacent Ramp 689 vphPosition of adjacent Ramp UpstreamType of adjacent Ramp OffDistance to adjacent Ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 4336 466 689 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95Peak 15-min volume, v15 1141 123 181 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade % % % Length mi mi miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00Flow rate, vp 5021 495 733 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Merge Areas_________________________ L = (Equation 25-2 or 25-3) EQ P = 0.591 Using Equation 1 FM v = v (P ) = 2970 pc/h 12 F FM_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v 5516 7200 No FO v 3465 4600 No R12_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________

F-G-231
Density, D = 5.475 + 0.00734 v + 0.0078 v - 0.00627 L = 29.1 pc/mi/ln

 R R 12 ALevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, M = 0.411 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 58.5 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 64.4 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 60.6 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

F-G-232
Ramp Analysis

2030 + EMU

NB

F-G-233
F-G-234
 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1

Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 06/04/2009Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 NBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy(Off-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2030 EMUDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis DivergeNumber of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 5130 vph_________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 1483 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes

Volume on adjacent ramp 503 vphPosition of adjacent ramp DownstreamType of adjacent ramp OnDistance to adjacent ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 5130 1483 503 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95Peak 15-min volume, v15 1350 390 132 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00Flow rate, vp 5940 1577 535 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = 0.00 (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.539 Using Equation 5 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3928 pc/h 12 R F R FD_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 5940 7200 No Fi F v 3928 4400 No 12 v = v - v 4363 7200 No FO F R v 1577 2000 No

F-G-235
 R

_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 33.5 pc/mi/ln R 12 DLevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.570 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 72.8 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 59.2 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

F-G-236
 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1

Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Merge Analysis________________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 06/04/2009Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 NBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy (on-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2030 EMUDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis 61.8Number of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 5130 vph__________________________________On Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 503 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes

Volume on adjacent Ramp 1483 vph

Position of adjacent Ramp UpstreamType of adjacent Ramp OffDistance to adjacent Ramp 1000 ft

____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 5130 503 1483 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95Peak 15-min volume, v15 1350 132 390 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade % % % Length mi mi miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00Flow rate, vp 5940 535 1577 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Merge Areas_________________________ L = (Equation 25-2 or 25-3) EQ P = 0.591 Using Equation 1 FM v = v (P ) = 3514 pc/h 12 F FM_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v 6475 7200 No FO v 4049 4600 No R12_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________

F-G-237
Density, D = 5.475 + 0.00734 v + 0.0078 v - 0.00627 L = 33.7 pc/mi/ln

 R R 12 ALevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, M = 0.510 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 55.7 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 62.7 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 58.2 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

F-G-238
Ramp Analysis

2030 + DEMU

NB

F-G-239
F-G-240
 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1

Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 06/04/2009Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 NBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy(Off-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2030 DEMUDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis DivergeNumber of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 4899 vph_________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 1252 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes

Volume on adjacent ramp 492 vphPosition of adjacent ramp DownstreamType of adjacent ramp OnDistance to adjacent ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 4899 1252 492 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95Peak 15-min volume, v15 1289 329 129 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00Flow rate, vp 5673 1331 523 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = 0.00 (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.557 Using Equation 5 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3749 pc/h 12 R F R FD_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 5673 7200 No Fi F v 3749 4400 No 12 v = v - v 4342 7200 No FO F R v 1331 2000 No

F-G-241
 R

_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 32.0 pc/mi/ln R 12 DLevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.548 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 55 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.2 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 59.8 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

F-G-242
 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1

Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Merge Analysis________________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 06/04/2009Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 NBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy (on-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2030 DEMUDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis 62.0Number of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 4899 vph__________________________________On Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 492 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes

Volume on adjacent Ramp 1252 vph

Position of adjacent Ramp UpstreamType of adjacent Ramp OffDistance to adjacent Ramp 1000 ft

____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 4899 492 1252 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95Peak 15-min volume, v15 1289 129 329 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade % % % Length mi mi miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00Flow rate, vp 5673 523 1331 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Merge Areas_________________________ L = (Equation 25-2 or 25-3) EQ P = 0.591 Using Equation 1 FM v = v (P ) = 3356 pc/h 12 F FM_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v 6196 7200 No FO v 3879 4600 No R12_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________

F-G-243
Density, D = 5.475 + 0.00734 v + 0.0078 v - 0.00627 L = 32.4 pc/mi/ln

 R R 12 ALevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, M = 0.475 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 56.7 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 63.4 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 59.0 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

F-G-244
Ramp Analysis

2030 Base

SB

F-G-245
F-G-246
 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1

Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 06/04/2009Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 SBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy SB(Off-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2030 No BuildDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis DivergeNumber of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 5963 vph_________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 698 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes

Volume on adjacent ramp 950 vphPosition of adjacent ramp DownstreamType of adjacent ramp OnDistance to adjacent ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 5963 698 950 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95Peak 15-min volume, v15 1569 184 250 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00Flow rate, vp 6905 742 1010 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = 0.00 (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.553 Using Equation 5 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4152 pc/h 12 R F R FD_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6905 7200 No Fi F v 4152 4400 No 12 v = v - v 6163 7200 No FO F R v 742 2000 No

F-G-247
 R

_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 35.5 pc/mi/ln R 12 DLevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence E_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.495 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 56 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 70.0 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 60.9 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

F-G-248
 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1

Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Merge Analysis________________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 06/04/2009Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 SBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy (on-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2030 No BuildDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis 60.5Number of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 5963 vph__________________________________On Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 950 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes

Volume on adjacent Ramp 698 vphPosition of adjacent Ramp UpstreamType of adjacent Ramp OffDistance to adjacent Ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 5963 950 698 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95Peak 15-min volume, v15 1569 250 184 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade % % % Length mi mi miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00Flow rate, vp 6905 1010 742 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Merge Areas_________________________ L = (Equation 25-2 or 25-3) EQ P = 0.591 Using Equation 1 FM v = v (P ) = 4084 pc/h 12 F FM_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v 7915 7200 Yes FO v 5094 4600 Yes R12_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________

F-G-249
Density, D = 5.475 + 0.00734 v + 0.0078 v - 0.00627 L = 41.6 pc/mi/ln

 R R 12 ALevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, M = 0.922 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 44.2 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 60.3 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 48.8 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

F-G-250
Ramp Analysis

2030 + EMU

SB

F-G-251
F-G-252
 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1

Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 06/04/2009Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 SBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy SB(Off-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2030 EMUDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis DivergeNumber of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 6013 vph_________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 748 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes

Volume on adjacent ramp 1541 vph

Position of adjacent ramp DownstreamType of adjacent ramp OnDistance to adjacent ramp 1000 ft

____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 6013 748 1541 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95Peak 15-min volume, v15 1582 197 406 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00Flow rate, vp 6962 795 1638 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = 0.00 (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.549 Using Equation 5 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4183 pc/h 12 R F R FD_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6962 7200 No Fi F v 4183 4400 No 12 v = v - v 6167 7200 No FO F R v 795 2000 No

F-G-253
 R

_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 35.7 pc/mi/ln R 12 DLevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence E_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.500 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 56 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 69.9 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 60.8 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

F-G-254
 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1

Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Merge Analysis________________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 06/04/2009Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 SBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy (on-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2030 EMUDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis 59.4Number of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 6013 vph__________________________________On Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 1541 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes

Volume on adjacent Ramp 748 vphPosition of adjacent Ramp UpstreamType of adjacent Ramp OffDistance to adjacent Ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 6013 1541 748 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95Peak 15-min volume, v15 1582 406 197 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade % % % Length mi mi miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00Flow rate, vp 6962 1638 795 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Merge Areas_________________________ L = (Equation 25-2 or 25-3) EQ P = 0.591 Using Equation 1 FM v = v (P ) = 4118 pc/h 12 F FM_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v 8600 7200 Yes FO v 5756 4600 Yes R12_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________

F-G-255
Density, D = 5.475 + 0.00734 v + 0.0078 v - 0.00627 L = 46.5 pc/mi/ln

 R R 12 ALevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, M = 1.519 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 27.5 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 60.2 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 33.5 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

F-G-256
Ramp Analysis

2030 + DEMU

SB

F-G-257
F-G-258
 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1

Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 06/04/2009Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 SBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy SB(Off-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2030 DEMUDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis DivergeNumber of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 5998 vph_________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 733 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes

Volume on adjacent ramp 1000 vph

Position of adjacent ramp DownstreamType of adjacent ramp OnDistance to adjacent ramp 1000 ft

____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 5998 733 1000 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95Peak 15-min volume, v15 1578 193 263 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00Flow rate, vp 6945 779 1063 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = 0.00 (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.551 Using Equation 5 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4174 pc/h 12 R F R FD_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6945 7200 No Fi F v 4174 4400 No 12 v = v - v 6166 7200 No FO F R v 779 2000 No

F-G-259
 R

_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 35.6 pc/mi/ln R 12 DLevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence E_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.498 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 56 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 69.9 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 60.9 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

F-G-260
 HCS2000: Ramps and Ramp Junctions Release 4.1

Phone: Fax:E-mail:_________________________________Merge Analysis________________________________Analyst: HDAgency/Co.: AECOMDate performed: 06/04/2009Analysis time period: PM Peak HourFreeway/dir or travel: I-15 SBJunction: Dale Evans Pkwy (on-ramp)Jurisdiction: CaltransAnalysis Year: 2030 DEMUDescription: DesertXpress__________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________Type of analysis 60.4Number of lanes in freeway 3Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mphVolume on freeway 5998 vph__________________________________On Ramp Data_________________________________Side of freeway RightNumber of lanes in ramp 1Free-flow speed on ramp 35.0 mphVolume on ramp 1000 vphLength of first accel/decel lane 500 ftLength of second accel/decel lane ft_________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes

Volume on adjacent Ramp 733 vphPosition of adjacent Ramp UpstreamType of adjacent Ramp OffDistance to adjacent Ramp 1000 ft____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent RampVolume, V (vph) 5998 1000 733 vphPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95Peak 15-min volume, v15 1578 263 193 vTrucks and buses 20 2 2 %Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 %Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade % % % Length mi mi miTrucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.909 0.990 0.990Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00Flow rate, vp 6945 1063 779 pcph_________________________Estimation of V12 Merge Areas_________________________ L = (Equation 25-2 or 25-3) EQ P = 0.591 Using Equation 1 FM v = v (P ) = 4108 pc/h 12 F FM_______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v 8008 7200 Yes FO v 5171 4600 Yes R12_________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________

F-G-261
Density, D = 5.475 + 0.00734 v + 0.0078 v - 0.00627 L = 42.2 pc/mi/ln

 R R 12 ALevel of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F_____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________Intermediate speed variable, M = 0.973 SSpace mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 42.8 mph RSpace mean speed in outer lanes, S = 60.2 mph 0Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 47.7 mph_______________________________________________________________________________

F-G-262
Victorville Option 3

Intersection Volumes

F-G-263
F-G-264
Existing NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

#1 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 143 0 0 33 49

#2 0 0 0 143 0 3 0 0 4 32 2 0

2013 Base NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

#1 39 0 95 0 0 0 44 222 0 0 101 73

#2 0 0 0 176 0 78 0 89 110 87 52 0

#3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 195 0 0 126 0

#4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 195 0 0 126 0

#5 98 138 76 92 185 4 3 27 69 80 17 29

#6 14 303 0 0 322 12 9 0 19 0 0 0

#7 46 289 0 0 299 41 28 0 57 0 0 0

#8 0 334 0 0 356 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2030 Base NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

#1 199 0 427 0 0 0 229 557 0 0 389 176

#2 0 0 0 318 0 396 0 468 558 321 267 0

#3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1026 0 0 662 0

#4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1026 0 0 662 0

#5 515 722 401 485 969 20 17 141 363 420 89 153

#6 71 1590 0 0 1688 65 48 0 99 0 0 0

#7 239 1515 0 0 1570 216 145 0 297 0 0 0

#8 0 1754 0 0 1867 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Existing + DEMU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

#1 564 0 17 0 0 0 26 222 0 0 139 49

#2 0 0 0 143 0 38 0 105 423 32 670 0

#3 0 0 283 0 0 0 0 240 0 355 348 0

#4 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 185 0 81 267 0

#5 0 0 185 0 0 0 0 0 0 267 0 0

#6 0 146 0 56 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 39

#7 0 92 0 78 133 0 0 0 0 0 0 54

#8 0 0 0 133 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92

Existing + DEMU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

#1 795 0 17 0 0 0 37 254 0 0 182 49

#2 0 0 0 143 0 53 0 148 595 32 945 0

#3 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 339 0 501 492 0

#4 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 261 0 115 378 0

#5 0 0 261 0 0 0 0 0 0 378 0 0

#6 0 206 0 80 298 0 0 0 0 0 0 55

#7 0 129 0 110 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 76

#8 0 0 0 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 129

2013 + DEMU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

#1 602 0 95 0 0 0 70 301 0 0 207 73

#2 0 0 0 176 0 113 0 194 529 87 720 0

#3 0 0 283 0 0 0 0 435 0 355 474 0

#4 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 380 0 81 393 0

#5 98 138 261 92 185 4 3 27 69 347 17 29

#6 14 449 0 56 533 12 9 0 19 0 0 39

#7 46 381 0 78 432 41 28 0 57 0 0 54

#8 0 334 0 133 356 0 0 0 0 0 0 92

2013 + EMU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

#1 833 0 95 0 0 0 81 333 0 0 250 73

#2 0 0 0 176 0 128 0 237 701 87 995 0

#3 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 534 0 501 618 0

#4 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 456 0 115 504 0

#5 98 138 337 92 185 4 3 27 69 458 17 29

#6 14 509 0 80 620 12 9 0 19 0 0 55

#7 46 418 0 110 487 41 28 0 57 0 0 76

#8 0 334 0 188 356 0 0 0 0 0 0 129

2030 + DEMU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

#1 762 0 427 0 0 0 255 636 0 0 495 176

#2 0 0 0 318 0 431 0 573 977 321 935 0

#3 0 0 283 0 0 0 0 1266 0 355 1010 0

#4 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 1211 0 81 929 0

#5 515 722 586 485 969 20 17 141 363 687 89 153

#6 71 1736 0 56 1899 65 48 0 99 0 0 39

#7 239 1607 0 78 1703 216 145 0 297 0 0 54

#8 0 1754 0 133 1867 0 0 0 0 0 0 92

2030 + EMU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR

#1 993 0 427 0 0 0 266 668 0 0 538 176

#2 0 0 0 318 0 446 0 616 1149 321 1210 0

#3 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 1365 0 501 1154 0

#4 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 1287 0 115 1040 0

#5 515 722 662 485 969 20 17 141 363 798 89 153

#6 71 1796 0 80 1986 65 48 0 99 0 0 55

#7 239 1644 0 110 1758 216 145 0 297 0 0 76

#8 0 1754 0 188 1867 0 0 0 0 0 0 129

PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION ALTERNATIVE #3

F-G-265
F-G-266
Victorville Option 3

SYNCHRO Analysis Worksheet

F-G-267
F-G-268
Existing Conditions

(Base and Project Conditions)

F-G-269
F-G-270
Existing Conditions

Base

F-G-271
F-G-272
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 1

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 0 143 0 0 33 49 1 2 17 0 0 0

Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 155 0 0 36 53 1 2 18000

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 89 155 218 245 155 238 218 62

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 89 155 218 245 155 238 218 62

tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 98 100 100 100

cM capacity (veh/h) 1506 1425 738 657 890 700 680 1002

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1

Volume Total 155 89 22

Volume Left 0 0 1

Volume Right 0 53 18

cSH 1506 1700 851

Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.05 0.03

Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2

Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.3

Lane LOS A

Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.3

Approach LOS A

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 0.8

Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.5% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-273
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 2

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 0 0 4 32 2 0 0 0 0 143 1 3

Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 4 35 2 0 0 0 0 155 1 3

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 2 4 78 74 2 74 76 2

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 2 4 78 74 2 74 76 2

tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 100 98 100 100 100 83 100 100

cM capacity (veh/h) 1620 1617 893 799 1082 901 797 1082

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1

Volume Total 4 37 160

Volume Left 0 35 155

Volume Right 4 0 3

cSH 1700 1617 904

Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.02 0.18

Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 16

Control Delay (s) 0.0 6.9 9.8

Lane LOS A A

Approach Delay (s) 0.0 6.9 9.8

Approach LOS A

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 9.1

Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.4% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-274
Existing Conditions

Base + EMU

F-G-275
F-G-276
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing plus EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 1

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 37 254 0 0 182 49 795 2 17 0 0 0

Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 40 276 0 0 198 53 864 2 18000

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 251 276 581 608 276 601 581 224

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 251 276 581 608 276 601 581 224

tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 97 100 0 99 98 100 100 100

cM capacity (veh/h) 1314 1287 415 398 763 391 412 815

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1

Volume Total 316 251 885

Volume Left 40 0 864

Volume Right 0 53 18

cSH 1314 1700 419

Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.15 2.11

Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 1586

Control Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 529.5

Lane LOS A F

Approach Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 529.5

Approach LOS F

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 322.9

Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.2% ICU Level of Service E

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-277
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing plus EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 2

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 0 148 595 32 945 0 0 0 0 143 1 53

Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 161 647 35 1027 0 0 0 0 155 1 58

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 1027 808 1639 1581 484 1581 1904 1027

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 1027 808 1639 1581 484 1581 1904 1027

tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 100 96 100 100 100 0 98 80

cM capacity (veh/h) 676 818 61 104 583 85 66 285

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1

Volume Total 808 1062 214

Volume Left 0 35 155

Volume Right 647 0 58

cSH 1700 818 105

Volume to Capacity 0.48 0.04 2.04

Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 3 452

Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.3 567.8

Lane LOS A F

Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.3 567.8

Approach LOS F

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 59.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.5% ICU Level of Service F

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-278
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

Existing plus EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 3

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 339 0 501 492 0 400

Sign Control Free Free Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 368 0 545 535 0 435

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 368 1992 368

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 368 1992 368

tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3

p0 queue free % 54 100 36

cM capacity (veh/h) 1190 36 677

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1

Volume Total 368 545 535 435

Volume Left 0 545 0 0

Volume Right 0 0 0 435

cSH 1700 1190 1700 677

Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.46 0.31 0.64

Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 61 0 117

Control Delay (s) 0.0 10.6 0.0 19.4

Lane LOS B C

Approach Delay (s) 0.0 5.3 19.4

Approach LOS C

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 7.5

Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.4% ICU Level of Service D

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-279
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2 5/26/2010

Existing plus EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 4

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 261 0 115 378 0 79

Sign Control Free Free Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 284 0 125 411 0 86

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 284 945 284

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 284 945 284

tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3

p0 queue free % 90 100 89

cM capacity (veh/h) 1279 262 755

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1

Volume Total 284 125 411 86

Volume Left 0 125 0 0

Volume Right 0 0 0 86

cSH 1700 1279 1700 755

Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.10 0.24 0.11

Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 8 0 10

Control Delay (s) 0.0 8.1 0.0 10.4

Lane LOS A B

Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.9 10.4

Approach LOS B

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 2.1

Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.0% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-280
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

Existing plus EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 5

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 0 0 378 0 0 261

Sign Control Free Free Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 411 0 0 284

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 0 822 0

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 0 822 0

tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3

p0 queue free % 75 100 74

cM capacity (veh/h) 1623 257 1085

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1

Volume Total 0 411 284

Volume Left 0 411 0

Volume Right 0 0 284

cSH 1700 1623 1085

Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.25 0.26

Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 25 26

Control Delay (s) 0.0 8.0 9.5

Lane LOS A A

Approach Delay (s) 0.0 8.0 9.5

Approach LOS A

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 8.6

Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.8% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-281
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

6: Station Access #3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

Existing plus EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 6

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 0 55 206 0 80 298

Sign Control Stop Free Free

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 60 224 0 87 324

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 722 224 224

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 722 224 224

tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 100 93 94

cM capacity (veh/h) 368 816 1345

Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2

Volume Total 60 224 87 324

Volume Left 0 0 87 0

Volume Right 60 0 0 0

cSH 816 1700 1345 1700

Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.13 0.06 0.19

Queue Length 95th (ft) 6050

Control Delay (s) 9.8 0.0 7.9 0.0

Lane LOS A A

Approach Delay (s) 9.8 0.0 1.7

Approach LOS A

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 1.8

Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.7% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-282
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

Existing plus EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 7

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 0 76 129 0 110 188

Sign Control Stop Free Free

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 83 140 0 120 204

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 584 140 140

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 584 140 140

tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 100 91 92

cM capacity (veh/h) 435 908 1443

Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1

Volume Total 83 140 324

Volume Left 0 0 120

Volume Right 83 0 0

cSH 908 1700 1443

Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.08 0.08

Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 0 7

Control Delay (s) 9.4 0.0 3.3

Lane LOS A A

Approach Delay (s) 9.4 0.0 3.3

Approach LOS A

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 3.4

Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.5% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-283
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

8: Station Access #5 & Future Road 5/26/2010

Existing plus EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 8

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 0 129 0 0 188 0

Sign Control Stop Free Free

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 140 0 0 204 0

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 409 0 0

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 409 0 0

tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 100 87 87

cM capacity (veh/h) 523 1085 1623

Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2

Volume Total 140 0 204 0

Volume Left 0 0 204 0

Volume Right 140 0 0 0

cSH 1085 1700 1623 1700

Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.00

Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 0 11 0

Control Delay (s) 8.8 0.0 7.5 0.0

Lane LOS A A

Approach Delay (s) 8.8 0.0 7.5

Approach LOS A

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 8.1

Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.1% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-284
Existing Conditions

Base + EMU Mitigations

F-G-285
F-G-286
Timings

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing plus EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 1

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 37 254 182 2

Turn Type Perm

Protected Phases 4 8 2

Permitted Phases 4

Detector Phase 4 4 8 2

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 40.0

Total Split (%) 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 66.7%

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize?

Recall Mode Max Max Max Max

Act Effct Green (s) 16.0 16.0 36.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.60

v/c Ratio 0.68 0.50 0.83

Control Delay 29.0 21.1 18.9

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 29.0 21.1 18.9

LOS C C B

Approach Delay 29.0 21.1 18.9

Approach LOS C C B

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 60

Actuated Cycle Length: 60

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 60

Control Type: Pretimed

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.83

Intersection Signal Delay: 21.4 Intersection LOS: C

Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.2% ICU Level of Service E

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps

F-G-287
Phasings

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing plus EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 2

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBT

Protected Phases 4 8 2

Permitted Phases 4

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 40.0

Total Split (%) 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 66.7%

Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 36.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lead/Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize?

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode Max Max Max Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0000

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 36.0

90th %ile Term Code MaxR MaxR MaxR Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 36.0

70th %ile Term Code MaxR MaxR MaxR Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 36.0

50th %ile Term Code MaxR MaxR MaxR Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 36.0

30th %ile Term Code MaxR MaxR MaxR Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 36.0

10th %ile Term Code MaxR MaxR MaxR Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 60

Actuated Cycle Length: 60

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:, Start of Green

Control Type: Pretimed

F-G-288
Queues

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing plus EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 3

Lane Group EBT WBT NBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 316 251 884

v/c Ratio 0.68 0.50 0.83

Control Delay 29.0 21.1 18.9

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 29.0 21.1 18.9

Queue Length 50th (ft) 102 69 220

Queue Length 95th (ft) #200 131 #473

Internal Link Dist (ft) 820 380 310

Turn Bay Length (ft)

Base Capacity (vph) 463 499 1063

Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0

Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0

Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.68 0.50 0.83

Intersection Summary

# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

F-G-289
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing plus EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 4

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 37 254 0 0 182 49 795 2 17 0 0 0

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

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00

Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95

Satd. Flow (prot) 1851 1810 1771

Flt Permitted 0.93 1.00 0.95

Satd. Flow (perm) 1738 1810 1771

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 40 276 0 0 198 53 864 2 18 0 0 0

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 316 0 0 235 0 0 8830000

Turn Type Perm Split

Protected Phases 4 8 2 2

Permitted Phases 4

Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 36.0

Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 36.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.60

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 463 483 1063

v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.50

v/s Ratio Perm c0.18

v/c Ratio 0.68 0.49 0.83

Uniform Delay, d1 19.7 18.5 9.6

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 7.9 3.5 7.5

Delay (s) 27.6 22.0 17.1

Level of Service C C B

Approach Delay (s) 27.6 22.0 17.1 0.0

Approach LOS C C B A

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 20.3 HCM Level of Service C

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.2% ICU Level of Service E

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-290
Timings

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing plus EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 5

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 148 32 945 1

Turn Type Perm

Protected Phases 4 8 6

Permitted Phases 8

Detector Phase 4 8 8 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 50.0 50.0 50.0 20.0

Total Split (%) 71.4% 71.4% 71.4% 28.6%

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize?

Recall Mode Max Max Max Max

Act Effct Green (s) 46.0 46.0 16.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.66 0.66 0.23

v/c Ratio 0.62 0.90 0.52

Control Delay 3.9 23.1 25.9

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 3.9 23.1 25.9

LOS A C C

Approach Delay 3.9 23.1 25.9

Approach LOS A C C

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 70

Actuated Cycle Length: 70

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:SBTL, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 70

Control Type: Pretimed

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.90

Intersection Signal Delay: 16.0 Intersection LOS: B

Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.5% ICU Level of Service F

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps

F-G-291
Phasings

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing plus EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 6

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT

Protected Phases 4 8 6

Permitted Phases 8

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 50.0 50.0 50.0 20.0

Total Split (%) 71.4% 71.4% 71.4% 28.6%

Maximum Green (s) 46.0 46.0 46.0 16.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lead/Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize?

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode Max Max Max Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0000

90th %ile Green (s) 46.0 46.0 46.0 16.0

90th %ile Term Code MaxR MaxR MaxR Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 46.0 46.0 46.0 16.0

70th %ile Term Code MaxR MaxR MaxR Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 46.0 46.0 46.0 16.0

50th %ile Term Code MaxR MaxR MaxR Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 46.0 46.0 46.0 16.0

30th %ile Term Code MaxR MaxR MaxR Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 46.0 46.0 46.0 16.0

10th %ile Term Code MaxR MaxR MaxR Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 70

Actuated Cycle Length: 70

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:SBTL, Start of Green

Control Type: Pretimed

F-G-292
Queues

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing plus EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 7

Lane Group EBT WBT SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 808 1062 214

v/c Ratio 0.62 0.90 0.52

Control Delay 3.9 23.1 25.9

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 3.9 23.1 25.9

Queue Length 50th (ft) 29 326 71

Queue Length 95th (ft) 75 #653 134

Internal Link Dist (ft) 920 820 245

Turn Bay Length (ft)

Base Capacity (vph) 1299 1179 415

Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0

Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0

Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 0.90 0.52

Intersection Summary

# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

F-G-293
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing plus EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 8

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 0 148 595 32 945 0 0 0 0 143 1 53

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

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 0.89 1.00 0.96

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.97

Satd. Flow (prot) 1661 1860 1732

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.96 0.97

Satd. Flow (perm) 1661 1793 1732

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 0 161 647 35 1027 0 0 0 0 155 1 58

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 601 0 0 1062 0 0 0 0 0 195 0

Turn Type Perm Split

Protected Phases 4 8 6 6

Permitted Phases 8

Actuated Green, G (s) 46.0 46.0 16.0

Effective Green, g (s) 46.0 46.0 16.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.66 0.66 0.23

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1092 1178 396

v/s Ratio Prot 0.36 c0.11

v/s Ratio Perm c0.59

v/c Ratio 0.55 0.90 0.49

Uniform Delay, d1 6.4 10.1 23.5

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 11.2 4.3

Delay (s) 8.4 21.3 27.8

Level of Service A C C

Approach Delay (s) 8.4 21.3 0.0 27.8

Approach LOS A C A C

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 17.0 HCM Level of Service B

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.5% ICU Level of Service F

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-294
Existing Conditions

Base + DEMU

F-G-295
F-G-296
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing plus DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 1

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 26 222 0 0 139 49 564 2 17 0 0 0

Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 28 241 0 0 151 53 613 2 18000

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 204 241 476 502 241 495 476 178

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 204 241 476 502 241 495 476 178

tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 98 100 0 100 98 100 100 100

cM capacity (veh/h) 1367 1325 492 462 798 464 478 865

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1

Volume Total 270 204 634

Volume Left 28 0 613

Volume Right 0 53 18

cSH 1367 1700 497

Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.12 1.27

Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 654

Control Delay (s) 1.0 0.0 163.4

Lane LOS A F

Approach Delay (s) 1.0 0.0 163.4

Approach LOS F

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 93.7

Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.8% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-297
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing plus DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 2

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 0 105 423 32 670 0 0 0 0 143 1 38

Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 114 460 35 728 0 0 0 0 155 1 41

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 728 574 1184 1142 344 1142 1372 728

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 728 574 1184 1142 344 1142 1372 728

tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 100 97 100 100 100 10 99 90

cM capacity (veh/h) 875 999 145 193 699 173 141 423

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1

Volume Total 574 763 198

Volume Left 0 35 155

Volume Right 460 0 41

cSH 1700 999 197

Volume to Capacity 0.34 0.03 1.00

Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 3 217

Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 115.3

Lane LOS A F

Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 115.3

Approach LOS F

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 15.3

Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.3% ICU Level of Service D

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-298
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

Existing plus DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 3

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 240 0 355 348 0 283

Sign Control Free Free Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 261 0 386 378 0 308

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 261 1411 261

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 261 1411 261

tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3

p0 queue free % 70 100 60

cM capacity (veh/h) 1304 107 778

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1

Volume Total 261 386 378 308

Volume Left 0 386 0 0

Volume Right 0 0 0 308

cSH 1700 1304 1700 778

Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.30 0.22 0.40

Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 31 0 48

Control Delay (s) 0.0 8.9 0.0 12.6

Lane LOS A B

Approach Delay (s) 0.0 4.5 12.6

Approach LOS B

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 5.5

Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.8% ICU Level of Service B

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-299
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2 5/26/2010

Existing plus DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 4

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 185 0 81 267 0 56

Sign Control Free Free Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 201 0 88 290 0 61

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 201 667 201

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 201 667 201

tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3

p0 queue free % 94 100 93

cM capacity (veh/h) 1371 396 840

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1

Volume Total 201 88 290 61

Volume Left 0 88 0 0

Volume Right 0 0 0 61

cSH 1700 1371 1700 840

Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.06 0.17 0.07

Queue Length 95th (ft) 0506

Control Delay (s) 0.0 7.8 0.0 9.6

Lane LOS A A

Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.8 9.6

Approach LOS A

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 2.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.7% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-300
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

Existing plus DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 5

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 0 0 267 0 0 185

Sign Control Free Free Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 290 0 0 201

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 0 580 0

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 0 580 0

tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3

p0 queue free % 82 100 81

cM capacity (veh/h) 1623 391 1085

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1

Volume Total 0 290 201

Volume Left 0 290 0

Volume Right 0 0 201

cSH 1700 1623 1085

Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.18 0.19

Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 16 17

Control Delay (s) 0.0 7.7 9.1

Lane LOS A A

Approach Delay (s) 0.0 7.7 9.1

Approach LOS A

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 8.3

Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.9% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-301
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

6: Station Access #3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

Existing plus DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 6

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 0 39 146 0 56 211

Sign Control Stop Free Free

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 42 159 0 61 229

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 510 159 159

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 510 159 159

tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 100 95 96

cM capacity (veh/h) 501 887 1421

Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2

Volume Total 42 159 61 229

Volume Left 0 0 61 0

Volume Right 42 0 0 0

cSH 887 1700 1421 1700

Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.13

Queue Length 95th (ft) 4030

Control Delay (s) 9.3 0.0 7.6 0.0

Lane LOS A A

Approach Delay (s) 9.3 0.0 1.6

Approach LOS A

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 1.7

Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.4% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-302
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

Existing plus DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 7

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 0 54 92 0 78 133

Sign Control Stop Free Free

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 59 100 0 85 145

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 414 100 100

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 414 100 100

tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 100 94 94

cM capacity (veh/h) 561 956 1493

Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1

Volume Total 59 100 229

Volume Left 0 0 85

Volume Right 59 0 0

cSH 956 1700 1493

Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.06 0.06

Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 5

Control Delay (s) 9.0 0.0 3.1

Lane LOS A A

Approach Delay (s) 9.0 0.0 3.1

Approach LOS A

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 3.2

Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.0% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-303
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

8: Station Access #5 & Future Road 5/26/2010

Existing plus DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 8

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 0 92 0 0 133 0

Sign Control Stop Free Free

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 100 0 0 145 0

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 289 0 0

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 289 0 0

tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 100 91 91

cM capacity (veh/h) 639 1085 1623

Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2

Volume Total 100 0 145 0

Volume Left 0 0 145 0

Volume Right 100 0 0 0

cSH 1085 1700 1623 1700

Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.00

Queue Length 95th (ft) 8070

Control Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 7.4 0.0

Lane LOS A A

Approach Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 7.4

Approach LOS A

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 7.9

Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.7% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-304
Existing Conditions

Base + DEMU Mitigations

F-G-305
F-G-306
Timings

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing plus DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 1

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 26 222 139 2

Turn Type Perm

Protected Phases 4 8 2

Permitted Phases 4

Detector Phase 4 4 8 2

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 30.0

Total Split (%) 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 60.0%

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize?

Recall Mode Max Max Max Max

Act Effct Green (s) 16.0 16.0 26.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.52

v/c Ratio 0.47 0.34 0.69

Control Delay 17.0 12.5 13.7

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 17.0 12.5 13.7

LOS B B B

Approach Delay 17.0 12.5 13.7

Approach LOS B B B

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 50

Actuated Cycle Length: 50

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 50

Control Type: Pretimed

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.69

Intersection Signal Delay: 14.3 Intersection LOS: B

Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.8% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps

F-G-307
Phasings

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing plus DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 2

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBT

Protected Phases 4 8 2

Permitted Phases 4

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 30.0

Total Split (%) 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 60.0%

Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 26.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lead/Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize?

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode Max Max Max Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0000

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 26.0

90th %ile Term Code MaxR MaxR MaxR Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 26.0

70th %ile Term Code MaxR MaxR MaxR Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 26.0

50th %ile Term Code MaxR MaxR MaxR Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 26.0

30th %ile Term Code MaxR MaxR MaxR Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 26.0

10th %ile Term Code MaxR MaxR MaxR Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 50

Actuated Cycle Length: 50

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:, Start of Green

Control Type: Pretimed

F-G-308
Queues

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing plus DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 3

Lane Group EBT WBT NBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 269 204 633

v/c Ratio 0.47 0.34 0.69

Control Delay 17.0 12.5 13.7

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 17.0 12.5 13.7

Queue Length 50th (ft) 62 36 122

Queue Length 95th (ft) 117 78 221

Internal Link Dist (ft) 820 380 310

Turn Bay Length (ft)

Base Capacity (vph) 571 601 922

Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0

Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0

Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.34 0.69

Intersection Summary

F-G-309
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing plus DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 4

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 26 222 0 0 139 49 564 2 17 0 0 0

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

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00

Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95

Satd. Flow (prot) 1853 1797 1770

Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95

Satd. Flow (perm) 1783 1797 1770

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 28 241 0 0 151 53 613 2 18 0 0 0

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 269 0 0 179 0 0 6310000

Turn Type Perm Split

Protected Phases 4 8 2 2

Permitted Phases 4

Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 26.0

Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 26.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.52

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 571 575 920

v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.36

v/s Ratio Perm c0.15

v/c Ratio 0.47 0.31 0.69

Uniform Delay, d1 13.6 12.8 9.0

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 2.8 1.4 4.2

Delay (s) 16.4 14.2 13.1

Level of Service B B B

Approach Delay (s) 16.4 14.2 13.1 0.0

Approach LOS B B B A

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 14.1 HCM Level of Service B

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.8% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-310
Timings

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing plus DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 5

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 105 32 670 1

Turn Type Perm

Protected Phases 4 8 6

Permitted Phases 8

Detector Phase 4 8 8 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 20.0

Total Split (%) 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 33.3%

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize?

Recall Mode Max Max Max Max

Act Effct Green (s) 36.0 36.0 16.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.60 0.27

v/c Ratio 0.49 0.71 0.41

Control Delay 2.9 13.0 19.1

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 2.9 13.0 19.1

LOS A B B

Approach Delay 2.9 13.0 19.1

Approach LOS A B B

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 60

Actuated Cycle Length: 60

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:SBTL, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 60

Control Type: Pretimed

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.71

Intersection Signal Delay: 10.0 Intersection LOS: A

Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.3% ICU Level of Service D

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps

F-G-311
Phasings

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing plus DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 6

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT

Protected Phases 4 8 6

Permitted Phases 8

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 20.0

Total Split (%) 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 33.3%

Maximum Green (s) 36.0 36.0 36.0 16.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lead/Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize?

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode Max Max Max Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0000

90th %ile Green (s) 36.0 36.0 36.0 16.0

90th %ile Term Code MaxR MaxR MaxR Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 36.0 36.0 36.0 16.0

70th %ile Term Code MaxR MaxR MaxR Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 36.0 36.0 36.0 16.0

50th %ile Term Code MaxR MaxR MaxR Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 36.0 36.0 36.0 16.0

30th %ile Term Code MaxR MaxR MaxR Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 36.0 36.0 36.0 16.0

10th %ile Term Code MaxR MaxR MaxR Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 60

Actuated Cycle Length: 60

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:SBTL, Start of Green

Control Type: Pretimed

F-G-312
Queues

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing plus DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 7

Lane Group EBT WBT SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 574 763 197

v/c Ratio 0.49 0.71 0.41

Control Delay 2.9 13.0 19.1

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 2.9 13.0 19.1

Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 166 51

Queue Length 95th (ft) 52 285 103

Internal Link Dist (ft) 920 820 245

Turn Bay Length (ft)

Base Capacity (vph) 1181 1078 481

Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0

Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0

Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.71 0.41

Intersection Summary

F-G-313
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

Existing plus DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 8

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 0 105 423 32 670 0 0 0 0 143 1 38

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

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 0.89 1.00 0.97

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.96

Satd. Flow (prot) 1661 1858 1742

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.96 0.96

Satd. Flow (perm) 1661 1796 1742

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 0 114 460 35 728 0 0 0 0 155 1 41

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 390 0 0 763 0 0 0 0 0 181 0

Turn Type Perm Split

Protected Phases 4 8 6 6

Permitted Phases 8

Actuated Green, G (s) 36.0 36.0 16.0

Effective Green, g (s) 36.0 36.0 16.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.60 0.27

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 997 1078 465

v/s Ratio Prot 0.23 c0.10

v/s Ratio Perm c0.42

v/c Ratio 0.39 0.71 0.39

Uniform Delay, d1 6.3 8.3 18.0

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 3.9 2.4

Delay (s) 7.4 12.3 20.4

Level of Service A B C

Approach Delay (s) 7.4 12.3 0.0 20.4

Approach LOS A B A C

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 11.5 HCM Level of Service B

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.3% ICU Level of Service D

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-314
2013 Conditions

(Base and Project Conditions)

F-G-315
F-G-316
2013 Conditions

Base

F-G-317
F-G-318
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 1

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 44 222 0 0 101 73 39 2 95 0 0 0

Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 48 241 0 0 110 79 42 2 103000

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 189 241 486 526 241 591 486 149

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 189 241 486 526 241 591 486 149

tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 97 100 91 100 87 100 100 100

cM capacity (veh/h) 1385 1325 478 441 798 354 465 897

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1

Volume Total 289 189 148

Volume Left 48 0 42

Volume Right 0 79 103

cSH 1385 1700 663

Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.11 0.22

Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 21

Control Delay (s) 1.5 0.0 12.0

Lane LOS A B

Approach Delay (s) 1.5 0.0 12.0

Approach LOS B

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 3.5

Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.0% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-319
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 2

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 0 89 110 87 52 0 0 0 0 176 1 78

Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 97 120 95 57 0 0 0 0 191 1 85

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 57 216 488 402 157 402 462 57

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 57 216 488 402 157 402 462 57

tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 100 93 100 100 100 64 100 92

cM capacity (veh/h) 1548 1353 425 499 889 529 462 1010

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1

Volume Total 216 151 277

Volume Left 0 95 191

Volume Right 120 0 85

cSH 1700 1353 619

Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.07 0.45

Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 6 58

Control Delay (s) 0.0 5.1 15.5

Lane LOS A C

Approach Delay (s) 0.0 5.1 15.5

Approach LOS C

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 7.9

Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.5% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-320
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 3

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 3 27 69 80 17 29 98 138 76 92 185 4

Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 29 75 87 18 32 107 150 83 100 201 4

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 50 104 371 297 67 439 319 34

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 50 104 371 297 67 439 319 34

tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 100 94 74 74 92 73 64 100

cM capacity (veh/h) 1557 1487 403 577 997 370 561 1039

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2

Volume Total 108 87 50 107 233 100 205

Volume Left 3 87 0 107 0 100 0

Volume Right 75 0 32 0 83 0 4

cSH 1557 1487 1700 403 679 370 567

Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.06 0.03 0.26 0.34 0.27 0.36

Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 5 0 26 38 27 41

Control Delay (s) 0.2 7.6 0.0 17.1 13.0 18.3 14.9

Lane LOS A A C B C B

Approach Delay (s) 0.2 4.8 14.3 16.0

Approach LOS B C

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 11.7

Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.1% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-321
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

6: Future Road 2 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 4

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 9 19 14 303 322 12

Sign Control Stop Free Free

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 10 21 15 329 350 13

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 716 357 363

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 716 357 363

tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 98 97 99

cM capacity (veh/h) 392 688 1196

Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1

Volume Total 30 15 329 363

Volume Left 10 15 0 0

Volume Right 21 0 0 13

cSH 553 1196 1700 1700

Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.01 0.19 0.21

Queue Length 95th (ft) 4100

Control Delay (s) 11.9 8.1 0.0 0.0

Lane LOS B A

Approach Delay (s) 11.9 0.4 0.0

Approach LOS B

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 0.7

Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.7% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-322
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

7: Future Road 3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 5

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 28 57 46 289 299 41

Sign Control Stop Free Free

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 30 62 50 314 325 45

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 761 347 370

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 761 347 370

tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 91 91 96

cM capacity (veh/h) 357 696 1189

Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1

Volume Total 92 50 314 370

Volume Left 30 50 0 0

Volume Right 62 0 0 45

cSH 530 1189 1700 1700

Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.04 0.18 0.22

Queue Length 95th (ft) 16300

Control Delay (s) 13.2 8.2 0.0 0.0

Lane LOS B A

Approach Delay (s) 13.2 1.1 0.0

Approach LOS B

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 2.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.6% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-323
F-G-324
2013 Conditions

Base + EMU

F-G-325
F-G-326
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 1

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 81 333 0 0 250 73 833 2 95 0 0 0

Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 88 362 0 0 272 79 905 2 103000

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 351 362 849 889 362 954 849 311

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 351 362 849 889 362 954 849 311

tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 93 100 0 99 85 100 100 100

cM capacity (veh/h) 1208 1197 265 262 683 190 276 729

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1

Volume Total 450 351 1011

Volume Left 88 0 905

Volume Right 0 79 103

cSH 1208 1700 283

Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.21 3.58

Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 0 Err

Control Delay (s) 2.2 0.0 Err

Lane LOS A F

Approach Delay (s) 2.2 0.0 Err

Approach LOS F

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 5578.9

Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.6% ICU Level of Service G

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-327
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 2

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 0 237 701 87 995 0 0 0 0 176 1 128

Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 258 762 95 1082 0 0 0 0 191 1 139

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 1082 1020 2049 1909 639 1909 2290 1082

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 1082 1020 2049 1909 639 1909 2290 1082

tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 100 86 100 100 100 0 97 47

cM capacity (veh/h) 645 681 17 59 476 46 34 265

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1

Volume Total 1020 1176 332

Volume Left 0 95 191

Volume Right 762 0 139

cSH 1700 681 71

Volume to Capacity 0.60 0.14 4.70

Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 12 Err

Control Delay (s) 0.0 4.8 Err

Lane LOS A F

Approach Delay (s) 0.0 4.8 Err

Approach LOS F

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 1313.9

Intersection Capacity Utilization 140.4% ICU Level of Service H

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-328
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 3

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 534 2 501 618 2 400

Sign Control Free Free Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 580 2 545 672 2 435

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 583 2342 582

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 583 2342 582

tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3

p0 queue free % 45 88 15

cM capacity (veh/h) 992 18 513

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1

Volume Total 583 545 672 437

Volume Left 0 545 0 2

Volume Right 2 0 0 435

cSH 1700 992 1700 451

Volume to Capacity 0.34 0.55 0.40 0.97

Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 86 0 298

Control Delay (s) 0.0 13.0 0.0 65.1

Lane LOS B F

Approach Delay (s) 0.0 5.8 65.1

Approach LOS F

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 15.9

Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.9% ICU Level of Service E

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-329
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 4

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 456 2 115 504 2 79

Sign Control Free Free Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 496 2 125 548 2 86

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 498 1295 497

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 498 1295 497

tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3

p0 queue free % 88 99 85

cM capacity (veh/h) 1066 158 573

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1

Volume Total 498 125 548 88

Volume Left 0 125 0 2

Volume Right 2 0 0 86

cSH 1700 1066 1700 538

Volume to Capacity 0.29 0.12 0.32 0.16

Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 10 0 15

Control Delay (s) 0.0 8.8 0.0 13.0

Lane LOS A B

Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.6 13.0

Approach LOS B

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 1.8

Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.5% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-330
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 5

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 3 27 69 458 17 29 98 138 337 92 185 4

Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 29 75 498 18 32 107 150 366 100 201 4

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 50 104 1192 1119 67 1545 1141 34

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 50 104 1192 1119 67 1545 1141 34

tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 100 67 0 0 63 0 0 100

cM capacity (veh/h) 1557 1487 0 137 997 0 133 1039

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2

Volume Total 108 498 50 107 516 100 205

Volume Left 3 498 0 107 0 100 0

Volume Right 75 0 32 0 366 0 4

cSH 1557 1487 1700 0 354 0 136

Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.33 0.03 Err 1.46 Err 1.51

Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 37 0 Err 685 Err 354

Control Delay (s) 0.2 8.6 0.0 Err 250.7 Err 324.3

Lane LOS A A FFFF

Approach Delay (s) 0.2 7.8 Err Err

Approach LOS F F

Intersection Summary

Average Delay Err

Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.1% ICU Level of Service D

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-331
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

6: Station Access #3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 6

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 9 2 19 2 2 55 14 509 2 80 620 12

Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 10 2 21 2 2 60 15 553 2 87 674 13

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 1499 1440 680 1454 1446 554 687 555

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 1499 1440 680 1454 1446 554 687 555

tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2

p0 queue free % 88 98 95 98 98 89 98 91

cM capacity (veh/h) 81 119 451 94 118 532 907 1015

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2

Volume Total 33 64 15 555 87 687

Volume Left 10 2 15 0 87 0

Volume Right 21 60 0 2 0 13

cSH 177 417 907 1700 1015 1700

Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.15 0.02 0.33 0.09 0.40

Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 131070

Control Delay (s) 29.9 15.2 9.0 0.0 8.9 0.0

Lane LOS D C A A

Approach Delay (s) 29.9 15.2 0.2 1.0

Approach LOS D C

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 2.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.8% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-332
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 7

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 28 2 57 2 2 76 46 418 2 110 487 41

Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 30 2 62 2 2 83 50 454 2 120 529 45

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 1429 1347 552 1387 1368 455 574 457

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 1429 1347 552 1387 1368 455 574 457

tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2

p0 queue free % 64 98 88 98 98 86 95 89

cM capacity (veh/h) 85 128 534 93 124 605 999 1104

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2

Volume Total 95 87 50 457 120 574

Volume Left 30 2 50 0 120 0

Volume Right 62 83 0 2 0 45

cSH 192 490 999 1700 1104 1700

Volume to Capacity 0.49 0.18 0.05 0.27 0.11 0.34

Queue Length 95th (ft) 61 164090

Control Delay (s) 40.7 13.9 8.8 0.0 8.7 0.0

Lane LOS E B A A

Approach Delay (s) 40.7 13.9 0.9 1.5

Approach LOS E B

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 4.7

Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.3% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-333
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

8: Station Access #5 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 8

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 2 129 334 2 188 356

Sign Control Stop Free Free

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 140 363 2 204 387

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 1160 364 365

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 1160 364 365

tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 99 79 83

cM capacity (veh/h) 179 681 1193

Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2

Volume Total 142 365 204 387

Volume Left 2 0 204 0

Volume Right 140 2 0 0

cSH 653 1700 1193 1700

Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.21 0.17 0.23

Queue Length 95th (ft) 21 0 15 0

Control Delay (s) 12.0 0.0 8.6 0.0

Lane LOS B A

Approach Delay (s) 12.0 0.0 3.0

Approach LOS B

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 3.2

Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.2% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-334
2013 Conditions

Base + EMU Mitigations

F-G-335
F-G-336
Timings

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 1

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 81 333 250 833 2

Turn Type Perm Split

Protected Phases 4822

Permitted Phases 4

Detector Phase 4 4 8 2 2

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 50.0 50.0 50.0 40.0 40.0

Total Split (%) 55.6% 55.6% 55.6% 44.4% 44.4%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize?

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max Min Min

Act Effct Green (s) 49.9 49.9 30.1 30.1

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.33 0.33

v/c Ratio 0.51 0.35 0.79 0.17

Control Delay 11.8 12.3 32.2 4.8

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 11.8 12.3 32.2 4.8

LOS B B C A

Approach Delay 11.8 12.3 29.3

Approach LOS B B C

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 90

Actuated Cycle Length: 90

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 45

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.79

Intersection Signal Delay: 21.7 Intersection LOS: C

Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.9% ICU Level of Service D

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps

F-G-337
Phasings

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 2

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT

Protected Phases 4822

Permitted Phases 4

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 50.0 50.0 50.0 40.0 40.0

Total Split (%) 55.6% 55.6% 55.6% 44.4% 44.4%

Maximum Green (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 35.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize?

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max Min Min

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 55555

90th %ile Green (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 35.0 35.0

90th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Coord Max Max

70th %ile Green (s) 46.6 46.6 46.6 33.4 33.4

70th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Coord Gap Gap

50th %ile Green (s) 49.5 49.5 49.5 30.5 30.5

50th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Coord Gap Gap

30th %ile Green (s) 51.9 51.9 51.9 28.1 28.1

30th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Coord Gap Gap

10th %ile Green (s) 56.3 56.3 56.3 23.7 23.7

10th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Coord Gap Gap

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 90

Actuated Cycle Length: 90

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-338
Queues

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 3

Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 450 351 905 105

v/c Ratio 0.51 0.35 0.79 0.17

Control Delay 11.8 12.3 32.2 4.8

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 11.8 12.3 32.2 4.8

Queue Length 50th (ft) 125 97 235 1

Queue Length 95th (ft) 190 173 282 32

Internal Link Dist (ft) 820 380 2691

Turn Bay Length (ft)

Base Capacity (vph) 890 1011 1335 681

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.51 0.35 0.68 0.15

Intersection Summary

F-G-339
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 4

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 81 333 0 0 250 73 833 2 95 0 0 0

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

Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1845 1806 3433 1589

Flt Permitted 0.86 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1606 1806 3433 1589

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 88 362 0 0 272 79 905 2 103 0 0 0

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 69 0 0 0 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 450 0 0 341 0 905 360000

Turn Type Perm Split

Protected Phases 4 8 2 2

Permitted Phases 4

Actuated Green, G (s) 49.9 49.9 30.1 30.1

Effective Green, g (s) 49.9 49.9 30.1 30.1

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.33 0.33

Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 890 1001 1148 531

v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 c0.26 0.02

v/s Ratio Perm c0.28

v/c Ratio 0.51 0.34 0.79 0.07

Uniform Delay, d1 12.4 11.0 27.1 20.4

Progression Factor 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 0.9 3.7 0.1

Delay (s) 10.7 11.9 30.7 20.5

Level of Service B B C C

Approach Delay (s) 10.7 11.9 29.7 0.0

Approach LOS B B C A

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 21.5 HCM Level of Service C

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.9% ICU Level of Service D

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-340
Timings

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 5

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 237 701 87 995 1

Turn Type Perm Prot

Protected Phases 4 3 8 6

Permitted Phases 4

Detector Phase 4 4 3 8 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 46.0 46.0 14.0 60.0 30.0

Total Split (%) 51.1% 51.1% 15.6% 66.7% 33.3%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max None C-Max Min

Act Effct Green (s) 48.4 48.4 8.8 59.9 20.1

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.54 0.10 0.67 0.22

v/c Ratio 0.26 0.63 0.55 0.46 0.80

Control Delay 13.5 10.0 51.4 3.9 43.7

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 13.5 10.0 51.4 3.9 43.7

LOS B B D A D

Approach Delay 10.9 7.7 43.7

Approach LOS B A D

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 90

Actuated Cycle Length: 90

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 60

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.80

Intersection Signal Delay: 13.7 Intersection LOS: B

Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.4% ICU Level of Service D

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps

F-G-341
Phasings

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 6

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBT

Protected Phases 4 3 8 6

Permitted Phases 4

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 46.0 46.0 14.0 60.0 30.0

Total Split (%) 51.1% 51.1% 15.6% 66.7% 33.3%

Maximum Green (s) 41.0 41.0 9.0 55.0 25.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max None C-Max Min

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 41.0 41.0 9.0 55.0 25.0

90th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord Max

70th %ile Green (s) 41.0 41.0 10.1 56.1 23.9

70th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord Gap

50th %ile Green (s) 44.1 44.1 10.1 59.2 20.8

50th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Gap Coord Gap

30th %ile Green (s) 48.7 48.7 8.6 62.3 17.7

30th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Gap Coord Gap

10th %ile Green (s) 67.0 67.0 0.0 67.0 13.0

10th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Skip Coord Gap

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 90

Actuated Cycle Length: 90

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-342
Queues

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 7

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 258 762 95 1082 331

v/c Ratio 0.26 0.63 0.55 0.46 0.80

Control Delay 13.5 10.0 51.4 3.9 43.7

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 13.5 10.0 51.4 3.9 43.7

Queue Length 50th (ft) 130 222 37 22 157

Queue Length 95th (ft) m118 329 m72 135 239

Internal Link Dist (ft) 920 820 1037

Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100

Base Capacity (vph) 1001 1203 186 2356 503

Starvation Cap Reductn 00000

Spillback Cap Reductn 00000

Storage Cap Reductn 00000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.63 0.51 0.46 0.66

Intersection Summary

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-343
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 8

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 0 237 701 87 995 0 0 0 0 176 1 128

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

Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.94

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97

Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1583 1770 3539 1708

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97

Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1583 1770 3539 1708

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 0 258 762 95 1082 0 0 0 0 191 1 139

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 362 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 258 400 95 1082 0 0 0 0 0 300 0

Turn Type Perm Prot Split

Protected Phases 4 3 8 6 6

Permitted Phases 4

Actuated Green, G (s) 47.3 47.3 7.6 59.9 20.1

Effective Green, g (s) 47.3 47.3 7.6 59.9 20.1

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.53 0.53 0.08 0.67 0.22

Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 979 832 149 2355 381

v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.05 c0.31 c0.18

v/s Ratio Perm 0.25

v/c Ratio 0.26 0.48 0.64 0.46 0.79

Uniform Delay, d1 11.8 13.6 39.9 7.3 32.9

Progression Factor 0.95 5.66 1.07 0.42 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 1.4 7.0 0.5 10.3

Delay (s) 11.7 78.2 49.8 3.6 43.2

Level of Service B E D A D

Approach Delay (s) 61.4 7.3 0.0 43.2

Approach LOS E A A D

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 33.8 HCM Level of Service C

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.4% ICU Level of Service D

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-344
Timings

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 9

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 534 501 618 2

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 4382

Permitted Phases

Detector Phase 4 3 8 2

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 9.0 21.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 42.0 24.0 66.0 24.0

Total Split (%) 46.7% 26.7% 73.3% 26.7%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None C-Min

Act Effct Green (s) 32.5 18.5 56.0 24.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.21 0.62 0.27

v/c Ratio 0.87 0.77 0.58 0.58

Control Delay 48.2 25.6 13.5 6.9

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 48.2 25.6 13.5 6.9

LOS D C B A

Approach Delay 48.2 18.9 6.9

Approach LOS D B A

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 90

Actuated Cycle Length: 90

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 65

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.87

Intersection Signal Delay: 24.2 Intersection LOS: C

Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.9% ICU Level of Service D

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1

F-G-345
Phasings

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 10

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Protected Phases 4382

Permitted Phases

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 9.0 21.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 42.0 24.0 66.0 24.0

Total Split (%) 46.7% 26.7% 73.3% 26.7%

Maximum Green (s) 37.0 19.0 61.0 19.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None C-Min

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 37.0 19.1 61.1 18.9

90th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 37.1 22.0 64.1 15.9

70th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 33.6 19.3 57.9 22.1

50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 30.1 17.4 52.5 27.5

30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 24.6 14.6 44.2 35.8

10th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 90

Actuated Cycle Length: 90

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-346
Queues

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 11

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Lane Group Flow (vph) 582 545 672 437

v/c Ratio 0.87 0.77 0.58 0.58

Control Delay 48.2 25.6 13.5 6.9

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 48.2 25.6 13.5 6.9

Queue Length 50th (ft) 343 94 351 1

Queue Length 95th (ft) m312 217 457 81

Internal Link Dist (ft) 920 920 951

Turn Bay Length (ft) 150

Base Capacity (vph) 766 751 1276 758

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.76 0.73 0.53 0.58

Intersection Summary

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-347
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 12

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 534 2 501 618 2 400

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87

Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1862 3433 1863 1612

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1862 3433 1863 1612

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 580 2 545 672 2 435

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 319 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 582 0 545 672 118 0

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 4 3 8 2

Permitted Phases

Actuated Green, G (s) 32.5 18.5 56.0 24.0

Effective Green, g (s) 32.5 18.5 56.0 24.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.21 0.62 0.27

Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 672 706 1159 430

v/s Ratio Prot c0.31 c0.16 0.36 c0.07

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.87 0.77 0.58 0.27

Uniform Delay, d1 26.7 33.8 10.0 26.1

Progression Factor 1.40 0.54 1.20 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 8.9 4.7 0.6 1.6

Delay (s) 46.4 23.0 12.7 27.7

Level of Service D C B C

Approach Delay (s) 46.4 17.3 27.7

Approach LOS D B C

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 26.9 HCM Level of Service C

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.9% ICU Level of Service D

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-348
Timings

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 13

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 3 27 458 17 98 138 92 185

Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4385216

Permitted Phases 4

Detector Phase 4 4 3 8 5 2 1 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 9.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 23.0 23.0 21.0 44.0 17.0 33.0 13.0 29.0

Total Split (%) 25.6% 25.6% 23.3% 48.9% 18.9% 36.7% 14.4% 32.2%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max None C-Max None Min None Min

Act Effct Green (s) 23.7 15.7 44.4 10.1 25.2 7.7 22.8

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.17 0.49 0.11 0.28 0.09 0.25

v/c Ratio 0.22 0.83 0.06 0.54 0.91 0.66 0.43

Control Delay 13.2 41.6 1.0 43.6 41.2 61.2 30.8

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 13.2 41.6 1.0 43.6 41.2 61.2 30.8

LOS B D A D D E C

Approach Delay 13.2 37.9 41.6 40.8

Approach LOS B D D D

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 90

Actuated Cycle Length: 90

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 80

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.91

Intersection Signal Delay: 38.2 Intersection LOS: D

Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.3% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road

F-G-349
Phasings

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 14

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Protected Phases 4385216

Permitted Phases 4

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 9.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 23.0 23.0 21.0 44.0 17.0 33.0 13.0 29.0

Total Split (%) 25.6% 25.6% 23.3% 48.9% 18.9% 36.7% 14.4% 32.2%

Maximum Green (s) 18.0 18.0 16.0 39.0 12.0 28.0 8.0 24.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max None C-Max None Min None Min

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 0 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 18.0 18.0 16.0 39.0 12.0 28.0 8.0 24.0

90th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord Max Max Max Hold

70th %ile Green (s) 18.0 18.0 16.0 39.0 12.0 28.0 8.0 24.0

70th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord Max Max Max Hold

50th %ile Green (s) 18.0 18.0 16.0 39.0 10.7 28.0 8.0 25.3

50th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord Gap Max Max Hold

30th %ile Green (s) 21.4 21.4 16.6 43.0 9.0 24.0 8.0 23.0

30th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Gap Coord Gap Gap Max Hold

10th %ile Green (s) 43.2 43.2 14.0 62.2 0.0 17.8 0.0 17.8

10th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Gap Coord Skip Gap Skip Hold

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 90

Actuated Cycle Length: 90

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-350
Queues

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 15

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 107 498 50 107 516 100 205

v/c Ratio 0.22 0.83 0.06 0.54 0.91 0.66 0.43

Control Delay 13.2 41.6 1.0 43.6 41.2 61.2 30.8

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 13.2 41.6 1.0 43.6 41.2 61.2 30.8

Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 95 6 58 225 56 93

Queue Length 95th (ft) 59 #206 m1 88 #383 #126 160

Internal Link Dist (ft) 464 920 920 859

Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 100

Base Capacity (vph) 497 615 848 236 616 157 501

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.81 0.06 0.45 0.84 0.64 0.41

Intersection Summary

# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-351
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 16

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 3 27 69 458 17 29 98 138 337 92 185 4

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

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

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 0.91 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1684 3433 1684 1770 1665 1770 1857

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1679 3433 1684 1770 1665 1770 1857

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 3 29 75 498 18 32 107 150 366 100 201 4

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 56 0 0 17 0 0 1020010

Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 51 0 498 33 0 107 414 0 100 204 0

Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4 3 8 5 2 1 6

Permitted Phases 4

Actuated Green, G (s) 22.7 15.7 43.4 8.7 25.2 6.4 22.9

Effective Green, g (s) 22.7 15.7 43.4 8.7 25.2 6.4 22.9

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.17 0.48 0.10 0.28 0.07 0.25

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

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 423 599 812 171 466 126 473

v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.02 c0.06 c0.25 0.06 0.11

v/s Ratio Perm c0.03

v/c Ratio 0.12 0.83 0.04 0.63 0.89 0.79 0.43

Uniform Delay, d1 26.0 35.9 12.3 39.1 31.0 41.1 28.1

Progression Factor 1.00 0.83 0.11 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 8.4 0.1 6.7 17.7 28.1 0.6

Delay (s) 26.5 38.1 1.5 41.9 45.5 69.2 28.7

Level of Service C D A D D E C

Approach Delay (s) 26.5 34.8 44.9 42.0

Approach LOS C C D D

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 39.6 HCM Level of Service D

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.3% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-352
Timings

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 17

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 28 2 2 2 46 418 110 487

Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4 85216

Permitted Phases 4 8

Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 9.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 29.0 38.0 29.0 38.0

Total Split (%) 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 32.2% 42.2% 32.2% 42.2%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None C-Min

Act Effct Green (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 57.7 11.4 66.6

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.64 0.13 0.74

v/c Ratio 0.51 0.40 0.32 0.38 0.53 0.42

Control Delay 26.2 15.2 43.0 10.7 43.7 9.9

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 26.2 15.2 43.0 10.7 43.7 9.9

LOS C B D B D A

Approach Delay 26.2 15.2 13.9 15.7

Approach LOS C B B B

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 90

Actuated Cycle Length: 90

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 60

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.53

Intersection Signal Delay: 15.7 Intersection LOS: B

Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.8% ICU Level of Service B

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 7: Station Access #4 & Future Road

F-G-353
Phasings

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 18

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Protected Phases 4 85216

Permitted Phases 4 8

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 9.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 29.0 38.0 29.0 38.0

Total Split (%) 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 32.2% 42.2% 32.2% 42.2%

Maximum Green (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 24.0 33.0 24.0 33.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None C-Min

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0000 0 0

90th %ile Green (s) 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 10.8 46.9 15.9 52.0

90th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Gap Coord Gap Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.1 52.5 13.2 56.6

70th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Gap Coord Gap Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.9 56.2 11.4 59.7

50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Gap Coord Gap Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 0.0 59.9 9.6 74.5

30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Gap Gap Skip Coord Gap Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.0 7.0 85.0

10th %ile Term Code Skip Skip Skip Skip Skip Coord Gap Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 90

Actuated Cycle Length: 90

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-354
Queues

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 19

Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 94 87 50 456 120 574

v/c Ratio 0.51 0.40 0.32 0.38 0.53 0.42

Control Delay 26.2 15.2 43.0 10.7 43.7 9.9

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 26.2 15.2 43.0 10.7 43.7 9.9

Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 2 27 117 74 144

Queue Length 95th (ft) 62 44 61 234 m106 m81

Internal Link Dist (ft) 560 751 420 420

Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100

Base Capacity (vph) 338 388 472 1193 472 1362

Starvation Cap Reductn 000000

Spillback Cap Reductn 000000

Storage Cap Reductn 000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.22 0.11 0.38 0.25 0.42

Intersection Summary

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-355
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 20

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 28 2 57 2 2 76 46 418 2 110 487 41

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

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

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 0.91 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99

Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1670 1621 1770 1862 1770 1841

Flt Permitted 0.85 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1444 1610 1770 1862 1770 1841

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 30 2 62 2 2 83 50 454 2 120 529 45

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 57 0 0 770000020

Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 37 0 0 10 0 50 456 0 120 572 0

Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6

Permitted Phases 4 8

Actuated Green, G (s) 6.9 6.9 5.6 56.7 11.4 62.5

Effective Green, g (s) 6.9 6.9 5.6 56.7 11.4 62.5

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.63 0.13 0.69

Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 111 123 110 1173 224 1278

v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.24 c0.07 c0.31

v/s Ratio Perm c0.03 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.33 0.08 0.45 0.39 0.54 0.45

Uniform Delay, d1 39.4 38.6 40.7 8.2 36.8 6.1

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.20

Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 0.3 3.0 1.0 1.9 0.9

Delay (s) 41.1 38.9 43.7 9.1 39.5 8.2

Level of Service D D D A D A

Approach Delay (s) 41.1 38.9 12.5 13.6

Approach LOS D D B B

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 16.7 HCM Level of Service B

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.8% ICU Level of Service B

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-356
2013 Conditions

Base + DEMU

F-G-357
F-G-358
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 1

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 70 301 0 0 207 73 602 2 95 0 0 0

Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 76 327 0 0 225 79 654 2 103000

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 304 327 744 784 327 848 744 265

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 304 327 744 784 327 848 744 265

tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 94 100 0 99 86 100 100 100

cM capacity (veh/h) 1256 1232 315 305 714 228 322 774

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1

Volume Total 403 304 760

Volume Left 76 0 654

Volume Right 0 79 103

cSH 1256 1700 341

Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.18 2.23

Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 1433

Control Delay (s) 2.0 0.0 586.3

Lane LOS A F

Approach Delay (s) 2.0 0.0 586.3

Approach LOS F

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 304.1

Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.3% ICU Level of Service E

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-359
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 2

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 0 194 529 87 720 0 0 0 0 176 1 113

Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 211 575 95 783 0 0 0 0 191 1 123

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 783 786 1593 1470 498 1470 1758 783

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 783 786 1593 1470 498 1470 1758 783

tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 100 89 100 100 100 0 99 69

cM capacity (veh/h) 835 833 54 113 572 96 75 394

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1

Volume Total 786 877 315

Volume Left 0 95 191

Volume Right 575 0 123

cSH 1700 833 136

Volume to Capacity 0.46 0.11 2.32

Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 10 670

Control Delay (s) 0.0 2.9 666.9

Lane LOS A F

Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.9 666.9

Approach LOS F

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 107.6

Intersection Capacity Utilization 112.2% ICU Level of Service H

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-360
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2013 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 3

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 435 2 355 474 2 283

Sign Control Free Free Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 473 2 386 515 2 308

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 475 1761 474

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 475 1761 474

tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3

p0 queue free % 65 96 48

cM capacity (veh/h) 1087 60 590

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1

Volume Total 475 386 515 310

Volume Left 0 386 0 2

Volume Right 2 0 0 308

cSH 1700 1087 1700 556

Volume to Capacity 0.28 0.35 0.30 0.56

Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 41 0 85

Control Delay (s) 0.0 10.1 0.0 19.3

Lane LOS B C

Approach Delay (s) 0.0 4.3 19.3

Approach LOS C

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 5.9

Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.3% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-361
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2 5/26/2010

2013 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 4

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 380 2 81 393 2 56

Sign Control Free Free Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 413 2 88 427 2 61

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 415 1017 414

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 415 1017 414

tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3

p0 queue free % 92 99 90

cM capacity (veh/h) 1144 243 638

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1

Volume Total 415 88 427 63

Volume Left 0 88 0 2

Volume Right 2 0 0 61

cSH 1700 1144 1700 604

Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.08 0.25 0.10

Queue Length 95th (ft) 0609

Control Delay (s) 0.0 8.4 0.0 11.7

Lane LOS A B

Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.4 11.7

Approach LOS B

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 1.5

Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.2% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-362
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 5

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 3 27 69 347 17 29 98 138 261 92 185 4

Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 29 75 377 18 32 107 150 284 100 201 4

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 50 104 951 878 67 1221 899 34

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 50 104 951 878 67 1221 899 34

tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 100 75 0 30 72 0 3 100

cM capacity (veh/h) 1557 1487 23 214 997 40 207 1039

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2

Volume Total 108 377 50 107 434 100 205

Volume Left 3 377 0 107 0 100 0

Volume Right 75 0 32 0 284 0 4

cSH 1557 1487 1700 23 439 40 211

Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.25 0.03 4.58 0.99 2.49 0.97

Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 25 0 Err 310 273 211

Control Delay (s) 0.2 8.2 0.0 Err 70.7 893.1 102.9

Lane LOS A A FFFF

Approach Delay (s) 0.2 7.3 2028.4 361.6

Approach LOS F F

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 876.1

Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.3% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-363
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

6: Station Access #3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 6

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 9 2 19 2 2 39 14 449 2 56 533 12

Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 10 2 21 2 2 42 15 488 2 61 579 13

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 1270 1228 586 1242 1234 489 592 490

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 1270 1228 586 1242 1234 489 592 490

tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2

p0 queue free % 92 99 96 98 99 93 98 94

cM capacity (veh/h) 126 165 510 136 164 579 983 1073

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2

Volume Total 33 47 15 490 61 592

Volume Left 10 2 15 0 61 0

Volume Right 21 42 0 2 0 13

cSH 248 456 983 1700 1073 1700

Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.10 0.02 0.29 0.06 0.35

Queue Length 95th (ft) 1191050

Control Delay (s) 21.7 13.8 8.7 0.0 8.6 0.0

Lane LOS C B A A

Approach Delay (s) 21.7 13.8 0.3 0.8

Approach LOS C B

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 1.6

Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.6% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-364
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 7

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 28 5 57 2 2 54 46 381 2 78 432 41

Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 30 5 62 2 2 59 50 414 2 85 470 45

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 1235 1178 492 1219 1199 415 514 416

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 1235 1178 492 1219 1199 415 514 416

tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2

p0 queue free % 76 97 89 98 99 91 95 93

cM capacity (veh/h) 125 168 577 124 163 637 1051 1143

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2

Volume Total 98 63 50 416 85 514

Volume Left 30 2 50 0 85 0

Volume Right 62 59 0 2 0 45

cSH 256 513 1051 1700 1143 1700

Volume to Capacity 0.38 0.12 0.05 0.24 0.07 0.30

Queue Length 95th (ft) 43 104060

Control Delay (s) 27.6 13.0 8.6 0.0 8.4 0.0

Lane LOS D B A A

Approach Delay (s) 27.6 13.0 0.9 1.2

Approach LOS D B

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 3.8

Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.5% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-365
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

8: Station Access #5 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 8

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 2 92 334 2 133 356

Sign Control Stop Free Free

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 100 363 2 145 387

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 1040 364 365

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 1040 364 365

tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 99 85 88

cM capacity (veh/h) 224 681 1193

Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2

Volume Total 102 365 145 387

Volume Left 2 0 145 0

Volume Right 100 2 0 0

cSH 653 1700 1193 1700

Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.21 0.12 0.23

Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 0 10 0

Control Delay (s) 11.5 0.0 8.4 0.0

Lane LOS B A

Approach Delay (s) 11.5 0.0 2.3

Approach LOS B

Intersection Summary

Average Delay 2.4

Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.9% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

F-G-366
2013 Conditions

Base + DEMU Mitigations

F-G-367
F-G-368
Timings

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 1

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 70 301 207 602 2

Turn Type Perm Split

Protected Phases 4822

Permitted Phases 4

Detector Phase 4 4 8 2 2

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 50.0 50.0

Total Split (%) 44.4% 44.4% 44.4% 55.6% 55.6%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize?

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max Min Min

Act Effct Green (s) 40.9 40.9 39.1 39.1

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.43 0.43

v/c Ratio 0.54 0.37 0.85 0.14

Control Delay 15.1 17.8 33.8 3.2

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 15.1 17.8 33.8 3.2

LOS B B C A

Approach Delay 15.1 17.8 29.6

Approach LOS B B C

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 90

Actuated Cycle Length: 90

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 55

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.85

Intersection Signal Delay: 23.2 Intersection LOS: C

Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.9% ICU Level of Service D

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps

F-G-369
Phasings

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 2

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT

Protected Phases 4822

Permitted Phases 4

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 50.0 50.0

Total Split (%) 44.4% 44.4% 44.4% 55.6% 55.6%

Maximum Green (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 45.0 45.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize?

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max Min Min

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 55555

90th %ile Green (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 45.0 45.0

90th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Coord Max Max

70th %ile Green (s) 36.0 36.0 36.0 44.0 44.0

70th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Coord Gap Gap

50th %ile Green (s) 39.4 39.4 39.4 40.6 40.6

50th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Coord Gap Gap

30th %ile Green (s) 43.5 43.5 43.5 36.5 36.5

30th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Coord Gap Gap

10th %ile Green (s) 50.6 50.6 50.6 29.4 29.4

10th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Coord Gap Gap

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 90

Actuated Cycle Length: 90

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-370
Queues

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 3

Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 403 304 654 105

v/c Ratio 0.54 0.37 0.85 0.14

Control Delay 15.1 17.8 33.8 3.2

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 15.1 17.8 33.8 3.2

Queue Length 50th (ft) 140 104 313 1

Queue Length 95th (ft) 195 185 422 25

Internal Link Dist (ft) 820 380 310

Turn Bay Length (ft)

Base Capacity (vph) 743 830 885 846

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.54 0.37 0.74 0.12

Intersection Summary

F-G-371
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 4

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 70 301 0 0 207 73 602 2 95 0 0 0

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

Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1845 1797 1770 1589

Flt Permitted 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1636 1797 1770 1589

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 76 327 0 0 225 79 654 2 103 0 0 0

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 58 0 0 0 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 403 0 0 291 0 654 470000

Turn Type Perm Split

Protected Phases 4 8 2 2

Permitted Phases 4

Actuated Green, G (s) 40.9 40.9 39.1 39.1

Effective Green, g (s) 40.9 40.9 39.1 39.1

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.43 0.43

Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 743 817 769 690

v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.37 0.03

v/s Ratio Perm c0.25

v/c Ratio 0.54 0.36 0.85 0.07

Uniform Delay, d1 17.8 16.0 22.8 14.8

Progression Factor 0.62 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 1.2 8.9 0.0

Delay (s) 13.7 17.2 31.8 14.9

Level of Service B B C B

Approach Delay (s) 13.7 17.2 29.4 0.0

Approach LOS B B C A

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 22.6 HCM Level of Service C

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.9% ICU Level of Service D

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-372
Timings

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 5

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 194 529 87 720 1

Turn Type Perm Prot

Protected Phases 4 3 8 6

Permitted Phases 4

Detector Phase 4 4 3 8 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 47.0 47.0 14.0 61.0 29.0

Total Split (%) 52.2% 52.2% 15.6% 67.8% 32.2%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max None C-Max Min

Act Effct Green (s) 49.1 49.1 8.8 60.6 19.4

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.10 0.67 0.22

v/c Ratio 0.21 0.51 0.55 0.62 0.80

Control Delay 17.3 8.3 46.1 10.6 44.2

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 17.3 8.3 46.1 10.6 44.2

LOS B A D B D

Approach Delay 10.7 14.4 44.2

Approach LOS B B D

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 90

Actuated Cycle Length: 90

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 60

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.80

Intersection Signal Delay: 17.7 Intersection LOS: B

Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.8% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps

F-G-373
Phasings

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 6

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBT

Protected Phases 4 3 8 6

Permitted Phases 4

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 47.0 47.0 14.0 61.0 29.0

Total Split (%) 52.2% 52.2% 15.6% 67.8% 32.2%

Maximum Green (s) 42.0 42.0 9.0 56.0 24.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max None C-Max Min

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 42.0 42.0 9.0 56.0 24.0

90th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord Max

70th %ile Green (s) 42.0 42.0 9.9 56.9 23.1

70th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord Gap

50th %ile Green (s) 44.8 44.8 10.1 59.9 20.1

50th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Gap Coord Gap

30th %ile Green (s) 49.3 49.3 8.6 62.9 17.1

30th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Gap Coord Gap

10th %ile Green (s) 67.4 67.4 0.0 67.4 12.6

10th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Skip Coord Gap

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 90

Actuated Cycle Length: 90

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-374
Queues

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 7

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 211 575 95 783 315

v/c Ratio 0.21 0.51 0.55 0.62 0.80

Control Delay 17.3 8.3 46.1 10.6 44.2

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 17.3 8.3 46.1 10.6 44.2

Queue Length 50th (ft) 93 98 42 357 151

Queue Length 95th (ft) m138 m169 m75 477 233

Internal Link Dist (ft) 920 820 245

Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100

Base Capacity (vph) 1016 1125 185 1255 482

Starvation Cap Reductn 00000

Spillback Cap Reductn 00000

Storage Cap Reductn 00000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.51 0.51 0.62 0.65

Intersection Summary

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-375
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2013 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 8

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 0 194 529 87 720 0 0 0 0 176 1 113

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

Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.95

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97

Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1583 1770 1863 1713

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97

Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1583 1770 1863 1713

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 0 211 575 95 783 0 0 0 0 191 1 123

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 268 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 211 307 95 783 0 0 0 0 0 288 0

Turn Type Perm Prot Split

Protected Phases 4 3 8 6 6

Permitted Phases 4

Actuated Green, G (s) 48.1 48.1 7.5 60.6 19.4

Effective Green, g (s) 48.1 48.1 7.5 60.6 19.4

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.53 0.53 0.08 0.67 0.22

Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 996 846 148 1254 369

v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 0.05 c0.42 c0.17

v/s Ratio Perm 0.19

v/c Ratio 0.21 0.36 0.64 0.62 0.78

Uniform Delay, d1 11.0 12.1 39.9 8.3 33.3

Progression Factor 1.31 4.61 0.94 0.91 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 1.1 7.1 1.8 10.0

Delay (s) 14.9 56.9 44.8 9.4 43.3

Level of Service B E D A D

Approach Delay (s) 45.6 13.2 0.0 43.3

Approach LOS D B A D

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 30.9 HCM Level of Service C

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.8% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-376
Timings

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 9

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 3 27 347 17 98 138 92 185

Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4385216

Permitted Phases 4

Detector Phase 4 4 3 8 5 2 1 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 1.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 9.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 21.0 21.0 28.0 49.0 16.0 28.0 13.0 25.0

Total Split (%) 23.3% 23.3% 31.1% 54.4% 17.8% 31.1% 14.4% 27.8%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max None C-Max None Min None Min

Act Effct Green (s) 21.4 21.7 48.2 9.7 21.4 7.7 19.5

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.54 0.11 0.24 0.09 0.22

v/c Ratio 0.23 0.88 0.05 0.56 0.91 0.66 0.51

Control Delay 14.1 64.0 11.0 49.7 49.9 61.2 35.7

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 14.1 64.0 11.0 49.7 49.9 61.2 35.7

LOS B E B D D E D

Approach Delay 14.1 57.8 49.9 44.1

Approach LOS B E D D

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 90

Actuated Cycle Length: 90

Offset: 53 (59%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 80

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.91

Intersection Signal Delay: 48.3 Intersection LOS: D

Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.8% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road

F-G-377
Phasings

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 10

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Protected Phases 4385216

Permitted Phases 4

Minimum Initial (s) 1.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 9.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 21.0 21.0 28.0 49.0 16.0 28.0 13.0 25.0

Total Split (%) 23.3% 23.3% 31.1% 54.4% 17.8% 31.1% 14.4% 27.8%

Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 23.0 44.0 11.0 23.0 8.0 20.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max None C-Max None Min None Min

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 23.0 44.0 11.0 23.0 8.0 20.0

90th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord Max Max Max Max

70th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 23.0 44.0 11.0 23.0 8.0 20.0

70th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord Max Max Max Hold

50th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 23.0 44.0 10.7 23.0 8.0 20.3

50th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord Gap Max Max Hold

30th %ile Green (s) 18.1 18.1 22.1 45.2 9.0 21.8 8.0 20.8

30th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Gap Coord Gap Gap Max Hold

10th %ile Green (s) 41.0 41.0 17.6 63.6 0.0 16.4 0.0 16.4

10th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Gap Coord Skip Gap Skip Hold

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 90

Actuated Cycle Length: 90

Offset: 53 (59%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-378
Queues

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 11

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 107 377 50 107 434 100 205

v/c Ratio 0.23 0.88 0.05 0.56 0.91 0.66 0.51

Control Delay 14.1 64.0 11.0 49.7 49.9 61.2 35.7

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 14.1 64.0 11.0 49.7 49.9 61.2 35.7

Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 231 3 58 184 56 102

Queue Length 95th (ft) 61 #360 m20 111 #353 #126 171

Internal Link Dist (ft) 1539 920 920 986

Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 100

Base Capacity (vph) 456 452 916 216 505 157 418

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.83 0.05 0.50 0.86 0.64 0.49

Intersection Summary

# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-379
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2013 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 12

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 3 27 69 347 17 29 98 138 261 92 185 4

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

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

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 0.91 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1684 1770 1684 1770 1680 1770 1857

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1678 1770 1684 1770 1680 1770 1857

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 3 29 75 377 18 32 107 150 284 100 201 4

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 58 0 0 15 0 0 780010

Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 49 0 377 35 0 107 356 0 100 204 0

Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4 3 8 5 2 1 6

Permitted Phases 4

Actuated Green, G (s) 20.5 21.7 47.2 8.3 21.4 6.4 19.5

Effective Green, g (s) 20.5 21.7 47.2 8.3 21.4 6.4 19.5

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.24 0.52 0.09 0.24 0.07 0.22

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

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 382 427 883 163 399 126 402

v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.02 c0.06 c0.21 0.06 0.11

v/s Ratio Perm c0.03

v/c Ratio 0.13 0.88 0.04 0.66 0.89 0.79 0.51

Uniform Delay, d1 27.6 32.9 10.4 39.5 33.2 41.1 31.0

Progression Factor 1.00 1.38 1.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 15.5 0.1 9.2 21.4 28.1 1.0

Delay (s) 28.3 61.1 17.9 48.6 54.6 69.2 32.0

Level of Service C E B D D E C

Approach Delay (s) 28.3 56.0 53.4 44.2

Approach LOS C E D D

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 50.3 HCM Level of Service D

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.8% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-380
2030 Conditions

(Base and Project Conditions)

F-G-381
F-G-382
2030 Conditions

Base

F-G-383
F-G-384
Timings

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 1

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 229 557 389 199 2

Turn Type Prot Split

Protected Phases 74822

Permitted Phases

Detector Phase 7 4 8 2 2

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 9.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (s) 14.0 42.0 28.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (%) 20.0% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max

Act Effct Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.53 0.33 0.33 0.33

v/c Ratio 1.09 0.32 0.52 0.37 0.68

Control Delay 119.7 14.3 17.2 20.3 15.1

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 119.7 14.3 17.2 20.3 15.1

LOS F B B C B

Approach Delay 45.0 17.2 16.7

Approach LOS D B B

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 70

Actuated Cycle Length: 70

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 70

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.09

Intersection Signal Delay: 28.1 Intersection LOS: C

Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.4% ICU Level of Service E

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps

F-G-385
Phasings

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 2

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT

Protected Phases 74822

Permitted Phases

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 9.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (s) 14.0 42.0 28.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (%) 20.0% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0%

Maximum Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5555

90th %ile Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

90th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

70th %ile Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

70th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

50th %ile Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

50th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

30th %ile Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

30th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

10th %ile Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

10th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 70

Actuated Cycle Length: 70

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-386
Queues

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 3

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 249 605 614 216 466

v/c Ratio 1.09 0.32 0.52 0.37 0.68

Control Delay 119.7 14.3 17.2 20.3 15.1

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 119.7 14.3 17.2 20.3 15.1

Queue Length 50th (ft) ~123 68 89 70 74

Queue Length 95th (ft) #261 101 135 124 177

Internal Link Dist (ft) 820 380 2022

Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 150

Base Capacity (vph) 228 1871 1183 582 686

Starvation Cap Reductn 00000

Spillback Cap Reductn 00000

Storage Cap Reductn 00000

Reduced v/c Ratio 1.09 0.32 0.52 0.37 0.68

Intersection Summary

~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

F-G-387
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 4

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 229 557 0 0 389 176 199 2 427 0 0 0

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

Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3374 1770 1585

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3374 1770 1585

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 249 605 0 0 423 191 216 2 464 0 0 0

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 165 0 0 0 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 249 605 0 0 539 0 216 3010000

Turn Type Prot Split

Protected Phases 7 4 8 2 2

Permitted Phases

Actuated Green, G (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.53 0.33 0.33 0.33

Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 228 1871 1109 582 521

v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 0.17 c0.16 0.12 c0.19

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 1.09 0.32 0.49 0.37 0.58

Uniform Delay, d1 30.5 9.4 18.8 18.0 19.5

Progression Factor 1.30 1.47 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 79.8 0.4 1.5 1.8 4.6

Delay (s) 119.3 14.1 20.3 19.8 24.1

Level of Service F B C B C

Approach Delay (s) 44.8 20.3 22.7 0.0

Approach LOS D C C A

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 30.8 HCM Level of Service C

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.4% ICU Level of Service E

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-388
Timings

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 5

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 468 558 321 267 318 1

Turn Type Perm Prot Split

Protected Phases 4 3866

Permitted Phases 4

Detector Phase 4 4 3 8 6 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 42.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (%) 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max None C-Max Max Max

Act Effct Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.53 0.33 0.33

v/c Ratio 0.63 0.73 0.86 0.15 0.59 0.53

Control Delay 28.4 8.4 43.4 8.3 24.7 4.8

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 28.4 8.4 43.4 8.3 24.7 4.8

LOS C A D A C A

Approach Delay 17.5 27.5 13.7

Approach LOS B C B

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 70

Actuated Cycle Length: 70

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 70

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.86

Intersection Signal Delay: 18.8 Intersection LOS: B

Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.4% ICU Level of Service E

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps

F-G-389
Phasings

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 6

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT

Protected Phases 4 3866

Permitted Phases 4

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 42.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (%) 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0%

Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max None C-Max Max Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 18.0 18.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

90th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord MaxR MaxR

70th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

70th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord MaxR MaxR

50th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

50th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord MaxR MaxR

30th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

30th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord MaxR MaxR

10th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

10th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Hold Coord MaxR MaxR

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 70

Actuated Cycle Length: 70

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-390
Queues

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 7

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 509 607 349 290 346 431

v/c Ratio 0.63 0.73 0.86 0.15 0.59 0.53

Control Delay 28.4 8.4 43.4 8.3 24.7 4.8

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 28.4 8.4 43.4 8.3 24.7 4.8

Queue Length 50th (ft) 104 0 118 30 123 0

Queue Length 95th (ft) 152 86 #286 46 203 57

Internal Link Dist (ft) 920 820 1339

Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 300

Base Capacity (vph) 809 830 405 1871 582 809

Starvation Cap Reductn 000000

Spillback Cap Reductn 000000

Storage Cap Reductn 000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0.73 0.86 0.15 0.59 0.53

Intersection Summary

# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

F-G-391
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 8

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 0 468 558 321 267 0 0 0 0 318 1 396

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

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

Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 1770 3539 1770 1584

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 1770 3539 1770 1584

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 0 509 607 349 290 0 0 0 0 346 1 430

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 468 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 289 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 509 139 349 290 0 0 0 0 346 142 0

Turn Type Perm Prot Split

Protected Phases 4 3 8 6 6

Permitted Phases 4

Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.53 0.33 0.33

Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 809 362 405 1871 582 520

v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.20 0.08 c0.20 0.09

v/s Ratio Perm 0.09

v/c Ratio 0.63 0.38 0.86 0.15 0.59 0.27

Uniform Delay, d1 24.3 22.8 25.9 8.5 19.6 17.3

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.95 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 3.7 3.1 15.5 0.2 4.4 1.3

Delay (s) 28.0 25.9 36.9 8.2 24.0 18.6

Level of Service C C D A C B

Approach Delay (s) 26.9 23.9 0.0 21.0

Approach LOS C C A C

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 24.3 HCM Level of Service C

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.4% ICU Level of Service E

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-392
Timings

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 9

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 17 141 363 420 89 515 722 401 485 969

Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot

Protected Phases 7 4 3852 16

Permitted Phases 4 2

Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 9.0 44.0 44.0 9.0 44.0 9.0 44.0 44.0 9.0 44.0

Total Split (s) 28.0 44.0 44.0 28.0 44.0 34.0 44.0 44.0 34.0 44.0

Total Split (%) 18.7% 29.3% 29.3% 18.7% 29.3% 22.7% 29.3% 29.3% 22.7% 29.3%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 18.8 17.0 17.0 24.0 26.6 29.0 61.9 61.9 27.1 59.9

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.41 0.41 0.18 0.40

v/c Ratio 0.08 0.38 0.77 0.83 0.37 0.84 0.37 0.51 0.85 0.53

Control Delay 53.8 62.0 17.3 74.4 22.0 66.1 30.1 12.1 73.1 37.4

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 53.8 62.0 17.3 74.4 22.0 66.1 30.1 12.1 73.1 37.4

LOS D E B E C E C B E D

Approach Delay 30.5 55.2 37.0 49.2

Approach LOS C E D D

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 150

Actuated Cycle Length: 150

Offset: 96 (64%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 130

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.85

Intersection Signal Delay: 43.2 Intersection LOS: D

Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.4% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road

F-G-393
Phasings

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 10

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT

Protected Phases 7 4 3852 16

Permitted Phases 4 2

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 9.0 44.0 44.0 9.0 44.0 9.0 44.0 44.0 9.0 44.0

Total Split (s) 28.0 44.0 44.0 28.0 44.0 34.0 44.0 44.0 34.0 44.0

Total Split (%) 18.7% 29.3% 29.3% 18.7% 29.3% 22.7% 29.3% 29.3% 22.7% 29.3%

Maximum Green (s) 23.0 39.0 39.0 23.0 39.0 29.0 39.0 39.0 29.0 39.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 23.0 39.0 39.0 23.0 39.0 29.0 39.0 39.0 29.0 39.0

90th %ile Term Code Hold Ped Ped Max Ped Max Coord Coord Max Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 30.9 15.2 15.2 27.9 12.2 29.0 56.3 56.3 30.6 57.9

70th %ile Term Code Hold Gap Gap Gap Gap Max Coord Coord Gap Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 28.5 11.9 11.9 25.7 9.1 29.0 64.3 64.3 28.1 63.4

50th %ile Term Code Hold Gap Gap Gap Gap Max Coord Coord Gap Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 0.0 10.5 10.5 23.4 38.9 29.0 70.4 70.4 25.7 67.1

30th %ile Term Code Skip Gap Gap Gap Hold Hold Coord Coord Gap Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 8.6 8.6 20.1 33.7 29.0 79.3 79.3 22.0 72.3

10th %ile Term Code Skip Gap Gap Gap Hold Hold Coord Coord Gap Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 150

Actuated Cycle Length: 150

Offset: 96 (64%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-394
Queues

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 11

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 153 395 457 263 560 785 436 527 1075

v/c Ratio 0.08 0.38 0.77 0.83 0.37 0.84 0.37 0.51 0.85 0.53

Control Delay 53.8 62.0 17.3 74.4 22.0 66.1 30.1 12.1 73.1 37.4

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 53.8 62.0 17.3 74.4 22.0 66.1 30.1 12.1 73.1 37.4

Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 77 20 223 49 278 172 79 258 279

Queue Length 95th (ft) 41 93 112 #316 77 #360 245 173 324 421

Internal Link Dist (ft) 1660 920 920 1521

Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 150 100

Base Capacity (vph) 303 920 688 563 956 664 2097 855 671 2027

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.17 0.57 0.81 0.28 0.84 0.37 0.51 0.79 0.53

Intersection Summary

# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

F-G-395
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 12

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 17 141 363 420 89 153 515 722 401 485 969 20

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

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

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91

Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00

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

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3204 3433 5085 1583 3433 5070

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

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3204 3433 5085 1583 3433 5070

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 18 153 395 457 97 166 560 785 436 527 1053 22

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 332 0 137 0 0 0 207 0 1 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 153 63 457 126 0 560 785 229 527 1074 0

Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot

Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6

Permitted Phases 4 2

Actuated Green, G (s) 16.5 17.0 17.0 26.1 26.6 29.1 59.8 59.8 27.1 57.8

Effective Green, g (s) 16.5 17.0 17.0 26.1 26.6 29.1 59.8 59.8 27.1 57.8

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.40 0.40 0.18 0.39

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

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 195 401 179 597 568 666 2027 631 620 1954

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.04 c0.13 0.04 c0.16 0.15 c0.15 c0.21

v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.14

v/c Ratio 0.09 0.38 0.35 0.77 0.22 0.84 0.39 0.36 0.85 0.55

Uniform Delay, d1 60.0 61.6 61.4 59.0 52.8 58.2 32.1 31.7 59.5 35.9

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.89 1.13 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.6 1.2 5.8 0.2 9.1 0.5 1.6 10.8 1.1

Delay (s) 60.2 62.2 62.6 64.9 53.0 62.8 29.1 37.5 70.3 37.1

Level of Service EEEED ECDED

Approach Delay (s) 62.5 60.5 41.7 48.0

Approach LOS E E D D

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 49.3 HCM Level of Service D

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.4% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-396
Timings

6: Future Road 2 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 13

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 48 99 71 1590 1688

Turn Type Perm Prot

Protected Phases 4 5 2 6

Permitted Phases 4

Detector Phase 4 4 5 2 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 23.0 23.0 14.0 52.0 38.0

Total Split (%) 30.7% 30.7% 18.7% 69.3% 50.7%

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 8.8 8.8 9.1 60.9 49.7

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.81 0.66

v/c Ratio 0.25 0.38 0.36 0.33 0.45

Control Delay 31.2 10.3 31.6 2.2 10.8

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 31.2 10.3 31.6 2.2 10.8

LOS C B C A B

Approach Delay 17.1 3.4 10.8

Approach LOS B A B

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 75

Actuated Cycle Length: 75

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 55

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.45

Intersection Signal Delay: 7.6 Intersection LOS: A

Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.8% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 6: Future Road 2 & Future Road

F-G-397
Phasings

6: Future Road 2 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 14

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT

Protected Phases 4 5 2 6

Permitted Phases 4

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 23.0 23.0 14.0 52.0 38.0

Total Split (%) 30.7% 30.7% 18.7% 69.3% 50.7%

Maximum Green (s) 19.0 19.0 10.0 48.0 34.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 10.0 51.0 37.0

90th %ile Term Code Ped Ped Max Coord Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 8.6 8.6 10.0 58.4 44.4

70th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 7.6 7.6 10.0 59.4 45.4

50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 6.5 6.5 10.0 60.5 46.5

30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.0 71.0

10th %ile Term Code Skip Skip Skip Coord Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 75

Actuated Cycle Length: 75

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-398
Queues

6: Future Road 2 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 15

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 52 108 77 1728 1906

v/c Ratio 0.25 0.38 0.36 0.33 0.45

Control Delay 31.2 10.3 31.6 2.2 10.8

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 31.2 10.3 31.6 2.2 10.8

Queue Length 50th (ft) 23 0 33 40 390

Queue Length 95th (ft) 48 37 73 62 179

Internal Link Dist (ft) 813 420 920

Turn Bay Length (ft) 100

Base Capacity (vph) 448 482 236 5200 4222

Starvation Cap Reductn 00000

Spillback Cap Reductn 00000

Storage Cap Reductn 00000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.22 0.33 0.33 0.45

Intersection Summary

F-G-399
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

6: Future Road 2 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 16

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 48 99 71 1590 1688 65

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86

Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 6408 6372

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1770 6408 6372

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 52 108 77 1728 1835 71

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 970050

Lane Group Flow (vph) 52 11 77 1728 1901 0

Turn Type Perm Prot

Protected Phases 4 5 2 6

Permitted Phases 4

Actuated Green, G (s) 7.7 7.7 8.0 59.3 47.3

Effective Green, g (s) 7.7 7.7 8.0 59.3 47.3

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.79 0.63

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 182 163 189 5067 4019

v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.04 c0.27 c0.30

v/s Ratio Perm 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.29 0.07 0.41 0.34 0.47

Uniform Delay, d1 31.1 30.4 31.3 2.2 7.3

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.73 1.27

Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.2 1.4 0.2 0.3

Delay (s) 32.0 30.6 29.7 1.8 9.6

Level of Service C C C A A

Approach Delay (s) 31.0 3.0 9.6

Approach LOS C A A

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 7.4 HCM Level of Service A

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.8% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-400
Timings

7: Future Road 3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 17

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 145 297 239 1515 1570

Turn Type Perm Prot

Protected Phases 4 5 2 6

Permitted Phases 4

Detector Phase 4 4 5 2 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 22.0 55.0 33.0

Total Split (%) 26.7% 26.7% 29.3% 73.3% 44.0%

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 11.8 11.8 18.0 55.2 33.2

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.24 0.74 0.44

v/c Ratio 0.57 0.62 0.61 0.35 0.69

Control Delay 36.7 9.1 32.6 4.0 13.4

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 36.7 9.1 32.6 4.0 13.4

LOS D A C A B

Approach Delay 18.2 7.9 13.4

Approach LOS B A B

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 75

Actuated Cycle Length: 75

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 60

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.69

Intersection Signal Delay: 11.5 Intersection LOS: B

Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.6% ICU Level of Service B

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 7: Future Road 3 & Future Road

F-G-401
Phasings

7: Future Road 3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 18

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT

Protected Phases 4 5 2 6

Permitted Phases 4

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 22.0 55.0 33.0

Total Split (%) 26.7% 26.7% 29.3% 73.3% 44.0%

Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 18.0 51.0 29.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 18.0 51.0 29.0

90th %ile Term Code Max Max Max Coord Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 13.8 13.8 18.0 53.2 31.2

70th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Max Coord Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 11.9 11.9 18.0 55.1 33.1

50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 10.0 10.0 18.0 57.0 35.0

30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 7.3 7.3 18.0 59.7 37.7

10th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 75

Actuated Cycle Length: 75

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-402
Queues

7: Future Road 3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 19

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 158 323 260 1647 1942

v/c Ratio 0.57 0.62 0.61 0.35 0.69

Control Delay 36.7 9.1 32.6 4.0 13.4

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 36.7 9.1 32.6 4.0 13.4

Queue Length 50th (ft) 69 0 108 62 80

Queue Length 95th (ft) 118 62 183 98 200

Internal Link Dist (ft) 873 420 420

Turn Bay Length (ft) 200

Base Capacity (vph) 378 592 425 4716 2816

Starvation Cap Reductn 00000

Spillback Cap Reductn 00000

Storage Cap Reductn 00000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.42 0.55 0.61 0.35 0.69

Intersection Summary

F-G-403
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

7: Future Road 3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 Base Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 20

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 145 297 239 1515 1570 216

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86

Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.98

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 6408 6292

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1770 6408 6292

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 158 323 260 1647 1707 235

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 272 0 0 30 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 158 51 260 1647 1912 0

Turn Type Perm Prot

Protected Phases 4 5 2 6

Permitted Phases 4

Actuated Green, G (s) 11.8 11.8 18.0 55.2 33.2

Effective Green, g (s) 11.8 11.8 18.0 55.2 33.2

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.24 0.74 0.44

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 278 249 425 4716 2785

v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.15 0.26 c0.30

v/s Ratio Perm 0.03

v/c Ratio 0.57 0.20 0.61 0.35 0.69

Uniform Delay, d1 29.2 27.5 25.4 3.5 16.7

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72

Incremental Delay, d2 2.7 0.4 2.6 0.2 1.3

Delay (s) 31.9 27.9 28.0 3.7 13.4

Level of Service C C C A B

Approach Delay (s) 29.2 7.0 13.4

Approach LOS C A B

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 12.4 HCM Level of Service B

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.6% ICU Level of Service B

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-404
2030 Conditions

Base + EMU

F-G-405
F-G-406
Timings

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 1

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 266 668 538 993 2

Turn Type Prot Split

Protected Phases 74822

Permitted Phases

Detector Phase 7 4 8 2 2

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 9.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (s) 14.0 42.0 28.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (%) 20.0% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max

Act Effct Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.53 0.33 0.33 0.33

v/c Ratio 1.27 0.39 0.67 1.85 0.73

Control Delay 175.5 17.2 21.7 412.6 20.3

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 175.5 17.2 21.7 412.6 20.3

LOS F B C F C

Approach Delay 62.3 21.7 294.3

Approach LOS E C F

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 70

Actuated Cycle Length: 70

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 120

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.85

Intersection Signal Delay: 160.3 Intersection LOS: F

Intersection Capacity Utilization 129.1% ICU Level of Service H

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps

F-G-407
Phasings

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 2

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT

Protected Phases 74822

Permitted Phases

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 9.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (s) 14.0 42.0 28.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (%) 20.0% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0%

Maximum Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5555

90th %ile Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

90th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

70th %ile Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

70th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

50th %ile Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

50th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

30th %ile Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

30th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

10th %ile Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

10th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 70

Actuated Cycle Length: 70

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-408
Queues

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 3

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 289 726 776 1079 466

v/c Ratio 1.27 0.39 0.67 1.85 0.73

Control Delay 175.5 17.2 21.7 412.6 20.3

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 175.5 17.2 21.7 412.6 20.3

Queue Length 50th (ft) ~162 99 135 ~723 105

Queue Length 95th (ft) m#251 m127 194 #944 #220

Internal Link Dist (ft) 820 380 2022

Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 150

Base Capacity (vph) 228 1871 1165 582 642

Starvation Cap Reductn 00000

Spillback Cap Reductn 00000

Storage Cap Reductn 00000

Reduced v/c Ratio 1.27 0.39 0.67 1.85 0.73

Intersection Summary

~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-409
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 4

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 266 668 0 0 538 176 993 2 427 0 0 0

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

Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3409 1770 1585

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3409 1770 1585

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 289 726 0 0 585 191 1079 2 464000

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 121 0 0 0 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 289 726 0 0 731 0 1079 3450000

Turn Type Prot Split

Protected Phases 7 4 8 2 2

Permitted Phases

Actuated Green, G (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.53 0.33 0.33 0.33

Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 228 1871 1120 582 521

v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.21 c0.21 c0.61 0.22

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 1.27 0.39 0.65 1.85 0.66

Uniform Delay, d1 30.5 9.8 20.1 23.5 20.2

Progression Factor 1.24 1.69 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 140.9 0.4 3.0 390.9 6.5

Delay (s) 178.7 16.9 23.1 414.4 26.7

Level of Service F B C F C

Approach Delay (s) 63.0 23.1 297.4 0.0

Approach LOS E C F A

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 162.3 HCM Level of Service F

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.26

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 129.1% ICU Level of Service H

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-410
Timings

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 5

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 616 1149 321 1210 318 1

Turn Type Perm Prot Split

Protected Phases 4 3866

Permitted Phases 4

Detector Phase 4 4 3 8 6 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 42.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (%) 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max None C-Max Max Max

Act Effct Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.53 0.33 0.33

v/c Ratio 0.83 1.38 0.86 0.70 0.59 0.89

Control Delay 36.4 194.5 32.4 14.7 24.7 42.2

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 36.4 194.5 32.4 14.7 24.7 42.2

LOS D F C B C D

Approach Delay 139.3 18.4 34.9

Approach LOS F B C

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 70

Actuated Cycle Length: 70

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 130

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.38

Intersection Signal Delay: 74.1 Intersection LOS: E

Intersection Capacity Utilization 129.1% ICU Level of Service H

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps

F-G-411
Phasings

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 6

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT

Protected Phases 4 3866

Permitted Phases 4

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 42.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (%) 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0%

Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max None C-Max Max Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 18.0 18.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

90th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord MaxR MaxR

70th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

70th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord MaxR MaxR

50th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

50th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord MaxR MaxR

30th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

30th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord MaxR MaxR

10th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

10th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Hold Coord MaxR MaxR

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 70

Actuated Cycle Length: 70

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-412
Queues

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 7

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 670 1249 349 1315 346 486

v/c Ratio 0.83 1.38 0.86 0.70 0.59 0.89

Control Delay 36.4 194.5 32.4 14.7 24.7 42.2

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 36.4 194.5 32.4 14.7 24.7 42.2

Queue Length 50th (ft) 145 ~478 142 234 123 182

Queue Length 95th (ft) #228 #715 m116 m186 203 #356

Internal Link Dist (ft) 920 820 1339

Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 300

Base Capacity (vph) 809 903 405 1871 582 546

Starvation Cap Reductn 000000

Spillback Cap Reductn 000000

Storage Cap Reductn 000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.83 1.38 0.86 0.70 0.59 0.89

Intersection Summary

~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-413
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 8

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 0 616 1149 321 1210 0 0 0 0 318 1 446

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

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

Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 1770 3539 1770 1584

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 1770 3539 1770 1584

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 0 670 1249 349 1315 0 0 0 0 346 1 485

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 541 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 670 708 349 1315 0 0 0 0 346 460 0

Turn Type Perm Prot Split

Protected Phases 4 3 8 6 6

Permitted Phases 4

Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.53 0.33 0.33

Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 809 362 405 1871 582 520

v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 c0.20 0.37 0.20 c0.29

v/s Ratio Perm c0.45

v/c Ratio 0.83 1.96 0.86 0.70 0.59 0.89

Uniform Delay, d1 25.7 27.0 25.9 12.4 19.6 22.3

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.14 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 9.5 440.3 1.9 0.2 4.4 19.4

Delay (s) 35.2 467.3 29.4 14.3 24.0 41.7

Level of Service D F C B C D

Approach Delay (s) 316.5 17.5 0.0 34.4

Approach LOS F B A C

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 150.6 HCM Level of Service F

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.19

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 129.1% ICU Level of Service H

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-414
Timings

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 9

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 1365 501 1154 2

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 4382

Permitted Phases

Detector Phase 4 3 8 2

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0

Total Split (%) 33.3% 33.3% 66.7% 33.3%

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 16.0 16.0 36.0 16.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.60 0.27

v/c Ratio 0.87 1.15 0.41 0.58

Control Delay 28.2 116.7 6.9 5.9

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 28.2 116.7 6.9 5.9

LOS C F A A

Approach Delay 28.2 40.1 5.9

Approach LOS C D A

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 60

Actuated Cycle Length: 60

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 65

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.15

Intersection Signal Delay: 31.4 Intersection LOS: C

Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.4% ICU Level of Service E

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1

F-G-415
Phasings

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 10

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Protected Phases 4382

Permitted Phases

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0

Total Split (%) 33.3% 33.3% 66.7% 33.3%

Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 36.0 16.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 36.0 16.0

90th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 36.0 16.0

70th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 36.0 16.0

50th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 36.0 16.0

30th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 36.0 16.0

10th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 60

Actuated Cycle Length: 60

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-416
Queues

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 11

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Lane Group Flow (vph) 1486 545 1254 437

v/c Ratio 0.87 1.15 0.41 0.58

Control Delay 28.2 116.7 6.9 5.9

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 28.2 116.7 6.9 5.9

Queue Length 50th (ft) 148 ~241 76 1

Queue Length 95th (ft) #209 #406 101 60

Internal Link Dist (ft) 920 920 1731

Turn Bay Length (ft) 200

Base Capacity (vph) 1709 472 3051 749

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.87 1.15 0.41 0.58

Intersection Summary

~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

F-G-417
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 12

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 1365 2 501 1154 2 400

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87

Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 6407 1770 5085 1612

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 6407 1770 5085 1612

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 1484 2 545 1254 2 435

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 319 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 1486 0 545 1254 118 0

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 4 3 8 2

Permitted Phases

Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 36.0 16.0

Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 36.0 16.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.60 0.27

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1709 472 3051 430

v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 c0.31 0.25 c0.07

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.87 1.15 0.41 0.27

Uniform Delay, d1 21.0 22.0 6.4 17.4

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 91.3 0.1 1.6

Delay (s) 26.0 113.3 6.5 19.0

Level of Service C F A B

Approach Delay (s) 26.0 38.8 19.0

Approach LOS C D B

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 31.4 HCM Level of Service C

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.4% ICU Level of Service E

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-418
Timings

4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 13

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 1287 115 1040 2

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 4382

Permitted Phases

Detector Phase 4 3 8 2

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 10.0 30.0 20.0

Total Split (%) 40.0% 20.0% 60.0% 40.0%

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 15.7 6.0 23.7 18.3

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.12 0.47 0.37

v/c Ratio 0.70 0.59 0.37 0.14

Control Delay 17.2 35.2 8.5 4.5

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 17.2 35.2 8.5 4.5

LOS B D A A

Approach Delay 17.2 11.1 4.5

Approach LOS B B A

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 50

Actuated Cycle Length: 50

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 50

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.70

Intersection Signal Delay: 14.0 Intersection LOS: B

Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.1% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2

F-G-419
Phasings

4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 14

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Protected Phases 4382

Permitted Phases

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 10.0 30.0 20.0

Total Split (%) 40.0% 20.0% 60.0% 40.0%

Maximum Green (s) 16.0 6.0 26.0 16.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 6.0 26.0 16.0

90th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 16.0 6.0 26.0 16.0

70th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 16.0 6.0 26.0 16.0

50th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 16.0 6.0 26.0 16.0

30th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 14.5 0.0 14.5 27.5

10th %ile Term Code Gap Skip Hold Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 50

Actuated Cycle Length: 50

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-420
Queues

4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 15

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Lane Group Flow (vph) 1401 125 1130 88

v/c Ratio 0.70 0.59 0.37 0.14

Control Delay 17.2 35.2 8.5 4.5

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 17.2 35.2 8.5 4.5

Queue Length 50th (ft) 101 36 49 0

Queue Length 95th (ft) 134 #94 67 23

Internal Link Dist (ft) 920 920 736

Turn Bay Length (ft) 200

Base Capacity (vph) 2051 212 3332 645

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.68 0.59 0.34 0.14

Intersection Summary

# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

F-G-421
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 16

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 1287 2 115 1040 2 79

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87

Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 6406 1770 6408 1615

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 6406 1770 6408 1615

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 1399 2 125 1130 2 86

RTOR Reduction (vph) 1 0 0 0 56 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 1400 0 125 1130 32 0

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 4 3 8 2

Permitted Phases

Actuated Green, G (s) 15.7 4.8 24.5 17.5

Effective Green, g (s) 15.7 4.8 24.5 17.5

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.10 0.49 0.35

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2011 170 3140 565

v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 c0.07 0.18 c0.02

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.70 0.74 0.36 0.06

Uniform Delay, d1 15.1 22.0 7.9 10.8

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 15.2 0.1 0.2

Delay (s) 16.1 37.2 8.0 11.0

Level of Service B D A B

Approach Delay (s) 16.1 10.9 11.0

Approach LOS B B B

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 13.6 HCM Level of Service B

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.1% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-422
Timings

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 17

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 17 141 363 798 89 515 722 662 485 969

Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot

Protected Phases 7 4 3852 16

Permitted Phases 4 2

Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 9.0 44.0 44.0 9.0 44.0 9.0 44.0 44.0 9.0 44.0

Total Split (s) 28.0 44.0 44.0 28.0 44.0 34.0 44.0 44.0 34.0 44.0

Total Split (%) 18.7% 29.3% 29.3% 18.7% 29.3% 22.7% 29.3% 29.3% 22.7% 29.3%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 27.6 17.2 17.2 44.8 38.7 29.0 41.2 41.2 26.8 39.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.30 0.26 0.19 0.27 0.27 0.18 0.26

v/c Ratio 0.06 0.38 0.78 0.85 0.28 0.84 0.56 0.90 0.86 0.81

Control Delay 45.9 61.8 18.1 56.9 20.5 58.7 38.2 32.3 74.4 57.9

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 45.9 61.8 18.1 56.9 20.5 58.7 38.2 32.3 74.4 57.9

LOS D E B E C E D C E E

Approach Delay 30.8 48.4 41.7 63.3

Approach LOS C D D E

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 150

Actuated Cycle Length: 150

Offset: 96 (64%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 150

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.90

Intersection Signal Delay: 48.4 Intersection LOS: D

Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.2% ICU Level of Service D

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road

F-G-423
Phasings

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 18

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT

Protected Phases 7 4 3852 16

Permitted Phases 4 2

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 9.0 44.0 44.0 9.0 44.0 9.0 44.0 44.0 9.0 44.0

Total Split (s) 28.0 44.0 44.0 28.0 44.0 34.0 44.0 44.0 34.0 44.0

Total Split (%) 18.7% 29.3% 29.3% 18.7% 29.3% 22.7% 29.3% 29.3% 22.7% 29.3%

Maximum Green (s) 23.0 39.0 39.0 23.0 39.0 29.0 39.0 39.0 29.0 39.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 23.0 39.0 39.0 23.0 39.0 29.0 39.0 39.0 29.0 39.0

90th %ile Term Code Hold Ped Ped Max Ped Max Coord Coord Max Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 49.8 15.8 15.8 46.2 12.2 29.0 39.0 39.0 29.0 39.0

70th %ile Term Code Hold Gap Gap Max Gap Max Coord Coord Max Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 53.7 11.9 11.9 50.1 8.3 29.0 39.9 39.9 28.1 39.0

50th %ile Term Code Hold Gap Gap Max Gap Max Coord Coord Gap Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 0.0 10.5 10.5 51.5 67.0 29.0 42.3 42.3 25.7 39.0

30th %ile Term Code Skip Gap Gap Max Hold Hold Coord Coord Gap Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 8.6 8.6 53.4 67.0 29.0 46.0 46.0 22.0 39.0

10th %ile Term Code Skip Gap Gap Max Hold Hold Coord Coord Gap Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 150

Actuated Cycle Length: 150

Offset: 96 (64%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-424
Queues

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 19

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 153 395 867 263 560 785 720 527 1075

v/c Ratio 0.06 0.38 0.78 0.85 0.28 0.84 0.56 0.90 0.86 0.81

Control Delay 45.9 61.8 18.1 56.9 20.5 58.7 38.2 32.3 74.4 57.9

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 45.9 61.8 18.1 56.9 20.5 58.7 38.2 32.3 74.4 57.9

Queue Length 50th (ft) 11 77 24 390 49 267 190 412 258 363

Queue Length 95th (ft) 41 93 118 #763 77 #322 252 #559 324 421

Internal Link Dist (ft) 1660 920 920 1521

Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 150 100

Base Capacity (vph) 407 920 685 1026 1183 664 1398 801 664 1320

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.17 0.58 0.85 0.22 0.84 0.56 0.90 0.79 0.81

Intersection Summary

# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

F-G-425
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 20

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 17 141 363 798 89 153 515 722 662 485 969 20

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

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

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91

Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00

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

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3204 3433 5085 1583 3433 5070

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

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3204 3433 5085 1583 3433 5070

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 18 153 395 867 97 166 560 785 720 527 1053 22

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 327 0 123 0 0 0 372 0 2 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 153 68 867 140 0 560 785 348 527 1073 0

Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot

Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6

Permitted Phases 4 2

Actuated Green, G (s) 25.3 17.2 17.2 46.8 38.7 29.0 39.2 39.2 26.8 37.0

Effective Green, g (s) 25.3 17.2 17.2 46.8 38.7 29.0 39.2 39.2 26.8 37.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.31 0.26 0.19 0.26 0.26 0.18 0.25

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

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 299 406 182 1071 827 664 1329 414 613 1251

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.04 c0.25 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.15 c0.21

v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.22

v/c Ratio 0.06 0.38 0.38 0.81 0.17 0.84 0.59 0.84 0.86 0.86

Uniform Delay, d1 52.4 61.4 61.4 47.5 43.2 58.3 48.4 52.4 59.8 54.0

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.78 1.18 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.6 1.3 4.6 0.1 8.8 1.8 16.9 11.6 7.8

Delay (s) 52.5 62.0 62.7 52.1 43.3 55.7 39.4 78.7 71.3 61.8

Level of Service D E E D D E D E E E

Approach Delay (s) 62.2 50.1 57.5 64.9

Approach LOS E D E E

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 58.7 HCM Level of Service E

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.2% ICU Level of Service D

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-426
Timings

6: Station Access #3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 21

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 48 2 2 2 71 1796 80 1986

Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4 85216

Permitted Phases 4 8

Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 20.0 20.0 9.0 21.0 8.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 12.0 44.0 10.0 42.0

Total Split (%) 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 16.0% 58.7% 13.3% 56.0%

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 9.1 9.1 9.1 7.5 50.5 8.1 51.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.67 0.11 0.68

v/c Ratio 0.28 0.38 0.26 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.51

Control Delay 31.9 10.4 11.5 29.5 5.3 35.6 11.2

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 31.9 10.4 11.5 29.5 5.3 35.6 11.2

LOS C B B C A D B

Approach Delay 17.3 11.5 6.2 12.1

Approach LOS B B A B

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 75

Actuated Cycle Length: 75

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 60

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.51

Intersection Signal Delay: 9.7 Intersection LOS: A

Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.1% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 6: Station Access #3 & Future Road

F-G-427
Phasings

6: Station Access #3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 22

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Protected Phases 4 85216

Permitted Phases 4 8

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 20.0 20.0 9.0 21.0 8.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 12.0 44.0 10.0 42.0

Total Split (%) 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 16.0% 58.7% 13.3% 56.0%

Maximum Green (s) 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 8.0 40.0 6.0 38.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5500 5

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 8.0 40.0 7.0 39.0

90th %ile Term Code Ped Ped Hold Hold Max Coord Max Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 8.0 43.2 10.6 45.8

70th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Max Coord Gap Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 45.7 9.3 47.0

50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Max Coord Gap Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 8.0 48.4 7.9 48.3

30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Hold Coord Gap Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.0 0.0 71.0

10th %ile Term Code Skip Skip Skip Skip Skip Coord Skip Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 75

Actuated Cycle Length: 75

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-428
Queues

6: Station Access #3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 23

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 52 110 64 77 1952 87 2230

v/c Ratio 0.28 0.38 0.26 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.51

Control Delay 31.9 10.4 11.5 29.5 5.3 35.6 11.2

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 31.9 10.4 11.5 29.5 5.3 35.6 11.2

Queue Length 50th (ft) 23 1 2 35 60 51 268

Queue Length 95th (ft) 48 39 31 m58 109 m77 302

Internal Link Dist (ft) 813 777 420 920

Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100

Base Capacity (vph) 352 444 411 189 4311 192 4341

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.25 0.16 0.41 0.45 0.45 0.51

Intersection Summary

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-429
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

6: Station Access #3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 24

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 48 2 99 2 2 55 71 1796 0 80 1986 65

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

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.86

Frt 1.00 0.85 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1588 1624 1770 6408 1770 6377

Flt Permitted 0.83 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1553 1588 1610 1770 6408 1770 6377

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 52 2 108 2 2 60 77 1952 0 87 2159 71

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 96 0 0 540000040

Lane Group Flow (vph) 52 14 0 0 10 0 77 1952 0 87 2226 0

Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6

Permitted Phases 4 8

Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 6.5 48.0 7.0 48.5

Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 6.5 48.0 7.0 48.5

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.64 0.09 0.65

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

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 166 169 172 153 4101 165 4124

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.04 c0.30 0.05 c0.35

v/s Ratio Perm c0.03 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.31 0.08 0.06 0.50 0.48 0.53 0.54

Uniform Delay, d1 31.0 30.2 30.1 32.7 7.0 32.4 7.2

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.62 0.99 1.36

Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.2 0.1 2.3 0.4 1.8 0.3

Delay (s) 32.0 30.4 30.3 25.5 4.7 33.8 10.1

Level of Service C C C C A C B

Approach Delay (s) 30.9 30.3 5.5 11.0

Approach LOS C C A B

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 9.5 HCM Level of Service A

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.1% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-430
Timings

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 25

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 145 2 2 2 239 1644 110 1758

Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4 85216

Permitted Phases 4 8

Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 21.0 42.0 13.0 34.0

Total Split (%) 26.7% 26.7% 26.7% 26.7% 28.0% 56.0% 17.3% 45.3%

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 13.0 13.0 13.0 17.0 43.3 8.7 33.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.23 0.58 0.12 0.44

v/c Ratio 0.67 0.60 0.29 0.65 0.48 0.58 0.77

Control Delay 42.8 8.5 9.7 23.0 3.9 55.9 19.1

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 42.8 8.5 9.7 23.0 3.9 55.9 19.1

LOS D A A C A E B

Approach Delay 19.8 9.7 6.3 21.0

Approach LOS B A A C

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 75

Actuated Cycle Length: 75

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 60

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.77

Intersection Signal Delay: 14.5 Intersection LOS: B

Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.8% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 7: Station Access #4 & Future Road

F-G-431
Phasings

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 26

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Protected Phases 4 85216

Permitted Phases 4 8

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 21.0 42.0 13.0 34.0

Total Split (%) 26.7% 26.7% 26.7% 26.7% 28.0% 56.0% 17.3% 45.3%

Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 17.0 38.0 9.0 30.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5500 5

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 17.0 38.0 9.0 30.0

90th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Hold Max Coord Max Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 17.0 38.0 9.0 30.0

70th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Hold Max Coord Max Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 17.0 38.8 10.4 32.2

50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Hold Coord Gap Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4 17.0 42.8 8.8 34.6

30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Hold Coord Gap Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 17.0 59.1 0.0 38.1

10th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Hold Coord Skip Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 75

Actuated Cycle Length: 75

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-432
Queues

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 27

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 158 325 87 260 1789 120 2146

v/c Ratio 0.67 0.60 0.29 0.65 0.48 0.58 0.77

Control Delay 42.8 8.5 9.7 23.0 3.9 55.9 19.1

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 42.8 8.5 9.7 23.0 3.9 55.9 19.1

Queue Length 50th (ft) 69 1 2 110 33 82 330

Queue Length 95th (ft) 125 63 36 140 43 121 247

Internal Link Dist (ft) 873 973 420 420

Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 100

Base Capacity (vph) 289 592 354 401 3703 219 2800

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.25 0.65 0.48 0.55 0.77

Intersection Summary

F-G-433
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 28

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 145 2 297 2 2 76 239 1644 2 110 1758 216

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

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.86

Frt 1.00 0.85 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1585 1621 1770 6407 1770 6303

Flt Permitted 0.73 1.00 0.83 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1356 1585 1353 1770 6407 1770 6303

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 158 2 323 2 2 83 260 1787 2 120 1911 235

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 267 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 27 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 158 58 0 0 18 0 260 1789 0 120 2119 0

Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6

Permitted Phases 4 8

Actuated Green, G (s) 13.0 13.0 13.0 17.7 42.6 7.4 32.3

Effective Green, g (s) 13.0 13.0 13.0 17.7 42.6 7.4 32.3

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.24 0.57 0.10 0.43

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

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 235 275 235 418 3639 175 2714

v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.15 0.28 0.07 c0.34

v/s Ratio Perm c0.12 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.67 0.21 0.08 0.62 0.49 0.69 0.78

Uniform Delay, d1 29.0 26.6 26.0 25.7 9.7 32.7 18.3

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.59 0.33 1.45 0.97

Incremental Delay, d2 7.4 0.4 0.1 2.5 0.4 9.4 2.0

Delay (s) 36.4 27.0 26.1 17.7 3.6 56.8 19.8

Level of Service D C C B A E B

Approach Delay (s) 30.1 26.1 5.4 21.7

Approach LOS C C A C

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 15.8 HCM Level of Service B

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.8% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-434
Timings

8: Station Access #5 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 29

Lane Group WBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 2 1754 188 1867

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 8216

Permitted Phases

Detector Phase 8 2 1 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 38.0 17.0 55.0

Total Split (%) 26.7% 50.7% 22.7% 73.3%

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 8.0 42.2 12.7 59.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.56 0.17 0.79

v/c Ratio 0.48 0.53 0.68 0.40

Control Delay 11.3 11.8 49.6 0.5

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 11.3 11.8 49.6 0.5

LOS B B D A

Approach Delay 11.3 11.8 4.9

Approach LOS B B A

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 75

Actuated Cycle Length: 75

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 60

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.68

Intersection Signal Delay: 8.2 Intersection LOS: A

Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.0% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 8: Station Access #5 & Future Road

F-G-435
Phasings

8: Station Access #5 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 30

Lane Group WBL NBT SBL SBT

Protected Phases 8216

Permitted Phases

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 38.0 17.0 55.0

Total Split (%) 26.7% 50.7% 22.7% 73.3%

Maximum Green (s) 16.0 34.0 13.0 51.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 34.0 13.0 51.0

90th %ile Term Code Ped Coord Max Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 7.7 39.3 16.0 59.3

70th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Gap Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 5.5 43.5 14.0 61.5

50th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Gap Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 5.5 45.6 11.9 61.5

30th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Gap Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 5.5 48.7 8.8 61.5

10th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Gap Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 75

Actuated Cycle Length: 75

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-436
Queues

8: Station Access #5 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 31

Lane Group WBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 142 1909 204 2029

v/c Ratio 0.48 0.53 0.68 0.40

Control Delay 11.3 11.8 49.6 0.5

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 11.3 11.8 49.6 0.5

Queue Length 50th (ft) 1 140 109 5

Queue Length 95th (ft) 43 231 m137 9

Internal Link Dist (ft) 1061 848 420

Turn Bay Length (ft) 100

Base Capacity (vph) 454 3607 326 5038

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.53 0.63 0.40

Intersection Summary

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-437
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

8: Station Access #5 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 32

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 2 129 1754 2 188 1867

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.86

Frt 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1614 6407 1770 6408

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1614 6407 1770 6408

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 2 140 1907 2 204 2029

RTOR Reduction (vph) 12500000

Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 0 1909 0 204 2029

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 8 2 1 6

Permitted Phases

Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 42.3 12.7 59.0

Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 42.3 12.7 59.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.56 0.17 0.79

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 172 3614 300 5041

v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.30 c0.12 0.32

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.10 0.53 0.68 0.40

Uniform Delay, d1 30.2 10.2 29.2 2.5

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.43 0.10

Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.6 4.2 0.2

Delay (s) 30.5 10.7 46.1 0.4

Level of Service C B D A

Approach Delay (s) 30.5 10.7 4.6

Approach LOS C B A

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 8.2 HCM Level of Service A

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.0% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-438
2030 Conditions

Base + EMU Mitigations

F-G-439
F-G-440
Timings

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 1

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 266 668 538 993 2

Turn Type Prot Split

Protected Phases 74822

Permitted Phases

Detector Phase 7 4 8 2 2

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 9.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (s) 37.0 82.0 45.0 58.0 58.0

Total Split (%) 26.4% 58.6% 32.1% 41.4% 41.4%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max

Act Effct Green (s) 27.0 77.0 45.0 53.0 53.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.55 0.32 0.38 0.38

v/c Ratio 0.85 0.37 0.70 0.83 0.65

Control Delay 50.5 28.1 44.5 46.1 24.8

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 50.5 28.1 44.5 46.1 24.8

LOS D C D D C

Approach Delay 34.5 44.5 39.7

Approach LOS C D D

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 140

Actuated Cycle Length: 140

Offset: 17 (12%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 80

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.85

Intersection Signal Delay: 39.2 Intersection LOS: D

Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.1% ICU Level of Service F

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps

F-G-441
Phasings

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 2

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT

Protected Phases 74822

Permitted Phases

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 9.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (s) 37.0 82.0 45.0 58.0 58.0

Total Split (%) 26.4% 58.6% 32.1% 41.4% 41.4%

Maximum Green (s) 32.0 77.0 40.0 53.0 53.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5555

90th %ile Green (s) 32.0 77.0 40.0 53.0 53.0

90th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

70th %ile Green (s) 31.3 77.0 40.7 53.0 53.0

70th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

50th %ile Green (s) 28.0 77.0 44.0 53.0 53.0

50th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

30th %ile Green (s) 24.5 77.0 47.5 53.0 53.0

30th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

10th %ile Green (s) 19.4 77.0 52.6 53.0 53.0

10th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 140

Actuated Cycle Length: 140

Offset: 17 (12%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-442
Queues

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 3

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 289 726 776 1079 466

v/c Ratio 0.85 0.37 0.70 0.83 0.65

Control Delay 50.5 28.1 44.5 46.1 24.8

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 50.5 28.1 44.5 46.1 24.8

Queue Length 50th (ft) 250 334 315 456 205

Queue Length 95th (ft) 342 382 408 547 331

Internal Link Dist (ft) 820 380 2022

Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 150

Base Capacity (vph) 405 1946 1116 1300 721

Starvation Cap Reductn 00000

Spillback Cap Reductn 00000

Storage Cap Reductn 00000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.71 0.37 0.70 0.83 0.65

Intersection Summary

F-G-443
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 4

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 266 668 0 0 538 176 993 2 427 0 0 0

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

Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 1.00

Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3409 3433 1585

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3409 3433 1585

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 289 726 0 0 585 191 1079 2 464000

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 121 0 0 0 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 289 726 0 0 754 0 1079 3450000

Turn Type Prot Split

Protected Phases 7 4 8 2 2

Permitted Phases

Actuated Green, G (s) 27.0 77.0 45.0 53.0 53.0

Effective Green, g (s) 27.0 77.0 45.0 53.0 53.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.55 0.32 0.38 0.38

Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 341 1946 1096 1300 600

v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.21 c0.22 c0.31 0.22

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.85 0.37 0.69 0.83 0.58

Uniform Delay, d1 54.5 17.8 41.4 39.4 34.6

Progression Factor 0.60 1.54 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 14.5 0.4 3.5 6.2 4.0

Delay (s) 47.0 27.8 44.9 45.7 38.6

Level of Service D C D D D

Approach Delay (s) 33.3 44.9 43.5 0.0

Approach LOS C D D A

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 40.7 HCM Level of Service D

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.1% ICU Level of Service F

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-444
Timings

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 5

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 616 1149 321 1210 318 1

Turn Type custom Prot Split

Protected Phases 443866

Permitted Phases 6

Detector Phase 4 4 3 8 6 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (s) 42.0 42.0 42.0 84.0 56.0 56.0

Total Split (%) 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max None C-Max Max Max

Act Effct Green (s) 42.3 98.3 31.7 79.0 51.0 51.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.70 0.23 0.56 0.36 0.36

v/c Ratio 0.63 0.64 0.87 0.66 0.54 0.80

Control Delay 33.6 9.6 74.8 28.4 38.9 47.2

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 33.6 9.6 74.8 28.4 38.9 47.2

LOS C A E C D D

Approach Delay 18.0 38.2 43.8

Approach LOS B D D

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 140

Actuated Cycle Length: 140

Offset: 58 (41%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 70

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.87

Intersection Signal Delay: 30.4 Intersection LOS: C

Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.1% ICU Level of Service F

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps

F-G-445
Phasings

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 6

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT

Protected Phases 443866

Permitted Phases 6

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (s) 42.0 42.0 42.0 84.0 56.0 56.0

Total Split (%) 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0%

Maximum Green (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 79.0 51.0 51.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max None C-Max Max Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 18.0 18.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 79.0 51.0 51.0

90th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord MaxR MaxR

70th %ile Green (s) 37.6 37.6 36.4 79.0 51.0 51.0

70th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Gap Coord MaxR MaxR

50th %ile Green (s) 41.2 41.2 32.8 79.0 51.0 51.0

50th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Gap Coord MaxR MaxR

30th %ile Green (s) 45.0 45.0 29.0 79.0 51.0 51.0

30th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Gap Coord MaxR MaxR

10th %ile Green (s) 50.6 50.6 23.4 79.0 51.0 51.0

10th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Gap Coord MaxR MaxR

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 140

Actuated Cycle Length: 140

Offset: 58 (41%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-446
Queues

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 7

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 670 1249 349 1315 346 486

v/c Ratio 0.63 0.64 0.87 0.66 0.54 0.80

Control Delay 33.6 9.6 74.8 28.4 38.9 47.2

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 33.6 9.6 74.8 28.4 38.9 47.2

Queue Length 50th (ft) 126 426 282 336 248 361

Queue Length 95th (ft) 234 261 m374 392 349 514

Internal Link Dist (ft) 920 820 1339

Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 300 300

Base Capacity (vph) 1069 1956 468 1997 645 607

Starvation Cap Reductn 000000

Spillback Cap Reductn 000000

Storage Cap Reductn 000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0.64 0.75 0.66 0.54 0.80

Intersection Summary

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-447
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 8

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 0 616 1149 321 1210 0 0 0 0 318 1 446

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

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

Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 2787 1770 3539 1770 1584

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 2787 1770 3539 1770 1584

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 0 670 1249 349 1315 0 0 0 0 346 1 485

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 670 1249 349 1315 0 0 0 0 346 455 0

Turn Type custom Prot Split

Protected Phases 4438 66

Permitted Phases 6

Actuated Green, G (s) 42.3 93.3 31.7 79.0 51.0 51.0

Effective Green, g (s) 42.3 93.3 31.7 79.0 51.0 51.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.67 0.23 0.56 0.36 0.36

Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1069 1957 401 1997 645 577

v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 0.19 c0.20 c0.37 0.20 c0.29

v/s Ratio Perm 0.26

v/c Ratio 0.63 0.64 0.87 0.66 0.54 0.79

Uniform Delay, d1 42.1 13.6 52.2 21.1 35.2 39.7

Progression Factor 0.73 0.69 1.17 1.28 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 1.1 11.8 1.0 3.2 10.5

Delay (s) 32.6 10.5 72.8 28.1 38.3 50.2

Level of Service C B E C D D

Approach Delay (s) 18.2 37.5 0.0 45.3

Approach LOS B D A D

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 30.6 HCM Level of Service C

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.1% ICU Level of Service F

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-448
Timings

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 9

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 1365 501 1154 2

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 4382

Permitted Phases

Detector Phase 4 3 8 2

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 44.0 63.0 107.0 33.0

Total Split (%) 31.4% 45.0% 76.4% 23.6%

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 40.1 49.3 93.4 38.6

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.35 0.67 0.28

v/c Ratio 0.81 0.87 0.37 0.57

Control Delay 28.2 67.6 5.8 7.6

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 28.2 67.6 5.8 7.6

LOS C E A A

Approach Delay 28.2 24.5 7.6

Approach LOS C C A

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 140

Actuated Cycle Length: 140

Offset: 97 (69%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 65

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.87

Intersection Signal Delay: 24.0 Intersection LOS: C

Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.4% ICU Level of Service E

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1

F-G-449
Phasings

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 10

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Protected Phases 4382

Permitted Phases

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 44.0 63.0 107.0 33.0

Total Split (%) 31.4% 45.0% 76.4% 23.6%

Maximum Green (s) 40.0 59.0 103.0 29.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0

90th %ile Green (s) 40.0 59.0 103.0 29.0

90th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 44.2 54.7 102.9 29.1

70th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 41.7 49.9 95.6 36.4

50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 39.0 45.1 88.1 43.9

30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 35.4 37.8 77.2 54.8

10th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 140

Actuated Cycle Length: 140

Offset: 97 (69%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-450
Queues

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 11

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Lane Group Flow (vph) 1486 545 1254 437

v/c Ratio 0.81 0.87 0.37 0.57

Control Delay 28.2 67.6 5.8 7.6

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 28.2 67.6 5.8 7.6

Queue Length 50th (ft) 191 512 101 1

Queue Length 95th (ft) 188 551 98 100

Internal Link Dist (ft) 920 920 1731

Turn Bay Length (ft) 200

Base Capacity (vph) 1885 746 3741 760

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.79 0.73 0.34 0.57

Intersection Summary

F-G-451
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 12

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 1365 2 501 1154 2 400

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87

Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 6407 1770 5085 1612

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 6407 1770 5085 1612

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 1484 2 545 1254 2 435

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 315 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 1486 0 545 1254 122 0

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 4 3 8 2

Permitted Phases

Actuated Green, G (s) 40.1 49.3 93.4 38.6

Effective Green, g (s) 40.1 49.3 93.4 38.6

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.35 0.67 0.28

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1835 623 3392 444

v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 c0.31 0.25 c0.08

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.81 0.87 0.37 0.27

Uniform Delay, d1 46.4 42.5 10.3 39.7

Progression Factor 0.53 1.34 0.55 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 9.6 0.0 1.5

Delay (s) 27.1 66.3 5.7 41.3

Level of Service C E A D

Approach Delay (s) 27.1 24.1 41.3

Approach LOS C C D

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 27.3 HCM Level of Service C

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.4% ICU Level of Service E

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-452
Timings

4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 13

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 1287 115 1040 2

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 4382

Permitted Phases

Detector Phase 4 3 8 2

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 30.0 17.0 47.0 23.0

Total Split (%) 42.9% 24.3% 67.1% 32.9%

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 23.5 10.0 35.5 26.5

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.14 0.51 0.38

v/c Ratio 0.65 0.50 0.35 0.13

Control Delay 19.4 24.4 13.9 6.0

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 19.4 24.4 13.9 6.0

LOS B C B A

Approach Delay 19.4 14.9 6.0

Approach LOS B B A

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 70

Actuated Cycle Length: 70

Offset: 3 (4%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 50

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65

Intersection Signal Delay: 16.9 Intersection LOS: B

Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.1% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2

F-G-453
Phasings

4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 14

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Protected Phases 4382

Permitted Phases

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 30.0 17.0 47.0 23.0

Total Split (%) 42.9% 24.3% 67.1% 32.9%

Maximum Green (s) 26.0 13.0 43.0 19.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0

90th %ile Green (s) 26.0 13.0 43.0 19.0

90th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 26.1 11.8 41.9 20.1

70th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 24.2 10.2 38.4 23.6

50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 22.1 8.6 34.7 27.3

30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 19.3 0.0 19.3 42.7

10th %ile Term Code Gap Skip Hold Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 70

Actuated Cycle Length: 70

Offset: 3 (4%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-454
Queues

4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 15

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Lane Group Flow (vph) 1401 125 1130 88

v/c Ratio 0.65 0.50 0.35 0.13

Control Delay 19.4 24.4 13.9 6.0

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 19.4 24.4 13.9 6.0

Queue Length 50th (ft) 184 66 159 1

Queue Length 95th (ft) 226 101 136 31

Internal Link Dist (ft) 920 920 736

Turn Bay Length (ft) 200

Base Capacity (vph) 2382 329 3936 666

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 0.38 0.29 0.13

Intersection Summary

F-G-455
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 16

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 1287 2 115 1040 2 79

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87

Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 6406 1770 6408 1615

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 6406 1770 6408 1615

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 1399 2 125 1130 2 86

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 54 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 1401 0 125 1130 34 0

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 4 3 8 2

Permitted Phases

Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 8.7 36.2 25.8

Effective Green, g (s) 23.5 8.7 36.2 25.8

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.12 0.52 0.37

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2151 220 3314 595

v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 c0.07 0.18 c0.02

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.65 0.57 0.34 0.06

Uniform Delay, d1 19.8 28.9 9.9 14.3

Progression Factor 0.94 0.66 1.33 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 3.2 0.1 0.2

Delay (s) 19.1 22.2 13.3 14.4

Level of Service B C B B

Approach Delay (s) 19.1 14.2 14.4

Approach LOS B B B

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 16.7 HCM Level of Service B

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.37

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.1% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-456
Timings

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 17

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 17 141 363 798 89 515 722 662 485 969

Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot

Protected Phases 7 4 3852 16

Permitted Phases 4 2

Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 9.0 44.0 44.0 9.0 44.0 9.0 44.0 44.0 9.0 44.0

Total Split (s) 10.0 44.0 44.0 27.0 61.0 25.0 44.0 44.0 25.0 44.0

Total Split (%) 7.1% 31.4% 31.4% 19.3% 43.6% 17.9% 31.4% 31.4% 17.9% 31.4%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 5.0 19.7 19.7 32.9 53.6 20.0 40.1 40.1 27.3 47.4

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.14 0.14 0.24 0.38 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.20 0.34

v/c Ratio 0.29 0.31 0.84 0.74 0.20 1.14 0.54 0.85 0.79 0.63

Control Delay 77.4 52.9 30.5 38.7 10.0 127.5 30.4 18.5 63.2 41.7

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 77.4 52.9 30.5 38.7 10.0 127.5 30.4 18.5 63.2 41.7

LOS E D C D A F C B E D

Approach Delay 38.1 32.0 52.6 48.8

Approach LOS D C D D

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 140

Actuated Cycle Length: 140

Offset: 30 (21%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 140

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.14

Intersection Signal Delay: 45.6 Intersection LOS: D

Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road

F-G-457
Phasings

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 18

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT

Protected Phases 7 4 3852 16

Permitted Phases 4 2

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 9.0 44.0 44.0 9.0 44.0 9.0 44.0 44.0 9.0 44.0

Total Split (s) 10.0 44.0 44.0 27.0 61.0 25.0 44.0 44.0 25.0 44.0

Total Split (%) 7.1% 31.4% 31.4% 19.3% 43.6% 17.9% 31.4% 31.4% 17.9% 31.4%

Maximum Green (s) 5.0 39.0 39.0 22.0 56.0 20.0 39.0 39.0 20.0 39.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 5.0 39.0 39.0 22.0 56.0 20.0 39.0 39.0 20.0 39.0

90th %ile Term Code Max Ped Ped Max Hold Max Coord Coord Max Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 5.0 23.4 23.4 34.2 52.6 20.0 39.0 39.0 23.4 42.4

70th %ile Term Code Max Gap Gap Gap Hold Max Coord Coord Max Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 0.0 16.8 16.8 34.4 56.2 20.0 39.0 39.0 29.8 48.8

50th %ile Term Code Skip Gap Gap Gap Hold Max Coord Coord Max Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 0.0 11.0 11.0 34.8 50.8 20.0 43.9 43.9 30.3 54.2

30th %ile Term Code Skip Gap Gap Gap Hold Max Coord Coord Gap Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 8.3 8.3 39.1 52.4 20.0 39.8 39.8 32.8 52.6

10th %ile Term Code Skip Gap Gap Gap Hold Max Coord Coord Gap Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 140

Actuated Cycle Length: 140

Offset: 30 (21%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-458
Queues

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 19

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 153 395 867 263 560 785 720 527 1075

v/c Ratio 0.29 0.31 0.84 0.74 0.20 1.14 0.54 0.85 0.79 0.63

Control Delay 77.4 52.9 30.5 38.7 10.0 127.5 30.4 18.5 63.2 41.7

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 77.4 52.9 30.5 38.7 10.0 127.5 30.4 18.5 63.2 41.7

Queue Length 50th (ft) 16 68 98 159 43 ~308 195 328 231 294

Queue Length 95th (ft) 44 85 191 #414 56 #414 140 #244 #390 384

Internal Link Dist (ft) 1660 920 920 1521

Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 150 100

Base Capacity (vph) 63 986 650 1173 1382 490 1458 852 668 1718

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.16 0.61 0.74 0.19 1.14 0.54 0.85 0.79 0.63

Intersection Summary

~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

F-G-459
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 20

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 17 141 363 798 89 153 515 722 662 485 969 20

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

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

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91

Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00

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

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 4990 3204 3433 5085 1583 3433 5070

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

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 4990 3204 3433 5085 1583 3433 5070

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 18 153 395 867 97 166 560 785 720 527 1053 22

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 249 0 102 0 0 0 411 0 1 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 153 146 867 161 0 560 785 309 527 1074 0

Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot

Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6

Permitted Phases 4 2

Actuated Green, G (s) 2.0 19.7 19.7 35.9 53.6 20.0 37.1 37.1 27.3 44.4

Effective Green, g (s) 2.0 19.7 19.7 35.9 53.6 20.0 37.1 37.1 27.3 44.4

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.14 0.14 0.26 0.38 0.14 0.26 0.26 0.20 0.32

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

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 25 498 223 1280 1227 490 1348 419 669 1608

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.04 c0.17 0.05 c0.16 0.15 c0.15 0.21

v/s Ratio Perm c0.09 c0.20

v/c Ratio 0.72 0.31 0.65 0.68 0.13 1.14 0.58 0.74 0.79 0.67

Uniform Delay, d1 68.7 54.0 56.9 46.8 28.1 60.0 44.7 47.0 53.6 41.4

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.94 0.78 0.68 0.84 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 68.2 0.4 6.7 1.4 0.0 85.0 1.7 10.4 6.1 2.2

Delay (s) 136.9 54.4 63.6 32.7 26.4 131.7 32.3 49.7 59.7 43.6

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

Approach Delay (s) 63.5 31.2 65.3 48.9

Approach LOS E C E D

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 53.0 HCM Level of Service D

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 25.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-460
Timings

6: Station Access #3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 21

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 48 2 2 2 71 1796 80 1986

Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4 85216

Permitted Phases 4 8

Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 20.0 20.0 9.0 21.0 8.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 22.0 90.0 23.0 91.0

Total Split (%) 19.3% 19.3% 19.3% 19.3% 15.7% 64.3% 16.4% 65.0%

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.4 104.4 12.4 105.4

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.75 0.09 0.75

v/c Ratio 0.60 0.49 0.35 0.53 0.41 0.55 0.46

Control Delay 89.5 18.0 20.4 75.8 1.7 82.2 3.3

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 89.5 18.0 20.4 75.8 1.7 82.2 3.3

LOS F B C E A F A

Approach Delay 41.0 20.4 4.5 6.2

Approach LOS D C A A

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 140

Actuated Cycle Length: 140

Offset: 3 (2%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 60

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.60

Intersection Signal Delay: 6.9 Intersection LOS: A

Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.1% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 6: Station Access #3 & Future Road

F-G-461
Phasings

6: Station Access #3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 22

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Protected Phases 4 85216

Permitted Phases 4 8

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 20.0 20.0 9.0 21.0 8.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 22.0 90.0 23.0 91.0

Total Split (%) 19.3% 19.3% 19.3% 19.3% 15.7% 64.3% 16.4% 65.0%

Maximum Green (s) 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 18.0 86.0 19.0 87.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5500 5

90th %ile Green (s) 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 15.9 94.8 16.9 95.8

90th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Hold Coord Gap Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 100.6 14.2 101.6

70th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Gap Coord Hold Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.4 104.4 12.4 105.4

50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Gap Coord Hold Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.6 108.3 10.6 109.3

30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Gap Coord Hold Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 114.0 8.0 115.0

10th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Gap Coord Hold Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 140

Actuated Cycle Length: 140

Offset: 3 (2%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-462
Queues

6: Station Access #3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 23

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 52 110 64 77 1952 87 2230

v/c Ratio 0.60 0.49 0.35 0.53 0.41 0.55 0.46

Control Delay 89.5 18.0 20.4 75.8 1.7 82.2 3.3

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 89.5 18.0 20.4 75.8 1.7 82.2 3.3

Queue Length 50th (ft) 47 2 3 75 31 81 177

Queue Length 95th (ft) 91 59 49 m131 48 m121 69

Internal Link Dist (ft) 813 777 420 920

Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100

Base Capacity (vph) 176 351 315 228 4780 240 4803

Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 356 0 0

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.31 0.20 0.34 0.44 0.36 0.46

Intersection Summary

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-463
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

6: Station Access #3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 24

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 48 2 99 2 2 55 71 1796 0 80 1986 65

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

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.86

Frt 1.00 0.85 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1588 1624 1770 6408 1770 6377

Flt Permitted 0.57 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1071 1588 1613 1770 6408 1770 6377

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 52 2 108 2 2 60 77 1952 0 87 2159 71

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 99 0 0 550000020

Lane Group Flow (vph) 52 11 0 0 9 0 77 1952 0 87 2228 0

Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6

Permitted Phases 4 8

Actuated Green, G (s) 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.4 104.4 12.4 105.4

Effective Green, g (s) 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.4 104.4 12.4 105.4

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.75 0.09 0.75

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

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 86 127 129 144 4779 157 4801

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.04 0.30 c0.05 c0.35

v/s Ratio Perm c0.05 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.60 0.08 0.07 0.53 0.41 0.55 0.46

Uniform Delay, d1 62.3 59.6 59.6 61.8 6.5 61.2 6.6

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 0.21 1.20 0.42

Incremental Delay, d2 11.4 0.3 0.2 3.5 0.2 3.1 0.2

Delay (s) 73.7 59.9 59.8 67.8 1.6 76.2 3.0

Level of Service E E E E A E A

Approach Delay (s) 64.3 59.8 4.1 5.7

Approach LOS E E A A

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 7.8 HCM Level of Service A

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.1% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-464
Timings

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 25

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 145 2 2 2 239 1644 110 1758

Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4 85216

Permitted Phases 4 8

Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 38.0 82.0 22.0 66.0

Total Split (%) 25.7% 25.7% 25.7% 25.7% 27.1% 58.6% 15.7% 47.1%

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 23.4 23.4 23.4 30.3 90.2 14.3 74.2

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.64 0.10 0.53

v/c Ratio 0.84 0.61 0.32 0.68 0.43 0.66 0.64

Control Delay 90.7 10.0 13.3 60.0 5.0 75.7 7.4

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Total Delay 90.7 10.0 13.3 60.0 5.0 75.7 7.5

LOS F A B E A E A

Approach Delay 36.4 13.3 12.0 11.1

Approach LOS D B B B

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 140

Actuated Cycle Length: 140

Offset: 4 (3%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 60

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.84

Intersection Signal Delay: 14.0 Intersection LOS: B

Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.8% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 7: Station Access #4 & Future Road

F-G-465
Phasings

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 26

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Protected Phases 4 85216

Permitted Phases 4 8

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 38.0 82.0 22.0 66.0

Total Split (%) 25.7% 25.7% 25.7% 25.7% 27.1% 58.6% 15.7% 47.1%

Maximum Green (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 34.0 78.0 18.0 62.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5500 5

90th %ile Green (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 34.0 78.0 18.0 62.0

90th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Hold Hold Coord Max Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 33.0 83.6 17.0 67.6

70th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Hold Coord Gap Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 30.8 89.5 14.8 73.5

50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Hold Coord Gap Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 28.5 95.6 12.5 79.6

30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Hold Coord Gap Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 25.3 104.5 9.3 88.5

10th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Hold Coord Gap Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 140

Actuated Cycle Length: 140

Offset: 4 (3%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-466
Queues

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 27

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 158 325 87 260 1789 120 2146

v/c Ratio 0.84 0.61 0.32 0.68 0.43 0.66 0.64

Control Delay 90.7 10.0 13.3 60.0 5.0 75.7 7.4

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Total Delay 90.7 10.0 13.3 60.0 5.0 75.7 7.5

Queue Length 50th (ft) 141 2 3 243 205 115 51

Queue Length 95th (ft) 213 84 49 336 47 183 137

Internal Link Dist (ft) 873 973 420 420

Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 100

Base Capacity (vph) 255 611 339 430 4130 228 3357

Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 495 0 162

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 0.53 0.26 0.60 0.49 0.53 0.67

Intersection Summary

F-G-467
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 28

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 145 2 297 2 2 76 239 1644 2 110 1758 216

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

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.86

Frt 1.00 0.85 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1585 1621 1770 6407 1770 6303

Flt Permitted 0.60 1.00 0.74 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1116 1585 1204 1770 6407 1770 6303

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 158 2 323 2 2 83 260 1787 2 120 1911 235

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 269 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 13 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 158 56 0 0 18 0 260 1789 0 120 2133 0

Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6

Permitted Phases 4 8

Actuated Green, G (s) 23.4 23.4 23.4 30.3 90.3 14.3 74.3

Effective Green, g (s) 23.4 23.4 23.4 30.3 90.3 14.3 74.3

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.64 0.10 0.53

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

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 187 265 201 383 4133 181 3345

v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.15 0.28 0.07 c0.34

v/s Ratio Perm c0.14 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.84 0.21 0.09 0.68 0.43 0.66 0.64

Uniform Delay, d1 56.5 50.3 49.3 50.4 12.2 60.5 23.3

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 0.35 0.99 0.27

Incremental Delay, d2 27.9 0.4 0.2 4.4 0.3 8.0 0.9

Delay (s) 84.4 50.7 49.5 55.8 4.6 68.2 7.1

Level of Service F D D E A E A

Approach Delay (s) 61.8 49.5 11.1 10.3

Approach LOS E D B B

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 16.4 HCM Level of Service B

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.8% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-468
Timings

8: Station Access #5 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 29

Lane Group WBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 2 1754 188 1867

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 8216

Permitted Phases

Detector Phase 8 2 1 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 25.0 75.0 40.0 115.0

Total Split (%) 17.9% 53.6% 28.6% 82.1%

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 8.2 98.3 21.5 123.8

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.70 0.15 0.88

v/c Ratio 0.63 0.42 0.75 0.36

Control Delay 22.1 10.1 78.3 0.3

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 22.1 10.1 78.3 0.4

LOS C B E A

Approach Delay 22.1 10.1 7.5

Approach LOS C B A

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 140

Actuated Cycle Length: 140

Offset: 6 (4%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 60

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.75

Intersection Signal Delay: 9.2 Intersection LOS: A

Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.0% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 8: Station Access #5 & Future Road

F-G-469
Phasings

8: Station Access #5 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 30

Lane Group WBL NBT SBL SBT

Protected Phases 8216

Permitted Phases

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 25.0 75.0 40.0 115.0

Total Split (%) 17.9% 53.6% 28.6% 82.1%

Maximum Green (s) 21.0 71.0 36.0 111.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 83.2 28.8 116.0

90th %ile Term Code Ped Coord Gap Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 8.6 94.9 24.5 123.4

70th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Gap Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 5.6 100.9 21.5 126.4

50th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Gap Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 5.5 104.0 18.5 126.5

30th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Gap Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 5.5 108.4 14.1 126.5

10th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Gap Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 140

Actuated Cycle Length: 140

Offset: 6 (4%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-470
Queues

8: Station Access #5 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 31

Lane Group WBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 142 1909 204 2029

v/c Ratio 0.63 0.42 0.75 0.36

Control Delay 22.1 10.1 78.3 0.3

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 22.1 10.1 78.3 0.4

Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 181 195 6

Queue Length 95th (ft) 66 308 271 12

Internal Link Dist (ft) 1061 848 420

Turn Bay Length (ft) 100

Base Capacity (vph) 361 4498 455 5665

Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 1174

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 0.42 0.45 0.45

Intersection Summary

F-G-471
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

8: Station Access #5 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 EMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 32

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 2 129 1754 2 188 1867

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.86

Frt 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1614 6407 1770 6408

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1614 6407 1770 6408

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 2 140 1907 2 204 2029

RTOR Reduction (vph) 13200000

Lane Group Flow (vph) 10 0 1909 0 204 2029

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 8 2 1 6

Permitted Phases

Actuated Green, G (s) 8.2 98.3 21.5 123.8

Effective Green, g (s) 8.2 98.3 21.5 123.8

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.70 0.15 0.88

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 95 4499 272 5667

v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.30 c0.12 0.32

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.11 0.42 0.75 0.36

Uniform Delay, d1 62.4 8.8 56.7 1.4

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.15 0.12

Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.3 8.8 0.1

Delay (s) 62.9 9.1 74.0 0.3

Level of Service E A E A

Approach Delay (s) 62.9 9.1 7.0

Approach LOS E A A

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 9.8 HCM Level of Service A

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.0% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-472
2030 Conditions

Base + DEMU

F-G-473
F-G-474
Timings

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 1

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 255 636 495 762 2

Turn Type Prot Split

Protected Phases 74822

Permitted Phases

Detector Phase 7 4 8 2 2

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 9.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (s) 14.0 42.0 28.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (%) 20.0% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max

Act Effct Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.53 0.33 0.33 0.33

v/c Ratio 1.21 0.37 0.62 1.42 0.71

Control Delay 157.3 16.5 20.5 224.3 18.8

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 157.3 16.5 20.5 224.3 18.8

LOS F B C F B

Approach Delay 56.8 20.5 150.3

Approach LOS E C F

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 70

Actuated Cycle Length: 70

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 90

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.42

Intersection Signal Delay: 88.4 Intersection LOS: F

Intersection Capacity Utilization 117.5% ICU Level of Service H

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps

F-G-475
Phasings

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 2

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT

Protected Phases 74822

Permitted Phases

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 9.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (s) 14.0 42.0 28.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (%) 20.0% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0%

Maximum Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5555

90th %ile Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

90th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

70th %ile Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

70th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

50th %ile Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

50th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

30th %ile Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

30th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

10th %ile Green (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

10th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 70

Actuated Cycle Length: 70

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-476
Queues

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 3

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 277 691 729 828 466

v/c Ratio 1.21 0.37 0.62 1.42 0.71

Control Delay 157.3 16.5 20.5 224.3 18.8

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 157.3 16.5 20.5 224.3 18.8

Queue Length 50th (ft) ~150 90 122 ~493 97

Queue Length 95th (ft) m#254 m124 177 #697 204

Internal Link Dist (ft) 820 380 2022

Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 150

Base Capacity (vph) 228 1871 1169 582 653

Starvation Cap Reductn 00000

Spillback Cap Reductn 00000

Storage Cap Reductn 00000

Reduced v/c Ratio 1.21 0.37 0.62 1.42 0.71

Intersection Summary

~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-477
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 4

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 255 636 0 0 495 176 762 2 427 0 0 0

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

Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3400 1770 1585

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3400 1770 1585

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 277 691 0 0 538 191 828 2 464 0 0 0

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 132 0 0 0 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 277 691 0 0 678 0 828 3340000

Turn Type Prot Split

Protected Phases 7 4 8 2 2

Permitted Phases

Actuated Green, G (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 37.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.53 0.33 0.33 0.33

Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 228 1871 1117 582 521

v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.20 c0.20 c0.47 0.21

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 1.21 0.37 0.61 1.42 0.64

Uniform Delay, d1 30.5 9.7 19.7 23.5 20.0

Progression Factor 1.25 1.63 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 121.4 0.4 2.5 200.1 5.9

Delay (s) 159.6 16.2 22.2 223.6 25.9

Level of Service F B C F C

Approach Delay (s) 57.2 22.2 152.4 0.0

Approach LOS E C F A

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 89.9 HCM Level of Service F

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 117.5% ICU Level of Service H

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-478
Timings

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 5

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 573 977 321 935 318 1

Turn Type Perm Prot Split

Protected Phases 4 3866

Permitted Phases 4

Detector Phase 4 4 3 8 6 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 42.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (%) 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max None C-Max Max Max

Act Effct Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.53 0.33 0.33

v/c Ratio 0.77 1.18 0.86 0.54 0.59 0.81

Control Delay 33.0 103.6 31.2 12.2 24.7 31.1

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 33.0 103.6 31.2 12.2 24.7 31.1

LOS C F C B C C

Approach Delay 77.5 17.1 28.4

Approach LOS E B C

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 70

Actuated Cycle Length: 70

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 90

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.18

Intersection Signal Delay: 45.8 Intersection LOS: D

Intersection Capacity Utilization 117.5% ICU Level of Service H

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps

F-G-479
Phasings

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 6

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT

Protected Phases 4 3866

Permitted Phases 4

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 42.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (%) 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0%

Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max None C-Max Max Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 18.0 18.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

90th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord MaxR MaxR

70th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

70th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord MaxR MaxR

50th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

50th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord MaxR MaxR

30th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

30th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord MaxR MaxR

10th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

10th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Hold Coord MaxR MaxR

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 70

Actuated Cycle Length: 70

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-480
Queues

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 7

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 623 1062 349 1016 346 469

v/c Ratio 0.77 1.18 0.86 0.54 0.59 0.81

Control Delay 33.0 103.6 31.2 12.2 24.7 31.1

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 33.0 103.6 31.2 12.2 24.7 31.1

Queue Length 50th (ft) 132 ~302 140 172 123 151

Queue Length 95th (ft) #193 #528 m133 m158 203 #308

Internal Link Dist (ft) 920 820 1339

Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 300

Base Capacity (vph) 809 903 405 1871 582 577

Starvation Cap Reductn 000000

Spillback Cap Reductn 000000

Storage Cap Reductn 000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.77 1.18 0.86 0.54 0.59 0.81

Intersection Summary

~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-481
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 8

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 0 573 977 321 935 0 0 0 0 318 1 431

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

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

Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 1770 3539 1770 1584

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 1770 3539 1770 1584

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 0 623 1062 349 1016 0 0 0 0 346 1 468

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 541 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 623 521 349 1016 0 0 0 0 346 412 0

Turn Type Perm Prot Split

Protected Phases 4 3 8 6 6

Permitted Phases 4

Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 37.0 23.0 23.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.53 0.33 0.33

Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 809 362 405 1871 582 520

v/s Ratio Prot 0.18 c0.20 0.29 0.20 c0.26

v/s Ratio Perm c0.33

v/c Ratio 0.77 1.44 0.86 0.54 0.59 0.79

Uniform Delay, d1 25.3 27.0 25.9 10.9 19.6 21.3

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.09 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 7.0 213.1 1.9 0.1 4.4 11.7

Delay (s) 32.3 240.1 28.2 12.0 24.0 33.1

Level of Service C F C B C C

Approach Delay (s) 163.2 16.1 0.0 29.2

Approach LOS F B A C

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 83.0 HCM Level of Service F

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 117.5% ICU Level of Service H

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-482
Timings

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 9

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 1266 355 1010 2

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 4382

Permitted Phases

Detector Phase 4 3 8 2

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0

Total Split (%) 33.3% 33.3% 66.7% 33.3%

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 16.0 15.4 35.4 16.6

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.26 0.59 0.28

v/c Ratio 0.80 0.85 0.37 0.46

Control Delay 25.0 41.3 6.8 5.3

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 25.0 41.3 6.8 5.3

LOS C D A A

Approach Delay 25.0 15.7 5.3

Approach LOS C B A

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 60

Actuated Cycle Length: 60

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 60

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.85

Intersection Signal Delay: 18.8 Intersection LOS: B

Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.7% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1

F-G-483
Phasings

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 10

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Protected Phases 4382

Permitted Phases

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0

Total Split (%) 33.3% 33.3% 66.7% 33.3%

Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 36.0 16.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 36.0 16.0

90th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 36.0 16.0

70th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 36.0 16.0

50th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 36.0 16.0

30th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 16.2 12.8 33.0 19.0

10th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 60

Actuated Cycle Length: 60

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-484
Queues

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 11

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Lane Group Flow (vph) 1378 386 1098 310

v/c Ratio 0.80 0.85 0.37 0.46

Control Delay 25.0 41.3 6.8 5.3

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 25.0 41.3 6.8 5.3

Queue Length 50th (ft) 134 130 64 1

Queue Length 95th (ft) 172 #262 85 51

Internal Link Dist (ft) 920 920 1731

Turn Bay Length (ft) 200

Base Capacity (vph) 1713 472 3051 669

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.80 0.82 0.36 0.46

Intersection Summary

# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

F-G-485
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 12

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 1266 2 355 1010 2 283

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87

Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 6406 1770 5085 1612

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 6406 1770 5085 1612

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 1376 2 386 1098 2 308

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 223 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 1378 0 386 1098 87 0

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 4 3 8 2

Permitted Phases

Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 15.4 35.4 16.6

Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 15.4 35.4 16.6

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.26 0.59 0.28

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1708 454 3000 446

v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 c0.22 0.22 c0.05

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.81 0.85 0.37 0.20

Uniform Delay, d1 20.6 21.2 6.4 16.6

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 14.1 0.1 1.0

Delay (s) 23.5 35.3 6.5 17.6

Level of Service C D A B

Approach Delay (s) 23.5 14.0 17.6

Approach LOS C B B

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 18.5 HCM Level of Service B

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.7% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-486
Timings

4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 13

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 1211 81 929 2

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 4382

Permitted Phases

Detector Phase 4 3 8 2

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 10.0 30.0 20.0

Total Split (%) 40.0% 20.0% 60.0% 40.0%

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 15.7 5.9 21.7 20.3

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.12 0.43 0.41

v/c Ratio 0.66 0.42 0.36 0.09

Control Delay 16.6 27.1 9.4 4.8

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 16.6 27.1 9.4 4.8

LOS B C A A

Approach Delay 16.6 10.8 4.8

Approach LOS B B A

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 50

Actuated Cycle Length: 50

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 50

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.66

Intersection Signal Delay: 13.7 Intersection LOS: B

Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.6% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2

F-G-487
Phasings

4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 14

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Protected Phases 4382

Permitted Phases

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 10.0 30.0 20.0

Total Split (%) 40.0% 20.0% 60.0% 40.0%

Maximum Green (s) 16.0 6.0 26.0 16.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 6.0 26.0 16.0

90th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 16.0 6.0 26.0 16.0

70th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 16.0 6.0 26.0 16.0

50th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 16.4 0.0 16.4 25.6

30th %ile Term Code Gap Skip Hold Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 14.0 0.0 14.0 28.0

10th %ile Term Code Gap Skip Hold Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 50

Actuated Cycle Length: 50

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-488
Queues

4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 15

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Lane Group Flow (vph) 1318 88 1010 63

v/c Ratio 0.66 0.42 0.36 0.09

Control Delay 16.6 27.1 9.4 4.8

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 16.6 27.1 9.4 4.8

Queue Length 50th (ft) 93 25 43 0

Queue Length 95th (ft) 124 59 59 20

Internal Link Dist (ft) 920 920 736

Turn Bay Length (ft) 200

Base Capacity (vph) 2061 212 3332 692

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.64 0.42 0.30 0.09

Intersection Summary

F-G-489
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 16

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 1211 2 81 929 2 56

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87

Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 6406 1770 6408 1617

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 6406 1770 6408 1617

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 1316 2 88 1010 2 61

RTOR Reduction (vph) 1 0 0 0 38 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 1317 0 88 1010 25 0

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 4 3 8 2

Permitted Phases

Actuated Green, G (s) 15.7 3.6 23.3 18.7

Effective Green, g (s) 15.7 3.6 23.3 18.7

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.07 0.47 0.37

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2011 127 2986 605

v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 c0.05 0.16 c0.02

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.66 0.69 0.34 0.04

Uniform Delay, d1 14.8 22.7 8.5 9.9

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 15.1 0.1 0.1

Delay (s) 15.6 37.8 8.5 10.1

Level of Service B D A B

Approach Delay (s) 15.6 10.9 10.1

Approach LOS B B B

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 13.4 HCM Level of Service B

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.6% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-490
Timings

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 17

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 17 141 363 687 89 515 722 586 485 969

Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot

Protected Phases 7 4 3852 16

Permitted Phases 4 2

Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 9.0 44.0 44.0 9.0 44.0 9.0 44.0 44.0 9.0 44.0

Total Split (s) 28.0 44.0 44.0 28.0 44.0 34.0 44.0 44.0 34.0 44.0

Total Split (%) 18.7% 29.3% 29.3% 18.7% 29.3% 22.7% 29.3% 29.3% 22.7% 29.3%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 26.7 17.1 17.1 44.0 38.7 29.0 41.8 41.8 27.1 39.9

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.29 0.26 0.19 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.27

v/c Ratio 0.06 0.38 0.78 0.74 0.28 0.84 0.55 0.79 0.85 0.80

Control Delay 46.6 61.9 17.9 52.8 20.5 60.6 39.1 21.6 73.1 56.4

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 46.6 61.9 17.9 52.8 20.5 60.6 39.1 21.6 73.1 56.4

LOS D E B D C E D C E E

Approach Delay 30.7 44.4 39.5 61.9

Approach LOS C D D E

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 150

Actuated Cycle Length: 150

Offset: 96 (64%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 150

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.85

Intersection Signal Delay: 46.5 Intersection LOS: D

Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.0% ICU Level of Service D

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road

F-G-491
Phasings

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 18

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT

Protected Phases 7 4 3852 16

Permitted Phases 4 2

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 9.0 44.0 44.0 9.0 44.0 9.0 44.0 44.0 9.0 44.0

Total Split (s) 28.0 44.0 44.0 28.0 44.0 34.0 44.0 44.0 34.0 44.0

Total Split (%) 18.7% 29.3% 29.3% 18.7% 29.3% 22.7% 29.3% 29.3% 22.7% 29.3%

Maximum Green (s) 23.0 39.0 39.0 23.0 39.0 29.0 39.0 39.0 29.0 39.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 23.0 39.0 39.0 23.0 39.0 29.0 39.0 39.0 29.0 39.0

90th %ile Term Code Hold Ped Ped Max Ped Max Coord Coord Max Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 48.2 15.7 15.7 44.7 12.2 29.0 39.0 39.0 30.6 40.6

70th %ile Term Code Hold Gap Gap Gap Gap Max Coord Coord Max Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 50.9 11.9 11.9 47.3 8.3 29.0 42.7 42.7 28.1 41.8

50th %ile Term Code Hold Gap Gap Gap Gap Max Coord Coord Gap Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 0.0 10.5 10.5 51.5 67.0 29.0 42.3 42.3 25.7 39.0

30th %ile Term Code Skip Gap Gap Max Hold Hold Coord Coord Gap Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 8.6 8.6 53.4 67.0 29.0 46.0 46.0 22.0 39.0

10th %ile Term Code Skip Gap Gap Max Hold Hold Coord Coord Gap Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 150

Actuated Cycle Length: 150

Offset: 96 (64%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-492
Queues

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 19

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 153 395 747 263 560 785 637 527 1075

v/c Ratio 0.06 0.38 0.78 0.74 0.28 0.84 0.55 0.79 0.85 0.80

Control Delay 46.6 61.9 17.9 52.8 20.5 60.6 39.1 21.6 73.1 56.4

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 46.6 61.9 17.9 52.8 20.5 60.6 39.1 21.6 73.1 56.4

Queue Length 50th (ft) 12 77 23 330 49 278 189 166 258 353

Queue Length 95th (ft) 41 93 116 #634 77 #319 252 253 324 421

Internal Link Dist (ft) 1660 920 920 1521

Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 150 100

Base Capacity (vph) 397 920 685 1007 1183 664 1417 803 671 1350

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.05 0.17 0.58 0.74 0.22 0.84 0.55 0.79 0.79 0.80

Intersection Summary

# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

F-G-493
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 20

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 17 141 363 687 89 153 515 722 586 485 969 20

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

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

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91

Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00

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

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3204 3433 5085 1583 3433 5070

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

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3204 3433 5085 1583 3433 5070

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 18 153 395 747 97 166 560 785 637 527 1053 22

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 328 0 123 0 0 0 369 0 1 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 153 67 747 140 0 560 785 268 527 1074 0

Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot

Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6

Permitted Phases 4 2

Actuated Green, G (s) 24.4 17.1 17.1 46.0 38.7 29.0 39.8 39.8 27.1 37.9

Effective Green, g (s) 24.4 17.1 17.1 46.0 38.7 29.0 39.8 39.8 27.1 37.9

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.31 0.26 0.19 0.27 0.27 0.18 0.25

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

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 288 403 180 1053 827 664 1349 420 620 1281

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.04 c0.22 0.04 c0.16 0.15 0.15 c0.21

v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.17

v/c Ratio 0.06 0.38 0.37 0.71 0.17 0.84 0.58 0.64 0.85 0.84

Uniform Delay, d1 53.1 61.5 61.5 46.1 43.2 58.3 47.9 48.7 59.5 53.1

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.80 1.29 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.6 1.3 2.2 0.1 9.0 1.7 6.8 10.8 6.7

Delay (s) 53.2 62.1 62.8 48.3 43.3 57.6 40.2 69.8 70.3 59.8

Level of Service D E E D D E D E E E

Approach Delay (s) 62.3 47.0 54.6 63.2

Approach LOS E D D E

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 56.6 HCM Level of Service E

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.0% ICU Level of Service D

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-494
Timings

6: Station Access #3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 21

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 48 2 2 2 71 1736 56 1899

Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4 85216

Permitted Phases 4 8

Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 20.0 20.0 9.0 21.0 8.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 12.0 44.0 10.0 42.0

Total Split (%) 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 16.0% 58.7% 13.3% 56.0%

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 9.2 9.2 9.2 7.5 53.3 7.3 50.9

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.71 0.10 0.68

v/c Ratio 0.24 0.38 0.20 0.44 0.41 0.36 0.49

Control Delay 30.6 10.3 12.1 30.4 4.8 33.1 10.7

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 30.6 10.3 12.1 30.4 4.8 33.1 10.7

LOS C B B C A C B

Approach Delay 16.8 12.1 5.8 11.3

Approach LOS B B A B

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 75

Actuated Cycle Length: 75

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 55

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.49

Intersection Signal Delay: 9.0 Intersection LOS: A

Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.9% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 6: Station Access #3 & Future Road

F-G-495
Phasings

6: Station Access #3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 22

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Protected Phases 4 85216

Permitted Phases 4 8

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 20.0 20.0 9.0 21.0 8.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 12.0 44.0 10.0 42.0

Total Split (%) 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 16.0% 58.7% 13.3% 56.0%

Maximum Green (s) 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 8.0 40.0 6.0 38.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5500 5

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 8.0 40.0 7.0 39.0

90th %ile Term Code Ped Ped Hold Hold Max Coord Max Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.0 44.3 9.1 45.4

70th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Max Coord Gap Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.0 46.9 7.9 46.8

50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Max Coord Gap Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 8.0 60.2 0.0 48.2

30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Hold Coord Skip Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.0 0.0 71.0

10th %ile Term Code Skip Skip Skip Skip Skip Coord Skip Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 75

Actuated Cycle Length: 75

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-496
Queues

6: Station Access #3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 23

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 52 110 46 77 1889 61 2135

v/c Ratio 0.24 0.38 0.20 0.44 0.41 0.36 0.49

Control Delay 30.6 10.3 12.1 30.4 4.8 33.1 10.7

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 30.6 10.3 12.1 30.4 4.8 33.1 10.7

Queue Length 50th (ft) 23 1 2 35 58 37 236

Queue Length 95th (ft) 48 39 27 m58 106 m58 221

Internal Link Dist (ft) 813 777 420 920

Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100

Base Capacity (vph) 400 444 398 189 4552 174 4330

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.25 0.12 0.41 0.41 0.35 0.49

Intersection Summary

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-497
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

6: Station Access #3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 24

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 48 2 99 2 2 39 71 1736 2 56 1899 65

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

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.86

Frt 1.00 0.85 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1588 1630 1770 6407 1770 6376

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1765 1588 1610 1770 6407 1770 6376

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 52 2 108 2 2 42 77 1887 2 61 2064 71

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 96 0 0 370000050

Lane Group Flow (vph) 52 14 0 0 9 0 77 1889 0 61 2130 0

Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6

Permitted Phases 4 8

Actuated Green, G (s) 8.1 8.1 8.1 7.2 50.1 4.8 47.7

Effective Green, g (s) 8.1 8.1 8.1 7.2 50.1 4.8 47.7

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.67 0.06 0.64

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

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 191 172 174 170 4280 113 4055

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.04 c0.29 0.03 c0.33

v/s Ratio Perm c0.03 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.27 0.08 0.05 0.45 0.44 0.54 0.53

Uniform Delay, d1 30.7 30.1 30.0 32.0 5.9 34.0 7.5

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.65 0.93 1.31

Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.2 0.1 1.7 0.3 3.2 0.3

Delay (s) 31.5 30.3 30.1 25.3 4.1 34.8 10.1

Level of Service C C C C A C B

Approach Delay (s) 30.7 30.1 5.0 10.8

Approach LOS C C A B

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 9.1 HCM Level of Service A

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.9% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-498
Timings

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 25

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 145 2 2 2 239 1607 78 1703

Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4 85216

Permitted Phases 4 8

Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 21.0 42.0 13.0 34.0

Total Split (%) 26.7% 26.7% 26.7% 26.7% 28.0% 56.0% 17.3% 45.3%

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 12.6 12.6 12.6 17.0 44.2 8.2 33.4

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.23 0.59 0.11 0.45

v/c Ratio 0.62 0.61 0.24 0.65 0.46 0.44 0.74

Control Delay 39.4 8.8 10.6 24.2 3.6 51.2 19.5

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 39.4 8.8 10.6 24.2 3.6 51.2 19.5

LOS D A B C A D B

Approach Delay 18.8 10.6 6.3 20.8

Approach LOS B B A C

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 75

Actuated Cycle Length: 75

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 60

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.74

Intersection Signal Delay: 14.3 Intersection LOS: B

Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.0% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 7: Station Access #4 & Future Road

F-G-499
Phasings

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 26

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Protected Phases 4 85216

Permitted Phases 4 8

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 21.0 42.0 13.0 34.0

Total Split (%) 26.7% 26.7% 26.7% 26.7% 28.0% 56.0% 17.3% 45.3%

Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 17.0 38.0 9.0 30.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5500 5

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 17.0 38.0 9.0 30.0

90th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Hold Max Coord Max Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 17.0 38.0 9.8 30.8

70th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Max Coord Max Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 17.0 41.0 8.9 32.9

50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Hold Coord Gap Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 17.0 44.7 7.5 35.2

30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Hold Coord Gap Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 17.0 59.3 0.0 38.3

10th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Hold Coord Skip Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 75

Actuated Cycle Length: 75

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-500
Queues

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 27

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 158 325 63 260 1749 85 2086

v/c Ratio 0.62 0.61 0.24 0.65 0.46 0.44 0.74

Control Delay 39.4 8.8 10.6 24.2 3.6 51.2 19.5

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 39.4 8.8 10.6 24.2 3.6 51.2 19.5

Queue Length 50th (ft) 68 1 2 110 30 64 338

Queue Length 95th (ft) 122 63 31 138 39 95 244

Internal Link Dist (ft) 873 973 420 420

Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 100

Base Capacity (vph) 324 592 321 401 3777 216 2837

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.55 0.20 0.65 0.46 0.39 0.74

Intersection Summary

F-G-501
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 28

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 145 2 297 2 2 54 239 1607 2 78 1703 216

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

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.86

Frt 1.00 0.85 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1585 1625 1770 6407 1770 6300

Flt Permitted 0.82 1.00 0.79 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1521 1585 1289 1770 6407 1770 6300

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 158 2 323 2 2 59 260 1747 2 85 1851 235

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 269 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 29 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 158 56 0 0 14 0 260 1749 0 85 2057 0

Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6

Permitted Phases 4 8

Actuated Green, G (s) 12.6 12.6 12.6 17.8 43.4 7.0 32.6

Effective Green, g (s) 12.6 12.6 12.6 17.8 43.4 7.0 32.6

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.24 0.58 0.09 0.43

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

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 256 266 217 420 3708 165 2738

v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.15 0.27 0.05 c0.33

v/s Ratio Perm c0.10 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.62 0.21 0.06 0.62 0.47 0.52 0.75

Uniform Delay, d1 29.0 26.9 26.2 25.6 9.2 32.4 17.8

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 0.33 1.44 1.05

Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 0.4 0.1 2.4 0.4 2.4 1.7

Delay (s) 33.3 27.3 26.4 18.6 3.4 49.1 20.4

Level of Service C C C B A D C

Approach Delay (s) 29.3 26.4 5.3 21.5

Approach LOS C C A C

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 15.5 HCM Level of Service B

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.0% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-502
Timings

8: Station Access #5 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 29

Lane Group WBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 2 1754 133 1867

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 8216

Permitted Phases

Detector Phase 8 2 1 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 38.0 17.0 55.0

Total Split (%) 26.7% 50.7% 22.7% 73.3%

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 8.0 46.1 10.8 61.7

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.61 0.14 0.82

v/c Ratio 0.39 0.48 0.57 0.38

Control Delay 11.4 10.0 46.4 0.4

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 11.4 10.0 46.4 0.4

LOS B A D A

Approach Delay 11.4 10.0 3.5

Approach LOS B A A

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 75

Actuated Cycle Length: 75

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 55

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.57

Intersection Signal Delay: 6.6 Intersection LOS: A

Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.6% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 8: Station Access #5 & Future Road

F-G-503
Phasings

8: Station Access #5 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 30

Lane Group WBL NBT SBL SBT

Protected Phases 8216

Permitted Phases

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 38.0 17.0 55.0

Total Split (%) 26.7% 50.7% 22.7% 73.3%

Maximum Green (s) 16.0 34.0 13.0 51.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 34.0 13.0 51.0

90th %ile Term Code Ped Coord Max Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 7.3 42.6 13.1 59.7

70th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Gap Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 5.5 46.1 11.4 61.5

50th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Gap Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 5.5 47.9 9.6 61.5

30th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Gap Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 60.0 7.0 71.0

10th %ile Term Code Skip Coord Gap Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 75

Actuated Cycle Length: 75

Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-504
Queues

8: Station Access #5 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 31

Lane Group WBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 102 1909 145 2029

v/c Ratio 0.39 0.48 0.57 0.38

Control Delay 11.4 10.0 46.4 0.4

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 11.4 10.0 46.4 0.4

Queue Length 50th (ft) 1 125 82 5

Queue Length 95th (ft) 37 231 m103 9

Internal Link Dist (ft) 1061 848 420

Turn Bay Length (ft) 100

Base Capacity (vph) 423 3941 307 5275

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.24 0.48 0.47 0.38

Intersection Summary

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-505
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

8: Station Access #5 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 32

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 2 92 1754 2 133 1867

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.86

Frt 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1615 6407 1770 6408

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1615 6407 1770 6408

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 2 100 1907 2 145 2029

RTOR Reduction (vph) 9100000

Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 0 1909 0 145 2029

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 8 2 1 6

Permitted Phases

Actuated Green, G (s) 6.9 45.3 10.8 60.1

Effective Green, g (s) 6.9 45.3 10.8 60.1

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.60 0.14 0.80

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 149 3870 255 5135

v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.30 c0.08 0.32

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.08 0.49 0.57 0.40

Uniform Delay, d1 31.1 8.4 29.9 2.2

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.36 0.10

Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.5 2.0 0.2

Delay (s) 31.3 8.8 42.8 0.4

Level of Service C A D A

Approach Delay (s) 31.3 8.8 3.2

Approach LOS C A A

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 6.5 HCM Level of Service A

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.6% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-506
2030 Conditions

Base + DEMU Mitigations

F-G-507
F-G-508
Timings

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 1

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 255 636 495 762 2

Turn Type Prot Split

Protected Phases 74822

Permitted Phases

Detector Phase 7 4 8 2 2

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 9.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (s) 22.0 51.0 29.0 29.0 29.0

Total Split (%) 27.5% 63.8% 36.3% 36.3% 36.3%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max

Act Effct Green (s) 17.0 46.0 24.0 24.0 24.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.58 0.30 0.30 0.30

v/c Ratio 0.74 0.34 0.68 0.80 0.74

Control Delay 26.1 1.1 26.3 33.1 20.7

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 26.1 1.1 26.3 33.1 20.7

LOS C A C C C

Approach Delay 8.3 26.3 28.6

Approach LOS A C C

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 80

Actuated Cycle Length: 80

Offset: 69 (86%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 70

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.80

Intersection Signal Delay: 21.5 Intersection LOS: C

Intersection Capacity Utilization 117.5% ICU Level of Service H

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps

F-G-509
Phasings

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 2

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT

Protected Phases 74822

Permitted Phases

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 9.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (s) 22.0 51.0 29.0 29.0 29.0

Total Split (%) 27.5% 63.8% 36.3% 36.3% 36.3%

Maximum Green (s) 17.0 46.0 24.0 24.0 24.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5555

90th %ile Green (s) 17.0 46.0 24.0 24.0 24.0

90th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

70th %ile Green (s) 17.0 46.0 24.0 24.0 24.0

70th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

50th %ile Green (s) 17.0 46.0 24.0 24.0 24.0

50th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

30th %ile Green (s) 17.0 46.0 24.0 24.0 24.0

30th %ile Term Code Hold Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

10th %ile Green (s) 17.0 46.0 24.0 24.0 24.0

10th %ile Term Code Hold Coord Coord MaxR MaxR

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 80

Actuated Cycle Length: 80

Offset: 69 (86%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-510
Queues

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 3

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 277 691 729 828 466

v/c Ratio 0.74 0.34 0.68 0.80 0.74

Control Delay 26.1 1.1 26.3 33.1 20.7

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 26.1 1.1 26.3 33.1 20.7

Queue Length 50th (ft) 101 1 153 195 104

Queue Length 95th (ft) m#236 1 214 #264 220

Internal Link Dist (ft) 820 380 2022

Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 150

Base Capacity (vph) 376 2035 1065 1030 634

Starvation Cap Reductn 00000

Spillback Cap Reductn 00000

Storage Cap Reductn 00000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.74 0.34 0.68 0.80 0.74

Intersection Summary

# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-511
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 NB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 4

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 255 636 0 0 495 176 762 2 427 0 0 0

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

Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 1.00

Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3400 3433 1585

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3400 3433 1585

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 277 691 0 0 538 191 828 2 464 0 0 0

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 159 0 0 0 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 277 691 0 0 684 0 828 3070000

Turn Type Prot Split

Protected Phases 7 4 8 2 2

Permitted Phases

Actuated Green, G (s) 17.0 46.0 24.0 24.0 24.0

Effective Green, g (s) 17.0 46.0 24.0 24.0 24.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.57 0.30 0.30 0.30

Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 376 2035 1020 1030 476

v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.20 c0.20 c0.24 0.19

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.74 0.34 0.67 0.80 0.65

Uniform Delay, d1 29.4 9.0 24.5 25.8 24.3

Progression Factor 0.49 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 6.1 0.4 3.5 6.7 6.6

Delay (s) 20.4 1.1 28.1 32.5 30.9

Level of Service C A C C C

Approach Delay (s) 6.6 28.1 31.9 0.0

Approach LOS A C C A

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 22.8 HCM Level of Service C

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 117.5% ICU Level of Service H

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-512
Timings

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 5

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 573 977 321 935 318 1

Turn Type Perm Prot Split

Protected Phases 4 3866

Permitted Phases 4

Detector Phase 4 4 3 8 6 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (s) 32.0 32.0 20.0 52.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (%) 40.0% 40.0% 25.0% 65.0% 35.0% 35.0%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max None C-Max Max Max

Act Effct Green (s) 27.0 27.0 15.0 47.0 23.0 23.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.19 0.59 0.29 0.29

v/c Ratio 0.52 1.07 1.05 0.49 0.68 0.88

Control Delay 6.7 63.6 85.7 5.6 33.1 40.7

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 6.7 63.6 85.7 5.6 33.1 40.7

LOS A E F A C D

Approach Delay 42.6 26.1 37.5

Approach LOS D C D

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 80

Actuated Cycle Length: 80

Offset: 71 (89%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 90

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.07

Intersection Signal Delay: 35.7 Intersection LOS: D

Intersection Capacity Utilization 117.5% ICU Level of Service H

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps

F-G-513
Phasings

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 6

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT

Protected Phases 4 3866

Permitted Phases 4

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 9.0 21.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (s) 32.0 32.0 20.0 52.0 28.0 28.0

Total Split (%) 40.0% 40.0% 25.0% 65.0% 35.0% 35.0%

Maximum Green (s) 27.0 27.0 15.0 47.0 23.0 23.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode C-Max C-Max None C-Max Max Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 18.0 18.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 27.0 27.0 15.0 47.0 23.0 23.0

90th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord MaxR MaxR

70th %ile Green (s) 27.0 27.0 15.0 47.0 23.0 23.0

70th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord MaxR MaxR

50th %ile Green (s) 27.0 27.0 15.0 47.0 23.0 23.0

50th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord MaxR MaxR

30th %ile Green (s) 27.0 27.0 15.0 47.0 23.0 23.0

30th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord MaxR MaxR

10th %ile Green (s) 27.0 27.0 15.0 47.0 23.0 23.0

10th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Coord MaxR MaxR

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 80

Actuated Cycle Length: 80

Offset: 71 (89%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-514
Queues

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 7

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 623 1062 349 1016 346 469

v/c Ratio 0.52 1.07 1.05 0.49 0.68 0.88

Control Delay 6.7 63.6 85.7 5.6 33.1 40.7

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 6.7 63.6 85.7 5.6 33.1 40.7

Queue Length 50th (ft) 26 ~575 ~203 170 152 174

Queue Length 95th (ft) 32 #381 m#326 154 244 #350

Internal Link Dist (ft) 920 820 1339

Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 300

Base Capacity (vph) 1194 994 332 2079 509 534

Starvation Cap Reductn 000000

Spillback Cap Reductn 000000

Storage Cap Reductn 000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.52 1.07 1.05 0.49 0.68 0.88

Intersection Summary

~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-515
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

2: Dale Evans Parkway & I-15 SB Ramps 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 8

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 0 573 977 321 935 0 0 0 0 318 1 431

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

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

Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 1770 3539 1770 1584

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 1770 3539 1770 1584

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 0 623 1062 349 1016 0 0 0 0 346 1 468

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 460 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 623 602 349 1016 0 0 0 0 346 390 0

Turn Type Perm Prot Split

Protected Phases 4 3 8 6 6

Permitted Phases 4

Actuated Green, G (s) 27.0 27.0 15.0 47.0 23.0 23.0

Effective Green, g (s) 27.0 27.0 15.0 47.0 23.0 23.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.19 0.59 0.29 0.29

Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1194 534 332 2079 509 455

v/s Ratio Prot 0.18 c0.20 0.29 0.20 c0.25

v/s Ratio Perm c0.38

v/c Ratio 0.52 1.13 1.05 0.49 0.68 0.86

Uniform Delay, d1 21.3 26.5 32.5 9.5 25.2 26.9

Progression Factor 0.26 2.18 0.91 0.52 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 74.4 53.4 0.5 7.2 18.4

Delay (s) 6.7 132.2 83.0 5.5 32.4 45.4

Level of Service A F F A C D

Approach Delay (s) 85.8 25.3 0.0 39.9

Approach LOS F C A D

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 54.8 HCM Level of Service D

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 117.5% ICU Level of Service H

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-516
Timings

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 9

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 1266 355 1010 2

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 4382

Permitted Phases

Detector Phase 4 3 8 2

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 27.0 32.0 59.0 21.0

Total Split (%) 33.8% 40.0% 73.8% 26.3%

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 23.7 22.2 49.9 22.1

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.28 0.62 0.28

v/c Ratio 0.73 0.78 0.35 0.46

Control Delay 15.1 28.9 6.6 6.2

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 15.1 28.9 6.6 6.2

LOS B C A A

Approach Delay 15.1 12.4 6.2

Approach LOS B B A

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 80

Actuated Cycle Length: 80

Offset: 76 (95%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 60

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.78

Intersection Signal Delay: 13.0 Intersection LOS: B

Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.7% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1

F-G-517
Phasings

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 10

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Protected Phases 4382

Permitted Phases

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 27.0 32.0 59.0 21.0

Total Split (%) 33.8% 40.0% 73.8% 26.3%

Maximum Green (s) 23.0 28.0 55.0 17.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lead/Lag Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0

90th %ile Green (s) 23.0 28.0 55.0 17.0

90th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 25.4 25.6 55.0 17.0

70th %ile Term Code Max Gap Hold Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 25.7 22.7 52.4 19.6

50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 23.6 19.7 47.3 24.7

30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 20.8 15.1 39.9 32.1

10th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 80

Actuated Cycle Length: 80

Offset: 76 (95%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-518
Queues

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 11

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Lane Group Flow (vph) 1378 386 1098 310

v/c Ratio 0.73 0.78 0.35 0.46

Control Delay 15.1 28.9 6.6 6.2

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 15.1 28.9 6.6 6.2

Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 160 64 1

Queue Length 95th (ft) 44 m214 m69 64

Internal Link Dist (ft) 920 920 1731

Turn Bay Length (ft) 200

Base Capacity (vph) 1934 620 3496 668

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.71 0.62 0.31 0.46

Intersection Summary

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-519
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

3: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #1 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 12

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 1266 2 355 1010 2 283

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87

Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 6406 1770 5085 1612

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 6406 1770 5085 1612

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 1376 2 386 1098 2 308

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 223 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 1378 0 386 1098 87 0

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 4 3 8 2

Permitted Phases

Actuated Green, G (s) 23.7 22.2 49.9 22.1

Effective Green, g (s) 23.7 22.2 49.9 22.1

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.28 0.62 0.28

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1898 491 3172 445

v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 c0.22 0.22 c0.05

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.73 0.79 0.35 0.20

Uniform Delay, d1 25.2 26.7 7.2 22.2

Progression Factor 0.51 0.74 0.92 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 6.5 0.1 1.0

Delay (s) 14.1 26.2 6.7 23.1

Level of Service B C A C

Approach Delay (s) 14.1 11.8 23.1

Approach LOS B B C

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 13.9 HCM Level of Service B

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.7% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-520
Timings

4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 13

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 1211 81 929 2

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 4382

Permitted Phases

Detector Phase 4 3 8 2

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 37.0 19.0 56.0 24.0

Total Split (%) 46.3% 23.8% 70.0% 30.0%

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 25.3 9.3 36.7 35.3

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.12 0.46 0.44

v/c Ratio 0.65 0.43 0.34 0.08

Control Delay 24.8 24.6 4.7 6.2

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 24.8 24.6 4.7 6.2

LOS C C A A

Approach Delay 24.8 6.3 6.2

Approach LOS C A A

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 80

Actuated Cycle Length: 80

Offset: 6 (8%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 50

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65

Intersection Signal Delay: 16.1 Intersection LOS: B

Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.6% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2

F-G-521
Phasings

4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 14

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Protected Phases 4382

Permitted Phases

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 37.0 19.0 56.0 24.0

Total Split (%) 46.3% 23.8% 70.0% 30.0%

Maximum Green (s) 33.0 15.0 52.0 20.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lead/Lag Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0

90th %ile Green (s) 30.6 12.8 47.4 24.6

90th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 27.9 10.7 42.6 29.4

70th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 25.0 9.3 38.3 33.7

50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 23.5 7.9 35.4 36.6

30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 19.7 0.0 19.7 52.3

10th %ile Term Code Gap Skip Hold Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 80

Actuated Cycle Length: 80

Offset: 6 (8%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-522
Queues

4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 15

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL

Lane Group Flow (vph) 1318 88 1010 63

v/c Ratio 0.65 0.43 0.34 0.08

Control Delay 24.8 24.6 4.7 6.2

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 24.8 24.6 4.7 6.2

Queue Length 50th (ft) 164 39 18 1

Queue Length 95th (ft) 178 83 17 27

Internal Link Dist (ft) 920 920 736

Turn Bay Length (ft) 200

Base Capacity (vph) 2643 332 4165 747

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.27 0.24 0.08

Intersection Summary

F-G-523
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

4: Dale Evans Parkway & Station Access #2 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 16

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 1211 2 81 929 2 56

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87

Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 6406 1770 6408 1617

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 6406 1770 6408 1617

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 1316 2 88 1010 2 61

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 35 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 1318 0 88 1010 28 0

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 4 3 8 2

Permitted Phases

Actuated Green, G (s) 25.3 8.1 37.4 34.6

Effective Green, g (s) 25.3 8.1 37.4 34.6

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.10 0.47 0.43

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2026 179 2996 699

v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 c0.05 0.16 c0.02

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.65 0.49 0.34 0.04

Uniform Delay, d1 23.5 34.0 13.5 13.1

Progression Factor 1.00 0.57 0.33 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 2.0 0.1 0.1

Delay (s) 24.3 21.6 4.5 13.2

Level of Service C C A B

Approach Delay (s) 24.3 5.9 13.2

Approach LOS C A B

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 15.9 HCM Level of Service B

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.32

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.6% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-524
Timings

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 17

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 17 141 363 687 89 515 722 586 485 969

Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot

Protected Phases 7 4 3852 16

Permitted Phases 4 2

Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 9.0 44.0 44.0 9.0 44.0 9.0 44.0 44.0 9.0 44.0

Total Split (s) 10.0 44.0 44.0 34.0 68.0 27.0 45.0 45.0 27.0 45.0

Total Split (%) 6.7% 29.3% 29.3% 22.7% 45.3% 18.0% 30.0% 30.0% 18.0% 30.0%

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max None Max

Act Effct Green (s) 15.8 17.6 17.6 29.2 37.4 22.2 40.3 40.3 22.2 40.3

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.23 0.29 0.17 0.31 0.31 0.17 0.31

v/c Ratio 0.08 0.32 0.83 0.96 0.25 0.95 0.50 0.76 0.90 0.68

Control Delay 47.7 50.6 28.8 74.6 16.3 80.4 38.9 15.7 72.0 42.8

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 47.7 50.6 28.8 74.6 16.3 80.4 38.9 15.7 72.0 42.8

LOS D D C E B F D B E D

Approach Delay 35.3 59.4 43.2 52.4

Approach LOS D E D D

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 150

Actuated Cycle Length: 129.4

Natural Cycle: 150

Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.96

Intersection Signal Delay: 48.3 Intersection LOS: D

Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.0% ICU Level of Service D

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road

F-G-525
Phasings

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 18

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT

Protected Phases 7 4 3852 16

Permitted Phases 4 2

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 9.0 44.0 44.0 9.0 44.0 9.0 44.0 44.0 9.0 44.0

Total Split (s) 10.0 44.0 44.0 34.0 68.0 27.0 45.0 45.0 27.0 45.0

Total Split (%) 6.7% 29.3% 29.3% 22.7% 45.3% 18.0% 30.0% 30.0% 18.0% 30.0%

Maximum Green (s) 5.0 39.0 39.0 29.0 63.0 22.0 40.0 40.0 22.0 40.0

Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max None Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 29.0 39.0 39.0 29.0 39.0 22.0 40.0 40.0 22.0 40.0

90th %ile Term Code Hold Ped Ped Max Ped Max MaxR MaxR Max MaxR

70th %ile Green (s) 38.6 21.0 21.0 29.0 11.4 22.0 40.0 40.0 22.0 40.0

70th %ile Term Code Hold Gap Gap Max Gap Max MaxR MaxR Max MaxR

50th %ile Green (s) 0.0 14.5 14.5 29.0 48.5 22.0 40.0 40.0 22.0 40.0

50th %ile Term Code Skip Gap Gap Max Hold Max MaxR MaxR Max MaxR

30th %ile Green (s) 0.0 9.5 9.5 29.0 43.5 22.0 40.0 40.0 22.0 40.0

30th %ile Term Code Skip Gap Gap Max Hold Max MaxR MaxR Max MaxR

10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 7.9 7.9 29.0 41.9 22.0 40.0 40.0 22.0 40.0

10th %ile Term Code Skip Gap Gap Max Hold Max MaxR MaxR Max MaxR

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 150

Actuated Cycle Length: 129.4

Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord

90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 150

70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 132

50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 125.5

30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 120.5

10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 118.9

F-G-526
Queues

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 19

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 153 395 747 263 560 785 637 527 1075

v/c Ratio 0.08 0.32 0.83 0.96 0.25 0.95 0.50 0.76 0.90 0.68

Control Delay 47.7 50.6 28.8 74.6 16.3 80.4 38.9 15.7 72.0 42.8

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 47.7 50.6 28.8 74.6 16.3 80.4 38.9 15.7 72.0 42.8

Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 61 76 309 25 233 187 85 217 275

Queue Length 95th (ft) 39 93 195 #562 77 #443 293 304 #407 417

Internal Link Dist (ft) 1660 920 920 1521

Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 150 100

Base Capacity (vph) 216 1074 690 775 1655 588 1583 842 588 1580

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.14 0.57 0.96 0.16 0.95 0.50 0.76 0.90 0.68

Intersection Summary

# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

F-G-527
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

5: Dale Evans Parkway & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 20

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 17 141 363 687 89 153 515 722 586 485 969 20

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

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

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91

Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00

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

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3204 3433 5085 1583 3433 5070

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

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3204 3433 5085 1583 3433 5070

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 18 153 395 747 97 166 560 785 637 527 1053 22

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 260 0 119 0 0 0 353 0 1 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 153 135 747 144 0 560 785 284 527 1074 0

Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot

Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6

Permitted Phases 4 2

Actuated Green, G (s) 12.6 17.6 17.6 32.4 37.4 22.2 40.3 40.3 22.2 40.3

Effective Green, g (s) 12.6 17.6 17.6 32.4 37.4 22.2 40.3 40.3 22.2 40.3

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.24 0.28 0.17 0.30 0.30 0.17 0.30

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

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 168 470 210 839 904 575 1547 481 575 1542

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.04 c0.22 0.04 c0.16 0.15 c0.15 c0.21

v/s Ratio Perm c0.09 0.18

v/c Ratio 0.11 0.33 0.64 0.89 0.16 0.97 0.51 0.59 0.92 0.70

Uniform Delay, d1 54.8 52.1 54.5 48.3 35.7 54.9 37.9 39.1 54.2 40.7

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 0.3 0.4 6.6 11.6 0.1 30.7 1.2 5.3 19.4 2.6

Delay (s) 55.1 52.5 61.0 60.0 35.8 85.6 39.1 44.4 73.6 43.3

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

Approach Delay (s) 58.5 53.7 53.9 53.3

Approach LOS E D D D

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 54.2 HCM Level of Service D

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.5 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.0% ICU Level of Service D

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-528
Timings

6: Station Access #3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 21

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 48 2 2 2 71 1736 56 1899

Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4 85216

Permitted Phases 4 8

Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 20.0 20.0 9.0 21.0 8.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 15.0 47.0 11.0 43.0

Total Split (%) 27.5% 27.5% 27.5% 27.5% 18.8% 58.8% 13.8% 53.8%

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.9 57.7 7.8 53.3

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.72 0.10 0.67

v/c Ratio 0.26 0.39 0.20 0.35 0.41 0.35 0.50

Control Delay 33.6 11.0 13.0 25.0 1.4 39.2 9.7

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 33.6 11.0 13.0 25.0 1.4 39.2 9.7

LOS C B B C A D A

Approach Delay 18.2 13.0 2.3 10.5

Approach LOS B B A B

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 80

Actuated Cycle Length: 80

Offset: 10 (13%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 55

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.50

Intersection Signal Delay: 7.2 Intersection LOS: A

Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.9% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 6: Station Access #3 & Future Road

F-G-529
Phasings

6: Station Access #3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 22

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Protected Phases 4 85216

Permitted Phases 4 8

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 20.0 20.0 9.0 21.0 8.0 21.0

Total Split (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 15.0 47.0 11.0 43.0

Total Split (%) 27.5% 27.5% 27.5% 27.5% 18.8% 58.8% 13.8% 53.8%

Maximum Green (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 11.0 43.0 7.0 39.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5500 5

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 11.0 43.0 9.0 41.0

90th %ile Term Code Ped Ped Hold Hold Max Coord Max Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 11.0 48.8 9.3 47.1

70th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Hold Coord Gap Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 11.0 51.5 8.1 48.6

50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Hold Coord Gap Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 11.0 65.0 0.0 50.0

30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Hold Coord Skip Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.0 0.0 76.0

10th %ile Term Code Skip Skip Skip Skip Skip Coord Skip Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 80

Actuated Cycle Length: 80

Offset: 10 (13%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-530
Queues

6: Station Access #3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 23

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 52 110 46 77 1889 61 2135

v/c Ratio 0.26 0.39 0.20 0.35 0.41 0.35 0.50

Control Delay 33.6 11.0 13.0 25.0 1.4 39.2 9.7

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 33.6 11.0 13.0 25.0 1.4 39.2 9.7

Queue Length 50th (ft) 24 1 2 36 23 29 163

Queue Length 95th (ft) 52 41 28 m77 41 64 252

Internal Link Dist (ft) 813 777 420 920

Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100

Base Capacity (vph) 386 441 395 243 4619 179 4255

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.25 0.12 0.32 0.41 0.34 0.50

Intersection Summary

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-531
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

6: Station Access #3 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 24

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 48 2 99 2 2 39 71 1736 2 56 1899 65

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

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.86

Frt 1.00 0.85 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1588 1630 1770 6407 1770 6376

Flt Permitted 0.92 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1718 1588 1611 1770 6407 1770 6376

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 52 2 108 2 2 42 77 1887 2 61 2064 71

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 97 0 0 380000040

Lane Group Flow (vph) 52 13 0 0 8 0 77 1889 0 61 2131 0

Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6

Permitted Phases 4 8

Actuated Green, G (s) 8.3 8.3 8.3 9.7 54.4 5.3 50.0

Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 8.3 8.3 9.7 54.4 5.3 50.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.68 0.07 0.62

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

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 178 165 167 215 4357 117 3985

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.04 c0.29 0.03 c0.33

v/s Ratio Perm c0.03 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.29 0.08 0.05 0.36 0.43 0.52 0.53

Uniform Delay, d1 33.1 32.4 32.3 32.3 5.8 36.1 8.4

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.17 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.3 4.1 0.5

Delay (s) 34.1 32.6 32.4 22.2 1.3 40.3 9.0

Level of Service C C C C A D A

Approach Delay (s) 33.1 32.4 2.1 9.8

Approach LOS C C A A

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 7.4 HCM Level of Service A

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.9% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-532
Timings

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 25

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 145 2 2 2 239 1607 78 1703

Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4 85216

Permitted Phases 4 8

Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 23.0 46.0 13.0 36.0

Total Split (%) 26.3% 26.3% 26.3% 26.3% 28.8% 57.5% 16.3% 45.0%

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 13.3 13.3 13.3 17.1 48.6 8.1 37.6

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.61 0.10 0.47

v/c Ratio 0.64 0.61 0.24 0.69 0.45 0.47 0.70

Control Delay 42.8 9.0 11.1 38.3 1.4 37.7 10.1

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 42.8 9.0 11.1 38.3 1.4 37.7 10.1

LOS D A B D A D B

Approach Delay 20.0 11.1 6.2 11.2

Approach LOS C B A B

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 80

Actuated Cycle Length: 80

Offset: 2 (3%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 60

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.70

Intersection Signal Delay: 10.0 Intersection LOS: A

Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.0% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 7: Station Access #4 & Future Road

F-G-533
Phasings

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 26

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Protected Phases 4 85216

Permitted Phases 4 8

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 23.0 46.0 13.0 36.0

Total Split (%) 26.3% 26.3% 26.3% 26.3% 28.8% 57.5% 16.3% 45.0%

Maximum Green (s) 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 19.0 42.0 9.0 32.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5500 5

90th %ile Green (s) 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 19.0 42.0 9.0 32.0

90th %ile Term Code Max Max Hold Hold Max Coord Max Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 19.0 43.0 9.0 33.0

70th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Max Coord Max Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 19.0 45.2 9.0 35.2

50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Hold Coord Max Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4 17.8 48.8 7.8 38.8

30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Hold Coord Gap Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 10.8 63.9 0.0 49.1

10th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Hold Gap Coord Skip Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 80

Actuated Cycle Length: 80

Offset: 2 (3%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-534
Queues

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 27

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 158 325 63 260 1749 85 2086

v/c Ratio 0.64 0.61 0.24 0.69 0.45 0.47 0.70

Control Delay 42.8 9.0 11.1 38.3 1.4 37.7 10.1

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 42.8 9.0 11.1 38.3 1.4 37.7 10.1

Queue Length 50th (ft) 74 1 2 143 5 45 67

Queue Length 95th (ft) 129 65 33 218 10 93 79

Internal Link Dist (ft) 873 973 420 420

Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 100

Base Capacity (vph) 316 591 315 420 3891 199 2988

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.55 0.20 0.62 0.45 0.43 0.70

Intersection Summary

F-G-535
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

7: Station Access #4 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 28

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 145 2 297 2 2 54 239 1607 2 78 1703 216

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

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.86

Frt 1.00 0.85 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1585 1625 1770 6407 1770 6300

Flt Permitted 0.80 1.00 0.78 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1485 1585 1261 1770 6407 1770 6300

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 158 2 323 2 2 59 260 1747 2 85 1851 235

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 269 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 26 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 158 56 0 0 14 0 260 1749 0 85 2060 0

Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot

Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6

Permitted Phases 4 8

Actuated Green, G (s) 13.3 13.3 13.3 18.0 47.7 7.0 36.7

Effective Green, g (s) 13.3 13.3 13.3 18.0 47.7 7.0 36.7

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.60 0.09 0.46

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

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 247 264 210 398 3820 155 2890

v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.15 0.27 0.05 c0.33

v/s Ratio Perm c0.11 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.64 0.21 0.07 0.65 0.46 0.55 0.71

Uniform Delay, d1 31.1 28.8 28.1 28.2 9.0 35.0 17.4

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.03 0.11 0.88 0.50

Incremental Delay, d2 5.4 0.4 0.1 3.4 0.4 3.5 1.4

Delay (s) 36.5 29.2 28.2 32.3 1.3 34.3 10.1

Level of Service D C C C A C B

Approach Delay (s) 31.6 28.2 5.3 11.1

Approach LOS C C A B

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 11.0 HCM Level of Service B

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.0% ICU Level of Service C

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-536
Timings

8: Station Access #5 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 29

Lane Group WBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 2 1754 133 1867

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 8216

Permitted Phases

Detector Phase 8 2 1 6

Switch Phase

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 41.0 19.0 60.0

Total Split (%) 25.0% 51.3% 23.8% 75.0%

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max

Act Effct Green (s) 8.0 46.9 15.0 66.7

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.59 0.19 0.83

v/c Ratio 0.41 0.51 0.44 0.38

Control Delay 12.2 11.4 20.5 0.4

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 12.2 11.4 20.5 0.4

LOS B B C A

Approach Delay 12.2 11.4 1.7

Approach LOS B B A

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 80

Actuated Cycle Length: 80

Offset: 75 (94%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Natural Cycle: 55

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.51

Intersection Signal Delay: 6.4 Intersection LOS: A

Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.6% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 8: Station Access #5 & Future Road

F-G-537
Phasings

8: Station Access #5 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 30

Lane Group WBL NBT SBL SBT

Protected Phases 8216

Permitted Phases

Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0

Total Split (s) 20.0 41.0 19.0 60.0

Total Split (%) 25.0% 51.3% 23.8% 75.0%

Maximum Green (s) 16.0 37.0 15.0 56.0

Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lead/Lag Lead Lag

Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max

Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0

Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0

Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5

90th %ile Green (s) 16.0 37.0 15.0 56.0

90th %ile Term Code Ped Coord Max Coord

70th %ile Green (s) 7.4 45.6 15.0 64.6

70th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Hold Coord

50th %ile Green (s) 5.6 47.4 15.0 66.4

50th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Hold Coord

30th %ile Green (s) 5.5 47.5 15.0 66.5

30th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Hold Coord

10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 57.0 15.0 76.0

10th %ile Term Code Skip Coord Hold Coord

Intersection Summary

Cycle Length: 80

Actuated Cycle Length: 80

Offset: 75 (94%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated

F-G-538
Queues

8: Station Access #5 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 31

Lane Group WBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 102 1909 145 2029

v/c Ratio 0.41 0.51 0.44 0.38

Control Delay 12.2 11.4 20.5 0.4

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 12.2 11.4 20.5 0.4

Queue Length 50th (ft) 1 146 70 5

Queue Length 95th (ft) 39 242 m93 10

Internal Link Dist (ft) 1061 848 420

Turn Bay Length (ft) 100

Base Capacity (vph) 403 3757 332 5343

Starvation Cap Reductn 0000

Spillback Cap Reductn 0000

Storage Cap Reductn 0000

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.25 0.51 0.44 0.38

Intersection Summary

m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

F-G-539
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

8: Station Access #5 & Future Road 5/26/2010

2030 DMU Mitigation Conditions Synchro 7 - Report

Victorville Station Alternative #3 Page 32

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 2 92 1754 2 133 1867

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.86

Frt 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1615 6407 1770 6408

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1615 6407 1770 6408

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 2 100 1907 2 145 2029

RTOR Reduction (vph) 9100000

Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 0 1909 0 145 2029

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 8 2 1 6

Permitted Phases

Actuated Green, G (s) 6.9 46.1 15.0 65.1

Effective Green, g (s) 6.9 46.1 15.0 65.1

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.58 0.19 0.81

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 139 3692 332 5215

v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.30 0.08 c0.32

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.08 0.52 0.44 0.39

Uniform Delay, d1 33.6 10.2 28.8 2.0

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.59 0.10

Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.2

Delay (s) 33.9 10.8 17.7 0.4

Level of Service C B B A

Approach Delay (s) 33.9 10.8 1.5

Approach LOS C B A

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 6.5 HCM Level of Service A

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.6% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

F-G-540
Victorville Option 3

Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets

F-G-541
F-G-542
Warrants Volume

Information

Analyst AB

Agency/Co AECOM

Date Performed 06/15/09

Project ID DesertXpress

East/West Street Dale Evans Parkway

File Name Vic3-Int 1 Ex+DMU.xhy

Intersection I-15 NB Ramps/DaleEvansPkwy

Jurisdiction Caltrans

Units U.S. Customary

Time Period Analyzed PM

North/South Street I-15 NB Ramps

Major Street East-West

Project Description DesertXpress

Warrant 1

Warrant 2 Warrant 3

Volume Summary

 Major Street Lanes 1 Minor Street Lanes 1 Speed 30 Population 10000+

Hours Major

Volume

Minor

Volume

Total

Volume

1A

(100%)

1A

(80%)

1B

(100%)

1B

(80%)

2

(100%)

3A

(100%)

3B

(100%)

07-08 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

08-09 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

09-10 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

10-11 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

11-12 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

12-13 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

13-14 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

14-15 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

15-16 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

16-17 436 583 1019 No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

17-18 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

18-19 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

Totals 436 583 1019 0 1 0 0 1 1 1

Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 11/2/2009 12:06 PM

Warrants Volume Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\BoddunaA\Local Settings\Temp\w2k3D.tmp 11/2/2009

F-G-543
Warrants Volume

Information

Analyst AB

Agency/Co AECOM

Date Performed 06/15/09

Project ID DesertXpress

East/West Street Dale Evans Parkway

File Name Vic3-Int 2 Ex+DMU.xhy

Intersection I-15 SB Ramps/DaleEvansPkwy

Jurisdiction Caltrans

Units U.S. Customary

Time Period Analyzed PM

North/South Street I-15 SB Ramps

Major Street East-West

Project Description DesertXpress

Warrant 1

Warrant 2 Warrant 3

Volume Summary

 Major Street Lanes 1 Minor Street Lanes 1 Speed 30 Population 10000+

Hours Major

Volume

Minor

Volume

Total

Volume

1A

(100%)

1A

(80%)

1B

(100%)

1B

(80%)

2

(100%)

3A

(100%)

3B

(100%)

07-08 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

08-09 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

09-10 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

10-11 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

11-12 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

12-13 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

13-14 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

14-15 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

15-16 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

16-17 1230 182 1412 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

17-18 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

18-19 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

Totals 1230 182 1412 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 11/2/2009 12:08 PM

Warrants Volume Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\BoddunaA\Local Settings\Temp\w2k59.tmp 11/2/2009

F-G-544
Warrants Volume

Information

Analyst AB

Agency/Co AECOM

Date Performed 06/15/09

Project ID DesertXpress

East/West Street Dale Evans Parkway

File Name Vic3-Int 1 Ex+EMU.xhy

Intersection I-15 NB Ramps/DaleEvansPkwy

Jurisdiction Caltrans

Units U.S. Customary

Time Period Analyzed PM

North/South Street I-15 NB Ramps

Major Street East-West

Project Description DesertXpress

Warrant 1

Warrant 2 Warrant 3

Volume Summary

 Major Street Lanes 1 Minor Street Lanes 1 Speed 30 Population 10000+

Hours Major

Volume

Minor

Volume

Total

Volume

1A

(100%)

1A

(80%)

1B

(100%)

1B

(80%)

2

(100%)

3A

(100%)

3B

(100%)

07-08 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

08-09 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

09-10 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

10-11 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

11-12 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

12-13 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

13-14 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

14-15 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

15-16 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

16-17 522 814 1336 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

17-18 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

18-19 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

Totals 522 814 1336 1 1 0 0 1 1 1

Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 11/2/2009 12:07 PM

Warrants Volume Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\BoddunaA\Local Settings\Temp\w2k44.tmp 11/2/2009

F-G-545
Warrants Volume

Information

Analyst AB

Agency/Co AECOM

Date Performed 06/15/09

Project ID DesertXpress

East/West Street Dale Evans Parkway

File Name Vic3-Int 2 Ex+EMU.xhy

Intersection I-15 SB Ramps/DaleEvansPkwy

Jurisdiction Caltrans

Units U.S. Customary

Time Period Analyzed PM

North/South Street I-15 SB Ramps

Major Street East-West

Project Description DesertXpress

Warrant 1

Warrant 2 Warrant 3

Volume Summary

 Major Street Lanes 1 Minor Street Lanes 1 Speed 30 Population 10000+

Hours Major

Volume

Minor

Volume

Total

Volume

1A

(100%)

1A

(80%)

1B

(100%)

1B

(80%)

2

(100%)

3A

(100%)

3B

(100%)

07-08 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

08-09 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

09-10 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

10-11 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

11-12 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

12-13 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

13-14 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

14-15 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

15-16 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

16-17 1720 197 1917 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

17-18 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

18-19 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

Totals 1720 197 1917 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 11/2/2009 12:09 PM

Warrants Volume Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\BoddunaA\Local Settings\Temp\w2k60.tmp 11/2/2009

F-G-546
Warrants Volume

Information

Analyst AB

Agency/Co AECOM

Date Performed 06/15/09

Project ID DesertXpress

East/West Street Dale Evans Parkway

File Name Vic3-Int 1 2013+DMU.xhy

Intersection I-15 NB Ramps/DaleEvansPkwy

Jurisdiction Caltrans

Units U.S. Customary

Time Period Analyzed PM

North/South Street I-15 NB Ramps

Major Street East-West

Project Description DesertXpress

Warrant 1

Warrant 2 Warrant 3

Volume Summary

 Major Street Lanes 1 Minor Street Lanes 1 Speed 30 Population 10000+

Hours Major

Volume

Minor

Volume

Total

Volume

1A

(100%)

1A

(80%)

1B

(100%)

1B

(80%)

2

(100%)

3A

(100%)

3B

(100%)

07-08 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

08-09 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

09-10 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

10-11 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

11-12 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

12-13 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

13-14 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

14-15 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

15-16 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

16-17 651 699 1350 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

17-18 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

18-19 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

Totals 651 699 1350 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 11/2/2009 12:04 PM

Warrants Volume Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\BoddunaA\Local Settings\Temp\w2k2D.tmp 11/2/2009

F-G-547
Warrants Volume

Information

Analyst AB

Agency/Co AECOM

Date Performed 06/15/09

Project ID DesertXpress

East/West Street Dale Evans Parkway

File Name Vic3-Int 2 2013+DMU.xhy

Intersection I-15 SB Ramps/DaleEvansPkwy

Jurisdiction Caltrans

Units U.S. Customary

Time Period Analyzed PM

North/South Street I-15 SB Ramps

Major Street East-West

Project Description DesertXpress

Warrant 1

Warrant 2 Warrant 3

Volume Summary

 Major Street Lanes 1 Minor Street Lanes 1 Speed 30 Population 10000+

Hours Major

Volume

Minor

Volume

Total

Volume

1A

(100%)

1A

(80%)

1B

(100%)

1B

(80%)

2

(100%)

3A

(100%)

3B

(100%)

07-08 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

08-09 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

09-10 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

10-11 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

11-12 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

12-13 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

13-14 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

14-15 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

15-16 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

16-17 1530 290 1820 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

17-18 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

18-19 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

Totals 1530 290 1820 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 11/2/2009 12:07 PM

Warrants Volume Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\BoddunaA\Local Settings\Temp\w2k4B.tmp 11/2/2009

F-G-548
Warrants Volume

Information

Analyst AB

Agency/Co AECOM

Date Performed 06/15/09

Project ID DesertXpress

East/West Street Dale Evans Parkway

File Name Vic3-Int 5 2013+DMU.xhy

Intersection Future Street/DaleEvansPkwy

Jurisdiction Caltrans

Units U.S. Customary

Time Period Analyzed PM

North/South Street Future Street

Major Street East-West

Project Description DesertXpress

Warrant 1

Warrant 2 Warrant 3

Volume Summary

 Major Street Lanes 1 Minor Street Lanes 1 Speed 30 Population 10000+

Hours Major

Volume

Minor

Volume

Total

Volume

1A

(100%)

1A

(80%)

1B

(100%)

1B

(80%)

2

(100%)

3A

(100%)

3B

(100%)

07-08 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

08-09 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

09-10 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

10-11 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

11-12 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

12-13 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

13-14 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

14-15 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

15-16 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

16-17 492 497 1270 No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

17-18 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

18-19 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

Totals 492 497 1270 0 1 0 0 1 1 1

Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 11/2/2009 12:10 PM

Warrants Volume Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\BoddunaA\Local Settings\Temp\w2k6E.tmp 11/2/2009

F-G-549
Warrants Volume

Information

Analyst AB

Agency/Co AECOM

Date Performed 06/15/09

Project ID DesertXpress

East/West Street Dale Evans Parkway

File Name Vic3-Int 1 2013+EMU.xhy

Intersection I-15 NB Ramps/DaleEvansPkwy

Jurisdiction Caltrans

Units U.S. Customary

Time Period Analyzed PM

North/South Street I-15 NB Ramps

Major Street East-West

Project Description DesertXpress

Warrant 1

Warrant 2 Warrant 3

Volume Summary

 Major Street Lanes 1 Minor Street Lanes 1 Speed 30 Population 10000+

Hours Major

Volume

Minor

Volume

Total

Volume

1A

(100%)

1A

(80%)

1B

(100%)

1B

(80%)

2

(100%)

3A

(100%)

3B

(100%)

07-08 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

08-09 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

09-10 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

10-11 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

11-12 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

12-13 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

13-14 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

14-15 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

15-16 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

16-17 737 930 1667 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

17-18 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

18-19 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

Totals 737 930 1667 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 11/2/2009 12:05 PM

Warrants Volume Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\BoddunaA\Local Settings\Temp\w2k36.tmp 11/2/2009

F-G-550
Warrants Volume

Information

Analyst AB

Agency/Co AECOM

Date Performed 06/15/09

Project ID DesertXpress

East/West Street Dale Evans Parkway

File Name Vic3-Int 2 2013+EMU.xhy

Intersection I-15 SB Ramps/DaleEvansPkwy

Jurisdiction Caltrans

Units U.S. Customary

Time Period Analyzed PM

North/South Street I-15 SB Ramps

Major Street East-West

Project Description DesertXpress

Warrant 1

Warrant 2 Warrant 3

Volume Summary

 Major Street Lanes 1 Minor Street Lanes 1 Speed 30 Population 10000+

Hours Major

Volume

Minor

Volume

Total

Volume

1A

(100%)

1A

(80%)

1B

(100%)

1B

(80%)

2

(100%)

3A

(100%)

3B

(100%)

07-08 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

08-09 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

09-10 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

10-11 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

11-12 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

12-13 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

13-14 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

14-15 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

15-16 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

16-17 2020 305 2325 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

17-18 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

18-19 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

Totals 2020 305 2325 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 11/2/2009 12:08 PM

Warrants Volume Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\BoddunaA\Local Settings\Temp\w2k52.tmp 11/2/2009

F-G-551
Warrants Volume

Information

Analyst AB

Agency/Co AECOM

Date Performed 06/15/09

Project ID DesertXpress

East/West Street Dale Evans Parkway

File Name Vic3-Int 3 2013+EMU.xhy

Intersection Station Access 1/DaleEvansPkwy

Jurisdiction Caltrans

Units U.S. Customary

Time Period Analyzed PM

North/South Street Station Access #1

Major Street East-West

Project Description DesertXpress

Warrant 1

Warrant 2 Warrant 3

Volume Summary

 Major Street Lanes 1 Minor Street Lanes 1 Speed 15 Population 10000+

Hours Major

Volume

Minor

Volume

Total

Volume

1A

(100%)

1A

(80%)

1B

(100%)

1B

(80%)

2

(100%)

3A

(100%)

3B

(100%)

07-08 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

08-09 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

09-10 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

10-11 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

11-12 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

12-13 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

13-14 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

14-15 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

15-16 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

16-17 1655 402 2057 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

17-18 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

18-19 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

Totals 1655 402 2057 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 11/2/2009 12:09 PM

Warrants Volume Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\BoddunaA\Local Settings\Temp\w2k67.tmp 11/2/2009

F-G-552
Warrants Volume

Information

Analyst AB

Agency/Co AECOM

Date Performed 06/15/09

Project ID DesertXpress

East/West Street Dale Evans Parkway

File Name Vic3-Int 5 2013+EMU.xhy

Intersection Future Street/DaleEvansPkwy

Jurisdiction Caltrans

Units U.S. Customary

Time Period Analyzed PM

North/South Street Future Street

Major Street East-West

Project Description DesertXpress

Warrant 1

Warrant 2 Warrant 3

Volume Summary

 Major Street Lanes 1 Minor Street Lanes 1 Speed 30 Population 10000+

Hours Major

Volume

Minor

Volume

Total

Volume

1A

(100%)

1A

(80%)

1B

(100%)

1B

(80%)

2

(100%)

3A

(100%)

3B

(100%)

07-08 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

08-09 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

09-10 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

10-11 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

11-12 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

12-13 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

13-14 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

14-15 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

15-16 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

16-17 603 573 1457 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

17-18 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

18-19 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

Totals 603 573 1457 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 11/2/2009 12:10 PM

Warrants Volume Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\BoddunaA\Local Settings\Temp\w2k75.tmp 11/2/2009

F-G-553
Warrants Volume

Information

Analyst AB

Agency/Co AECOM

Date Performed 06/15/09

Project ID DesertXpress

East/West Street Station Access #4

File Name Vic3-Int 7 2013+EMU.xhy

Intersection Station Access4/Future Street

Jurisdiction Caltrans

Units U.S. Customary

Time Period Analyzed PM

North/South Street Future Street

Major Street North-South

Project Description DesertXpress

Warrant 1

Warrant 2 Warrant 3

Volume Summary

 Major Street Lanes 1 Minor Street Lanes 1 Speed 30 Population 10000+

Hours Major

Volume

Minor

Volume

Total

Volume

1A

(100%)

1A

(80%)

1B

(100%)

1B

(80%)

2

(100%)

3A

(100%)

3B

(100%)

07-08 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

08-09 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

09-10 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

10-11 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

11-12 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

12-13 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

13-14 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

14-15 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

15-16 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

16-17 1104 87 1271 No No Yes Yes Yes No No

17-18 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

18-19 0 0 0 No No No No No No No

Totals 1104 87 1271 0 0 1 1 1 0 0

Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 11/2/2009 12:11 PM

Warrants Volume Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\BoddunaA\Local Settings\Temp\w2k7C.tmp 11/2/2009

F-G-554