CC - Item 5N - Rosemead Blvd & I-10 Freeway Ramp Improvement Project - Award Of Professional Services Agreement For Engineering Design ServicesROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BEN KIM, CITY MANAGER V'✓
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2022
SUBJECT: ROSEMEAD BLVD & I-10 FREEWAY RAMP IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT - AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES
SUMMARY
As part of the City's Fiscal Year 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program, the City Council
approved the Rosemead Boulevard & I-10 Freeway Ramp Improvements Project. The Project will
reconfigure the intersection of Rosemead Boulevard and Glendon Way at the on & off -ramps of
the I-10 Freeway to increase roadway capacity, improve traffic flow and reduce congestion at the
intersection. On June 9, 2022, staff advertised the Request for Proposals (RFP) for Design Services
for the Project and received five (5) proposals. Based on the evaluated proposals, staff determined
that ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers submitted the most qualified proposal to provide the
Design Services in the negotiated amount of $661,176.32.
The 23 -mile stretch known as the I-710 was completed in 1964, leaving a 4.3 -mile gap (SR -710)
between the I-10 and I-210 freeways. Over the years, planning efforts continued for the completion
of SR -710 as originally intended. However, the SR -710 Gap Closure Project, evolved to evaluate
alternatives that would relieve congestion on local streets and address community concerns.
On May 25, 2017, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Board voted to
eliminate the SR -710 North extension between Alhambra and Pasadena. The Metro Board also
redirected $708 million in Measure R funds to local road improvements to provide traffic
congestion relief for the San Gabriel Valley region. The Metro Board, at its September 26, 2019
meeting, programmed $6,000,000 in Measure R Funds to the City of Rosemead for Project
Approval/Environmental Documents, Plans, Specifications and Estimates, Right -of -Way, and
Construction for the Project. The project Funding Agreement between Metro and the City of
Rosemead was executed on July 21, 2020.
AGENDA ITEM 5.N
City Council Meeting
December 13, 2022
Page 2 of 3
Request for Proposals
On June 9, 2022, staff advertised the RFP for Design Services for the preparation of the design
and improvement plans for the Project, RFP No. 2022-14. The following firms submitted proposals
to the City's Clerk's office or the City's P1anetBids portal.
Firm (alphabetical order
Location
Proposal Amount
ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Irvine, CA
$ 848,864
JMC2 Civil + Structural Engineers
San Pedro, CA
$656,152
Kimle -Horn and Associates, Inc.
Los Angeles, CA
$ 893,944
KOA Corporation
Monterey Park, CA
$1,360,402
PSOMAS
Los Angeles, CA
$1,299,570
Staff evaluated the proposals based on compliance with the RFP requirements, project
understanding and approach, experience, level of effort, schedule, and cost effectiveness to provide
efficient services. Based on the evaluation, staff determined that ADVANTEC Consulting
Engineers provided a better understanding of scope by providing a tailored approach to the City's
needs, efficient schedule, and demonstrating relevant experience on similar projects. During the
proposal evaluation and interviews, ADVANTEC provided potential concept designs to improve
the intersection and ADVANTEC's proposed team has hands-on experience with the Caltrans'
permitting/approval process which will be a key task for successfully delivering the Project.
Furthermore, during the evaluation, staff entered into fee negotiations with ADVANTEC and a
revised fee was negotiated in the amount of $661,176.32.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with
ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers for Design Services for the Rosemead Boulevard and I-10
Freeway ramps Improvement Project in the amount of $661,176.32.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Design Services for the Rosemead Boulevard and I-10 Freeway Ramps Improvements Project
is included in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Capital Improvement Program budget and will be funded
by Metro Measure R funds in the amount of $6,000,000 with no local match requirements.
STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT
The Project is consistent with the City of Rosemead's Strategic Plan Goal C - Infrastructure and
Facilities, which is to enhance streets, sidewalks, and public infrastructure; coordinate with
relevant utility agencies regarding safety and enhancements; and modernize facilities by expanding
the use of wireless network technology and renewable energy.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
City Council Meeting
December 13, 2022
Page 3 of 3
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process.
Prepared by:
Eddie Chan, P.E., T.E.
City Engineer
Submitted by:
71'uc..faa2 ('�%u+
Michael Chung, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Attachment A: ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers Revised Proposal
Attachment B: RFP Package
Attachment C: Professional Services Agreement with ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers
Attachment A
ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers
Revised Proposal
s
Proposal/Scope for:
City of Rosemead
Design Services for intersection improvements on Rosemead Blvd at
interstate 10 (1-10) freeway westbound ramps termini
RFP NO. 2022-14
Date: July 12, 2022
-
t, y -
t
A&
Submitted by: ADYANTL•'C
)k C<>nsullinr Eln,, irrcvfs
4
s
Submitted by: ADYANTL•'C
)k C<>nsullinr Eln,, irrcvfs
M 01
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
�@ Intersection Improvements on Rosemead Blvd at 1-10 Westbound Ramps
SCOPE OF WORK
1. Project Management & Administration
The ADVANTEC team clearly understands this is an expedited project with regional
and local needs. ADVANTEC's Project Manager and our team will employ a "
consensus building" attitude to reach meaningful timely and effective results in the
PA/ED, PS&E and Construction Phases.
Upon receipt of Notice to Proceed from City of Rosemead, ADVANTEC will hold the,.., I
Kick-off meeting with our project team, City of Rosemead, Caltrans District 7, and u u
project stakeholders. The purpose of the meeting will be to integrate the ADVANTEC team into a seamless
on-going collaboration with the City of Rosemead and Caltrans. A Work Breakdown Structure schedule
(Microsoft Project) will be submitted prior to the Kick-off meeting.
Project Management Plan (PMP) and a Quality Management Plan (QMP) will be prepared and submitted to
the City within 2 weeks of NTP.
ADVANTEC will also lead and coordinate in the following meetings:
• Monthly Project Development Team Meetings with City mainly (18 meetings)
• Technical focus & other meetings with ADVANTEC team and City (6 meetings)
• Task Specific meetings with Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) for potential impacts to
their sewer manhole on Rosemead Blvd (2 meetings)
• Community Information Workshops (2 meetings) arranged through the City of Rosemead
Note: For the PDT meetings ADVANTEC will work with the Caltrans District 7 representative assigned to this
project.
Deliverables: Meeting minutes, Action Item List Updated schedules, PMP, QMP
2. Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
The project is listed in the 2021 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP), pages 14 and 15 of
15, as follows:
• FTIP ID: LAMIPMR110
• LEAD AGENCY: City of Rosemead
• PRIMARY PROGRAM CODE: NCR 88 — RAMPS— MODIFY
Funding source is Measure R (local funds). No Federal or State fund allocations noted for any phase in the
current FTIP.
Key Assumptions: The project is not receiving federal funding, nor will encroach onto 1-10 freeway; therefore,
the project will not be subject to NEPA, nor would it require any review or approval by FHWA.
2.1 Transportation Problem Definition, Field Reviews and Site Assessments
ADVANTEC and our team is already compiling and reviewing existing and future background information
with respect to further refine the project scope and the Basis of Design Document (BOD). We are ready to
discuss with the stakeholders the extent of project constraints and to foster discussions on the
determination of the project's Purpose and Need.
Upon Notice to Proceed, ADVANTEC and our Team will conduct thorough field investigations, research, and
obtain as-builts and reports, request, obtain and field verify existing overhead and underground utility
plans. Utility coordination will be via certified mail and log documented.
Deliverables: Project description, including project purpose and need, project objectives, project
components, project location, and timing of the project. Data in the form of reports, as-builts, photos, utility
plans, etc.... will be kept in project files.
Key Assumptions: The project is not receiving federal funding, nor will encroach into interstate; therefore,
the project will not be subject to NEPA.
2.2 Basis of Design Document
At the Kick-off meeting ADVANTEC will present to the stakeholders and project team with an Initial Draft of
the Basis of Design Document (BOD). Copies of the BOD will be provided to the team and stakeholders for
review and comment. Comments will be incorporated into BOD and will be updated and revised throughout
the Preliminary Design Phase.
The BOD will include, but not be limited to the following:
• Description of the Project
• Executive Summary
• Environmental Status and Results
• Regulatory Approvals and Permits required
• Design Criteria/Standards, Codes and Ordinances to be followed
• Drainage/StormwaterCriteria
• Horizontal and Vertical Geometrics and Control
• Field Investigation Summaries and Video/Photo Log
• Utility Coordination/Contacts
• Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Scope of Work
• WBS Construction Cost Estimate and Backup
• Conceptual Layout Plans including right of way and utilities
• Conceptual Staging Plans
• Design Engineering Evaluation Report
Deliverables: BOD
Key Assumptions: The BOD will go through only one round of comments by City and Caltrans.
2.3 Design Engineering Evaluation Report (DEER) AND QMAP PROCESS
As discussed in our Project Approach, ADVANTEC has conducted a preliminary review and determined that
the project will follow the Caltrans Quality Management Process (QMAP) that qualifies the project for either
a PEER or a DEER. At the onset, we will conduct a QMAP Focus Meeting with Caltrans District 7, and City of
Rosemead to resolve any stakeholder concerns and achieve consensus.
Subsequently, if DEER is confirmed as the process, ADVANTEC will prepare a Design Engineering Evaluation
Report (DEER) in accordance with Appendix 1— Preparation Guidelines for Design Engineering Evaluation
Report in the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual, dated January 14, 2022.
A Draft DEER will be submitted to the stakeholders for review and comment. Upon receipt of comments a
Final DEER will be prepared for approval in the PA/ED phase. Scope changing comments or issues, if any,
will be add be addressed in a Comment Resolution Meeting prior to completing the Final DEER.
Deliverables: DEER
Key Assumptions: The DEER will go through only one round of comments by City and Caltrans.
2.4 Base Mapping/Engineering and Land Net Survey
We will perform CAD base mapping for the purpose of establishing horizontal and vertical control with
Caltrans "provided" primary survey control at the I-10/Rosemead Boulevard Interchange. We will set and
survey supplementary control throughout the project area in terms of the primary survey control. Available
Caltrans and County of LA record survey maps, within the project area, will be researched to calculate the
relative record positions of corner monuments for the purpose of expediting the field reconnaissance task.
Found monuments will be surveyed in terms of the established project control to resolve interchange rights-
of-way within the project limits, if any. A base land net file will be prepared based on the resolutions and
will be delivered to the prime. A hard copy base map will be prepared for Caltrans review.
Set and survey aerial mapping control and manage the delivery of aerial mapping of the project area at the
requested scale and contour interval. The mapping deliverable will include a color orthophoto at .25 -pixel
resolution. All surveying will be performed in accordance with the Caltrans Survey Manual, latest edition.
Deliverables: Topography with 1' contours, planimetric data, and topographic base mapping. Topography
in AutoCAD Civil3D and will include a DTM surface, and Digital Orthographic Photo.
Key Assumptions: Guida will work with the ADVANTEC to obtain the necessary encroachment permits from
Caltrans for access to the site. No encroachments will be permitted until Caltrans Encroachment Permit is
approved.
2.5 Traffic Impact Analysis
A Traffic Impact Study for the proposed improvements, dated May 4, 2022, has been completed by Gibson
Transportation Consulting, Inc., included in the Request for Proposals and approved by the City of
Rosemead. The approved traffic study identified conceptual improvements for the following intersections:
Rosemead Boulevard/Glendon Way
Glendon Way/WB 1-10 Westerly Ramps
Glendon Way/WB 1-10 Easterly Ramps
ADVANTEC has identified further geometric improvements to those identified in the RFP. Utilizing
SYNCHRO, ADVANTEC will further review and analyze the conceptual improvements to determine if these
geometric improvements can be made to enhance safety, improve traffic flow, reduce congestion, queues,
and accident potential. We will take the Gibson Traffic Study, perform our analysis, and prepare a TIA
Report. This will help to confirm the Need and Purpose and the geometric alternative solution (support the
Purpose) that will serve as the one alternative to be taken forward into PS&E phase.
Deliverables: Traffic Impact Analysis Report
2.6 Transportation Management Plan
Caltrans District 7 Transportation Management Plan (TMP) Data Sheets will be completed for the project.
These TMP Data Sheets will serve as a basis in developing the TMP in the PS&E phase.
Deliverables: TMP Data Sheets
Key Assumptions: Only one round of City and Caltrans comments will be addressed.
2.7 Preliminary Hydraulics /Hydrology Study
Existing drainage boundaries, drainage patters, flooding issues and flow (025 event) and drainage systems
will be field verified and analyzed. Preliminary drainage improvements will be developed for the PS & E
phase.
A Draft Drainage Report will be prepared, in accordance with Caltrans criteria, and include project narrative,
hydrology study, hydraulic calculations and drainage area maps.
From our initial field review, in preparation of this proposal, ADVANTEC has concluded that the proposed
project improvements will not adversely impact the existing sump under the I-10/Rosemead Overcrossing
or the existing "drainage pump station" located adjacent to the WB 1-10 Easterly Ramps in the NE Quadrant
of the Interchange.
Deliverables: Draft Drainage Report
2.8 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations and Lab Analysis
Based on review of the RFP and our discussions with our geotechnical subconsultant, DYA, we understand
that the proposed project components that will require geotechnical input for design consist of the
following improvements:
1. Widen east side of Rosemead Boulevard to add an exclusive right turn lane from NB Rosemead
Boulevard to WB 1-10 Freeway easterly On Ramp: Depending if a less than 5 feet design height retaining
wall will be designed and constructed or the existing slope will be cut back to accommodate this
widening, DYA will perform one 20 -feet deep boring, one 5 -feet deep boring, and a dynamic cone
penetration (test).
2. Construct anew lane of travel from SB Rosemead Boulevard to WB 1-10 Freeway westerly On Ramp and
a new lane of travel from WB 1-10 Freeway westerly Off Ramp to SB Rosemead Boulevard: DYA will
perform one 5 -feet deep boring, and a dynamic cone penetration (test).
DYA, shall do the following during the PE phase of the Project:
1. Review project and underground utility information
2. Prepare a geotechnical boring plan.
3. Prepare a work plan & health and safety plan for Caltrans review.
4. Assist ADVANTEC in obtaining Caltrans encroachment permit.
5. Obtain a County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health Well/Exploration Hole Permit.
6. Mark subsurface exploration locations (3 total) in the field and contact USA.
7. Perform a geophysical survey to help check boring locations for underground utilities. This will
provide an additional safety layer to our field work.
7. Perform Subsurface Exploration in 3 locations for potential retaining walls needed for project.
8. Per the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Heath well/exploration hole permit, borings
greater than 10 feet deep must be backfilled with cement bentonite grout. Temporarily store the
Investigation Derived Waste (IDW) on site during the IDW characterization. Dispose of the IDW. City
to sign the Manifest.
Intersection Improvements on Rosemead Blvd at 1-10
9. Perform the geotechnical laboratory tests: 5 moisture content/dry density, 11 index test (particle
size analysis - #200 sieve, or Atterberg limits), 2 Sand Equivalent tests, 2 shear strength, 1
consolidation, 2 compaction, 2 corrosion, 2 resilient modulus.
Deliverables: Work plan & health and safety plan for Caltrans
Key Assumptions: ADVANTEC to provide parent encroachment permit for DVA to use. ADVANTEC will
check/verify DYA's boring locations against available underground utility plans and provide approval.
2.9 Preliminary Pavement Memorandum
In order to reduce the overall fee based on conversations with the City and its representatives, a district
preliminary geotechnical report (DPGR) and/or preliminary materials report (PMR), will not be prepared.
Instead, a preliminary pavement structural section memorandum will be prepared. We judge this memo
can be attached to the DEER. This includes preparing draft & Final boring logs. However, if Caltrans does
not accept a preliminary pavement structural section memorandum for the planned key project
improvements, a revised scope should be prepared, and additional budget will be needed in order to
complete requested Caltrans submittals.
Deliverables: Preliminary Pavement Memorandum for attachment to PEER or DEER.
Key Assumptions: A DPGR is not required. If Caltrans does require one, then we can provide a scope and fee
for this service. No separate Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Report is required.
2.10 Right of Way Data Sheet
Our right-of-way consultant, OPC, will review and describe any right of way issues that may influence the
design of the project. If there are right of way (R/W) issues, OPC will describe in general the R/W
requirements and prepare a R/W Data Sheet that will be an attachment to the DEER. Based on the
ADVANTEC alternative, we anticipate no temporary construction easements (TCE) nor right-of-way takes.
However, Caltrans requires a Right -of -Way Data Sheet and Cost Estimate to be provided with the DEER. The
following will be our scope and approach to preparing a cost estimate and required R/W Data Sheet:
1. Take an inventory of the adjacent properties.
2. Secure preliminary parcel information from online database sources and investigate current
ownerships. Utilizing this information and Assessor's Roll information, determine other valuation
considerations such as zoning, lot and building size, current usage, and other relevant factors.
3. Visually inspect each property (aerial and street -level views) and note the effects of all proposed
acquisitions.
4. Sort each property into product types to determine the set of real estate data to be researched and
create valuation data sets for each product type.
5. Prepare an estimate showing no partial acquisition, permanent, or temporary easement interests.
8. Prepare the latest Right of Way Data Sheet, in conformance with the Caltrans R/W Manual, for
attachment to the DEER.
9. Provide QA/QC of final work product, submit to client and other Project Team members, and
respond to inquiries.
2.11 Utility Research and Coordination Services (including Utility Locating)
Utility research and coordination work is as follows:
1. Act as the primary point of contact with conflicting utility owners.
Intersection Improvements on Rosemead Blvd at 1-30
2. Actively participate on Project Development Team to update the City and Team on the progression
of utility work (estimate ten meetings including field meetings).
We will follow Caltrans procedure and determine whether any high or low risk utilities are present using
Caltrans Policy on High and Low Risk Underground Facilities Within Highway Rights of Way, latest edition.
If risk facilities are present, they would ultimately require potholing per Caltrans requirements. We would
identify the number of anticipated potholes. Coordinate with pothole company C Below to identify locations
to have them locate those utilities horizontally and vertically that may be impacted due to the proposed
improvements
Deliverables: Utility Contact Matrix and information for Right of Way Data Sheet
Key Assumptions: Assume 10 potholes needed.
2.12 Storm Water Data Report (SWDR)
We will prepare Caltrans' latest format for "Summary Process for Storm Water Activities." This requires
preparation of the Storm Water Data Report Appendix E of the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbook,
latest edition. This form -report must be prepared to address storm water quality planning activities
describing the drainage, potential water quality issues, and proposed construction and permanent Best
Management Practices during all phases of project development. Project improvement impacts are
anticipated to be less than one acre of undisturbed ground.
Deliverables: Storm Water Data Report (SWDR)
2.13 Preliminary Drainage Plans
Based on the H&H Study, geometric layout of the roadways, and other information during the Engineering
Reports tasks, preliminary drainage layout plans will be developed. These will be about the 35% level
showing flow arrows, where inlets, catch basins, swales, gutters, and proposed piping may be needed. Plans
will be prepared at the appropriate plan sheet scale in MicroStation CAD and in conformance with the
Caltrans Plan Preparation Manual, latest edition. These plans will be the basis of the PS&E drainage layout
plans.
Deliverables: Preliminary Drainage Plans
2.14 Conceptual Landscape Plans
Based on the geometric layout of the roadways, and other information during the Engineering Reports
tasks, Conceptual Landscape Plans will be developed. These will be about the 35% level showing proposed
areas of proposed plantings on the disturbed side slopes of Rosemead Blvd and potential other areas along
Glendon Way and the two WB 1-10 ramps terminus that have been modified. Plans will be prepared at the
appropriate plan sheet scale in MicroStation CAD and in conformance with the Caltrans Plan Preparation
Manual, latest edition. These plans will be the basis of the PS&E Planting and Irrigation Plans.
Deliverables: Conceptual Landscape Plans
3. Plans, Specification and Estimate IPS&E)
1 ter!' CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Intersection Improvements on Rosemead Blvd at 1-10 Westbound Ramps
ADVANTEC team shall commence work on the Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for the proposed
improvements slightly overlapping the Preliminary Engineering Phase, once the City and ADVANTEC feel
there is little or no risk of throw away design work.
3.1 Design Surveys
Guida will enhance the Aerial Topography with the collection of conventional survey collection to
incorporate visible utilities (gravity flow opened and dipped for invert elevations, pipe diameter, invert in,
out, Rim elevations). Additional design surveys for specific areas as requested by ADVANTEC. All ground
surface survey points will be provided to the photogrammetrist for the purpose of constraining the aerial
mapping to the ground shots resulting in a higher level of mapping accuracy than the standard. The aerial
mapping and DTM will be updated based on constraining to the ground shots and delivered to the project
team for CAD plan sheet set up. All surveying and mapping will be performed in accordance with the
Caltrans Survey Manual, latest edition.
Deliverables: Design Survey points in CAD file for design use.
3.2 Geometric Approval Drawings and Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE)
Geometric Approval Drawing (35% completion) will be prepared for the proposed improvements. The
Geometric Approval Drawing (GAD) shall consist of but not limited to the following:
• Typical Cross Sections
• Base mapping with R/W lines (access control and jurisdictional authority identified)
• Layouts/Profiles
The GAD will be submitted to City of Rosemead & Caltrans District 7 for their review and approval.
An intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) will be conducted for the following intersections:
• Rosemead Boulevard/Glendon Way
• Glendon Way/WB 1-10 Westerly Ramps
• Glendon Way/WB I-10 Westerly Ramps
The ICE will determine the intersection control improvements; stop, yield, or signal for each noted
intersection.
Deliverables: GAD plans, ICE Report
3.3 65%, 90%, Draft Final and Final PS&E Preparation
Subsequent to the GAD approval the project team will commence work on the PS&E package for the
proposed improvements. The estimated plan set for the proposed improvements is noted herein:
Description of Plans:
No. of Sheets
Title Sheet
1
Typical Cross Section
1
Key Map & Line Index
1
Layout Plans
2
Profile and Super Elevation Diagram Plans
2
Construction Details Plan
2
Water Pollution Control Plans
2
Contour Grading Plans
2
Drainage Layout Plans
2
i t N
'Vp-
Intersection Improvements on Rosemead Blvd at I-10
Drainage Profiles Plan
1
Drainage Details Plan
1
Drainage Quantities Sheet
1
Utility Plans
2
Construction Area Sign Plan
1
Stage Construction/Traffic Handling (Two Phases) Plans
6
Pavement Delineation Plans
2
Sign Plans
2
Summary of Quantities
1
Retaining Wall Plans
2
Planting and Irrigation Plans
4
Signal Modification Plans
2
,Total:
40
Plans will be prepared at the appropriate plan sheet scale in MicroStation CAD and in conformance with
the Caltrans Plan Preparation Manuallatest edition. Specifications will be in Caltrans SSP format and be
prepared in Microsoft Word. Construction cost estimate will follow Caltrans BEES format.
Plans, specifications and estimate packages will be submitted at the 65%, 90%, Draft District and Final
District Milestones. Comments received from City of Rosemead, Caltrans District 7, and stakeholders in the
65%, 90% and Draft District submittals will be incorporated into the subsequent submittal.
For each submittal ADVANTEC shall provide PDF files and two sets of 11"x 17" drawings, specifications, and
reports. Electronic CAD files of Final drawings will be submitted on a CD or Flash Drive.
Upon receiving comments on each submittal, ADVANTEC will provide written response to review comments
within 14 days of all comment receipt. An Excel spreadsheet of reviewer comments, responses and
disposition will be maintained in each phase. A Comment Resolution Meeting may be held to clarify
comments and establish resolution. Scope changing comments will be brought to the immediate attention
of the City and Caltrans for resolution.
Final plans, specifications and reports will be signed and stamped by the responsible California Registered
Civil Engineer.
Deliverables: Plans, specifications and estimate packages will be submitted at the 65% 90% Draft District
and Final District Milestones, Excel spreadsheet of comments and responses from each phase.
3.4 Geotechnical Design Report (GDR)
The GDR will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans guidelines and will provide recommendations for the
proposed improvements noted in this proposal. DYA will present the data obtained during field exploration
and laboratory testing, as well as comments, conclusions, and recommendations pertaining to the
following:
• Project description including proposed improvements, climatic conditions, terrain and surface
drainage, and land use.
• Discussion of geotechnical settings including regional geology, subsurface soil, and groundwater
conditions.
• Recommendations for design of retaining walls, including foundation type, allowable capacity, and
lateral pressures.
• Recommendations for construction of roadway and embankment foundations and estimated
settlement.
e
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Improvements on Rosemead Blvd at 1-10 Westbound Ramps
• Evaluation of gross and surficial stability of the proposed fill slopes.
• Earthwork considerations, including excavation characteristics and erosion controls.
• Collapse, expansion, and corrosion potentials of the subgrade soils and recommended mitigation
measures, if necessary.
• Earthquake considerations including seismic design criteria for fill embankment, and seismic
hazards including the potential for liquefaction, ground rupture due to surface faulting and
seismically induced settlement.
Findings, conclusions, and recommendations will be presented in a GDR with logs of the borings and
laboratory test results. After review by the project team, City of Rosemead, and Caltrans District 7,
comments will be incorporated into the report and a final report submitted. Three, 1 -hour meetings are
anticipated for this task.
Deliverables: Final Geotechnical Design Report (GDR)
3.5 Materials Report (MR) - See Section 3.35 above for explanation why this task is deleted.
The MR will be prepared based on Caltrans guidelines and covers the new pavement sections and corrosion
potential at the site. for pavement structural sections will be prepared in general accordance with Caltrans
guidelines, and will present the data obtained during field exploration and laboratory testing, as well as
conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the following:
• Project description including proposed improvements, climatic conditions, terrain and surface
drainage, and land use.
• Discussion of geotechnical settings including regional geology, subsurface soil, and groundwater
conditions.
• Recommendations for construction of roadway and embankment foundations and estimated
settlement.
• Evaluation of gross and surficial stability of the proposed fill slopes.
• Earthwork considerations, including excavation characteristics and erosion controls.
• Corrosion potentials of the subgrade soils and recommended mitigation measures, if necessary.
• Recommendations for pavement structural design based on traffic indices assumed or provided by
the client.
• Discussion of materials available including local and commercial sources and materials
specifications.
Findings, conclusions, and recommendations will be presented in a Draft Final MR with logs of the borings
and laboratory test results. After review by design team and Caltrans, comments will be incorporated into
the report and a final report submitted. Three, 1 -hour meetings are anticipated for this task.
Deliverables: Materials Report (MR)
3.6 Hydrology/Hydraulics Analysis and Final Drainage Report
The specific methodology for completion of the hydrology and hydraulic report will consist of the following:
1. Perform a site visit to verify and document hydrology and hydraulic analysis parameters.
2. Perform hydrologic analyses for the existing drainage conditions for the 25- year storm events.
3. Perform hydrologic analyses for the proposed drainage conditions for the 25 -year storm events.
4. Perform inlet and hydraulic grade line calculations for the proposed drainage system. Hydraulic
calculations will be performed in accordance with Caltrans drainage design criteria.
5. Prepare a Final Drainage Report summarizing all analyses results in accordance with Caltrans District 7
criteria. Exhibits will be prepared for drainage basin and drainage system layouts.
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Improvements on Rosemead Blvd at 1-10 Westbound Ramps
Deliverables: Final Drainage Report
3.7 Transportation Management Plan
A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) will be developed in accordance with the Caltrans TMP
Guidelines and will adhere to criteria set forth in the TMP Data Sheets developed in the PA/ED phase.
Short-term overnight ramp closures will be conducted for the "join existing ramp
improvements." Simultaneous overnight closures of the WB 1-10 Westerly Ramps and the WB 1-10 Easterly
Ramps will not be allowed. There will be no shoulder or travel lane closures on the EB or WB 1-10 mainline.
Temporary lane closures on Rosemead Boulevard or Glendon Way will be limited to one lane/direction
during non -peak hours. Access to adjacent businesses will be maintained during construction. From this,
construction detour traffic impact LOS analysis and mitigation will not be needed.
Deliverables: Transportation Management Plan (TMP)
3.8 Storm Water Data Report
A Stormwater Data Report (SWDR) will be prepared in conformance with the Stormwater Data Report
Appendix E Form completed and approved in the PA/ED Phase.
Deliverables: Stormwater Data Report (SWDR) — PS&E
3.9 Exception to Ramp Metering Policy Fact Sheet
The ADVANTECteam does not anticipate any non-standard design elements for this Project improvements.
However, since we are improving the on ramps termini and based on our experience, Caltrans may ask us
to prepare an Exception to Ramp Metering Policy Fact Sheet for the lack of an HOV Bypass lane at the ramp
meter which is a requirement in the Caltrans Ramp Metering Design Manual. ADVANTEC has the experts
and experience in preparing an Exception to Ramp Metering Policy Fact Sheet to approval.
Deliverables: Exception to Ramp Metering Policy Fact Sheet
4. Right of Way and Utility Services (Right of Way Certification)
The ADVANTEC Team are confident we can stay well within the right-of-way with the proposed
improvements therefore we assume no acquisitions or Temporary Construction Easements (TCEs) will be
required. However, if any TCEs are required, a scope and fee for these services can be provided and OPC
has the expertise to acquire the TCEs for the Project.
ADVANTEC will still need to perform the Right of Way Certification with Caltrans which includes utility
certification. We will perform the following services:
Utility Coordination Services
Utility Coordination support work as follows:
• Issue updated Relocate Claim Letters using City provided templates (estimated three conflicting
utilities).
• Work with the design team to develop and update a utility conflict matrix.
• Confirm liability claim for the utility conflicts that are impacted by the Project.
• Coordinate and plan with the utility owners and their designers as needed to discuss Project design,
conflicts, relocation alternatives, and resolution to conflicts.
11111111
Improvements on Rosemead Blvd at 1-10 Westbound Ramps
• Obtain detailed scopes of work from the utility owners for relocation, estimated start and
completion dates and proposed cost to perform and complete the relocation activity.
• Issue Notice to Owner to relocate using City provided letterhead (estimated three Notices).
• Prepare and execute Utility Agreements (UA) for utility owners who have prior rights and conflict
with the Project (estimated three UA).
• Prepare the utility section of the Right of Way Certification.
Deliverables: Relocate Claim Letters, utility conflict matrix, Notice to Owners, Utility Agreements, Utility
section of Right of Way Certification
Right of Way Certification
Following settlement, OPC will support ADVANTEC and the City to:
• Attend certification planning meeting with R/W Local Assistance Coordinator and project team.
• If applicable, acquire and include relocation activities as required for completion of certification
form including utility notices and hi -low risk utility sheets as provided by the project's utility
coordination team and engineers for Right of Way Local Assistance Coordinator review.
• Verify that all interests necessary for the project have been secured. Prepare certification forms, in
coordination with the engineer and the client, to include the compilation of all necessary back-up
documents required including deed, final order of condemnation, access easements, cooperative
agreements, permits, right of entries, etc.
• Attend and coordinate pre- and post -audit submittal meetings.
Deliverables: Right of Way Certification forms with necessary back-up documents.
S. Construction Support
ADVANTEC and the project team will assist City of Rosemead in responding to questions during the
Construction Bidding phase, assist City staff in preparing Addendums and in evaluating bid responses,
addressing Contractor RFIs during construction, review Contractor submittals and shop drawings for "takes
no exceptions" to plans/specifications.
ADVANTEC will attend the Pre -Bid and Pre -Construction meetings. ADVANTEC will assist the City staff in
conducting the final inspection upon completion/closeout of the project and will prepare the final As -Built
Drawings utilizing Contractor as -built "redlines."
Deliverables: Addendums, RFIs, review submittals responses, as -built drawings
Optional Tasks:
6. Environmental Documentation — CEQA Categorical Exclusion (CE)
According to the City, a CE is anticipated to be the appropriate level of CEQA documentation.
GPA Consulting would perform the following scope of work to facilitate environmental documentation and
approvals assuming a CE is the CEQA document
6.1 Project Initiation -
At project initiation, GPA's Project Manager will attend a project Kick-off meeting to initiate the project
development activities. During project initiation, GPA will work closely with the City and design engineers
11
_ CITY OFROSEMEAD
Intersection Improvements on Rosemead Blvd at 1-10 Westbound Ramps
to define a complete and detailed project description and delineate a project study area that will meet the
needs of the environmental analysis. The project description will include the project purpose and need, as
well as a description of the project objectives, project components, project location, and timing of the
project.
Deliverables: Project description, including project purpose and need, project objectives, project
components, project location, and timing of the project. GPA assumes that the project is not receiving
federal funding, nor will encroach into state right-of-way; therefore, the project will not be subject to NEPA,
nor would it require any review or approval by Caltrans.
6.2 Biological Resources Evaluation
Habitat in the project area is consists of ornamental vegetation with scattered shrubs and trees. Drainage
is undergrounded, and there are no open ditches or evidence of water resources in the area. The existing
vegetation could provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species. To identify the existing biological resources
on the project site, GPA will complete a Biological Resources Survey of the project area. Evaluation of
potential project impacts and development of appropriate impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures will be included in the IS/MND.
Deliverables: Biological Resources Evaluation Memorandum
Key Assumptions: No federally or state -listed special status species will be identified in the project area,
and endangered species act coordination with regulatory agencies will not be required. GPA also assumes
that no wetland or Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State will be identified in the project area and permits
from regulatory agencies will not be required. If endangered species act consultation or regulatory permits
will be required, GPA is available to provide these services under an additional scope of work and budget.
GPA is available to complete these additional focused plant surveys under an additional scope of work and
budget.
6.3 Archaeological and Paleontological Evaluation
Moderate amounts of excavation and earthwork would be required to construct the project. The project
area contains soils with high potential to contain paleontological resources. Additionally, excavation and
earthwork may disturb archaeological resources that have not been previously identified. GPA will
complete an archaeological and paleontological evaluation to identify potential archaeological and
paleontological resources that may be present in the project area, and identify recommendations for
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, if applicable, to reduce potentially significant impacts
to these resources.
Deliverables: Archaeological and Paleontological Evaluation Memorandum.
Key Assumptions: This scope of work does not include evaluation of the historical significance of potential
archaeological resources identified during the archaeological evaluation. Testing and/or excavation is not
included in this scope of work. If testing or excavation is required for the project, the GPA team is available
to provide these services under an additional scope of work and budget.
6.4 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
To identify potential risks from hazardous materials, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA)
will be prepared. The Phase I ESA will also identify recommendations for further testing, avoidance,
12
!
''A CITY OF ROSEMEAD
* Intersection Improvements on Rosemead Blvd at 1-10 Westbound Ramps
minimization, and remediation or mitigation measures, if applicable, to reduce potentially significant
impacts from hazardous materials.
Deliverables: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Key Assumptions: This scope of work does not include testing and/or characterization of potential
hazardous materials identified in the project area. If testing or characterization is required for the project,
the GPA team is available to provide these services under an additional scope of work and budget.
6.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Evaluation
AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting will prepare an air quality/greenhouse gas (GHG) technical
memorandum forthe evaluation of short-term construction -related air quality and GHG impacts associated
with the proposed project. The technical memorandum will include a summary description of the existing
environment, based on existing environmental documentation. Short-term emissions of criteria air
pollutants and GHGs will be quantified and summarized in the report. The significance of air quality impacts
will be evaluated in comparison to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) recommended
thresholds. Applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District regulatory requirements and
recommended mitigation measures related to the control of short-term construction -generated emissions
will be discussed.
Deliverables: Air Quality & GHG Technical Memorandum
Key Assumptions: Because the project would not result in increase "through" capacity and would improve
traffic flow, no long-term air quality/GHG impacts are anticipated. As a result, the assessment of long-term
air quality/GHG impacts is not included.
6.6 Noise &Vibration Evaluation
AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting will prepare a technical noise memorandum to evaluate short-
term construction noise and ground borne vibration impacts associated with the proposed project. The
technical memorandum will include a description of the existing noise environment, based on existing
environmental documentation and a review of site reconnaissance data. Up to five short-term (i.e., 10-15
minute) noise measurement surveys will be conducted. Predicted construction -generated noise and
ground -borne vibration levels will be quantified in accordance with commonly recommended
methodologies and guidance, including those identified by the California Department of Transportation.
Applicable City of Rosemead noise ordinance requirements related to the control of short-term
construction -generated noise will be discussed.
Deliverables: Noise & Vibration Technical Memorandum
Key Assumptions: Because the project would not result in increase "through" capacity, or significant
realignment of through traffic lanes, long-term noise impacts are anticipated to be negligible. As a result,
the assessment of long-term noise impacts is not included.
6.7 CEQA Categorical Exemption
Based on the information provided, GPA assumes that the project will be covered under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301, which allows a CE for projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on
the environment. GPA will prepare the State Clearinghouse (SCH) Notice of Exemption (NOE) Form, along
13
CITY OF RO51
Intersection Improvements on Rosemead Blvd at 1-10 Westbound
with a memorandum which summarizes and documents how the City will meet its Lead Agency
responsibilities under CEQA. The memorandum will include responses to all topic areas specified in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15300.2 that would negate the exemption by an exception. Once these documents have
been approved by the City, GPA will file the NOE Form with the County Clerk's Office.
Deliverables: One electronic copy of the Draft and Final NOE Form and CE Memorandum.
6.8 Project Management
Throughout the environmental process, GPA will maintain a clear line of communication with the City and
will conduct regular status checks to ensure all tasks are on schedule and within budget. The GPA Project
Manager will prepare a monthly progress report for each task order that includes the progress of each task,
new and ongoing issues, proposed resolutions, and estimated impact on the schedule. GPA will also
maintain both electronic and hard copies of the complete environmental record and will provide the City
with a copy of all documentation.
Deliverables: Monthly progress reports. Complete environmental record
6.9 Meetings and Coordination
GPA will attend monthly Project Development Team (PDT) meetings to give environmental updates. GPA
will attend up to 12 meetings and review and comment on the meeting minutes. GPA will coordinate with
Caltrans for work within Caltrans R/W for required environmental review and approval.
Deliverables: GPA to attend up to 4 PDT meetings and coordinate with Caltrans
14
=C.'.R
R'&R
•SA`ee
qa
s
p.^.R
'e $8
RSaA9Ro
1
1
■
■
$.^.8
889�a
FAR�^
a
8
"Alm
F_
TM
$
g
d
x,•.,,,wx,•
g
8
8
a
�
g
8
E
5
4vw=
o�. rnoe
=•rwga
$
�
S.
A.
a
S
5
$
8
1
8
s
g
wawa•
%
SS'
APS'CS8^
"
iPP^.'.
PPS%PeSBRRP'Sii^iASAP
S:
„n,.,,,.x®_
S^^
S
R
ry8R%RR%
g%•
SR
iB
ASR
ru.w.wN.wie
_
Si
M1 7
ro,•w.vww,i
��
-
S
_
6
�
p
e
�•wro.�
g
Ixiawwn!�+d1P
$
. 9
• n
S
.10
o
yotl
tl
`o
�
iFs
€ad
399r.
FS
E
:
5E
a
9
S
Eq
A
7fr
���'F
flF
G,'�96
nE
E
�iy==wi`w
ely
a:
2,7�°§.
yu
�g�1'.
y�8
5„'u
B.-�
4'�e
S
a
•
ii��38
dese
esaz
ez„�=',#gm
E
5
:L.•a€
sE
�
a
A3EW�i4s=�a`a:i
9g�za.a
4
•y
$
¢¢.¢
os
-
•°`
4Efr�
l�iaFw
'•�
�
��
a9
8a�
2
ia$g`.
a°�
F
x
4
S4a5
•
3p8d5E`5c>eed�#43
t5�s`oe�
ire
frm�
�
�
g2r2ppd
8@aw��a
zzg
sg
p
5^ip#F8.
g8
p8
r9d�s#`
%;'
S�'«9
—
agAEEB
i
eE6�]3
Az�6
frd3F.;dRdr
c`4:Sa�
Ea3
4uu
Fae.
Rs
F.aa9=s
A.
E
��s
s
z
A
s
K5�iX55X
FK%XXX
6
R
"nX
F09FX
1111
■
1
1
■
■
Ali
MH
m > [€
•!E�[S a ^
W Q < iF F 5j°g=yF °qtl C �° b fou pi
i i SS ! FE x A�5
O PP g a
uew A ! � e awS�g�: 5e�a €.xi�F af[tx
wQ fS g d€$ W -Hu
zLL
z F d 9
2 _ S
�� mm�
WPM"F
�S55 S�Sfi"a SR S��S�Sk"��"�559 "�5 S-fi�"^g"c SS"�S. g�g9d �`�SS15 S S: "�C.S eS
z"fs333;;33s`�E�E3333E::�EiE"333��3333333333;%�33333.�
fA can €ansabVRFR -FVVER�a�s��f€��°a�aa���„E` 111
3 t
3 3
�' e`as d ��s � • 3 � 3„ �
E a� ��° E ?�� gs a € � II� I •
w�� o� —
�s i= a xg
54 :Se o'w8 '° H
� .°g& °<kd�ac 8
HIS C `€ � 1E° i� '�w8ai H.
3�•�o jEL e�3FSSafS Sx•�o Saw a ao N �S n�°oa wxwo "' k $e4$
Q E9° S`gfi iisi oi�y rc��56a d Z s 8 E5E? Xw saxyIN
' n
i Fa 2 eE e3 Y $ as ° 3a :•sgyEp
Hill!@!111 _L'§332'ys�a os8 $ mfr$€ye3:aa�a'FE g'aPx�Se"�:�pm> 8 = $
QZ 611E Rr"@ ba[�Eg dW "°2�2EE5S5%i5 F eF E� 2 �3 3• z,
SpS a. E �4i��e �$� �s3� isi€5E{E•eTI4�IT.o �p�pt�e;TI�3�1t� "y�3 Pl .�
Q I@ g6...6a II. 1. a.„oR RI:.i Rja RIA RIR IP. CP ix i'S"I'x �x !i �a l"IG®FTT51'Ix Y
M �• Y T
O �
a
I
F
�
II _
F3 3
e
% •
£
x
u
8 E%i
I
d
xL`s�ax-
E E
2F 3
3 R
ii
Ali
MH
m > [€
•!E�[S a ^
W Q < iF F 5j°g=yF °qtl C �° b fou pi
i i SS ! FE x A�5
O PP g a
uew A ! � e awS�g�: 5e�a €.xi�F af[tx
wQ fS g d€$ W -Hu
zLL
z F d 9
2 _ S
�� mm�
WPM"F
�S55 S�Sfi"a SR S��S�Sk"��"�559 "�5 S-fi�"^g"c SS"�S. g�g9d �`�SS15 S S: "�C.S eS
z"fs333;;33s`�E�E3333E::�EiE"333��3333333333;%�33333.�
fA can €ansabVRFR -FVVER�a�s��f€��°a�aa���„E` 111
3 t
3 3
�' e`as d ��s � • 3 � 3„ �
E a� ��° E ?�� gs a € � II� I •
w�� o� —
�s i= a xg
54 :Se o'w8 '° H
� .°g& °<kd�ac 8
HIS C `€ � 1E° i� '�w8ai H.
3�•�o jEL e�3FSSafS Sx•�o Saw a ao N �S n�°oa wxwo "' k $e4$
Q E9° S`gfi iisi oi�y rc��56a d Z s 8 E5E? Xw saxyIN
' n
i Fa 2 eE e3 Y $ as ° 3a :•sgyEp
Hill!@!111 _L'§332'ys�a os8 $ mfr$€ye3:aa�a'FE g'aPx�Se"�:�pm> 8 = $
QZ 611E Rr"@ ba[�Eg dW "°2�2EE5S5%i5 F eF E� 2 �3 3• z,
SpS a. E �4i��e �$� �s3� isi€5E{E•eTI4�IT.o �p�pt�e;TI�3�1t� "y�3 Pl .�
Q I@ g6...6a II. 1. a.„oR RI:.i Rja RIA RIR IP. CP ix i'S"I'x �x !i �a l"IG®FTT51'Ix Y
M �• Y T
0
Intersection Improvements on Rosemead Blvd at 1-10
3.0 PROJECT TEAM, KEY PERSONNEL, AND RESUMES
ADVANTEC TEAM STRUCTURE
The ADVANTEC Team brings a group of highly specialized personnel with excellent working relationships
providing similar services. ADVANTEC has been committed to LA Metro for many years, and our expert team
will provide all the appropriate project management and technical expertise to ensure success of this
project. The key team members are intended to serve in their respective roles throughout the duration of
the agreement. Capsule resumes of our Key Personnel are provided on the following pages. Full resumes of
project staff are provided in Appendix.
PROJECT MANAGER, TASKS LEADERS, AND KEY SUPPORT PERSONNEL
Mr. Leo Lee, PE is the founder and Principal of ADVANTEC, and he will serve as the
Principal -In -Charge. Mr. Lee has served as Principal -in -charge recently for SR -60/7"
Avenue PA/ED; METRO 3 -intersection improvements along Valley Blvd PA/ED; I-
5/Grapevine Interchange PSR, PA/ED & PS&E, SR-57/SR-60 PS&E, and 1-10/University
Interchange Improvements PA/ED and PS&E.
Chris Buscarino, PE. will serve as our Project Manager. Chris is a registered Civil
;ineer in with more than 33 years of experience delivering public works projects in
fornia. A skilled senior project managerwith hands-on approach, he will ensure that
ject meets all client objectives by leading the team, coordinating with stakeholders
neet schedule and budget goals. Mr. Buscarino has worked for multiple cities on
ilar projects navigating all challenges of City led projects requiring approval from
- Caltrans for PID, PA/ED, and PS&E phases. Some of the projects Mr. Buscarino has
successfully completed for cities and other local agencies are provided in his resume, most notably, he has
completed Base Line Road/1-15 Interchange Improvements for cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana,
CA and the 1-215/Clinton Keith Interchange for City of Murrieta. He has a positive hands-on and can -do
attitude when it comes to working with stakeholders and partners to resolve complex engineering and
environmental issues. He is an ideal Project Manager for this project.
Mr. Joe Harake will serve as our Lead Technical Advisor Geometric Development
responsible for the roadway geometrics development. Joe has over 35 years of
experience as a recognized expert in developing innovative geometrics and traffic
engineering strategies for complex highway, HOV, HOT, and Express, Lanes projects.
Since 1984, while working for Caltrans District 7 and later for District 12, Joe was
responsible for the operations some of the major corridors in the region. His technical
expertise combined with his freeway traffic operation knowledge will support Chris
and the project team in enhancing the intersection geometric design while meeting the Need and Purpose
of the project. In his role, Joe will be providing technical design services during the geometrics development,
and it will continue throughout the development of the DEER and design plans.
ADVANTEC Project Team, Key Personnel, Resumes 130
Considting Engineers
ROSEMEAD
Intersection Improvements on Rosemead Blvd at
Ryan Todaro, Environmental Planner is the Southern California transportation
program manager for GPA. He is a former Caltrans environmental planner with over
21 years of experience providing environmental evaluation for all phases: Project
Initiation, Project Approval/ Environmental Document (PA/ED); PS&E; and
Construction. Ryan has successfully delivered environmental approvals for complex
billion -dollar projects throughout Southern California. His extensive experience
managing environmental analysis for Caltrans Local Assistance projects and
relationships with Caltrans D7 is a great benefit to the team and CITY.
Ed Miller is a Civil Engineer for ADVANTEC and in this role performs civil and highway
engineering projects for many Caltrans and local municipalities. He has over 40 years
of civil and traffic/transportation engineering and project management experience
on Caltrans, freeway, arterial highway, and local agency projects. He has obtained
many Caltrans approvals from PSRs to PS&E documents for local cities and regional
agencies collaborating with Caltrans. His extensive experience designing roadway
and highway projects through Caltrans Local Assistance is a great benefit to the team
and CITY.
Keith Rand is Senior Traffic Engineer with ADVANTEC. He brings more than 28 years
of technical experience and expertise in the areas of traffic and transportation
engineering and planning, Maintenance of Traffic (MOT), and TMPs. He has work with
Caltrans on 7 interchange and mainline improvement projects. His extensive
experience working with Caltrans, and he is known as one of the best MOT engineers
on Caltrans roadways/highways as he has done for multiple local cities and agencies
in Southern California. He will be responsible for MOT and TMPs.
John Dorado is a Senior Traffic Engineer for ADVANTEC and is a dedicated and
technically skilled traffic engineer with over 24 years of experience in the field of
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) design, traffic engineering, and
transportation planning. His extensive experience designing traffic signal and street
lighting systems for many local cities in Southern California and coordinating with
Caltrans on many of these projects is a great benefit to the team and CITY. John will
be responsible for the traffic signal, signing & striping, and street lighting design of the
Rosemead/Glendon Way and adjacent roadways and intersections.
Abdollah Ansari, Agency Coordinator & Funding Advisor brings more than 40 years
of experience in planning, engineering, construction, and management of
transportation projects and programs in Southern California. He spent 13 years with
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) in various roles
including Sr. Executive Officer of Program Management, Highway Programs. His most
recent experience includes management for Metro's $30 billion Measure R and M -
funded Highway Programs, development and full utilization of an On -Call contracting
system, project delivery efficiency and expediency, and multi -agency coordination for
multi -billion -dollar projects. In addition, Abdollah spent 18 years with the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and Manager of the City of Long Beach Traffic & Transportation
Bureau where he implemented substantial traffic mobility and safety projects in the city. His extensive
experience and relationships with LA Metro and Caltrans D7 plus knowledge of Metro's funding program is
a great benefit to the team and CITY.
ADVANTEC Project Team, Key Personnel, Resumes 131
�. CnnauBing Engine^,
ROSEMEAD
Intersection Improvements on
Syed Reza, QA/QC Manager brings more than 41 years of executive, management,
and technical experience in the areas of transportation/traffic engineering and
program/project management. During his career, he has led many multi -functional
teams and successfully delivered high-profile, state of the art complex transportation
projects. Syed was responsible for the delivery of all capital projects at Caltrans
District 8 and oversaw the delivery of over 300 in-house and locally funded capital
projects valued at over $15 billion. His proactive management approach,
communication and problem -solving skills, ability to build consensus and strong
leadership skills has helped District 8 successfully meet its project delivery commitments year after year.
Syed was instrumental in assisting RTPAs, counties and cities deliver their portfolio of projects on the State
Highway System including processing of the projects through the District Office of Local Assistance. His
extensive experience with LA Metro and Caltrans Local Assistance plus background in traffic design is a great
benefit to the team and CITY.
Collectively these technical leaders form an unparalleled expert team for the City of Rosemead, Caltrans
District 7, and LA Metro to deliver PANED and PS&E expeditiously, to identify creative solutions that improve
safety, significantly reduce congestion, and provide benefits to the community in the most efficient manner.
Project Organization Chart
As project manager, Chris Buscarino, is the primary contact for CIN in delivering the project. He will work
closely with the CITY's Project Manager, Caltrans District 7, and METRO to meet scope, budget, and
schedule requirements, and facilitate all project meetings. Chris has a proven track record as a project
manager having delivered highly complex highway/ bridge projects on schedule and on budget—many
completed on fast-track delivery schedules. Our Team Organizational Chart, as shown on Figure 3.1,
illustrates the organizational structure of our project team, which brings together all of the skills and
expertise required to ensure successful completion of all elements of the RFP.
The commitment of our key staff is vital to the project's successful deliveryof PID-PA/ED and PS&E approval.
Chris has carefully evaluated the number of working hours required to complete the scope of work and
projected staff workload commitments to ensure availability of key staff for the duration of the project.
ADVANTEC commits to providing the designated key personnel to this Project.
y/ ADVANTEC Project Team, Key Personnel, Resumes 132
/\ Cnnsu/tinKln�inccn
OF ROSEMEAD
on
ADVANTEC Approach and Scope of Work 18
Cnnaulting Gnginccrs
CITY OF
Improvements on Rosemead Blvd at
Attachment B
Request For Proposal Package
.AOP
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR
DESIGN SERVICES FOR INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROSEMEAD BLVD
AT INTERSTATE 10 (1-10) FREEWAY WESTBOUND RAMPS TERMINI
RFP NO. 2022-14
SUBMITTALS:
Four (4) bound copies and one (1) electronic PDF file on flash drive or CD of the
proposal in sealed envelope(s) must be received by the City of Rosemead's City Clerk's
Office by:
no later than 3:00 pm Tuesday July 12 2022
TECHNICAL CONTACT PERSON:
Eddie Chan, City Engineer
City of Rosemead
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, California 91770
(626) 569-2154
echan@cityofrosemead.org
PROPOSALS RECEIVED AFTER THE TIME AND DATE STATED ABOVE SHALL
NOT BE CONSIDERED. FACSIMILE AND E-MAIL PROPOSAL WILL NOT BE
ACCEPTED.
Please direct any questions or concerns regarding this RFP to Eddie Chan, City
Engineer via email: echan(a)cityofrosemead.org no later than 3:00 pm June 28, 2022.
Answers to submitted questions will be posted on the City's website by July 5, 2022.
This RFP is posted on the City's website.
Please review the requirements of the RFP and submit your proposal by the date
specified.
RFP issued by Eddie Chan, City Engineer, City of Rosemead
Page 1
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR
DESIGN SERVICES FOR INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROSEMEAD BLVD
AT 1-10 FREEWAY WESTBOUND RAMPS TERMINI
RFP NO. 2022-14
A. INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to select the most -qualified
Consultant to provide Design Services for intersection improvements on Rosemead Blvd
at 1-10 Freeway westbound ramps termini. The City wishes to obtain these services under
a Professional Services Agreement.
B. BACKGROUND ABOUT THE CITY
The City of Rosemead is an urban suburb located in the San Gabriel Valley, 10 miles east
of downtown Los Angeles. It is bounded on the north by the cities of Temple City and San
Gabriel, on the west by Monterey Park, Alhambra, and the unincorporated Los Angeles
County community of South San Gabriel, on the south by Montebello, and by EI Monte
and South EI Monte on the east. The City is 5.5 square miles in size.
Rosemead is a working-class suburb with a diverse population base. According to the
2010 Census, the City had a population of 53,764. The estimated makeup of the City was
4.7% White, 0.3% African American, 60.3% Asian, 33% Hispanic/Latino (of any race),
and 0.7% Non -Hispanic Other. As a substantially built -out city, Rosemead only added
259 residents to its population during the last decade (2000-2010).
Rosemead's appeal as a new kind of small town in the heart of an urban environment is
accomplished by honoring tradition, uniting in diversity, and evolving for the future. This
is evident in Rosemead's Key Organizational Goals which aim to: improve public areas
including infrastructure and community facilities; enhance public safety and the overall
community environment and opportunities for residents through programs, services,
education, and recreation; and ensure the City's financial stability in order to continually
meet these goals and provide basic services to the community.
C. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND SERVICES
PROJECT TITLE:
Rosemead Boulevard/1-10 Freeway Westbound Ramps Termini Improvements.
PROJECT LOCATION:
The project is located in the City of Rosemead at the intersection of Rosemead Boulevard
(State Route [SR] -164), Glendon Way, and Interstate 10 (1-10) Freeway Westbound (WB)
On and Off Ramps at Rosemead Boulevard.
Page 2
PROJECT LIMITS:
This project limits are the following: the intersection of Rosemead Boulevard (SR -164)
and Glendon Way (approximate postmile: Route 164, LA 5.7) and 1-10 Freeway WB On
and Off Ramps at Rosemead Boulevard (approximate postmile: Route 10, LA 26.8), and
extend approximately 500' north, east, south and west of the intersection to accommodate
geometric/lane adjustments as necessary.
NEXUS TO HIGHWAY OPERATION, DEFINITION/PROJECT PURPOSE:
The proposed project involves improvements to Rosemead Boulevard (SR -164) and
Glendon Way (approximate postmile: Route 164, LA 5.7) and 1-10 Freeway WB On and
Off Ramps at Rosemead Boulevard (approximate postmile: Route 10, LA 26.8). The
improvements include geometric realignment and additional lanes to increase operational
capacity, improve traffic flow, and reduce congestion at the intersection, which will
continue to worsen over time without improvements.
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
The proposed project was identified and awarded by LA Metro Measure R funding, as
part of a broader package of projects known as the SR -710 Mobility Improvement Projects
(MIPs). The SR- 710 MIPs are the result of reallocated Measure R Funds for the SR -710
North Project to new mobility improvement projects within the San Gabriel Valley
subregion. These projects are consistent with the purpose and need of the Gap Closure
Project to relieve congestion on local streets along the SR -710 alignment between
Interstates 10 and 210, with the highest priority for projects proximate to the Interstate 10
freeway. Rosemead Boulevard is one of the busiest regional corridors that extends from
SR -60 to 1-10 and from 1-10 to the 1-210 Freeways. Due to insufficient geometric
configuration and lane capacities at the Rosemead Boulevard and 1-10 Freeway WB On
and Off Ramps, significant delays are experienced throughout the day.
PROJECT SCOPE:
The City plans to improve Rosemead Boulevard (SR -164) and Glendon Way and 1-10
Freeway WB On and Off Ramps at Rosemead Boulevard and prepare PA/ED, PS&E,
RM, and Construction phase documents.
The purpose of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to select the most -qualified
Consultant to provide Design Services for intersection improvements on Rosemead Blvd
at 1-10 Freeway westbound ramps termini.
The proposed conceptual project scope involves improvements to Rosemead Boulevard
(SR -164) and Glendon Way (approximate postmile: Route 164, LA 5.7) and 1-10 Freeway
WB On and Off Ramps at Rosemead Boulevard (approximate postmile: Route 10, LA
26.8). The conceptual improvements include but are not limited to: geometric realignment,
reconfigure lanes to enhance operational capacity and efficiency of the turning
movements, and modify and upgrade the existing traffic signal as well as any additional
signalization needs to improve traffic flow, and reduce congestion at the intersection.
Page 3
The project scope, proposed improvements and preliminary concept plans are shown on
Figure 1 of the Traffic Study as depicted on the next page. The full Traffic Impact Study
is included as Attachment A. The proposed improvements include but are not limited to:
1. Widen east side of Rosemead Boulevard to add an exclusive right turn lane from
NB Rosemead Boulevard to WB 1-10 Freeway easterly On Ramp.
2. Add an exclusive left turn lane from WB Glendon Way to SB Rosemead Boulevard.
3. Eliminate left tum lane from 1-10 Freeway westerly WB Off -Ramp to WB Glendon
Way.
4. Reconfigure geometric alignment of west approach on Glendon Way west of
Rosemead Boulevard and provide a left turn lane for from WB Glendon Way to
WB 1-10 Freeway westerly On Ramp.
5. Widen south-west corner of Glendon Way and 1-10 WB westerly On-ramp to
provide proper right turn lane and curb return to accommodate right turn traffic onto
the ramps.
6. Improve signage and striping for the northbound left -turn lane from the westbound
1-10 easterly off -ramp to westbound Glendon Way. Per the Traffic Study findings
and recommendations, evaluate potential signalization of the WB off ramp with the
WB exit lane from the shopping center. In addition, if geometrically feasible, modify
the off ramp to accommodate dual left -turn lane option from the westbound 1-10
easterly off -ramp to westbound Glendon Way.
7. As part of Items 1, 2 and 6 above, modify and upgrade the existing traffic signal at
Rosemead Boulevard/Glendon Way as needed in accordance with Caltrans
standards and requirements. Design additional signalization needs as described
in Item 6 based on evaluation of the concept.
8. If determined to be feasible after further engineering analysis, widen west side of
Rosemead Boulevard north of Glendon Way to provide a wider right tum lane
(current right turn lane is approx. 10' wide, which is narrow). Widening this right
turn lane by 1' or 2' (which will require narrowing the sidewalk, accordingly) would
improve the traffic flow.
The project will not use federal or state funds. Project will be funded using Measure R
local funding sources.
Page 4
Glendon tVa
d:.
--`_----------
d:.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The services to be provided by the selected consultant include the project phases listed
below. Scope of Services and Fee Proposal should be structured using a preliminary
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and consultant may expand items into subtasks to
depict level of efforts anticipated for each task. Consultant shall clearly indicate
deliverables to be provided and list any assumptions and exclusions made. Consultant
shall hold periodic project status meetings with the City team to report on the progress of
the various project phases.
1. Preliminary Design Phase:
Tasks to be performed include, but are not limited to, the following:
A. Conduct field visits of the project area to identify design issues. Record existing
site conditions in photographs and/or video.
B. Conduct survey of the project area, establishing horizontal and vertical control for
the project as necessary.
C. Identify and coordinate with all utilities in the project area to facilitate the final
design of the Project.
D. Verify if a geotechnical survey will be necessary. If yes, conduct geotechnical
investigations as necessary.
E. Verify if right-of-way (RNV) acquisitions and/or vacations will be necessary. At
this point all work assumed to be within existing City and Caltrans RNV.
F. Coordinate with Caltrans for work within Caltrans R/W and establish required
environmental, review, approval and permitting process.
G. Prepare construction cost estimate.
H. Prepare Basis of Design Document
The Consultant shall include the aforementioned preliminary design phase tasks
in a Basis of Design (BOD) document which shall be initiated at the beginning of
preliminary design, be kept current throughout design. The BOD shall also
include but not be limited to:
a. Description of the Project.
b. Executive Summary.
c. Summary and results of the Environmental Analysis.
d. List of legal, regulatory, and permit requirements.
e. List of applicable codes and standards to be used in design.
f. List of design assumptions and criteria.
g. Description of site -related field investigations conducted, and research
completed
h. The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) based Scope of Work
i. The WBS based cost loaded, Schedule for the Work.
j. A WBS based Consultant's opinion of estimated cost for the Project.
k. A Construction Packaging Plan establishing composition of Project
elements into Construction Bid Packages and defining the relationships
between packages; and
Page 6
I. A Construction Phasing Plan.
This phase will cover all services until the start of Detailed Design, and will include
Utilizing the recommended outcome in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) performed by
others, perform analysis and activities to prepare preliminary design plans highlighting
the overall design framework and related key characteristic to perform the following
tasks: Conduct analysis relevant to the Caltrans Quality Management Assessment
Process (MAP). Consultant will investigate the QMAP Checklist (Attachment B) to
support Caltrans in its decision to arrive at the proper review methodology based on
information relevant to the Project's characteristics. Possible methodologies consist
of an Encroachment Permit (EP) process requiring the Permit Engineering Evaluation
Report (PEER) or the Design Engineering Evaluation Report (DEER).
The Consultant will provide for all the necessary data collection and analysis in
support of performing PEER and/or DEER, whichever is determined to be the
appropriate review process by Caltrans. Full knowledge and understanding of QMAP,
the latest versions of Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM),
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), Caltrans Local Assistance Program Manual,
Caltrans Encroachment Permits Manual, and Caltrans Standard Plans, Specifications
and Estimates, and other required documents is required.
The Consultant is to coordinate with Caltrans through that agency's available
conceptual Encroachment Permits (EP) review and consultation process to ensure
the above efforts are in full alignment with the succeeding detailed design phase in
accordance with Caltrans Project Development and Local Streets Procedures and
requirements.
Caltrans is in the process of upgrading several curb ramps in the Rosemead Corridor
for ADA compatibility. The Consultant is required to coordinate with Caltrans so there
are no duplication of efforts, and if Caltrans project is constructed first, that their project
will accommodate the design needs under this project.
2. Environmental Analysis
It is anticipated this project will be either an exempt project or a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND). Tasks to be performed include, but are not limited to the
following:
A. Prepare Initial Study (IS), consistent with CEQA Guidelines.
B. If IS results in any impacts, prepare MND or any other applicable environmental
document as necessary.
C. Prepare the Draft IS and Draft MND for public circulation as necessary, respond
to questions and comments and finalize the environmental process.
D. Coordinate with Caltrans for work within Caltrans RNV for required
environmental review and approval.
Page 7
3. Detailed Design Phase.
Tasks to be performed include, but are not limited to, the following:
A. Prepare plans for the required improvements, consistent with City and/or Caltrans
format.
B. Assist the City for any Community Information Workshop if necessary.
C. Prepare construction specifications.
D. Prepare an engineer's construction cost estimate based on the itemized quantity
take -off from the construction documents.
E. Coordinate with Caltrans for work within Caltrans R/W and obtain required
approval and permits.
F. Conduct research for overhead, underground and at -grade utilities that may need
to be protected in-place or if necessary, relocated to avoid any conflict with final
design documents
G. Coordinate with City staff, agencies, and Project stakeholders.
H. Complete Final Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) Bid Package.
This phase will cover all services during Detailed Design phase. It includes preparation
of 100% completed Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) and its submittal
along with PEER or DEER, the Transportation Management Plan (TMP), and other
required documentation as part of the 100% completed EP Application package to the
Caltrans EP Office, review of Caltrans EP plan check comments, and the necessary
resubmittals of revised documents within Caltrans EP required timelines towards
obtaining the approved EP for the Project.
For all projects, regardless of funding source, the City follows the requirements of
Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual. Therefore, the Preliminary and
Detailed Design phases of the project shall be managed and administered in
compliance with Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual.
Selected consultant shall provide all necessary project personnel, necessary to
manage all aspects of this project effectively and efficiently with minimal support from
City Staff.
The following are anticipated project tasks to be performed by the selected consultant.
Consultant shall provide any additional information to demonstrate their
understanding of the scope and experience in similar types of projects and services.
• Deliver services in accordance with the PEER or DEER, and project plans,
specifications, and estimates (PS&E).
• Manage and coordinate all aspects of the project inclusive of services identified
in the RFP.
Page 8
• Prior to start of Detailed Design phase, conduct up to two EP conceptual
meetings with Caltrans to receive initial guidance on Encroachment
Permits and Project Development Procedures requirements.
• Subject to the Caltrans EP requirements, it is anticipated that the
detailed design phase will include the following design submittals
at a 65%, 90% and final draft. Each submittal shall include
engineering calculations, reports, PS&E, and all other deliverables
required within the Scope of Services.
• Design plans for each submittal shall include, but are not limited to the following:
o Civil Design Plan and Profile for any road widening and reconfiguration
o Traffic Signal Modification Plans to update the following:
• Revised Equipment Schedule reflecting the necessary removal of
existing traffic signal poles and installation of new ones to
accommodate changes in the proposed road geometry as reflected
in the TIS and PEER or DEER documents
• Preparation of design plans for potential installation of a CCTV pole
at the intersection.
• Updated traffic signal conduit schedule and wiring.
• Other upgrades required by CAMUTCD's latest edition such as
accessible pedestrian push buttons, bicycle detection, LED safety
lighting and others to be determined during the design as required
by Caltrans staff.
o Signing and striping plan to reflect revised lane configurations and required
traffic signs and markings.
o Potential impacts to storm water drainage plans.
o Existing site plans showing existing roadway conditions, lane
configurations, existing utilities, etc.
o Any demolition plans.
o Construction staging and Traffic control plan.
o All design plan sheets shall conform with the requirements as shown in
Caltrans Encroachment Permit Guide as shown in the following link:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/traffic-
operatio ns/documents/encroachment-permits/ep-application-quide-
booklet-a11y.pdf
Design Review:
• Design reviews are performed at the 65%, 90%, and Final design phases.
• For each design review submittal, the Consultant shall provide PDFs and two sets
Page 9
of hardcopies of Drawings (11x17), Specifications, and all other material required
by the Scope of Services. Electronic CAD Files of the final drawing set must also
be submitted on DVD or other electronic media. The City will require 15 working
days for review of submittal documents at each design review.
The Consultant shall provide a written response to all review comments within
fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt. This comment log, in the form of an MS -
Excel spreadsheet, must show the disposition of all comments and should include,
at a minimum, the comment, drawing or specification reference, originator of the
comment, and detailed response to the comment. The comment log may also
reference highlights or annotations to the original documents (drawing and
specifications).
4. Construction Support
The Consultant shall provide construction support during the Pre -construction,
Construction, and Post -Construction Phases:
A. Assist City staff in response to RFIs and issuance of Addendums to the bid
package as necessary during the bidding process.
B. Attend the Pre -Bid meeting.
C. Assist City staff in evaluating bid responses.
D. Attend the Pre -Construction meeting.
E. Respond to RFIs to address the contractor's questions.
F. Review submittals and shop drawings for approval during construction.
G. Upon project completion, coordinate with the contractor to prepare and submit as -
built plans to the City as necessary.
H. Assist City staff to conduct final inspection upon project completion.
I. Prepare and final the As -built drawings
D. PROPOSAL SCHEDULE AND SUBMISSION
Proposals shall be submitted in 2 separate sealed envelopes as follows:
1. Technical Proposal, 4 bound copies and 1 PDF file on thumb drive
2. Fee Schedule, 1 bound copy and 1 PDF file on thumb drive
1. Advertise the RFP on the City's website:
Thursday June 9, 2022
2. There will be one Optional/Non-Mandatory Pre -Proposal Meeting on Zoom
on Thursday June 23, 2022, at 3:00 p.m.
Optional/Non-Mandatory Pre -Proposal ZOOM Meeting LINK:
httas://us02web zoom us/i/89525947192?awd=a25KR09vUkxlZTh2bkQxaDRaVk
E1dz09
Meeting ID: 895 2594 7192, Passcode: 136357, Dial: 669 900 9128
Prospective consultants are encouraged to attend.
Page 10
3. Written Questions or Concerns about the RFP:
Tuesday June 28, 2022 at 3:00 p.m.
4. Response to written questions posted on the City's website:
Tuesday July 5, 2022
5. Proposal submittal due date:
Tuesday July 12, 2022 at 3:00 p.m.
Proposals shall be addressed to:
City of Rosemead -City Hall
City Clerk's Office
8838 E. Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91770
Attn : Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk
Late Proposals will not be accepted.
E. CONSULTANT SELECTION SCHEDULE
• Selection of Proposer (Tentative Date): Late July/August, 2022
• Award of Consultant Contract by the City Council (Tentative Date): August 9, 2022
F. STANDARD CITY CONTRACT AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
City's Standard Professional Services Agreement is provided as Attachment C.
Please review and provide any comments you have. City does not guarantee that any
revisions to contract will be accepted.
G. CONSULTANT SELECTION METHODOLOGY
The City will evaluate the Proposals submitted and select the most qualified
consultant. In evaluating the Proposals, the City may consider the following factors:
■ Completeness of the RFP and compliance with the required format.
• Project understanding and approach to provide the requested services
efficiently.
• Experience and qualifications of the project team members.
• Experience and qualifications of the firm.
• Experience in local area and project requirements and process.
During the evaluation process, the City may also contact listed references (or request
additional references), and include the feedback received in the evaluation factors
listed above as applicable.
H. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMAT
Page 11
Proposal shall be submitted in the format specified below:
Cover Letter: Provide an executive summary of your proposal
Table of Contents: Provide contents of proposal with page number references
foreach proposal section listed below.
Section 1. Approach, and Scope of Work: Provide your understanding of the
project, scope of work, and describe your approach in providing services.
Section 2. Project Team, Key Personnel and Resumes: Provide an organization
chart showing the names and responsibilities of key personnel and subconsultants.
Provide resumes of all key personnel identified in the organization chart.
Section 3. Company Qualifications: Provide qualifications of your, emphasize
similar services provided, and local experience.
Section 4. References: Provide 5 Public Agency references for similar projects.
Section 5. Standard City Contract and Insurance Requirements: Proposers shall
review the attached Standard City Contract and Insurance Requirements and provide
a statement that they will comply with all aspects of the Agreement or provide any
comments that they would like the City to consider.
Section 6. Addenda Acknowledgement: If any Addenda is issued by the City, they
shall be acknowledged in this section.
J. Fee Proposal
In a separate sealed envelope, please submit a "not -to -exceed" fee proposal listing
a detailed cost for each task and sub -task, including work classification, your firm's
current Hourly Fee Rates for staff classifications who might work on this project, and
estimated hours for each subtask of work. All incidental and miscellaneous "non -labor"
costs such as cost of copies of documents, travel, and other expenses which may be
associated with the duties and obligations under this RFP shall be included in the total
not -to -exceed fee proposal. Any so-called "reimbursable" expenses must be included
in the not -to -exceed fee proposal. Reimbursable expenses beyond the not -to -exceed
fee proposal will not be allowed. The general Scope of Services outlined herein is
only provided as a guide in this Request for Proposals. Consultants shall provide a
detailed Scope of Services in their submitted Work Proposal as necessary to reflect
the method and procedure in which they intend to provide the required professional
services, consistent with the general Scope of Services.
J. PROTEST PROCEDURES
This section sets forth the protest remedies available with respect to the RFP. Each
prospective consultant, by submitting its Proposal, expressly recognizes the limitation
Page 12
on its rights to protest contained herein, and expressly waives all other rights and
remedies. Each prospective consultant agrees that the decision on any protest, as
provided herein, will be final and binding on the protestant.
All protests and related statements described in this section shall be submitted to:
City of Rosemead -City Hall
8838 E. Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91770
Attn: Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk
W"9 401=12MW
Proposers who submit a proposal in response to the RFP shall be notified in writing
when the proposer was not selected to receive further consideration.
L. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
Proposals may be subject to public disclosure under the California Public Records Act
and other public records laws, and by submitting a proposal, the proposer waives all
rights to confidentiality of any information submitted in the proposal and agrees to any
and all such disclosures required or permitted by law. Proposals become the property
of the City when submitted and by submitting a proposal, the proposer agrees that the
City may use any information, documentation or writing contained in the proposal for
any the City purpose.
M. PRE -CONTRACTUAL EXPENSES RESPONDING TO THE RFP PREPARATION
The City is not be liable for any pre -contractual expenses incurred by any proposer or
by any selected consultant. Each proposer shall protect, defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the City from any and all liability, claims, or expenses whosever incurred by,
or on behalf of, the entity participating in the preparation of its response to this RFP.
Pre -contractual expenses are defined as expenses incurred by proposers and the
selected consultant, if any, in:
• Preparing and submitting information in response to this RFP
• Negotiations with the City on any matter related to this procurement
• Costs associated with interviews, meetings, travel, or presentations
• All other expenses incurred by a proposer/consultant prior to the date of award
and a formal notice to proceed.
The City reserves the right to amend, withdraw and cancel the RFP. The City reserves
the right to reject all responses to this request at any time prior to contract execution,
or only award a partial
Page 13
N. QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RFP
Please direct any questions or concerns regarding this RFP to Eddie Chan, City
Engineer via email: echan(cDcitvofrosemead.orq no later than 3:00 pm June 28, 2022
(14 days prior to the RFP due date). Answers to submitted questions will be posted
on the City's website by July 5, 2022.
Page 14
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Traffic Impact Study in support of the Project
Attachment B — Caltrans Quality Management Assessment Process (MAP)
Attachment C — Professional Services Agreement Template and Insurance
Requirements
Page 15
ATTACHMENT A
Traffic Impact Study
in support of the Project
(j)ibson ATTACHMENT A
transportation consulting, inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Transtech Engineers, Inc.
FROM: Jonathan Chambers, P.E., and Janet Ye, E.I.T.
DATE: May 4, 2022
RE: Traffic Impact Study for the
Rosemead Boulevard & Westbound 1-10 Ramps Termini Improvements
Rosemead, California Ref: J1976
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. prepared an assessment of the potential effect of
proposed improvements at the intersection of Rosemead Boulevard, Glendon Way, and the
Westbound Interstate 10 (1-10) Ramps Termini (Project) in the City of Rosemead (City). The
Project is located at approximately Post Mile 5.7 on Rosemead Boulevard and Post Mile 26.8
on 1-10.
The primary purpose of this assessment was to identify the Project's effect on operational
level of service (LOS) and vehicular queuing and to ensure that it would not result in adverse
queuing impacts that could affect the westbound 1-10 mainline travel lanes. It also includes a
review of historical collision data at the Project location and a qualitative assessment of the
Project's effect on safety. Finally, it includes a discussion of the potential effect of the Project
on vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project includes the following Project Features:
Widen the east side of Rosemead Boulevard to add an exclusive right -turn lane from
northbound Rosemead Boulevard to the westbound 1-10 easterly on-ramp.
2. Widen westbound Glendon Way to add an exclusive left -turn lane to southbound
Rosemead Boulevard.
3. Eliminate the left -turn lane from the westbound 1-10 westerly off -ramp to westbound
Glendon Way.
4. Reconfigure westbound Glendon Way west of Rosemead Boulevard to provide an
exclusive left -turn lane to the westbound 1-10 westerly on-ramp.
555 W. 5th Street, Suite 3375 Los Angeles, CA 90013 213.683.0088 , 213.683.0033
Transtech Engineers, Inc.
May 4, 2022
Page 2
5. Widen the southwest corner of Glendon Way and the westbound 1-10 westerly on-ramp to
provide a standard right -turn lane and curb return to accommodate right -turn traffic onto
the ramp.
6. Improve signage and striping for the northbound left -turn lane from the westbound 1-10
easterly off -ramp to westbound Glendon Way, particularly through the removal of the
crosswalk which appears to drivers like a limit line.
Figure 1 shows the existing and proposed Project configuration with labels corresponding to the
Project Features listed above.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the Project is to improve traffic flow, enhance traffic safety, and reduce congestion
at the westbound 1-10 ramps to Rosemead Boulevard, which would continue to degrade over time
without improvements. Currently, the adjacent and overlapping operations of the intersections of
Glendon Way & westbound 1-10 westerly ramps, Rosemead Boulevard & Glendon Way, and
Glendon Way & westbound 1-10 easterly ramps result in unclear driver guidance, suboptimal
traffic flow, congestion, and unusual conditions that may increase collisions at various times of
the day.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The analysis herein is based on the Study Area along Rosemead Boulevard from Marshall Street
(approximately 560 feet north of Glendon Way) to 1-10 (approximately 570 feet south of Glendon
Way) and including the two easterly and westerly ramps of westbound 1-10. Four intersections
were analyzed for LOS and queuing:
1. Rosemead Boulevard & Marshall Street
2. 1-10 Westbound Ramps (West) & Glendon Way (unsignalized)
3. Rosemead Boulevard & Glendon Way
4. I-10 Westbound Ramps (East) & Glendon Way (unsignalized)
Figure 2 illustrates the locations and existing lane configurations of the four study intersections.
Roadway System
Primary regional access to the Study Area is provided by 1-10. The following summarizes the
roadway system within the Study Area:
1-10 — 1-10 generally runs in the east -west direction. In the vicinity of the Study Area, 1-10
provides three to five travel lanes in each direction. Access to and from 1-10 in both
directions is available via on and off -ramps at Rosemead Boulevard. The ramps to and
from Rosemead Boulevard utilize collector -distributor roads that allow weaving
movements between the off -ramp and the on-ramp to occur distant from the 1-10 mainline
lanes.
Transtech Engineers, Inc.
May 4, 2022
Page 3
• Marshall Street — Marshall Street is designated a Collector Street by Rosemead General
Plan Circulation Element (Amended February 2018) (Rosemead Circulation Element) and
travels in the east -west direction. It provides four travel lanes, two lanes in each direction,
with left -turn lanes at intersections and a center median in the Study Area.
• Glendon Way — Glendon Way is a Local Street in the Rosemead Circulation Element and
travels in the east -west direction. It provides one lane in each direction west of Rosemead
Boulevard and two westbound lanes east of Rosemead Boulevard, along with left -turn
lanes at intersections. It provides access to the Rosemead Place commercial center at its
eastern termini and 1-10 Westbound via on and off -ramps at Rosemead Boulevard.
• Rosemead Boulevard — Rosemead Boulevard is designated a Major Arterial in the
Rosemead Circulation Element and travels in the north -south direction. It provides four
travel lanes, two lanes in each direction, with left -turn lanes at intersections and a center
median in the Study Area. It provides access to the 1-10 via westbound ramps at Glendon
Way and eastbound ramps on the south side of 1-10.
Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Infrastructure
Limited infrastructure exists in the Study Area to serve non -automobile transportation. An existing
bus stop is provided at the northeast and southwest corners of Intersection #1 for the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Route 266. No existing bicycle lanes or
routes are established within the Study Area. Intersection #1 provides pedestrian facilities such
as crosswalk striping, curb ramps, and pedestrian push buttons. Intersection #3 provides
crosswalks across the west, north, and east legs, but these crosswalks do not in all cases connect
to other pedestrian infrastructure. For example, crosswalks leading to the south side of
Intersection #3 connect to narrow asphalt shoulders on Rosemead Boulevard, and south of 1-10
those shoulders lead onto freeway ramps rather than connecting to other pedestrian
infrastructure.
Collision History
Collision data was collected from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
database for the three-year period of January 2017 through December 2019. While more recent
collision data was available, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted typical traffic patterns for most of
Years 2020 and 2021 and, therefore, the pre -pandemic results were reviewed. Table 1
summarizes the collisions that occurred on Rosemead Boulevard, Glendon Way, or the 1-10
Westbound ramps at Intersections #2, #3, or #41. As Table 1 shows, there were a total of 111
collisions over the three-year period, or approximately one every 10 days. Rear -end collisions
were the most common types recorded, comprising nearly 65% of the total. Rear -end collisions
are typically prevalent in stop -and -start conditions characteristic of congested roadways and often
(as in this case) involve drivers traveling too fast for the conditions. Another common type of
collision was sideswipes (common in merge, diverge, and weaving operations). At Intersections
#2 and #4, rear -end collisions were the most prevalent, making up over half of the total collisions.
' Operations at Intersection #1, Rosemead Boulevard & Marshall Street, are not expected to be affected by the Project
and, therefore, collisions at that location were not assessed.
Transtech Engineers, Inc.
May 4, 2022
Page 4
Collisions with fixed objects, such as guardrails, barriers, and signs also occurred at Intersections
#2 and #4. Although no collisions involving hit objects occurred at Intersection #3, one collision at
Intersection #3 involved a pedestrian. Overall, there were 22 collisions that resulted in injury
(approximately 20%) and no fatal collisions.
TRAFFIC DATA
Peak hour traffic count data at the study intersections was collected in February 2022 for this
assessment and are considered to represent existing conditions without the Project. The existing
peak hourtraffic volumes are shown in Figure 3 and detailed traffic countworksheets are provided
in Attachment A.
Intersections were analyzed under six scenarios, including three without the Project and three
with the Project:
• Existing Conditions without Project
• Existing Conditions with Project
• Future 2025 Conditions without Project (Opening Year)
• Future 2025 Conditions with Project (Opening Year)
• Future 2045 Conditions without Project (Design Year)
• Future 2045 Conditions with Project (Design Year)
Future Traffic Forecasts
For analysis purposes, and consistent with regional travel demand forecasts, traffic is assumed
to increase over time. The Southern California Association of Governments travel demand
forecasting model (SCAG Model) was used to estimate long-term traffic growth at the study
intersections. The SCAG Model uses Year 2018 as an existing year and forecasts traffic to Year
2040. The peak hour growth from Year 2018 to Year 2040 for the 1-10 Westbound mainline and
ramps and Rosemead Boulevard in the Study Area from the SCAG Model was used to calculate
an average annual traffic growth rate for both the morning and afternoon peak hours. For the
morning peak hour, the SCAG Model estimated 0.19% annual growth. For the afternoon peak
hour, the SCAG Model estimated 0.23% annual growth.
Compounded annually from Year 2022 Existing Conditions, the growth for Opening Year (Year
2025) was therefore 0.57% for the morning peak hour and 0.69% for the afternoon peak hour.
The growth for Design Year (Year 2045) was 4.37% for the morning peak hour and 5.29% for the
afternoon peak hour. The resulting peak hour traffic volume forecasts for Opening Year (Year
2025) and Design Year (Year 2045) are shown in Figures 4 and 5, respectively.
Project Effects on Traffic Volume
The Project proposes geometric modifications to improve operational efficiency and enhance
traffic safety. It does not add new "through" roadway capacity to the Study Area and, therefore, is
not expected to affect the travel demand within the Study Area. Therefore, the volumes used in
this analysis for conditions with and without the Project did not change, other than as directly
Transtech Engineers, Inc.
May 4, 2022
Page 5
affected by the Project configuration. Specifically, traffic exiting 1-10 Westbound destined for
westbound Glendon Way could no longer make a northbound left turn at Intersection #2; rather,
it would make a northbound left turn at Intersection #4 then continue westbound through
Intersections #3 and #2.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES
The traffic analysis was conducted using several methodologies, described below, in order to
adequately assess the effects of the Project.
Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition
The Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2016) (HCM 6th
Edition) methodology was used whenever feasible. It estimates average vehicle delay in seconds,
LOS, and queue lengths at each movement through an intersection. It incorporates actual signal
phasing and timing factors as well as peak hour traffic volumes. The LOS ranges from nearly free-
flow conditions at LOS A to stop -and -go conditions at LOS F. HCM 6th Edition can only
accommodate intersections that comply with standard lane configurations and, for signalized
intersections, that use National Electrical Manufacturing Association signal phasing plans.
Highway Capacity Manual 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000) (HCM 2000) methodology, a
predecessor to the HCM 6th Edition methodology, does not have the same limitations on lane
configurations and signal phasing. Like HCM 6th Edition, HCM 2000 calculates delay, LOS, and
queue lengths.
Synchro Queues
Synchro 11, produced by Trafficware, is the software used to implement the HCM 6th Edition and
HCM 2000 methodologies. It also has built-in algorithms to calculate various aspects of
intersection operation, including queue lengths. The Synchro Queues report calculates queue
lengths independent of the HCM 6th Edition and HCM 2000 methodologies.
SimTraffic Queues
SimTraffic is a microscopic model used to simulate traffic in real-world conditions. Each vehicle
in the traffic system is individually tracked through the model and comprehensive operational
measures of effectiveness are collected on every vehicle during each 0.1 -second of the
simulation. Unlike Synchro, SimTraffic measures the full impact of queuing and blocking.
However, because SimTraffic metrics are based on randomized simulation results, the results are
not always consistent when comparing various traffic scenarios.
Transtech Engineers, Inc.
May 4, 2022
Page 6
Methodology Summary
Intersection #1 is the only intersection that meets the criteria for analysis using the HCM 6'h Edition
methodology, which was used to calculate delay, LOS, and queuing at that location. Delay and
LOS at Intersections #2, #3, and #4 were calculated using HCM 2000 methodology. Different
methods were used for calculating queues at each intersection. HCM 6'h Edition was used for
Intersection #1; SimTraffic was used for Intersection #2; Synchro Queues was used for
Intersection #3; and HCM 2000 was used for Intersection #4.
Other Methodologies
The methodologies described above cannot fully capture the existing bottleneck that occurs in
particular at Intersection #4 and the westbound approach to Intersection #3. This bottleneck is
caused by a combination of an unusual geometric configuration of the existing roadway and less
clear roadway striping and signage between the two approaches to Intersection #4. As such, the
existing delay, LOS, and queuing reported below at these locations are substantially more
favorable than observed conditions, even to the point of suggesting that no such bottleneck exists.
ANALYSIS RESULTS: LEVEL OF SERVICE
Table 2 summarizes the delay and LOS results for the Existing, Opening Year, and Design Year
Conditions without and with the development of the Project. As shown, under Existing Conditions
Intersection #1 would operate at LOS B during the morning peak hour and LOS D during the
afternoon peak hour. The remaining three intersections, which are part of the 1-10 Westbound
Ramp complex, currently operate at LOS A or B during both peak hours. With the Project,
Intersections #1, #3, and #4 would experience minimal increases in delay, causing LOS B
conditions at Intersection #4 during the afternoon peak hour. At Intersection #2, the Project would
result in a reduction in delay, improving operating conditions from LOS B to LOS A during the
morning peak hour. Opening Year and Design Year conditions would be similar to Existing
Conditions, with and without the Project, respectively. In no case would the Project cause delay
at any intersection to increase by more than 3.0 seconds per vehicle, nor would any intersection
worsen to an unacceptable operating condition.
Importantly, and as previously noted, the favorable operating conditions reported at Intersections
#3 and #4 (i.e., LOS A and B) do not capture the conditions experienced by drivers at those
locations due to the complexity and unusual roadway configurations. The existing free or
uncontrolled left -turn movement at Intersection #4 from the westbound 1-10 easterly off -ramp to
westbound Glendon Way, joining with the stop -controlled westbound through movement at that
intersection from the adjacent commercial center, leads to driver hesitation and slow movements
and inefficiencies in traffic operations during peak hours. The Project seeks to improve this
condition through a modified physical configuration in conjunction with improved signage and
striping.
HCM analysis worksheets are provided in Attachment B
Transtech Engineers, Inc.
May 4, 2022
Page 7
ANALYSIS RESULTS: QUEUES
Table 3 summarizes key turning movement queueing results for each intersection under the six
analysis scenarios. As shown, the Project has minimal effects on queues at Intersection #1 under
each analysis year.
At Intersection #2, the Project would eliminate the northbound left -turn movement, thus
eliminating those queues and the potential for that movement to block the westbound 1-10
westerly ramp for traffic turning south on Rosemead Boulevard. The Project would also generally
reduce queues for both the eastbound through movement and the westbound left -turn movement,
both of which would no longer be impeded by northbound left -turn movements.
At Intersection #3, the Project would substantially reduce westbound left -turn queues under each
analysis year. It would have minimal effects on all other movements under Existing Conditions.
However, under Opening Year and Design Year Conditions, the Project would result in increases
to the northbound left -turn queue on Rosemead Boulevard of approximately four vehicles
(assuming 25 feet per vehicle in queue). The queue exceeds the 195 -foot turn pocket even under
Existing Conditions, but the Project is anticipated to increase the queue farther, resulting in
potentially more spillover into the northbound through lanes on Rosemead Boulevard during
certain hours. However, as motorists are also able to, and probably, use this northbound left -turn
lane to make a left turn to the westbound on-ramp at intersection #2, it is likely that the
construction of the new excusive northbound right -turn lane from northbound Rosemead
Boulevard to the westbound on-ramp on the east side of Rosemead Boulevard will reduce this
demand and the net effect for the traffic demand in the northbound left -turn lane will be minimal.
In any case, it may be beneficial to consider lengthening this left -turn pocket as part of the design
phase if feasible.
At Intersection #4, the Project is anticipated to modestly increase queues (by less than one car
length) on both the northbound left -turn from the westbound 1-10 easterly on-ramp and the
westbound through movement from the commercial center to the east. All queue lengths are
minimal compared to the available storage space, including on the freeway off -ramp, and
therefore the Project would not result in any queueing impacts at these locations.
Queuing analysis worksheets are provided in Attachment C
POTENTIAL PROJECT ENHANCEMENT FEATURES
During the preparation of this analysis, two potential enhancement features for the Project were
identified that may warrant additional study during the Project's design phase. First, Intersection
#4 may benefit from traffic signal control synchronized with the traffic signal at Intersection #3.
The westbound approach of Intersection #3 is supplied with vehicles from two movements at
Intersection #4: the northbound left turn from the off -ramp and the westbound through movement
from the shopping center, which at times create inefficient traffic operations. A traffic signal
moderating the flow of traffic between these two movements could improve both traffic flow and
enhance traffic safety. Additional analysis will need to be conducted to explore the optimal traffic
signal sequences. One possible signal operation scenario is described as follows: While the
westbound approach to Intersection #3 is stopped with a red light, the westbound approach to
Intersection #4 (i.e., traffic departing the commercial center) would have a green light to populate
Transtech Engineers, Inc.
May 4, 2022
Page 8
the approach to Intersection #3. When the Intersection #3 approach turns green, the westbound
approach to Intersection #4 would clear and then the northbound approach would get a green
light, allowing westbound 1-10 easterly off -ramp traffic to pass freely through Intersections #4 and
#3 until the Intersection #3 signal turns red. Most importantly, this configuration would ensure that
traffic departing the commercial center has an opportunity to proceed even when off -ramp traffic
is heavy.
Second, in conjunction with the traffic signal, if geometrically feasible, it could be beneficial to add
a second left -turn lane from the westbound 1-10 easterly off -ramp to westbound Glendon Way.
With the elimination of the northbound left turn from the westbound 1-10 westerly off -ramp to
Glendon Way (Project Feature #3), additional traffic would shift to this location. A second left -turn
lane, even with a short left -turn pocket to minimize the necessary widening of the freeway off -
ramp, would allow a higher traffic throughput to the westbound approach of Intersection #3,
potentially reducing the amount of green time required for that approach and improving
Intersection #3 operations.
PROJECT IMPACT ON TRANSIT, PEDESTRIAN, AND BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE
The Project would have minimal effect on transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure. As
previously noted, one Metro bus travels on Rosemead Boulevard, with stops at Marshall Street.
The Project would not modify these stops, and its only effect on transit service would be via any
change to delay at Intersections #1 and #3. As described above, the Project would have virtually
no impact on delay at Intersection #1 and a small increase at Intersection #3 (less than 3 seconds
per vehicle), which is effectively imperceptible for a transit bus.
Neither Los Angeles County nor the City have plans to introduce bicycle lanes on Rosemead
Boulevard. There is limited opportunity for such infrastructure without substantial modifications to
existing lane configurations, potentially affecting vehicular travel capacity on Rosemead
Boulevard. Bicycle infrastructure is beyond the scope of this Project and, if requested, should be
separately planned in consultation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
The Project would have a minimal impact on the ability to implement such infrastructure if desired.
As previously noted, pedestrian infrastructure is incomplete in the Study Area, and the existing
configuration includes crosswalks that lead to areas with no corresponding pedestrian facilities.
The decision whether to remove, maintain, or augment the existing pedestrian infrastructure in
conjunction with the Project should be determined in consultation with Caltrans.
PROJECT IMPACT ON ENHANCING TRAFFIC SAFETY
Based on the collision history in Table 1, frequent collisions, particularly rear -end collisions, occur
at the westbound 1-10 ramps at Rosemead Boulevard. The Project would specifically improve
several conflict points that likely are the source of many of the rear -end collisions:
• The addition of an exclusive right -turn lane from northbound Rosemead Boulevard to the
westbound 1-10 easterly on-ramp (Project Feature #1) would separate northbound through
traffic from on-ramp traffic.
Transtech Engineers, Inc.
May 4, 2022
Page 9
The Project would eliminate the left -turn lane from the westbound 1-10 westerly off -ramp
to westbound Glendon Way (Project Feature #3), thus eliminating a conflicting movement
with a very short turn pocket length.
• The Project would improve the northbound left turn from the westbound 1-10 easterly off -
ramp to westbound Glendon Way with signage and striping improvements (Project
Feature #6), which should lead to a more orderly flow of traffic through Intersection #4.
Each of those Project Features described above are expected to directly reduce the likelihood of
rear -end collisions. These features also have the potential to allow vehicles to travel more quickly
onto and off of the freeway ramps, which could increase incidences of other types of collisions.
However, because overall the Project would modify the roadway configuration to reduce unusual
lane conditions, replacing them instead with more familiar lane conditions common to many
freeway ramp systems throughout the region, the Project is overall expected to result in a net
improvement in safety.
A side benefit of a reduced frequency of collisions is a reduction in congestion and delay
associated with collisions. This is especially the case in a physically constrained area like the
Project location, which has channelizing curbs and medians to keep drivers in their lanes.
Therefore, the Project is expected to reduce average annual delay through these ramps.
PROJECT VMT IMPACT
Beginning July 1, 2020, as mandated by Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013), the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that transportation infrastructure projects be analyzed
for potential environmental impacts based on VMT rather than LOS. Transportation Analysis
Under CEQA, First Edition (Caltrans, 2020) Section 5.1 identifies criteria for screening a project
for the need to conduct detailed VMT analysis. As described in that section, a project that does
not increase roadway capacity is not expected to lead to a measurable and substantial increase
in vehicle travel. It specifically notes that a project that consists of the "installation, removal, or
reconfiguration of traffic lanes that are not for through traffic, such as left, right, and U-turn
pockets' is not likely to lead to a measurable and substantial increase in vehicle travel. All of the
Project Features match this description and, therefore, the Project's effect on VMT is expected to
be neutral, and no significant impact would occur.
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis above, the Project would:
reduce collisions and result in a net improvement in safety
• minimally affect intersection delay
improve queues at several key locations, especially by eliminating northbound left -turn
queueing at Intersection #2, which improves delay, queuing, and safety
Transtech Engineers, Inc.
May 4, 2022
Page 10
• worsen the queue for the northbound left -turn movement at Intersection #3, though that
location already experiences queues exceeding the turn pocket length. The increase in
queue may be offset as a result of the construction of the exclusive northbound right -turn
lane to westbound freeway, diminishing demand in this left -turn pocket
• minimally affect transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure or the ability to implement
such infrastructure in the future
• not result in a measurable and substantial increase to VMT
• help to improve traffic flow by reducing congestion and driver confusion.
More analysis is warranted to determine whether traffic signal control should be provided at
Intersection #4, potentially paired with a second northbound left -turn lane if found geometrically
feasible.
9
•
Glendon Way
-------_---.
—gr
G
Y
a
. c
O
•
trJt m
nt R
A
F
,1
II I� ill
.r
in
tis
Y-
Marshall:St
s
T ^
ttr R I
f �
n - a
1 _ f
4 _
(ag99�i' i i
4 y
tti 9
I
(LEGEND
QSignalized Intersection ® Unsignalized Intemectlon
4
N
wmsw=
STUDY AREA & ANALYZED INTERSECTIONS FIGURE
2
m
112. 1-10 WB Ramps (West) 8
-O r
154(185)
ry
k- 52(143)
F 77(183)
A? + la
r 158(224)
44(63) a
R t r
89(251) -►
m g
103(86) y
tee"'
R. -R R 1(2)
�- 108(210)
d L r 326(386)
137(196) - I �) r,
26(32) - ry $
mm
N O
112. 1-10 WB Ramps (West) 8
mn
154(185)
Marshall Street
t 39(107)
36(96)
12(2l)-,4
V) t n„
134(179)'i(--
�
tee"'
1. Rosemead Boulevard &
112. 1-10 WB Ramps (West) 8
3. Rosemead Boulevard &
4. 1-10 WB
Marshall Street
Glendon WayL
Glendon Way
Glendon
iL
TTail
::
` _ Mar1hall'St
O
i 'Fax
b.
i'
::
b.
'I
fi�
��_
,1
-
■kyr
r
II
a
—Glenaon Way- _---
F 72(177)
V)IW
na`
m�
(East) &
ILEGEND n
Q Signalized Intersection ® Unsignal'Ized Intersection a(a) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . Negligible Volume V
msm.
EXISTING (YEAR 2022) CONDITIONS FIGURE
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES I F 3
ibson w
1
I 1�
=p- --
i a y
n t
b
--GIe�Con'✓Ja9 — _ - Q 2 r
GENE)
Q Signalized Intersection ® Unsignalized Intersection N(#) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ' Negligible Volume N
N 10 r
OPENING YEAR (YEAR 2025) CONDITIONS FIGURE
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4
No
r ry $
52(144)
_
f '-
tG. 1(2)
ry
155(186)
F 77(184)
F 109(211)
F 39(108)
L
r 159(226)
/1 +
r 328(389)
/1 y.
r 36(97)
F 72(178)
44(63) -,4
T) t r
138(197) —►
1%
12(21) }
') t r*
r
90(253) —►
26(32) -)1
135(180) -x--
n�N
`gym
104(87)it
a�a
mm
n�r.
am
mn
t. Rosemead Boulevard &
2. 1-10 WB Ramps (West) & 3. Rosemead Boulevard &
4. 1-10 WB Ramps (East) &
Marshall Street
Glendon Way Glendon Way
Glendon Way
1
I 1�
=p- --
i a y
n t
b
--GIe�Con'✓Ja9 — _ - Q 2 r
GENE)
Q Signalized Intersection ® Unsignalized Intersection N(#) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ' Negligible Volume N
N 10 r
OPENING YEAR (YEAR 2025) CONDITIONS FIGURE
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4
Sibson
c—Mzrshaa
r I
a_ '9
P.
1
t
GEND
Q Signalized Intersection ® unsignalized Intersection n(n) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ' Negligible Volume N
xma sa.
DESIGN YEAR (YEAR 2045) CONDITIONSFIGURE
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
'Z N p
b
m m g
it 54(151)It-1(2)
"'
n r
161(195)
80(193)
t 113(221)
tO
F 41(113)
41
r 165(236)
A?
r 340(406)
y
r 38(101)
a— 75(186)
46(66)
V) 'f' W
143(206) —►
V, r,
13(22)
R 't' �,
r
93(264) —►
— —
-.9
27(34) -
0
14o(la8) y
m
F n
108(91)
N
a i
`v .-
e��
mm
N -
n
�n
N
1. Rosemead Boulevard &2.
I-10 WB Ramps (West) &
3. Rosemead Boulevard &
4. 1-10 WB Ramps (East) &
Marshall Street
Glendon Way
Glendon Way
Glendon Way
c—Mzrshaa
r I
a_ '9
P.
1
t
GEND
Q Signalized Intersection ® unsignalized Intersection n(n) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ' Negligible Volume N
xma sa.
DESIGN YEAR (YEAR 2045) CONDITIONSFIGURE
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Gibson _
R 1(2)
I F 108(210)
L) ♦ L r 328(386)
137(196) —
26(32) -A
Marshall Street Glendon Way
112. I-10 WB Ramps (West) &
o r r
N
52(143)
F 77(183)
AJ a
r 158(224)
44(63)
? if
89(251) -->
a o .o
103(86)
aim
R 1(2)
I F 108(210)
L) ♦ L r 328(386)
137(196) —
26(32) -A
Marshall Street Glendon Way
112. I-10 WB Ramps (West) &
_o
mn`
tL 154(185)
.41
'O
F 102(228)
}p.. t �j:.y�.t
Ar- 36(96)
N3"
` �
F 72(177)
12(21)11
V)tr*
V) ?r1%(179)-
—
�
CIN
v
nm
3. Rosemead Boulevard &
4.�ppZ
I-10 WB Ramps (East) &
Glendon Way
Glendon Way
1. Rosemead Boulevard &
112. I-10 WB Ramps (West) &
.41
t
ll
f.. !" r`�
}p.. t �j:.y�.t
0i
N3"
` �
9
kr iM1i
nIt
GEND
Q Signalized Intersection ® Unsignalized Intersection n(x) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ' Negligible Volumex
NNbSuk
EXISTING WITH PROJECT (YEAR 2022) CONDITIONS FIGURE
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 6
ibson
bWpmfWv�mu�Nry, Fc
(-
it,
m
Glendon Way
g
111 52(144)
1
�o
^ N
155(186)
Ary $
r n(16a)
` :
r 1o909 (z11)
^'
.— 102(230)
L) + (a
r 169(226)
L
r 328(389)
Al .`
r 36(97)
r 72(178)
44(63) a
1% 't'
138(197) ->•
�,
12(2l) -O
V) t n„
tw
90(253) -►
26(32) --*
g
135(180)
v M
M m
104(87)mom
v
N
1. Rosemead Boulevard &
Marshall Street a
i � 7h• ,
WB Ramps (West;
9don Way
—h'arshail S
I FrFNn
& 3. Rosemead Boulevard & 114. 1-10 WB Ramps (East) &
Glendon Way Glendon Way
IIlt
e O�tir a
Ill
11 i�
se
tl
1. e
s tiF r t t
ttt
� � 4
�lihttt���1
QSignalized Intersection ® Unsignalized Intersection a(a) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
OPENING YEAR WITH PROJECT (YEAR 2025) CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
4'
Negligible Volume N
xmmsm.
FIGURE
7
it,
Glendon Way
I FrFNn
& 3. Rosemead Boulevard & 114. 1-10 WB Ramps (East) &
Glendon Way Glendon Way
IIlt
e O�tir a
Ill
11 i�
se
tl
1. e
s tiF r t t
ttt
� � 4
�lihttt���1
QSignalized Intersection ® Unsignalized Intersection a(a) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
OPENING YEAR WITH PROJECT (YEAR 2025) CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
4'
Negligible Volume N
xmmsm.
FIGURE
7
ibson
0
00
=�'
R 54(151)
1(z)
m r
4C 161(195)
m
F 80(193)
F 113(221)
F 107(240)
r 165(238)
r 340(406)
r 38(101)
F 75(186)
46(66) -0
V) t r
143(206) -►
13(22) -0
V) t r*
r
93(264) —>•
-- —
2 o
27(34)' 4
S
140(188) -4
-�
n
108(91)14.
n
ry O
m
N p M
N
<
1. Rosemead Boulevard &
2. 1-10 WB Ramps (West) &
3. Rosemead Boulevard &
4. 1-10 WB Ramps (East) &
Marshall Street
Glendon Way
I I Glendon Way
I Glendon Way
QSignalized Intersection #� Unsignalized Intersection a(a) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Negligible Volume N
wasps
DESIGN YEAR WITH PROJECT (YEAR 2045) CONDITIONSFIGURE
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 8
lJ
W
a
wF
J Z
m Q
F
Q.
O
H
2
2
0
U)
J
J
O
U
L
d
Oy
C
d L
t y
N
i N
C
d
O
NU
O
:
U
p
O
O
N
00
0
m
=
CL
a
�
N
N
co
d
a
fq
C
W10
d
N
d
C
c
c
0
.y
_
y
O
N
L
w=
O
O
O
o
O
3 mA
y
LL
E
3
2
A
H
T
A
>�
m
�
m
o
a
o
d
�
N
C
m
v
E
m
E
C
�
ZILLE
TABLE 2
INTERSECTION DELAY AND LEVELS OF SERVICE
Notes:
Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle. LOS = Level of Service.
[a] Intersection analysis based on HCM 6th Edition methodology implemented in Synchro.
[b] Intersection analysis based on HCM 2000 methodology implemented in Synchro.
Conditions Without
Conditions With Project
Peak
Project
No.
Intersection
Hour
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
o Delay
Existing Year 2022
1.
Rosemead BI &
AM
19.9
B19.9
B
0.0
[a]
Marshall St
PM
35.0
D
35.2
D
0.2
2.
1-10 WB Ramps (West) &
AM
10.6
B10.0
A
-0.6
[b]
Glendon Way
PM
13.4
B
11.5
B
-1.9
3.
Rosemead BI &
AM
9.1
A
9.8
A
0.7
[b]
Glendon Way
PM
15.7
B
16.3
B
0.6
4.
1-10 WB Ramps (East) &
AM
6.9
A
7.5
A
0.6
[b]
Glendon Way
PM
8.0
A
10.4
B
2.4
Opening Year 2025
1.
Rosemead BI &
AM
19.9
B
20.0
B
0.1
[a]
Marshall St
PM
35.5
D
35.7
D
0.2
2.
1-10 WB Ramps (West) &
AM
10.7
B
10.1
B
-0.6
[b]
Glendon Way
PM
13.6
B
11.6
B
-2.0
3.
Rosemead BI &
AM
9.1
A
9.7
A
0.6
[b]
Glendon Way
PM
15.8
B
17.7
B
1.9
4.
1-10 WB Ramps (East) &
AM
7.0
A
7.5
A
0.5
[b]
Glendon Way
PM
8.0
A
10.5
B
2.5
Design Year 2045
1.
Rosemead BI &
AM
20.7
C
20.7
C
0.0
[a]
Marshall St
PM
37.9
D
38.2
D
0.3
2.
1-10 WB Ramps (West) &
AM
11.0
B
10.3
B
-0.7
[b]
Glendon Way
PM
14.5
B
12.1
B
-2.4
3.
Rosemead BI &
AM
9.4
A
9.9
A
0.5
[b]
Glendon Way
PM
16.3
B
18.6
B
2.3
4.
1-10 WB Ramps (East) &
AM
7.0
A
7.6
A
0.6
[b]
Glendon Way
PM
8.2
A
11.2
B
3.0
Notes:
Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle. LOS = Level of Service.
[a] Intersection analysis based on HCM 6th Edition methodology implemented in Synchro.
[b] Intersection analysis based on HCM 2000 methodology implemented in Synchro.
o�s
o o
�
olio e e
v
r a
6 y
U Q
Y
om
_.�
O
U
I
co3o
U Q
III
p
Oa
O olm
o
u
o°L
v t o
.-
„
m m
a •�
.-
U;6
Qc
r o
0 0
0 0
i t d
U Q
Z
W
c i
V
m
m
g` c
-
�3u
y
I
u5
3
3
I
o
m
h t
E
> 3 3
m
9
� E
� O O
9
•n
a
ii
�
•n
aw
�e la�
a
oy �o �oiocpa°
�
moo°
au
aN
�3
a3
Attachment A
Traffic Counts
ID: 22-020055-002
City: Rosemead
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Rosemead Blvd & Marshall St
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Rosemead Blvd
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM I AM 24 1267 83 1 1
= NONE NOON 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Y
05:00 PM - 06:00 PMI PM 40 1036 172 5
AM NOON PM /ri It 4 U
1 0 2 1 0
1351 0 1288 a
0 0 0 0
t 11
44 0 63 1 1
89 0 251 ♦ 2
103 0 86 'J� 0
I _
PM
AM NOON PM
Totals (AM)
a
N
r
N
N
m
52
+
LO
~L
44J 52
894
O
� 77
10314
w
A
f
H
H
rs 158
io
V
0
0
0
1534
V
Totals (NOON)
1 0
4
0
0
4
o:
+
t 0
0.*
O«
o
0,4
coo
�4
t
ro
I F
Totals
(PM)
a
M
o
E
0 NOON
+
~N
63J
t 143
251.► <4>4.183
O PM
00
0
8674
}
rr 224
i
�O
o
w 1
PM
AM
1274
0
1311
4
Day: Wednesday
Date: 2/2/2022
AM I 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
00N NONE
PM 5:00 PM - 07:00 PM
30�oEM
PM
NOON
AM
0 '`
143
0
52
2 ♦
183
0
77
1 r
224
0
158
0
0
0
0
30�oEM
Rosemead Blvd
0
1
2
1
I&
V
n
`
'1
t
r4r 158
l0
V
1360
14
65
1100
193 PM
0
0
0
0
O NOON
1534
6
34
1177
97 AM
Rosemead Blvd
PM NOON AM
v
N
w
9
Totals (AM)
Pedestrians(Crosswalks)
.yy
�o
O
T
W i
z
z Q
z
¢ 2
a
o O
9y ~ O
r4r 158
l0
V
O�o
0 C
0 0
0�
PM
NOON
04-
0
04r0
+.0
01
014 f
0 0
O PM
O NOON
AM
0
m
N
+
0 AM
AM
0
183
8674 *
rn N
rr 224
N
U AM
NOON
0 *
—
*
0 NOON
PM
0
--;7000
y
oz
O PM
00
0
a,, a
+
Z Q
i
¢
i
�O
O
'00�
PM NOON AM
v
N
w
9
Totals (AM)
r,
N N
W
+
~
44.t t 52
89yO
� 77
10314 *
W F+
A F+
r4r 158
l0
V
V
Totals (NOON)
4t`
JJto5 4
04r0
+.0
01
014 f
0 0
0 r
Totals
(PM)
m
N
+
~t
63-* 143
25144
183
8674 *
rn N
rr 224
N
O
W
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
110 WB On/Off Ramp (West side) & Glendon Way
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
ID: 22-020055-003 1
110 WB On/Off Ramp (West Side) Day: Wednesday
City: Rosemead sioud_ : , Date: 2/2/2022
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM I AM
0
= NONE NOO
Y
w
M 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM PM
AM NOON PM
173 1 0 1 333 a
1 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0
2 0 1 0
4J
0 1 0 0
T
1 0
0
b 0
c
m
0 0
0
41
1 ♦
210
0
108
0 r
137 0
196
—10'0
0 1C
26 0
32
"V 1
352
AM NOON
PM
0
Totals (AM)
�o
PM 0
PM
I
O O I
NOON
J
`
r� ,
AM
1374
O « 108
261h
0 AM
0 AM
AM 0
m
f ri326
o w F
NOON 0 f
PM 0
w
N
w
f
0 NOON
0 PM
Totals (NOON)
t2
�0
CD
00
z
CD
F%
1
0
2
4
AM 1 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
IOON NONE
PM 5:00 PM -07:00 PM
=:> 397 1 0 1450
PM
NOON
AM
0 i
2
0
1
1 ♦
210
0
108
0 r
385
0
326
0 1C
1
0
0
=:> 397 1 0 1450
170 WB On/Off Ramp(Westside)
0
0
1.5
0.5
b
s1ht&
+
t0
O
O u
417
0
121
0
199 PM
0
0
o
o
0 NOO
352
0
63
0
313 AM
170 WB On/Off Ramp(Westside)
PM NOON AM
0
0
c
z
H
:z
a
a
v
Totals (AM)
0
0
0 111 ��
4
a Pedewians (Crosswalks)
�Oo
'�
0j
+
t0
O
O u
o
z a
o"
P`"
a z
a
O
O
04
0.0
01h f
00
O
Totals
(PM)
I N O
O
01
00
1964 ®
ro
0
�o
PM 0
0 0 0 0
y
0L
0 PM
NOON 0
0 NOON
Totals
(PM)
AM 0
0 AM
0 AM
AM 0
I N
O
NOON 0 f
PM 0
y
4_
f
0 NOON
0 PM
of
t2
�0
CD
00
z
CD
F%
1964
O
+-210
O
u
o
z a
a i
I
a
O
OQ
321h
f
rr385
OO"'
r
�
PM NOON AM
0
0
c
z
H
:z
a
a
v
Totals (AM)
0
0
~t,1
o.f +
1374 O
f 108
261
h f
m o
r 326
r
w F
w
w
Totals (NOON)
too
—jo4i+
tL
0.►
4.0
01h f
00
pro
O
Totals
(PM)
I N O
N
of i t2
1964 ®
4.210
32.4 f
o
rr 385
N
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Rosemead Blvd & Glendon Way
Peak Hour Tuming Movement Count
ID: 22-020055-004
Rosemead Blvd
Day: Wednesday
City: Rosemead
SOUTHBOUND
Date: 2/2/2022
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
AM 321 1212 1
0
1406
AM
7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
0
= NONE
NOON 0 0
0
0
0
NOON
NONE
y
m
Y
a 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
PM 323 1010 1
PM
5:00 PM - 07:00 PM
A
°o
ti
1
1569
NOON
PM
4 ♦
4
U
4
PM
NOON AM
1 2
0
0
1
i
185
0
154
0
599
a
•
•
0
♦
107
0
39
0
Signalized
1
r
96
0
36
a
0
0
o.�
I
0
1 1
0
0
0 •AM
0
3581
0 3981
21
0
NOON
PM
0
0
� 0
0.99
0.96526
0
376
0
179
i 1
0
1
2.5 0.5
NOON
PM
h
■
PM
NOON AM
Totals (AM)
PM 1287
2
169 1362
525
PM
Totals (AM)
rN
N N
m ti ti
NOON O
O
O
O
O
NOON
N
N N
M ti N
+ ~t
a ~t
12�� 154
0-1� O «39
AM 1382
0
57 1240
375
AM
12�� 154
Oy ®x.39
1347 l 36
r
NORTHBOUND
1341 r36
N J F
Rosemead Blvd
J A N
I
AO N
O
Totals (NOON)
Totals (NOON)
O O OPedestrians
L
'�.y�'
(Crosswalks)
�°qr
qy
O O O
Lo
41+ 4
O' o
IL
Oy O �0
Q
Q n
O
o
Z a
o
a 2
n
p
0+
Oj ts0
0� �0
0-4i0
0: r0
hf rr
O O O I
C,
Pm
C, 0 000
~ ~
h f e+
O O O
NOON Q
Q
NOON
Totals (PMI)
AM
00
Totals (PM)
AM
O
N O
NOON 0
PM
f 0
NOON
N O
21j� + ~t 185
�O
o o
O O
o
j!
`
21:� + ~t 185
0� ® 107
z°o
z°o
2
O
0.+ ® 107
1791
h f e+i 96
"'
z a
a z
u a
�
0 0
179.4 f �i 96
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
110 WB On/Off Ramp (East side) & Glendon Way
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
110 WB O /Off Ra E t id
ID: 22-020055-005
n mp ( as se)
Day: Wednesday
City: Rosemead
SOUTHBOUND
Date: 2/2/2022
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
AM0 0
0
0
0 AM
7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
0
o NONE
x
Y
NOON 0 0
0
0
0 NOON
NONE
y
m
Q
a 05:00 PM - 06:00
PM
PM 0 0
0
0
0 PM
5:00 PM - 07:00 PM
M
00
N
AM NOON
PM
4J ♦
4
L*
4
PM
NOON AM
0 0
0
0
0 L
0
0
0
239
0
388
f�
•
•
2 4-177
0
72
a
3
0
0
0
0 1 -Way
Stop(NB)
0 r
0
0
0
�
a
0
0
0
J 0
0
0
us
0 0
°
0
687
0 1080
0
U'
AM
NOON
0
0
0
0
0.90
0.96
374
0
528
i 1
164
0
74
0
1
0 1
AM NOON
PM
4n
h
t ,I
PM
NOON AM
(AM)
PM 528
0
211
0 164 PM
Totals (AM))
(Totals
J L
NOON 0
0
0
0 0 NOON
0 O O 1
1
•� + 4
_
J0j•� + 1»t10
p= t p
OyO � 72
AM 374
0
167
0 74 AM
0� O f 72
3741
s 0
NORTHBOUND
3741 t'0
r o J
O A
110 WB On/Off Ramp (East side)
hof r� r
m p I
J
J
Totals (NOON)
Totals (NOON)
0 0 0 L
QF Pedestrians
(Crosswalks)
.1�
y4p,
J O O O 1
L.�
41 4 4
0� LO
p0-0. O �p
O ?fid
O a' d
O
z0
Oa
z
z0
a z
O
M 9% O
O
41 4 4
0.# t0
0.► t0
pi t0
01 i0
O O O
F
000
0001
~ ~
h f r+
7 O O O
I
NOON Q
Q NOON
Totals (PM)
AM 0
AM 0
0 AM
0 AM
Totals (PM)
NOON 0 f
PM 04-
'' 0 NOON
PM
+ 4
-450
L 0
t�
—j .J 4 4
0! t 0
0.* O 177
O I
O +y a
o
a
o
a z
O
d O
o� ®� 177
5281h f ri0
O
F
O ayOy
zz
528:
#
:0
O
r A
N 41
Attachment B
Intersection Level of Service Worksheets
Attachment B
Intersection Level of Service Worksheets
Existing Conditions without Project
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St
04118/2022
--I'
--b.
--v
t
-\
T
'-
1
-'
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
T'l
+Ti
►j
tt
r
TT+
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
44
89
103
158
77
52
40
1177
97
84
1267
24
Future Volume (veh/h)
44
89
103
158
77
52
40
1177
97
84
1267
24
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/hM
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
48
97
112
172
84
57
43
1279
105
91
1377
26
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
62
162
145
201
355
222
57
2068
922
114
2192
41
Arrive On Green
0.03
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.17
0.17
0.06
1.00
1.00
0.06
0.61
0.61
Sat Flow, veh/h
1781
1777
1585
1781
2098
1313
1781
3554
1585
1781
3568
67
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
48
97
112
172
70
71
43
1279
105
91
685
718
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1634
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1858
Q Serve(g_s), s
3.2
6.3
8.3
11.4
4.1
4.5
2.9
0.0
0.0
6.0
29.1
29.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.2
6.3
8.3
11.4
4.1
4.5
2.9
0.0
0.0
6.0
29.1
29.1
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.80
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
62
162
145
201
301
276
57
2068
922
114
1092
1142
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.60
0.77
0.86
0.23
0.26
0.76
0.62
0.11
0.80
0.63
0.63
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
131
267
238
275
410
377
96
2068
922
171
1092
1142
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.89
0.89
0.89
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
57.4
52.4
53.3
52.3
43.1
43.3
55.7
0.0
0.0
55.4
14.5
14.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
18.3
3.5
8.5
17.4
0.4
0.5
16.8
1.2
0.2
14.2
2.7
2.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(96%),veh/In
3.2
5.3
6.6
10.1
3.3
3.4
2.7
0.6
0.1
5.7
17.6
18.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
75.8
55.9
61.9
69.7
43.5
43.8
72.6
1.2
0.2
69.6
17.3
17.2
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
E
D
D
E
A
A
E
B
B
Approach Vol, veh/h
257
313
1427
1494
Approach Delay, s/veh
62.2
58.0
3.3
20.4
Approach LOS
E
E
A
C
Timer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
12.2
74.3
18.0
15.4
8.3
78.2
8.7
24.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
8.0
2.0
13.4
10.3
4.9
31.1
5.2
6.5
Green Ext Time (p -c), s
0.1
14.6
0.2
0.7
0.0
12.1
0.0
0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:03 pm 02/28/2022 Existing Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: 1-10 WB Ramps (West) & Glendon Way 04/18/2022
Lane Configurations
Sign Control
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly Flow rate (vph)
I�l��li�3 7
NBL NBT NBR SBL
Direction, Lane #
Stop
EB 2
WB 1
Yield
NB 1
Stop
Volume Total (vph)
149
Stop
0
137
26
326
108
1 63
0
0
0
0 1
0
137
26
326
108
1 63
0
0
0
0 1
0.92
0.92
0,92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0
149
28
354
117
1 68
0
0
0
0 1
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total (vph)
149
28
354
118
6B
1
Volume Left (vph)
0
0
354
0
68
0
Volume Right (vph)
0
28
0
1
0
1
Hadj (s)
0.03
-0.67
0.53
0.03
0.23
-0.57
Departure Headway (s)
5.2
4.5
5.4
4.9
5.6
4.9
Degree Utilization, x
0.21
0.03
0.53
0.16
0.11
0.00
Capacity (veh1h)
677
772
656
721
591
645
Control Delay (s)
8.4
6.4
13.1
7.6
9.2
7.9
Approach Delay (s)
8.1
11.7
9.2
7.9
Approach LOS
A
B
A
A
Intersection Summa
Delay 10.6
Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:03 pm 02/2812022 Existing Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way 04/18/2022
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL
Lane Configurations
►j
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
r
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
d
If
Vi
ttA
15
Tt
If
Traffic Volume (vph)
12
0
134
36
39
154
57
1240
375 0
1213
321
Future Volume (vph)
12
0
134
36
39
154
57
1240
375 0
1213
321
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.85
Fit Protected
0.95
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Said. Flow (prot)
1770
1583
1819
1583
1770
4908
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.67
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Said. Flow (perm)
1243
1583
1819
1583
1770
4908
3539
1583
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)
13
0
146
39
42
167
62
1348
408 0
1318
349
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
132
0
0
89
0
31
0 0
0
97
Lane Group Flow (vph)
13
0
14
0
81
78
62
1725
0 0
1318
252
Tum Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
8
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
8
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
8.4
99.4
86.5
86.5
Effective Green, g (s)
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
8.4
99.4
86.5
86.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.07
0.83
0.72
0.72
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
120
153
175
153
123
4065
2551
1141
v/s Ratio Prot
0.04
c0.35
c0.37
v/s Ratio Perm
0.01
0.01
0.04
c0.05
0.16
v/c Ratio
0.11
0.09
0.46
0.51
0.50
0.42
0.52
0.22
Uniform Delay, d1
49.5
49.4
51.3
51.5
53.8
2.7
7.5
5.6
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.43
0.04
Incremental Delay, d2
0.4
0.3
1.9
2.6
3.2
0.3
0.6
0.3
Delay (s)
49.9
49.7
53.2
54.1
57.0
3.1
3.8
0.6
Level of Service
D
D
D
D
E
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
49.7
53.8
4.9
3.1
Approach LOS
D
D
A
A
Intersection Summar
HCM 2000 Control Delay
9.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
59.7% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:03 pm 02128/2022 Existing Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 04/10/2022
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (Veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly Flow rate (vph)
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 cord vol
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity veh/h)
WBL WBT NBL NBR
0
0
0
72
167
74
0
0
0
72
167
74
Yield
182
0
Stop
Free
0
0%
80
cSH
0%
0%
1623
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0
0
0
78
182
80
12.8
12.8
7.5
0.0
None
B
364
0
364
364
0
364
0
364
364
0
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.1
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
2.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
100
100
100
84
89
501
1085
541
501
1623
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
Volume Total
39
39
182
80
Volume Left
0
0
182
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
80
cSH
501
501
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft)
6
6
9
0
Control Delay (s)
12.8
12.8
7.5
0.0
Lane LOS
B
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
12.8
5.2
Approach LOS
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
6.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization
19.3%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:03 pm 02/2812022 Existing Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St
04/18/2022
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
TT•
I
tT+
Tt
r
R
TT+
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
44
89
103
158
77
52
40
1177
97
84
1267
24
Future Volume (veh/h)
44
89
103
158
77
52
40
1177
97
84
1267
24
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Packing Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow,vehlMn
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
48
97
112
172
84
57
43
1279
105
91
1377
26
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap,vehlh
62
162
145
201
355
222
57
2068
922
114
2192
41
Arrive On Green
0.03
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.17
0.17
0.06
1.00
1.00
0.06
0.61
0.61
Sat Flow,vehm
1781
1777
1585
1781
2098
1313
1781
3554
1585
1781
3568
67
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
48
97
112
172
70
71
43
1279
105
91
685
718
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1634
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1858
Q Serve(g_s), s
3.2
5.3
8.3
11.4
4.1
4.5
2.9
0.0
0.0
6.0
29.1
29.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.2
6.3
8.3
11.4
4.1
4.5
2.9
0.0
0.0
6.0
29.1
29.1
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.80
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
62
162
145
201
301
276
57
2068
922
114
1092
1142
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.60
0.77
0.86
0.23
0.26
0.76
0.62
0.11
0.80
0.63
0.63
Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh
131
267
238
275
410
377
96
2068
922
171
1092
1142
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.89
0.89
0.89
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
57.4
52.4
53.3
52.3
43.1
43.3
55.7
0.0
0.0
55.4
14.5
14.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
18.3
3.5
8.5
17.4
0.4
0.5
16.8
1.2
0.2
14.2
2.7
2.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In
3.2
5.3
6.6
10.1
3.3
3.4
2.7
0.6
0.1
5.7
17.6
18.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),slveh
75.8
55.9
61.9
69.7
43.5
43.8
72.6
1.2
0.2
69.6
17.3
17.2
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
E
D
D
E
A
A
E
B
B
Approach Vol, vehm
257
313
1427
1494
Approach Delay, s/veh
62.2
58.0
3.3
20.4
Approach LOS
E
E
A
C
Timer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
12.2
74.3
18.0
15.4
8.3
78.2
8.7
24.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
8.0
2.0
13.4
10.3
4.9
31.1
5.2
6.5
Green Ext Time (pc), s
0.1
14.6
0.2
0.7
0.0
12.1
0.0
0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
19.9
HCM 6th LOS
B
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:03 pm 02/28/2022 Existing Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: 1-10 WB Ramps
(West)
& Glendon Way
04/18/2022
-,*
-•
-�*
r
'-
4-
4\
t
�-
1
Kovement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
►j
T*
+T*
Sign Control
Stop
Yield
Stop
Stop
Traffic Volume (vph)
0
137
26
326
108
1
63
0
0
0
0
1
Future Volume (vph)
0
137
26
326
108
1
63
0
0
0
0
1
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
149
28
354
117
1
68
0
0
0
0
1
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total (vph)
149
28
354
118
68
1
Volume Left (vph)
0
0
354
0
68
0
Volume Right (vph)
0
28
0
1
0
1
Hatt (s)
0.03
-0.67
0.53
0.03
0.23
-0.57
Departure Headway (s)
5.2
4.5
5.4
4.9
5.6
4.9
Degree Utilization, x
0.21
0.03
0.53
0.16
0.11
0.00
Capacity (veh/h)
677
772
656
721
591
645
Control Delay (s)
8.4
6.4
13.1
7.6
9.2
7.9
Approach Delay (s)
8.1
11.7
9.2
7.9
Approach LOS
A
B
A
A
Intersection Summa
Delay 10.6
Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:03 pm 02/28/2022 Existing Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way 04/1812022
Intersection Summa
HCM 2000 Control Delay
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WEIR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
I
P
*t
if
►)
TTS
TT
if
Traffic Volume (vph)
12
0
134
36
39
154
57
1240
375
0 1213
321
Future Volume (vph)
12
0
134
36
39
154
57
1240
375
0 1213
321
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Lane Ufil. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
0.95
1.00
Fn
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
1583
1819
1583
1770
4908
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.67
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Said. Flow (perm)
1243
1583
1819
1583
1770
4908
3539
1583
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)
13
0
146
39
42
167
62
1348
408
0 1318
349
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
132
0
0
89
0
31
0
0 0
97
Lane Group Flow (vph)
13
0
14
0
81
78
62
1725
0
0 1318
252
Tum Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
8
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
8
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
8.4
99.4
86.5
86.5
Effective Green, g (s)
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
8.4
99.4
86.5
86.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.07
0.83
0.72
0.72
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
120
153
175
153
123
4065
2551
1141
v/s Ratio Prot
0.04
c0.35
c0.37
v/s Ratio Perm
0.01
0.01
0.04
c0.05
0.16
v/c Ratio
0.11
0.09
0.46
0.51
0.50
0.42
0.52
0.22
Uniform Delay, dl
49.5
49.4
51.3
51.5
53.8
2.7
7.5
5.6
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.43
0.04
Incremental Delay, d2
0.4
0.3
1.9
2.6
3.2
0.3
0.6
0.3
Delay (s)
49.9
49.7
53.2
54.1
57.0
3.1
3.8
0.6
Level of Service
D
D
D
D
E
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
49.7
53.8
4.9
3.1
Approach LOS
D
D
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM 2000 Control Delay
9.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
59.7% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:03 pm 0212812022 Existing Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 04/10/2022
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (Veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly Flow rate (vph)
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
IC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
458
0
458
458
458
0
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
NBL
NBR
0
229
0
tt
0
r
0
0
0
177
211
164
0
0
0
177
211
164
Yield
21
21
Stop
Free
Control Delay (s)
0%
15.8
7,6
0%
0%
C
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0
0
0
192
229
178
458
0
458
458
458
0
458
458
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.0 3.3 3.5
100 100 100
429 1085 458
4.0
55
None
4.1
2.2
86
429 1623
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2 ;
Volume Total
96
96
229
178
Volume Left
0
0
229
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
178
cSH
429
429
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.22
0.22
0.14
0.10
Queue Length 95th (ft)
21
21
12
0
Control Delay (s)
15.8
15.8
7,6
0.0
Lane LOS
C
C
A
Approach Delay (s)
15.8
4.3
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
23.2%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 2 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-101:59 pm 03/02/2022 Existing Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
Existing Conditions with Project
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St
04/18/2022
---*
--*
f-
F-
t
4,
t
r
1
-4/
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
I
tl,
+I+
TT
r
Vi
TA
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
44
89
103
158
77
52
40
1177
97
84
1267
24
Future Volume (veh/h)
44
89
103
158
77
52
40
1177
97
84
1267
24
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow,veh/hM
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
48
97
112
172
84
57
43
1279
105
91
1377
26
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap,veh/h
62
162
145
201
355
222
57
2068
922
114
2192
41
Arrive On Green
0.03
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.17
0.17
0.06
1.00
1.00
0.06
0.61
0.61
Sat Flow,veh/h
1781
1777
1585
1761
2098
1313
1781
3554
1585
1781
3566
67
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
48
97
112
172
70
71
43
1279
105
91
685
718
Grp Sat Flow(s),vehm4n
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1634
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1858
Q Serve(g_s), s
3.2
6.3
8.3
11.4
4.1
4.5
2.9
0.0
0.0
6.0
29.1
29.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.2
6.3
8.3
11.4
4.1
4.5
2.9
0.0
0.0
6.0
29.1
29.1
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.80
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
62
162
145
201
301
276
57
2068
922
114
1092
1142
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.60
0.77
0.86
0.23
0.26
0.76
0.62
0.11
0.80
0.63
0.63
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
131
267
238
275
410
377
96
2068
922
171
1092
1142
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.94
0.94
0.94
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
57.4
52.4
53.3
52.3
43.1
43.3
55.7
0.0
0.0
55.4
14.5
14.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
18.3
3.5
8.5
17.4
0.4
0.5
17.7
1.3
0.2
14.2
2.7
2.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In
3.2
5.3
6.6
10.1
3.3
3.4
2.8
0.7
0.1
5.7
17.6
18.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
75.8
55.9
61.9
69.7
43.5
43.8
73.4
1.3
0.2
69.6
17.3
17.2
Ln_Grp LOS
E
E
E
E
D
D
E
A
A
E
B
B
Approach Vol, veh/h
257
313
1427
1494
Approach Delay, s/veh
62.2
58.0
3.4
20.4
Approach LOS
E
E
A
C
Timer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
12.2
74.3
18.0
15.4
8.3
78.2
8.7
24.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
8.0
2.0
13.4
10.3
4.9
31.1
5.2
6.5
Green Ext Time (p -c), s
0.1
14.6
0.2
0.7
0.0
12.1
0.0
0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
19.9
HCM 6th LOS
B
Scenario 5 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:50 pm 03107/2022 Existing with Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: 1-10 WB Ramps (West) & Glendon Way 04/18/2022
4N
EBL EBT
Pfl]:?t�lEll
Lane Configurations
T
IN
►)
4�
Sign Control
Stop
Yield
Stop
Stop
Traffic Volume (vph)
0
137
26
326
108 1
0
0
0
0
0 1
Future Volume (vph)
0
137
26
326
108 1
0
0
0
0
0 1
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
149
28
354
117 1
0
0
0
0
0 1
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
SBI
Volume Total (vph)
149
28
354
118
1
Volume Left (vph)
0
0
354
0
0
Volume Right (vph)
0
28
0
1
1
Hadj (s)
0.03
-0.67
0.53
0.03
-0.57
Departure Headway (s)
4.9
4.2
5.2
4.7
4.7
Degree Utilization, x
0.20
0.03
0.51
0.15
0.00
Capacity (veh/h)
722
832
688
761
680
Control Delay (s)
8.0
6.2
12.1
7.3
7.7
Approach Delay (s)
7.7
10.9
7.7
Approach LOS
A
B
A
Intersection Summa
Delay 10.0
Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Scenario 5 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:50 pm 03/0712022 Existing with Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way
04/18/2022
t
--•
--*
f-
4-
-,
t
1
4'
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
r
►(
}
r
I
4+?
)r
TT
r
Traffic Volume (vph)
12
0
134
36
102
154
57
1240
375
0
1213
312
Future Volume (vph)
12
0
134
36
102
154
57
1240
375
0
1213
312
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Lane U61. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Said. Flow (prof)
1770
1583
1770
1863
1583
1770
5085
1583
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.55
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Said. Flow (perm)
1023
1583
1770
1863
1583
1770
5085
1583
3539
1583
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)
13
0
146
39
111
167
62
1348
408
0
1318
339
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
130
0
0
88
0
0
74
0
0
98
Lane Group Flow (vph)
13
0
16
39
111
79
62
1348
334
0
1318
241
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
8
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
8
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
8.4
98.2
98.2
85.3
85.3
Effective Green, g (s)
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
8.4
98.2
98.2
85.3
85.3
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.07
0.82
0.82
0.71
0.71
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3,0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
109
168
188
198
168
123
4161
1295
2515
1125
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.06
c0.04
0.27
c0.37
v/s Ratio Perm
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.21
0.15
v/c Ratio
0.12
0.09
0.21
0.56
0.47
0.50
0.32
0.26
0.52
0.21
Uniform Delay, d1
48.5
48.4
49.0
50.9
50.4
53.8
2.7
2.5
8.0
5.9
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.42
0.04
Incremental Delay, d2
0.5
0.2
0.6
3.6
2.1
3.2
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.3
Delay (s)
49.0
48.6
49.5
54.5
52.4
57.0
2.9
3.0
4.0
0.6
Level of Service
D
D
D
D
D
E
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
48.6
52.8
4.8
3.3
Approach LOS
D
D
A
A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
9.8
HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity
ratio
0.53
Actuated Cycle length (s)
120.0
Sum
of lost
time (s)
13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
57.6%
ICU
Level of Service
B
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Scenario 5 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:50 pm 03/07/2022 Existing with Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 04/10/2022
Scenario 5 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:50 pm 0310712022 Existing with Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Pagel
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
NBL
NBR
Lane Configurations
tT
r
Traffic Volume (vehlh)
0
0
0
72
230
74
Future Volume (Veh/h)
0
0
0
72
230
74
Sign Control
Yield
Stop
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
0
0
78
250
80
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
500
0
500
500
0
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
500
0
500
500
0
tC, single (s)
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
lF (s)
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
80
85
cM capacity (veh/h)
400
1085
424
400
1623
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
Volume Total
39
39
125
125
80
Volume Left
0
0
125
125
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
0
80
cSH
400
400
1623
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.10
0.10
0.15
0.15
0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft)
8
8
14
14
0
Control Delay (s)
15.0
15.0
7.6
7.6
0.0
Lane LOS
B
B
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
15.0
5.8
Approach LOS
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
7.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
16.6%
ICU
Level of
Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 5 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:50 pm 0310712022 Existing with Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Pagel
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St 04/18/2022
t 1 F t p T r' '� 1 ►j
EBT EBR WBL _ WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
I
tl
597
►)
tj+
Approach
Delay, s/veh
Tt
if
Tll�
Approach
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
63
251
86
224
183
143
79
1100
193
177
1036
40
Future Volume (veh/h)
63
251
86
224
183
143
79
1100
193
177
1036
40
Initial Q (Qb), van
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
Intersection Summary
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow,vehmlln
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
68
273
93
243
199
155
86
1196
210
192
1126
43
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, vehlh
87
332
111
269
446
329
96
1693
755
171
1808
69
Arrive On Green
0.05
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.23
0.23
0.11
0.95
0.95
0.10
0.52
0.52
Sat Flow,veh/h
1781
2618
872
1781
1948
1440
1781
3554
1585
1781
3490
133
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
68
183
183
243
181
173
86
1196
210
192
573
596
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1781
1777
1713
1781
1777
1611
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1846
Q Serve(g_s), s
4.5
12.1
12.5
16.1
10.5
11.2
5.7
5.8
1.0
11.5
27.5
27.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4.5
12.1
12.5
16.1
10.5
11.2
5.7
5.8
1.0
11.5
27.5
27.6
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.51
1.00
0.89
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
87
225
217
269
406
369
96
1693
755
171
921
957
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.81
0.84
0.90
0.44
0.47
0.89
0.71
0.28
1.12
0.62
0.62
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
131
267
257
275
410
372
96
1693
755
171
921
957
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
0.91
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
56.4
51.0
51.2
50.1
39.7
40.0
53.2
1.6
1.5
54.3
20.6
20.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
15.7
15.1
19.0
30.2
0.8
0.9
54.6
2.3
0.8
106.3
3.2
3.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In
4.4
10.4
10.7
14.4
8.2
8.0
7.0
2.4
0.8
16.1
17.6
18.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
72.1
66.2
70.2
80.3
40.5
40.9
107.7
3.9
2.3
160.6
23.7
23.6
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
F
D
D
F
A
A
F
C
C
Approach
Vol, veh/h
434
597
1492
1361
Approach
Delay, s/veh
68.8
56.8
9.7
43.0
Approach
LOS
E
E
A
D
Timer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
16.0
61.7
22.6
19.7
11.0
66.7
10.4
32.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
13.5
7.8
18.1
14.5
7.7
29.6
6.5
13.2
Green Ext Time (p -c), s
0.0
13.5
0.0
0.7
0.0
9.5
0.0
1.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
35.2
HCM 6th LOS
D
Scenario 6 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:51 pm 03/07/2022 Existing with Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: 1-10 WB Ramps (West) & Glendon Way 04/1812022
Lane Configurations
Sign Control
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly Flow rate (vph)
EBR WBL WBT
T NBR SBL
Direction, Lane #
Stop
EB 2
WB 1
Yield
SB 1
Volume Tota I(vph)
Stop
35
Stop
230
0
196
32
386
210
2
0
0
0 1
0
2
0
196
32
386
210
2
0
0
0 1
0
2
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92
0
213
35
420
228
2
0
0
0 1
0
2
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
SB 1
Volume Tota I(vph)
213
35
420
230
3
Volume Left (vph)
0
0
420
0
1
Volume Right (vph)
0
35
0
2
2
Hadj (s)
0.03
-0.67
0.53
0.03
-0.30
Departure Headway (s)
5.1
4.4
5.2
4.7
5.4
Degree Utilization, x
0.30
0.04
0.61
0.30
0.00
Capacity (veh/h)
692
788
680
751
599
Control Delay (s)
9.1
6.4
14.8
8.5
8.4
Approach Delay (s)
8.7
12.6
8.4
Approach LOS
A
B
A
a
Delay
11.5
Level of Service
B
Intersection Capacity Utilization
45.0%
ICU
Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 6 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:51 pm 03/07/2022 Existing with Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way 04/18/2022
Peak -hour factor, PHF
-'
0.92
-'V'r~
0.92
0.92
4-
4\
t/�
0.92
ti
1
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
$LEBT
0
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
►j
0
if
►(
t
if
)
ttt
r
0
Tt
if
Traffic Volume (vph)
21
0
179
96
228
185
171
1362
525
0
1011
323
Future Volume (vph)
21
0
179
96
228
185
171
1362
525
0
1011
323
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
0.95
1.00
Fr:
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
Fit Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
1583
1770
1863
1583
1770
5085
1583
3539
1583
Fit Permitted
0.29
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Said. Flow (perm)
545
1583
1770
1863
1583
1770
5085
1583
3539
1583
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)
23
0
195
104
248
201
186
1480
571
0
1099
351
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
160
0
0
50
0
0
129
0
0
131
Lane Group Flow (vph)
23
0
35
104
248
151
186
1480
442
0
1099
220
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
8
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
8
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
21.7
21.7
21.7
21.7
21.7
17.7
89.3
89.3
67.1
67.1
Effective Green, g (s)
21.7
21.7
21.7
21.7
21.7
17.7
89.3
89.3
67.1
67.1
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.15
0.74
0.74
0.56
0.56
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
10
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
98
286
320
336
286
261
3784
1178
1978
885
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.13
c0.11
0.29
c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm
0.04
0.02
0.06
0.10
0.28
0.14
v/c Ratio
0.23
0.12
0.33
0.74
0.53
0.71
0.39
0.37
0.56
0.25
Uniform Delay, d1
42.0
41.2
42.8
46.5
44.5
48.7
5.5
5.4
16.9
13.5
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.59
0.27
Incremental Delay, d2
1.2
0.2
0.6
8.2
1.8
8.9
0.3
0.9
0.8
0.5
Delay (s)
43.3
41.4
43.4
54.7
46.3
57.6
5.8
6.4
10.8
4.1
Level of Service
D
D
D
D
D
E
A
A
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
41.6
49.5
10.3
9.2
Approach LOS
D
D
B
A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
16.3
HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity
ratio
0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
120.0
Sum
of lost
time (s)
13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
65.7%
ICU
Level of
Service
C
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Scenario 6 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:51 pm 03107/2022 Existing with Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps
(East) & Glendon Way
04/10/2022
._
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
NBL
NBR
Lane Configurations
��
►�►�
�+
Traffic Volume (veh1h)
0
0
0
177
332
164
Future Volume (Veh/h)
0
0
0
177
332
164
Sign Control
Yield
Stop
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
0
0
192
361
178
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
722
0
722
722
0
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
722
0
722
722
0
1C, single (s)
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
L0
3.3
3.5
4.0
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
30
78
cM capacity (veh/h)
274
1085
283
274
1623
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
Volume Total
96
96
180
180
178
Volume Left
0
0
180
180
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
0
178
cSH
274
274
1623
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.35
0.35
0.22
0.22
0.10
Queue Length 95th (ft)
38
38
21
21
0
Control Delay (s)
25.0
25.0
7.9
7.9
0.0
Lane LOS
D
D
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
25.0
5.3
Approach LOS
D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
10.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization
21.0%
ICU
Level of
Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 6 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:51 pm 03/07/2022 Existing with Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
Future 2025 Conditions without Project (Opening Year)
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St
04/18/2022
--*
--,,
--*
f-*--
4�-
4\
t
r
1
41
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
xj
0
►j
TT+
5
tT
r
I
?T+
Traffic Volume (vehlh)
44
90
104
159
77
52
40
1184
98
84
1274
24
Future Volume (veh/h)
44
90
104
159
77
52
40
1184
98
84
1274
24
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/hAn
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
48
98
113
173
84
57
43
1287
107
91
1385
26
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap,vehlh
62
163
146
202
358
224
57
2063
920
114
2188
41
Arrive On Green
0.03
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.17
0.17
0.06
1.00
1.00
0.06
0.61
0.61
Sat Flow,veh/h
1781
1777
1585
1781
2098
1313
1781
3554
1585
1781
3568
67
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
48
98
113
173
70
71
43
1287
107
91
689
722
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1634
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1858
Q Serve(g_s), s
3.2
6.4
8.4
11.4
4.1
4.5
2.9
0.0
0.0
6.0
29.4
29.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.2
6.4
8.4
11.4
4.1
4.5
2.9
0.0
0.0
6.0
29.4
29.5
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.80
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
62
163
146
202
303
278
57
2063
920
114
1089
1139
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.60
0.78
0.86
0.23
0.25
0.76
0.62
0.12
0.80
0.63
0.63
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
131
267
238
275
410
377
96
2063
920
171
1089
1139
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(1)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.89
0.89
0.89
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
57.4
52.4
53.3
52.2
43.0
43.2
55.7
0.0
0.0
55.4
14.7
14.7
Incr Delay (d2), slveh
18.3
3.5
8.5
17.6
0.4
0.5
16.8
1.3
0.2
14.2
2.8
2.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(951Yo),veh1ln
3.2
5.4
6.6
10.2
3.3
3.4
2.7
0.7
0.1
5.7
17.8
18.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),slveh
75.8
55.9
61.8
69.9
43.4
43.6
72.6
1.3
0.2
69.6
17.5
17.4
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
E
D
D
E
A
A
E
B
B
Approach Vol, veh/h
259
314
1437
1502
Approach Delay, s/veh
62.2
58.0
3.3
20.6
Approach LOS
E
E
A
C
Timer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
12.2
74.2
18.1
15.5
8.3
78.1
8.7
24.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
8.0
2.0
13.4
10.4
4.9
31.5
5.2
6.5
Green Ext Time (p -c), s
0.1
14.8
0.2
0.7
0.0
12.1
0.0
0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Scenario 3 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03/07/2022 Opening Year without Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: 1-10 WB Ramps
(West)
& Glendon Way
04/18/2022
-.4
--,,
--*
f,
'-
t
-,
T
�►
1
4/
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
+
if
►j
T+
►j
+
Sign Control
Stop
Yield
Stop
Stop
Traffic Volume (vph)
0
138
26
328
109
1
63
0
0
0
0
1
Future Volume (vph)
0
138
26
328
109
1
63
0
0
0
0
1
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
150
28
357
118
1
68
0
0
0
0
1
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total (vph)
150
28
357
119
68
1
Volume Left (vph)
0
0
357
0
68
0
Volume Right (vph)
0
28
0
1
0
1
Hadj (s)
0.03
-0.67
0.53
0.03
0.23
-0.57
Departure Headway (s)
5.2
4.5
5.4
4.9
5.6
4.9
Degree Utilization, x
0.22
0.03
0.53
0.16
0.11
0.00
Capacity (veh/h)
677
771
656
721
590
643
Control Delay (s)
8.4
6.4
13.2
7.6
9.3
7.9
Approach Delay (s)
8.1
11.8
9.3
7.9
Approach LOS
A
B
A
A
Intersection Summa
Delay 10.7
Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Scenario 3 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03/0712022 Opening Year without Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way
L
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
04/18/2022
__* -►
--*
r F
4__
-�
T
F
ti
1
V
Turn Type
L
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
Vi
2
F
4
r
)
ttA
8
tt
if
Traffic Volume (vph)
12
0
135
36
39
155
57
1247
377
0
1220
323
Future Volume (vph)
12
0
135
36
39
155
57
1247
377
0
1220
323
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.5
3.0
4.5
3.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
154
177
4.5
4.5
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1139
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
c0.35
c0.37
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
0.04
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.97
0.11
0.09
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
0.52
1.00
Uniform Delay, dl
0.98
1.00
0.95
1.00
53.8
2.8
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
1.00
1583
1.00
1819
1583
1770
4908
Incremental Delay, d2
0.4
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.67
0.3
1.00
0.3
0.98
1.00
0.95
1.00
54.4
57.0
1.00
1.00
Satd.Flow (perm)
1244
D
1583
D
1819
1583
1770
4908
A
Approach Delay (s)
3539
1583
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)
13
0
147
39
42
168
62
1355
410
0
1326
351
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
133
0
0
88
0
31
0
0
0
98
Lane Group Flow (vph)
13
0
14
0
81
80
62
1734
0
0
1326
253
Turn Type
Perm
Perm Perm
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
c Critical Lane Group
8
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4 8
8
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
11.7
11.7
11.7
11.7
8.4
99.3
86.4
86.4
Effective Green, g (s)
11.7
11.7
11.7
11.7
8.4
99.3
86.4
86.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.07
0.83
0.72
0.72
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
121
154
177
154
123
4061
2548
1139
v/s Ratio Prot
0.04
c0.35
c0.37
v/s Ratio Perm
0.01
0.01
0.04
c0.05
0.16
v/c Ratio
0.11
0.09
0.46
0.52
0.50
0.43
0.52
0.22
Uniform Delay, dl
49.4
49.3
51.2
51.5
53.8
2.8
7.5
5.6
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.43
0.04
Incremental Delay, d2
0.4
0.3
1.9
2.9
3.2
0.3
0.6
0.3
Delay (s)
49.8
49.6
53.0
54.4
57.0
3.1
3.8
0.6
Level of Service
D
D
D
D
E
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
49.6
53.9
4.9
3.1
Approach LOS
D
D
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM 2000 Control Delay
9.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
59.9% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Scenario 3 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03/07/2022 Opening Year without Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 0411012022
EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
0
0
0
72
168
74
Future Volume (Veh/h)
0
0
0
72
168
74
Sign Control
Yield
Stop
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
0
0
78
183
80
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
366
0
366
366
0
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
366
0
366
366
0
tC, single (s)
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.1
IC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
84
89
cM capacity (vehlh)
499
1085
539
499
1623
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
Volume Total
39
39
183
80
Volume Left
0
0
183
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
80
cSH
499
499
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft)
6
6
10
0
Control Delay (s)
12.8
12.8
7.5
0.0
Lane LOS
B
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
12.8
5.2
Approach LOS
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
7.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
19.3%
ICU Level of
Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 3 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03/07/2022 Opening Year without Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St 04118/2022
EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR
Lane Configurations
►j
+T*
3
Vi
7T*
6
I
t?
r
16.0
TT*
22.8
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
63
253
87
226
184
144
80
1108
194
178
1043
40
Future Volume (veh/h)
63
253
87
226
184
144
80
1108
194
178
1043
40
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
68
275
95
246
200
157
87
1204
211
193
1134
43
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
87
333
113
272
449
335
96
1684
751
171
1800
68
Arrive On Green
0.05
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.23
0.23
0.11
0.95
0.95
0.10
0.52
0.52
Sat Flow, veh/h
1781
2608
881
1781
1941
1446
1781
3554
1585
1781
3491
132
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
68
185
185
246
182
175
87
1204
211
193
577
600
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1781
1777
1712
1781
1777
1610
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1847
Q Serve(g_s), s
4.5
12.2
12.7
16.3
10.5
11.2
5.8
6.6
1.1
11.5
28.0
28.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4.5
12.2
12.7
16.3
10.5
11.2
5.8
6.6
1.1
11.5
28.0
28.0
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.51
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
87
227
219
272
411
373
96
1684
751
171
916
952
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.82
0.84
0.91
0.44
0.47
0.90
0.72
0.28
1.13
0.63
0.63
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
131
267
257
275
411
373
96
1684
751
171
916
952
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Fifter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.81
0.81
0.81
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
56.4
51.0
51.2
50.0
39.5
39.8
53.2
1.8
1.7
54.3
20.9
20.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
15.7
15.5
19.5
30.8
0.8
0.9
53.2
2.1
0.8
108.3
3.3
3.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In
4.4
10.5
10.8
14.6
8.3
8.1
6.8
2.5
0.8
16.3
17.9
18.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
72.1
66.5
70.7
80.8
40.2
40.7
106.4
4.0
2.4
162.5
24.1
24.0
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
F
D
D
F
A
A
F
C
C
Approach Vol, veh/h
438
603
1502
1370
Approach Delay, s/veh
69.1
56.9
9.7
43.6
Approach LOS
E
E
A
D
Timer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
16.0
61.4
22.8
19.8
11.0
66.4
10.4
32.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
13.5
8.6
18.3
14.7
7.8
30.0
6.5
13.2
Green Ext Time (p -c), s
0.0
13.6
0.0
0.7
0.0
9.5
0.0
1.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Scenario 4 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03107/2022 Opening Year without Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: 1-10 WB Ramps
(West) & Glendon Way
04/1812022
-'
--*
7
'r
t
4\
T
`-
1
-'
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
►j
j.
4,
Sign Control
Stop
Yield
Stop
Stop
Traffic Volume (vph)
0
197
32
389
211
2
122
0
0
1
0
2
Future Volume (vph)
0
197
32
389
211
2
122
0
0
1
0
2
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
214
35
423
229
2
133
0
0
1
0
2
Direction, Lane #i
EBI
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total (vph)
214
35
423
231
133
3
Volume Left (vph)
0
0
423
0
133
1
Volume Right (vph)
0
35
0
2
0
2
Hadi (s)
0.03
-0.67
0.53
0.03
0.23
0.30
Departure Headway (s)
5.7
5.0
5.8
5.2
6.1
5.9
Degree Utilization, x
0.34
0.05
0.68
0.34
0.22
0.00
Capacity (vehm)
600
681
615
672
551
533
Control Delay (s)
10.5
7.1
18.7
9.7
10.8
8.9
Approach Delay (s)
10.0
15.5
10.8
8.9
Approach LOS
A
C
B
A
Intersection Summa
Delay 13.6
Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.3% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Scenario 4 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03/07/2022 Opening Year without Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way
04/18/2022
Mbiuc
L
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
►j
r
d
r
►)
to
T4
r
Traffic Volume (vph)
21
0
180
97
108
186
172
1371
529
0
1018
325
Future Volume (vph)
21
0
180
97
108
186
172
1371
529
0
1018
325
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.96
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Said. Flow (prot)
1770
1583
1820
1583
1770
4873
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.32
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd.Flow (perm)
602
1583
1820
1583
1770
4873
3539
1583
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)
23
0
196
105
117
202
187
1490
575
0
1107
353
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
163
0
0
54
0
47
0
0
0
151
Lane Group Flow (vph)
23
0
33
0
222
148
187
2018
0
0
1107
202
Tum Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
8
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
8
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
17.9
91.0
68.6
68.6
Effective Green, g (s)
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
17.9
91.0
68.6
68.6
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.15
0.76
0.57
0.57
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
100
263
303
263
264
3695
2023
904
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.11
c0.41
0.31
vls Ratio Perm
0.04
0.02
0.12
0.09
0.13
v/c Ratio
0.23
0.12
0.73
0.56
0.71
0.55
0.55
0.22
Uniform Delay, dl
43.3
42.5
47.5
46.0
48.6
6.0
16.0
12.6
Progression Factor
1.00
1,00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1,00
0.60
0.27
Incremental Delay, d2
1.2
0.2
8.8
2.7
8.4
0.6
0.7
0.4
Delay (s)
44.5
42.8
56.3
48.7
57.0
6.6
10.3
3.8
Level of Service
D
D
E
D
E
A
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
42.9
52.7
10.8
8.8
Approach LOS
D
D
B
A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
15.8
HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity
ratio
0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
120.0
Sum of lost
time (s)
13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
66.6%
ICU
Level of
Service
C
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Scenario 4 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03/07/2022 Opening Year without Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 04110/2022
EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
T?
Ii r
Traffic Volume (vehlh)
0
0
Future Volume (Vehlh)
0
0
Sign Control
Yield
Free
Grade
0%
_
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
0
0
Pedestrians
427
1623
Lane Width (ft)
Volume to Capacity
0.23
Walking Speed (ft/s)
0.14
0.11
Percent Blockage
21
21
Right turn flare (veh)
0
Control Delay (s)
Median type
15.9
7.6
Median storage veh)
Lane LOS
C
Upstream signal (ft)
A
pX, platoon unblocked
15.9
vC, conflicting volume
460
0
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
Intersection Summary
vCu, unblocked vol
460
0
tC, single (s)
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
IF (s)
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
100
100
cM capacity veh/h)
427
1085
Direction, Lane #
T?
Ii r
0
178
212 165
0
178
212 165
460
Stop
Free
7.1
0%
_
0%
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0
193
230 179
456
427
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.23
0.23
0.14
0.11
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
None
460
460
0
96
96
230
460
460
0
7.1
6.5
4.1
3.5
4.0
2.2
100
55
86
456
427
1623
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
Volume Total
96
96
230
179
Volume Left
0
0
230
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
179
cSH
427
427
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.23
0.23
0.14
0.11
Queue Length 95th (ft)
21
21
12
0
Control Delay (s)
15.9
15.9
7.6
0.0
Lane LOS
C
C
A
Approach Delay (s)
15.9
4.3
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
23.3%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 4 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03/0712022 Opening Year without Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
Future 2025 Conditions with Project (Opening Year)
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St
04/18/2022
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
I
tT+
►j
to
tt
F
+I,
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
44
90
104
159
77
52
40
1184
98
84
1274
24
Future Volume (veh/h)
44
90
104
159
77
52
40
1184
98
84
1274
24
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow,vehth/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
48
98
113
173
84
57
43
1287
107
91
1385
26
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap,veh/h
62
163
146
202
358
224
57
2063
920
114
2188
41
Arrive On Green
0.03
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.17
0.17
0.06
1.00
1.00
0.06
0.61
0.61
Sat Flow,veh/h
1781
1777
1585
1781
2098
1313
1781
3554
1585
1781
3568
67
Grp Volume(v), vehlh
48
98
113
173
70
71
43
1287
107
91
689
722
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1634
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1858
Q Serve(g_s), s
3.2
6.4
8.4
11.4
4.1
4.5
2.9
0.0
0.0
6.0
29.4
29.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.2
6.4
8.4
11.4
4.1
4.5
2.9
0.0
0.0
6.0
29.4
29.5
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.80
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
62
163
146
202
303
278
57
2063
920
114
1089
1139
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.60
0.78
0.86
0.23
0.25
0.76
0.62
0.12
0.80
0.63
0.63
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h
131
267
238
275
410
377
96
2063
920
171
1089
1139
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.94
0.94
0.94
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
57.4
52.4
53.3
52.2
43.0
43.2
55.7
0.0
0.0
55.4
14.7
14.7
Incr Delay (d2), slveh
18.3
3.5
8.5
17.6
0.4
0.5
17.7
1.3
0.2
14.2
2.8
2.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In
3.2
5.4
6.6
10.2
3.3
3.4
2.8
0.7
0.1
5.7
17.8
18.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),slveh
75.8
55.9
61.8
69.9
43.4
43.6
73.4
1.3
0.2
69.6
17.5
17.4
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
E
D
D
E
A
A
E
B
B
Approach Vol, veh/h
259
314
1437
1502
Approach Delay, s/veh
62.2
58.0
3.4
20.6
Approach LOS
E
E
A
C
Timer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
12.2
74.2
18.1
15.5
8.3
78.1
8.7
24.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+It), s
8.0
2.0
13.4
10.4
4.9
31.5
5.2
6.5
Green Ext Time (p -c), s
0.1
14.8
0.2
0.7
0.0
12.1
0.0
0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:03 pm 0 212 8/2 02 2 Future with Project Conditions (Opening Year) AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: 1-10 WB Ramps
(West) & Glendon Way
04/18/2022
-'
--0.
N
'r*--
k-
4\
t
1
1
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
►j
4*
Sign Control
Stop
Yield
Stop
Stop
Traffic Volume (vph)
0
138
26
328
109
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
Future Volume (vph)
0
138
26
328
109
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
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
150
28
357
118
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
SB 1
Volume Total (vph)
150
28
357
119
1
Volume Left (vph)
0
0
357
0
0
Volume Right (vph)
0
28
0
1
1
Hadj (s)
0.03
-0.67
0.53
0.03
-0.57
Departure Headway (s)
4.9
4.2
5.2
4.7
4.7
Degree Utilization, x
0.20
0.03
0.51
0.15
0.00
Capacity (veh/h)
722
831
688
761
679
Control Delay (s)
8.0
6.2
12.2
7.3
7.8
Approach Delay (s)
7.7
11.0
7.8
Approach LOS
A
B
A
Intersection Summary
Delay 10.1
Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:03 pm 02/28/2022 Future with Project Conditions (Opening Year) AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way 04118/2022
EBL EBT EBR
NBL NBT NBR
Lane Configurations
9.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
0.53
Vi
120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Vi
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Traffic Volume (vph)
12
0
135
36
102
155
57
1247
377
0
1220
323
Future Volume (vph)
12
0
135
36
102
155
57
1247
377
0
1220
323
Ideal Flow (vphpq
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Lane UGI. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
0.95
1.00
Fn
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
1583
1770
1863
1583
1770
5085
1583
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.55
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1026
1583
1770
1863
1583
1770
5085
1583
3539
1583
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)
13
0
147
39
111
168
62
1355
410
0
1326
351
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
131
0
0
87
0
0
75
0
0
102
Lane Group Flow (vph)
13
0
16
39
111
81
62
1355
335
0
1326
249
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
8
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
8
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
12.9
12.9
12.9
12.9
12.9
8.4
98.1
98.1
85.2
85.2
Effective Green, g (s)
12.9
12.9
12.9
12.9
12.9
8.4
98.1
98.1
85.2
85.2
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.07
0.82
0.82
0.71
0.71
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
110
170
190
200
170
123
4156
1294
2512
1123
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.06
c0.04
0.27
c0.37
v/s Ratio Perm
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.21
0.16
v/c Ratio
0.12
0.09
0.21
0.56
0.47
0.50
0.33
0.26
0.53
0.22
Uniform Delay, dl
48.4
48.3
48.9
50.8
50.4
53.8
2.7
2.5
8.1
6.0
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.42
0.04
Incremental Delay, d2
0.5
0.2
0.5
3.3
2.1
3.2
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.3
Delay (s)
48.9
48.5
49.4
54.1
52.4
57.0
2.9
3.0
4.0
0.6
Level of Service
D
D
D
D
D
E
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
48.5
52.7
4.8
3.3
Approach LOS
D
D
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM 2000 Control Delay
9.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
0.53
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
57.8% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:03 pm 02/28/2022 Future with Project Conditions (Opening Year) AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 04/1012022
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (Veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
� 't ie, F 1
EBT EBR WB
0
0
0
72
231
0
0
0
72
231
Yield
3.5
100
Stop
Free
0%
1085
423
0%
0%
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0
0
0
78
251
502
0
502
502
0
502
6.5
6.2
7.1
4.0
3.3
3.5
100
100
100
399
1085
423
None
502 C
502 C
6.5 4.1
4.0 2.2
80 85
399 1623
74
74
0.92
80
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
Volume Total
39
39
126
126
80
Volume Left
0
0
126
126
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
0
80
cSH
399
399
1623
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.10
0.10
0.15
0.15
0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft)
8
8
14
14
0
Control Delay (s)
15.0
15.0
7.6
7.6
0.0
Lane LOS
C
C
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
15.0
5.8
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
7.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
16.6%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:03 pm 02/28/2022 Future with Project Conditions (Opening Year) AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St 04/1812022
--*
--P�
--*
4
'-
t
4\
T/�
tT
\4,
1
4/
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBI
Lane Configurations
►j
tp
Vi
tT+
Vi
tT
r
0
Traffic Volume (veh1h)
63
253
87
226
184
144
80
1108
194
178
1043
40
Future Volume (veh1h)
63
253
87
226
184
144
80
1108
194
178
1043
40
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/IUIn
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1670
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
68
275
95
246
200
157
87
1204
211
193
1134
43
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap,veh1h
87
333
113
272
449
335
96
1684
751
171
1800
2
68
Arrive On Green
0.05
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.23
0.23
0.11
0.95
0.95
0.10
0.52
0.52
Sat Flow, veh/h
1781
2608
881
1781
1941
1446
1781
3554
1585
1781
3491
132
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
68
185
185
246
182
175
87
1204
211
193
577
600
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1781
1777
1712
1781
1777
1610
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1847
Q Serve(g_s), s
4.5
12.2
12.7
16.3
10.5
11.2
5.8
6.6
1.1
11.5
28.0
28.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4.5
12.2
12.7
16.3
10.5
11.2
5.8
6.6
1.1
11.5
28.0
28.0
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.51
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
87
227
219
272
411
373
96
1684
751
171
916
952
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.82
0.84
0.91
0.44
0.47
0.90
0.72
0.28
1.13
0.63
0.63
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
131
267
257
275
411
373
96
1684
751
171
916
952
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.92
0.92
0.92
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
56.4
51.0
51.2
50.0
39.5
39.8
53.2
1.8
1.7
54.3
20.9
20.9
Incr Delay (d2), siveh
15.7
15.5
19.5
30.8
0.8
0.9
57.8
2.4
0.9
108.3
3.3
3.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(95%),vehlln
4.4
10.5
10.8
14.6
8.3
8.1
7.2
2.7
0.9
16.3
17.9
18.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
72.1
66.5
70.7
80.8
40.2
40.7
110.9
4.2
2.5
162.5
24.1
24.0
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
F
D
D
F
A
A
F
C
C
Approach Vol, veh/h
438
603
1502
1370
Approach Delay, s/veh
69.1
56.9
10.2
43.6
Approach LOS
E
E
B
D
Timer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
16.0
61.4
22.8
19.8
11.0
66.4
10.4
32.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+It), s
13.5
8.6
18.3
14.7
7.8
30.0
6.5
13.2
Green Ext Time p -c), s
0.0
13.6
0.0
0.7
0.0
9.5
0.0
1.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 61h Ctrl Delay
35.7
HCM 6th LOS
D
Scenario 2 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-101:59 pm 03/02/2022 Future with Project Conditions (Opening Year) PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: 1-10 WB Ramps
(West) & Glendon Way
04/16/2022
--*
-0.
--v
or
F
t
4\
t
1
41
16vement „,Wr
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
T+
4�
Sign Control
Stop
Yield
Stop
Stop
Traffic Volume (vph)
0
197
32
389
211
2
0
0
0
1
0
2
Future Volume (vph)
0
197
32
389
211
2
0
0
0
1
0
2
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
214
35
423
229
2
0
0
0
1
0
2
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
SB 1
Volume Total (vph)
214
35
423
231
3
Volume Left (vph)
0
0
423
0
1
Volume Right (vph)
0
35
0
2
2
Hadj (s)
0.03
-0.67
0.53
0.03
-0.30
Departure Headway (s)
5.1
4.4
5.2
4.7
5.4
Degree Utilization, x
0.30
0.04
0.61
0.30
0.00
Capacity (veh/h)
691
787
680
751
598
Control Delay (s)
9.2
6.4
15.0
8.6
8.4
Approach Delay (s)
8.8
12.7
8.4
Approach LOS
A
B
A
Intersection Summa
Delay 11.6
Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Scenario 2 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-101:59 pm 0310212022 Future with Project Conditions (Opening Year) PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way 04118/2022
-' --,, --v 'r F 4- t P `►
WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL
Lane Configurations
'9
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
r
I
T
F
I
TTT
i<
c Critical Lane Group
TT
F
Traffic Volume 1
21
0
180
97
230
186
172
1371
529
0
1018
325
Future Volume (vph)
21
0
180
97
230
186
172
1371
529
0
1018
325
Ideal Flow 1
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
0.95
1.00
Frl
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
1583
1770
1863
1583
1770
5085
1583
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.24
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
454
1583
1770
1863
1583
1770
5085
1583
3539
1583
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)
23
0
196
105
250
202
187
1490
575
0
1107
353
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
164
0
0
64
0
0
137
0
0
58
Lane Group Flow (vph)
23
0
32
105
250
138
187
1490
438
0
1107
295
Tum Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
8
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
8
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
19.6
19.6
19.6
19.6
19.6
14.3
91.4
91.4
72.6
72.6
Effective Green, g (s)
19.6
19.6
19.6
19.6
19.6
14.3
91.4
91.4
72.6
72.6
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.12
0.76
0.76
0.60
0.60
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
74
258
289
304
258
210
3873
1205
2141
957
vls Ratio Prot
c0.13
c0.11
0.29
c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm
0.05
0.02
0.06
0.09
0.28
0.19
v/c Ratio
0.31
0.12
0.36
0.82
0.54
0.89
0.38
0.36
0.52
0.31
Uniform Delay, dl
44.2
42.9
44.7
48.5
46.0
52.1
4.8
4.7
13.6
11.5
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.61
0.55
Incremental Delay, d2
2.4
0.2
0.8
16.2
2.1
34.0
0.3
0.9
0.6
0.6
Delay (s)
46.6
43.1
45.4
64.7
48.2
86.1
5.1
5.6
8.9
6.9
Level of Service
D
D
D
E
D
F
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
43.5
55.1
11.9
8.4
Approach LOS
D
E
B
A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
17.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
66.0% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Scenario 2 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-101:59 pm 03/0212022 Future with Project Conditions (Opening Year) PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps
(East) & Glendon Way
0411012022
lovement
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
NBL
NBR
Lane Configurations
tt
)I
r
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
0
0
0
178
334
165
Future Volume (Veh/h)
0
0
0
178
334
165
Sign Control
Yield
Stop
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
0
0
193
363
179
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
726
0
726
726
0
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
726
0
726
726
0
IC, single (s)
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
29
78
cM capacity (veh/h)
273
1085
281
273
1623
Direction, Lane#
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
Volume Total
96
96
182
182
179
Volume Left
0
0
182
182
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
0
179
cSH
273
273
1623
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.35
0.35
0.22
0.22
0.11
Queue Length 95th (ft)
38
38
21
21
0
Control Delay (s)
25.3
25.3
7.9
7.9
0.0
Lane LOS
D
D
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
25.3
5.3
Approach LOS
D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
10.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
21.1%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 2 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-101:59 pm 03/02/2022 Future with Project Conditions (Opening Year) PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
Future 2045 Conditions without Project (Design Year)
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St 0411812022
t--1' --* 1- F t4\ t r `► 1
Movement "
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
Vi
+T
0
tt
r
T*t+
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
46
93
108
165
80
54
42
1228
101
88
1322
25
Future Volume (veh/h)
46
93
108
165
80
54
42
1228
101
88
1322
25
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow,veh1h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, vehlh
50
101
117
179
87
59
46
1335
110
96
1437
27
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap,vehlh
65
168
150
208
367
229
59
2031
906
120
2162
41
Arrive On Green
0.04
0.09
0.09
0.12
0.17
0.17
0.07
1.00
1.00
0.07
0.61
0.61
Sat Flow,vehm
1781
1777
1585
1781
2098
1313
1781
3554
1585
1781
3568
67
Grp Volume(v), vehlh
50
101
117
179
73
73
46
1335
110
96
715
749
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/Nn
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1634
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1858
Q Serve(g_s), s
3.3
6.5
8.7
11.8
4.2
4.7
3.1
0.0
0.0
6.4
31.8
31.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.3
6.5
8.7
11.8
4.2
4.7
3.1
0.0
0.0
6.4
31.8
31.9
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.80
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
65
168
150
208
311
286
59
2031
906
120
1077
1126
VIC Ratio(X)
0.77
0.60
0.78
0.86
0.23
0.26
0.78
0.66
0.12
0.80
0.66
0.67
Avail Cap(c_a), vehm
131
267
238
275
410
377
96
2031
906
171
1077
1126
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.88
0.88
0.88
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
57.3
52.2
53.1
52.0
42.6
42.8
55.6
0.0
0.0
55.2
15.6
15.6
Incr Delay (0), s/veh
17.6
3.4
8.6
18.8
0.4
0.5
17.6
1.5
0.2
16.0
3.2
3.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(95%),vehlln
3.3
5.6
6.8
10.5
3.4
3.5
2.9
0.8
0.1
6.1
19.2
19.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, slveh
LnGrp Delay(d),slveh
75.0
55.6
61.7
70.9
43.0
43.3
73.2
1.5
0.2
71.1
18.8
18.7
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
E
D
D
E
A
A
E
B
B
Approach Vol,vehm
268
325
1491
1560
Approach Delay, slveh
61.9
58.4
3.6
22.0
Approach LOS
E
E
A
C
Timer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
12.6
73.1
18.5
15.8
8.5
77.2
8.8
25.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
8.4
2.0
13.8
10.7
5.1
33.9
5.3
6.7
Green Ext Time (p -c), s
0.1
15.7
0.2
0.7
0.0
12.2
0.0
0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.7
HCM 6th LOS C
Scenario 5 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03/07/2022 Design Year without Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11.0
Level of Service
B
Intersection Capacity Utilization
46.7% ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period (min)
15
2: 1-10 WB Ramps
(West)
& Glendon Way
0411812022
t
-•
4_
�,
T
'-
1
4/
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
+
r
Vi
k
Vi
4+
Sign Control
Stop
Yield
Stop
Stop
Traffic Volume (vph)
0
143
27
340
113
1
66
0
0
0
0
1
Future Volume (vph)
0
143
27
340
113
1
66
0
0
0
0
1
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
29
370
123
1
72
0
0
0
0
1
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
N81
SB 1
Volume Total (vph)
155
29
370
124
72
1
Volume Left (vph)
0
0
370
0
72
0
Volume Right (vph)
0
29
0
1
0
1
Hadj (s)
0.03
-0.67
0.53
0.03
0.23
-0.57
Departure Headway (s)
5.2
4.5
5.4
4.9
5.6
5.0
Degree Utilization, x
0.22
0.04
0.56
0.17
0.11
0.00
Capacity (vehm)
671
764
653
717
585
634
Control Delay (s)
8.5
6.5
13.8
7.7
9.4
8.0
Approach Delay (s)
8.2
12.3
9.4
8.0
Approach LOS
A
B
A
A
Intersection Summa
Delay
11.0
Level of Service
B
Intersection Capacity Utilization
46.7% ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 5 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03107/2022 Design Year without Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way 04118/2022
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL
Lane Configurations
9.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
tr
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
4
if
Vi
?4t*
15
??
F
Traffic Volume (vph)
13
0
140
38
41
161
59
1294
391 0
1266
335
Future Volume (vph)
13
0
140
38
41
161
59
1294
391 0
1266
335
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Said. Flow (prot)
1770
1583
1819
1583
1770
4908
3539
1583
At Permitted
0.65
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Said. Flow (perm)
1216
1583
1819
1583
1770
4908
3539
1583
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)
14
0
152
41
45
175
64
1407
425 0
1376
364
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
136
0
0
77
0
31
0 0
0
106
Lane Group Flow (vph)
14
0
16
0
86
98
64
1801
0 0
1376
258
Tum Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
8
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
8
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
8.5
98.2
85.2
85.2
Effective Green, g (s)
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
8.5
98.2
85.2
85.2
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.07
0.82
0.71
0.71
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3,0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
129
168
194
168
125
4016
2512
1123
v/s Ratio Prot
0.04
c0.37
c0.39
v/s Ratio Perm
0.01
0.01
0.05
c0.06
0.16
v/c Ratio
0.11
0.10
0.44
0.58
0.51
0.45
0.55
0.23
Uniform Delay, d1
48.4
48.4
50.3
51.1
53.8
3.1
8.3
6.0
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.43
0.04
Incremental Delay, d2
0.4
0.3
1.6
5.1
3.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
Delay (s)
48.8
48.6
51.9
56.2
57.3
3.5
4.2
0.6
Level of Service
D
D
D
E
E
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
48.6
54.8
5.3
3.4
Approach LOS
D
D
A
A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
9.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
61.3% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Scenario 5 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03/07/2022 Design Year without Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 04110/2022
Lane Configurations
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
TT
9
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
0
0
0
75
174
Future Volume (Veh/h)
0
0
0
75
174
Sign Control
Yield
Volume to Capacity 0.08
0.08
Stop
Free
Grade
7
10
0
Control Delay (s) 13.0
13.0
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
0
0
0
82
189
Pedestrians
Intersection Summary
Lane Width (ft)
7.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Walking Speed (ft/s)
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
378
0
378
378
0
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
378
0
378
378
0
tC, single (s)
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
83
88
cM capacity (veh/h)
489
1085
528
489
1623
77
77
0.92
84
Direction, Lane # WB 1
Scenario 5 J1976 Rosemead BI & I-10 7:23 pm 03/0712022 Design Year without Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
Volume Total 41
41
189
84
Volume Left 0
0
189
0
Volume Right 0
0
0
84
cSH 489
489
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity 0.08
0.08
0.12
0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7
7
10
0
Control Delay (s) 13.0
13.0
7.5
0.0
Lane LOS B
B
A
Approach Delay (s) 13.0
5.2
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
7.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
19.6%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
GTC Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St 04/1812022
--* --* f- ~ 1,- 4\ t `► 1 ►'
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
I
T'A
ft+
Tt
r
R
1T+
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
66
264
91
236
193
151
83
1158
203
186
1091
42
Future Volume (vehlh)
66
264
91
236
193
151
83
1158
203
186
1091
42
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, vehmlln
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
72
287
99
257
210
164
90
1259
221
202
1186
46
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
Percent Heavy Ven, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap,veh1h
92
344
116
275
455
338
96
1664
742
171
1778
69
Arrive On Green
0.05
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.23
0.23
0.11
0.94
0.94
0.10
0.51
0.51
Sat Flow, veh/h
1781
2608
881
1781
1943
1444
1781
3554
1585
1781
3488
135
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
72
194
192
257
191
183
90
1259
221
202
604
628
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1781
1777
1712
1781
1777
1610
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1846
Q Serve(g_s), s
4.8
12.7
13.2
17.1
11.1
11.8
6.0
9.3
1.5
11.5
30.3
30.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4.8
12.7
13.2
17.1
11.1
11.8
6.0
9.3
1.5
11.5
30.3
30.3
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.51
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
92
234
226
275
416
377
96
1664
742
171
906
941
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.83
0.85
0.94
0.46
0.48
0.93
0.76
0.30
1.18
0.67
0.67
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
131
267
257
275
416
377
96
1664
742
171
906
941
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.78
0.78
0.78
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
56.2
50.8
51.0
50.2
39.4
39.7
53.3
2.3
2.1
54.3
21.8
21.8
Incr Delay (d2), slveh
17.7
17.2
21.3
37.4
0.8
1.0
60.3
2.6
0.8
126.8
3.9
3.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%Ile BackOfQ(950/o),vehlln
4.7
11.0
11.3
15.8
8.6
8.4
7.1
3.2
1.0
17.7
19.3
19.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, slveh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
73.9
67.9
72.2
87.6
40.2
40.7
113.6
4.9
2.9
181.0
25.7
25.6
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
F
D
D
F
A
A
F
C
C
Approach Vol,veh/h
458
631
1570
1434
Approach Delay, s/veh
70.7
59.6
10.8
47,5
Approach LOS
E
E
B
D
Timer - Assigned Phis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
16.0
60.7
23.0
20.3
11.0
65.7
10.7
32.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
13.5
11.3
19.1
15.2
8.0
32.3
6.8
13.8
Green Ext Time p -c), s
0.0
14.4
0.0
0.6
0.0
9.8
0.0
1.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.9
HCM 6th LOS D
Scenario 6 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:24 pm 03/07/2022 Design Year without Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: 1-10 WB Ramps
(West)
& Glendon Way
0411612022
<'
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
F
A
Q+
Sign Control
Stop
Yield
Stop
Stop
Traffic Volume (vph)
0
206
34
406
221
2
127
0
0
1
0
2
Future Volume (vph)
0
206
34
406
221
2
127
0
0
1
0
2
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
224
37
441
240
2
138
0
0
1
0
2
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total (vph)
224
37
441
242
138
3
Volume Left (vph)
0
0
441
0
138
1
Volume Right (vph)
0
37
0
2
0
2
Hadj (s)
0.03
-0.67
0.53
0.03
0.23
-0.30
Departure Headway (s)
5.8
5.1
5.8
5.3
6.2
6.0
Degree Utilization, x
0.36
0.05
0.71
0.36
0.24
0.00
Capacity (vehlh)
594
672
611
667
545
527
Control Delay (s)
10.8
7.2
20.5
10.0
11.0
9.0
Approach Delay (s)
10.3
16.8
11.0
9.0
Approach LOS
B
C
B
A
Intersection Summa
Delay 14.5
Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.0% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Scenario 6 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:24 pm 03107/2022 Design Year without Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way
16.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
68.8% ICU Level of Service C
04/18/2022
15
-'
--,,
--t
'r
4---
t4\
T
L
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
Lane Configurations
if
4
if
Vi
ttT*
tt
If
Traffic Volume (vph)
22
0
188
101
113
195
180
1434
553
0 1064
340
Future Volume (vph)
22
0
188
101
113
195
180
1434
553
0 1064
340
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.96
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
1583
1820
1583
1770
4873
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.31
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Said. Flow (perm)
569
1583
1820
1583
1770
4873
3539
1583
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)
24
0
204
110
123
212
196
1559
601
0 1157
370
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
169
0
0
46
0
48
0
0 0
162
Lane Group Flow (vph)
24
0
35
0
233
166
196
2112
0
0 1157
208
Tum Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
8
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
8
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
18.4
90.5
67.6
67.6
Effective Green, g (s)
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
18.4
90.5
67.6
67.6
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.15
0.75
0.56
0.56
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
97
270
310
270
271
3675
1993
891
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.11
c0.43
0.33
v/s Ratio Perm
0.04
0.02
0.13
0.10
0.13
v/c Ratio
0.25
0.13
0.75
0.61
0.72
0.57
0.58
0.23
Uniform Delay, dl
43.1
42.2
47.3
46.1
48.4
6.4
17.0
13.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.59
0.25
Incremental Delay, d2
1.3
0.2
9.8
4.1
9.2
0.7
0.8
0.4
Delay (s)
44.4
42.4
57.2
50.2
57.6
7.1
10.8
3.7
Level of Service
D
D
E
D
E
A
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
42.6
53.8
11.3
9.1
Approach LOS
D
D
B
A
Intersection Summa
HCM 2000 Control Delay
16.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
68.8% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Scenario 6 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:24 pm 03/07/2022 Design Year without Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 0411012022
Scenario 6 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:24 pm 0310712022 Design Year without Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
--►
N
F
/�
Movement
EBT
EBR
" WBL
WBT
NBL
NBR
Lane Configurations
tt
r
Traffic Volume (vehlh)
0
0
0
186
222
173
Future Volume (Vehlh)
0
0
0
186
222
173
Sign Control
Yield
Stop
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
0
0
202
241
188
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
482
0
482
482
0
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
482
0
482
482
0
tC, single (s)
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
51
85
cM capacity (vehlh)
412
1085
438
412
1623
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
Volume Total
101
101
241
188
Volume Left
0
0
241
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
188
cSH
412
412
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.25
0.25
0.15
0.11
Queue Length 95th (ft)
24
24
13
0
Control Delay (s)
16.6
16.6
7.6
0.0
Lane LOS
C
C
A
Approach Delay (s)
16.6
4.3
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
8.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
24.1%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 6 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:24 pm 0310712022 Design Year without Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
Future 2045 Conditions with Project (Design Year)
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St
04118/2022
--*
--I,
--*
'r
~
*\
T
('
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Lane Configurations
1
}T+
Vi
tT•
4?
if
TT+
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
46
93
108
165
80
54
42
1228
101
88
1322
25
Future Volume (veh/h)
46
93
108
165
80
54
42
1228
101
88
1322
25
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/hM
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
50
101
117
179
87
59
46
1335
110
96
1437
27
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap,vehlh
65
168
150
208
367
229
59
2031
906
120
2162
41
Arrive On Green
0.04
0.09
0.09
0.12
0.17
0.17
0.07
1.00
1.00
0.07
0.61
0.61
Sat Flow,vehm
1781
1777
1585
1781
2098
1313
1781
3554
1585
1781
3568
67
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
50
101
117
179
73
73
46
1335
110
96
715
749
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hM
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1634
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1858
Q Serve(g_s), s
3.3
6.5
8.7
11.8
4.2
4.7
3.1
0.0
0.0
6.4
31.8
31.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.3
6.5
8.7
11.8
4.2
4.7
3.1
0.0
0.0
6.4
31.8
31.9
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.80
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
65
168
150
208
311
286
59
2031
906
120
1077
1126
V/C Ratio(X)
0.77
0.60
0.78
0.86
0.23
0.26
0.78
0.66
0.12
0.80
0.66
0.67
Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh
131
267
238
275
410
377
96
2031
906
171
1077
1126
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(])
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.93
0.93
0.93
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
57.3
52.2
53.1
52.0
42.6
42.8
55.6
0.0
0.0
55.2
15.6
15.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
17.6
3.4
8.6
18.8
0.4
0.5
18.5
1.6
0.3
16.0
3.2
3.1
Initial Q Delay(0),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In
3.3
5.6
6.8
10.5
3.4
3.5
3.0
0.8
0.1
6.1
19.2
19.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
75.0
55.6
61.7
70.9
43.0
43.3
74.1
1.6
0.3
71.1
18.8
18.7
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
E
D
D
E
A
A
E
B
B
Approach Vol, veh/h
268
325
1491
1560
Approach Delay, s/veh
61.9
58.4
3,7
22.0
Approach LOS
E
E
A
C
Timer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
12.6
73.1
18.5
15.8
8.5
77.2
8.8
25.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
8.4
2.0
13.8
10.7
5.1
33.9
5.3
6.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
0.1
15.7
0.2
0.7
0.0
12.2
0.0
0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.7
HCM 6th LOS C
Scenario 3 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:02 pm 03/02/2022 Design Year with Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: 1-10 WB Ramps
(West)
& Glendon Way
04118/2022
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
Vi
T+
4*
Sign Control
Stop
Yield
Stop
Stop
Traffic Volume (vph)
0
143
27
340
113
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
Future Volume (vph)
0
143
27
340
113
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
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
29
370
123
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
SB 1
Volume Total (vph)
155
29
370
124
1
Volume Left (vph)
0
0
370
0
0
Volume Right (vph)
0
29
0
1
1
Hadj (s)
0.03
-0.67
0.53
0.03
-0.57
Departure Headway (s)
4.9
4.2
5.2
4.7
4.8
Degree Utilization, x
0.21
0.03
0.53
0.16
0.00
Capacity (vehm)
719
827
688
760
672
Control Delay (s)
8.1
6.2
12.6
7.3
7.8
Approach Delay (s)
7.8
11.3
7.8
Approach LOS
A
B
A
Intersection Summar
Delay 10.3
Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Scenario 3 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:02 pm 0310212022 Design Year with Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way 0411812022
--I --I, --v 1-~ *,- -\ T ti 1 �
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
Vi
8
it
Vi
t
r
Vi
ttt
tr
4
tt
r
Traffic Volume (vph)
13
0
140
38
107
161
59
1294
391
0
1266
335
Future Volume (vph)
13
0
140
38
107
161
59
1294
391
0
1266
335
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
176
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
0.28
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Said. Flow (prot)
1770
1583
1770
1863
1583
1770
5085
1583
0.51
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.54
Uniform Delay, dl
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
2.7
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1001
1.00
1583
1770
1863
1583
1770
5085
1583
0.03
3539
1583
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)
14
0
152
41
116
175
64
1407
425
0
1376
364
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
135
0
0
79
0
0
79
0
0
107
Lane Group Flow (vph)
14
0
17
41
116
96
64
1407
346
0
1376
257
Tum Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
8
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
8
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
8.5
97.6
97.6
84.6
84.6
Effective Green, g (s)
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
8.5
97.6
97.6
84.6
84.6
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.07
0.81
0.81
0.70
0.70
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
111
176
197
208
176
125
4135
1287
2494
1116
vls Ratio Prot
c0.06
:0.04
0.28
:0.39
v/s Ratio Perm
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.22
0.16
We Ratio
0.13
0.10
0.21
0.56
0.55
0.51
0.34
0.27
0.55
0.23
Uniform Delay, dl
48.0
47.9
48.5
50.5
50.4
53.8
2.9
2.7
8.5
6.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.40
0.03
Incremental Delay, d2
0.5
0.2
0.5
3.2
3.4
3.5
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.3
Delay (s)
48.5
48.1
49.0
53.7
53.8
57.3
3.1
3.2
4.1
0.5
Level of Service
D
D
D
D
D
E
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
48.1
53.2
5.0
3.3
Approach LOS
D
D
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM 2000 Control Delay
9.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
59.2% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Scenario 3 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:02 pm 03/02/2022 Design Year with Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 04110/2022
--p. 7
EBT EBR WBL
~ 41 /01
WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
TT
Vii
r
Traffic Volume (vehlh)
0
0
0
75
240
77
Future Volume (Vehlh)
0
0
0
75
240
77
Sign Control
Yield
84
cSH
Stop
Free
1623
Grade
0%
Volume to Capacity
0.11
0%
0%
0.16
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
0
0
0
82
261
84
Pedestrians
C
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
15.4
Lane Width (ft)
5.8
Approach LOS
C
Walking Speed (ft1s)
Intersection Summary
Percent Blockage
Average Delay
7.6
Right turn flare (veh)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
16.8%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
Median type
15
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
522
0
522
522
0
VCt, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked Vol
522
0
522
522
0
tC, single (s)
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.1
IC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
79
84
cM capacity (vehlh)
385
1085
408
385
1623
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
Volume Total
41
41
130
130
84
Volume Left
0
0
130
130
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
0
84
cSH
385
385
1623
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.11
0.11
0.16
0.16
0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft)
9
9
14
14
0
Control Delay (s)
15.4
15.4
7.6
7.6
0.0
Lane LOS
C
C
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
15.4
5.8
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
7.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization
16.8%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 3 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:02 pm 0310212022 Design Year with Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St 04/18/2022
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
tT+
tT+
I
TT
iff
I
Tb
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
66
264
91
236
193
151
83
1158
203
186
1091
42
Future Volume (vehm)
66
264
91
236
193
151
83
1158
203
186
1091
42
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/Mn
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, vehm
72
287
99
257
210
164
90
1259
221
202
1186
46
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap,veh/h
92
344
116
275
455
338
96
1664
742
171
1778
69
Arrive On Green
0.05
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.23
0.23
0.11
0.94
0.94
0.10
0.51
0.51
Sat Flow, veh/h
1781
2608
881
1781
1943
1444
1781
3554
1585
1781
3488
135
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
72
194
192
257
191
183
90
1259
221
202
604
628
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hM
1781
1777
1712
1781
1777
1610
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1846
Q Serve(g_s), s
4.8
12.7
13.2
17.1
11.1
11.8
6.0
9.3
1.5
11.5
30.3
30.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4.8
12.7
13.2
17.1
11.1
11.8
6.0
9.3
1.5
11.5
30.3
30.3
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.51
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
92
234
226
275
416
377
96
1664
742
171
906
941
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.83
0.85
0.94
0.46
0.48
0.93
0.76
0.30
1.18
0.67
0.67
Avail Cap(c_a), vehm
131
267
257
275
416
377
96
1664
742
171
906
941
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
56.2
50.8
51.0
50.2
39.4
39.7
53.3
2.3
2.1
54.3
21.8
21.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
17.7
17.2
21.3
37.4
0.8
1.0
65.7
2.9
0.9
126.8
3.9
3.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackQfQ(95%),vehM
4.7
11.0
11.3
15.8
8.6
8.4
7.5
3.3
1.1
17.7
19.3
19.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
73.9
67.9
72.2
87.6
40.2
40.7
119.0
5.3
3.0
181.0
25.7
25.6
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
F
D
D
F
A
A
F
C
C
Approach Vol, vehm
458
631
1570
1434
Approach Delay, s/veh
70.7
59.6
11.5
47.5
Approach LOS
E
E
B
D
Timer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
16.0
60.7
23.0
20.3
11.0
65.7
10.7
32.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
13.5
11.3
19.1
15.2
8.0
32.3
6.8
13.8
Green Ext Time (p -c), s
0.0
14.4
0.0
0.6
0.0
9.8
0.0
1.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 38.2
HCM 6th LOS D
Scenario 4 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:02 pm 03/02/2022 Design Year with Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: 1-10 WB Ramps (West) & Glendon Way 04/1812022
_#,--, r 1_4,, T/ ti l 4V
WBR NBL NBT NBR
Lane Configurations
T
r
9
k
+
Sign Control
Stop
Yield
Stop
Stop
Traffic Volume (vph)
0
206
34
406
221
2
0
0
0
1
0
2
Future Volume (vph)
0
206
34
406
221
2
0
0
0
1
0
2
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
224
37
441
240
2
0
0
0
1
0
2
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
SB 1
Volume Total (vph)
224
37
441
242
3
Volume Left (vph)
0
0
441
0
1
Volume Right (vph)
0
37
0
2
2
Hadj (s)
0.03
-0.67
0.53
0.03
-0.30
Departure Headway (s)
5.2
4.5
5.2
4.7
5.5
Degree Utilization, x
0.32
0.05
0.64
0.32
0.00
Capacity (vehlh)
687
779
679
750
591
Control Delay (s)
9.4
6.5
15.9
8.7
8.5
Approach Delay (s)
9.0
13.4
8.5
Approach LOS
A
B
A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Scenario 4 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:02 pm 03102/2022 Design Year with Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
18.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
68.5% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way
c Critical Lane Group
0411812022
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
if
+
if
)
Ttt
if
Tt
if
Traffic Volume (vph)
22
0
188
101
240
195
160
1434
553
0
1064
340
Future Volume (vph)
22
0
188
101
240
195
180
1434
553
0
1064
340
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
1583
1770
1863
1583
1770
5085
1583
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.22
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
416
1583
1770
1863
1583
1770
5085
1583
3539
1583
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)
24
0
204
110
261
212
196
1559
601
0
1157
370
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
170
0
0
56
0
0
145
0
0
53
Lane Group Flow (vph)
24
0
34
110
261
156
196
1559
456
0
1157
317
Tum Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
NA
Perm
Protected Phases
8
5
2
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
8
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
19.9
19.9
19.9
19.9
19.9
14.1
91.1
91.1
72.5
72.5
Effective Green, g (s)
19.9
19.9
19.9
19.9
19.9
14.1
91.1
91.1
72.5
72.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.12
0.76
0.76
0.60
0.60
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
68
262
293
308
262
207
3860
1201
2138
956
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.14
c0.11
0.31
c0.33
v/s Ratio Perm
0.06
0.02
0.06
0.10
0.29
0.20
We Ratio
0.35
0.13
0.38
0.85
0.60
0.95
0.40
0.38
0.54
0.33
Uniform Delay, dl
44.3
42.7
44.5
48.6
46.3
52.6
5.0
4.9
14.0
11.8
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.60
0.55
Incremental Delay, d2
3.1
0.2
0.8
18.9
3.6
47.1
0.3
0.9
0.6
0.6
Delay (s)
47.5
42.9
45.3
67.5
49.9
99.7
5.3
5.8
9.0
7.1
Level of Service
D
D
D
E
D
F
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
43.4
56.9
13.3
8.5
Approach LOS
D
E
B
A
Intersection Summa
HCM 2000 Control Delay
18.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
68.5% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Scenario 4 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:02 pm 03/0212022 Design Year with Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 0411012022
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (Veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
None
758
0
758
758
0
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
NEIL
6.5
6.2
7.1
tt
4.1
0
0
0
186
349
0
0
0
186
349
Yield
1085
265
Stop
Free
0%
0.39
0.23
0%
0%
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0
0
0
202
379
None
758
0
758
758
0
758
0
758
758
0
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.1
4.0
3.3
3,5
4.0
2.2
100
100
100
22
77
258
1085
265
258
1623
NBR
173
173
0.92
188
Direction, Lane # WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
Volume Total
101
101
190
190
188
Volume Left
0
0
190
190
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
0
188
cSH
258
258
1623
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.39
0.39
0.23
0.23
0.11
Queue Length 95th (ft)
44
44
23
23
0
Control Delay (s)
27.7
27.7
7.9
7.9
0.0
Lane LOS
D
D
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
27.7
5.3
Approach LOS
D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
11.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
21.8%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 4 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:02 pm 0310212022 Design Year with Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
Attachment C
Queuing Worksheets
Attachment C
Queuing Worksheets
Existing Conditions without Project
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St 0411812022
l� l'r .4- t4\
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
+I+
tT.
tT
r
TT+
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
44
89
103
158
77
52
40
1177
97
84
1267
24
Future Volume (vehlh)
44
89
103
158
77
52
40
1177
97
84
1267
24
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow,vehmlln
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1970
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
48
97
112
172
84
57
43
1279
105
91
1377
26
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
62
162
145
201
355
222
57
2068
922
114
2192
41
Arrive On Green
0.03
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.17
0.17
0.06
1.00
1.00
0.06
0.61
0.61
Sat Flow,veh/h
1781
1777
1585
1781
2098
1313
1781
3554
1585
1781
3568
67
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
48
97
112
172
70
71
43
1279
105
91
685
718
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1634
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1858
Q Serve(g_s), s
3.2
6.3
8.3
11.4
4.1
4.5
2.9
0.0
0.0
6.0
29.1
29.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.2
6.3
8.3
11.4
4.1
4.5
2.9
0.0
0.0
6.0
29.1
29.1
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.80
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
62
162
145
201
301
276
57
2068
922
114
1092
1142
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.60
0.77
0.86
0.23
0.26
0.76
0.62
0.11
0.80
0.63
0.63
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h
131
267
238
275
410
377
96
2068
922
171
1092
1142
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(l)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.89
0.89
0.89
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), slveh
57.4
52.4
53.3
52.3
43.1
43.3
55.7
0.0
0.0
55.4
14.5
14.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
18.3
3.5
8.5
17.4
0.4
0.5
16.8
1.2
0.2
14.2
2.7
2.6
Initial Q Delay(0),slveh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In
3.2
5.3
6.6
10.1
3.3
3.4
2.7
0.6
0.1
5.7
17.6
18.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),slveh
75.8
55.9
61.9
69.7
43.5
43.8
72.6
1.2
0.2
69.6
17.3
17.2
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
E
D
D
E
A
A
E
B
B
Approach Vol,veh/h
257
313
1427
1494
Approach Delay, s/veh
62.2
58.0
3.3
20.4
Approach LOS
E
E
A
C
Timer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
12.2
74.3
18.0
15.4
8.3
78.2
8.7
24.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.B
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
8.0
2.0
13.4
10.3
4.9
31.1
5.2
6.5
Green Ext Time (p -c), s
0.1
14.6
0.2
0.7
0.0
12.1
0.0
0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:03 pm 02/2812022 Existing Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing Conditions AM 04/1812022
Intersection: 2: 1-10 WB Ramps (West) & Glendon Way
movement
EB
EB"�M
WB
NB
Directions Served
T
R
L
TR
L
Maximum Queue (ft)
78
27
50
29
31
Average Queue (ft)
48
5
25
6
25
95th Queue (ft)
77
24
52
25
45
Link Distance (ft)
466
67
67
19
Upstream Bilk Time (%)
0
7
Queuing Penalty (veh)
0
4
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
87
Storage Bilk Time (%)
0
Queuing Penalty (veh)
0
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 SimTraffic Report
GTC Page 1
Queues
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way 04/1812022
� 1 ~ t 1 t ►�
Lane Group
EBL
M
195
Base Capacity (vph)
222
403
325
364
186
Lane Group Flow (vph)
13
146
81
167
62
1756
1318
349
We Ratio
0.11
0.51
0.46
0.69
0.44
0.43
0.51
0.28
Control Delay
48.7
14.1
58.3
36.6
61.6
3.0
4.3
0.5
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
Total Delay
48.7
14.1
58.3
36.7
61.6
3.0
4.4
0.5
Queue Length 50th (ft)
9
0
61
51
47
82
79
1
Queue Length 95th (ft)
28
59
106
119
90
148
98
0
Internal Link Dist (ft)
82
47
493
Turn Bay Length (ft)
195
Base Capacity (vph)
222
403
325
364
186
4093
2576
1247
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
387
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
3
0
151
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced We Ratio
0.06
0.36
0.25
0.46
0.33
0.45
0.60
0.28
Intersection Summary
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:03 pm 02/2812022 Existing Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 04/1012022
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:03 pm 02/28/2022 Existing Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
EBR
T
Lane Configurations
++
Traffic Volume (veh1h)
0
0
0
72
167
74
Future Volume (Veh/h)
0
0
0
72
167
74
Sign Control
Yield
Stop
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
0
0
78
182
80
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
364
0
364
364
0
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
364
0
364
364
0
tC, single (s)
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
84
89
cM capacity (veh/h)
501
1085
541
501
1623
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
Volume Total
39
39
182
80
Volume Left
0
0
182
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
80
cSH
501
501
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft)
6
6
9
0
Control Delay (s)
12.8
12.8
7.5
0.0
Lane LOS
B
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
12.8
5.2
Approach LOS
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
6.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization
19.3%
ICU
Level of
Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:03 pm 02/28/2022 Existing Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St
04/18/2022
--*
--I'
--*
t
4\
t
`-
1
4/
Movement zjjjUL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
I
T1+
►j
+T+
►j
TT
r
1T+
Traffic Volume (vehlh)
63
251
86
224
183
143
79
1100
193
177
1036
40
Future Volume (veh1h)
63
251
86
224
183
143
79
1100
193
177
1036
40
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-BikeAdj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, vehi
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
68
273
93
243
199
155
86
1196
210
192
1126
43
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
87
332
111
269
446
329
96
1693
755
171
1808
69
Arrive On Green
0.05
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.23
0.23
0.11
0.95
0.95
0.10
0.52
0.52
Sat Flow,veh1h
1781
2618
872
1781
1948
1440
1781
3554
1585
1781
3490
133
Grp Volume(v), vehlh
68
183
183
243
181
173
86
1196
210
192
573
596
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1781
1777
1713
1781
1777
1611
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1846
Q Serve(g_s),s
4.5
12.1
12.5
16.1
10.5
11.2
5.7
5.8
1.0
11.5
27.5
27.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4.5
12.1
12.5
16.1
10.5
11.2
5.7
5.8
1.0
11.5
27.5
27.6
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.51
1.00
0.89
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
87
225
217
269
406
369
96
1693
755
171
921
957
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.81
0.84
0.90
0.44
0.47
0.89
0.71
0.28
1.12
0.62
0.62
Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh
131
267
257
275
410
372
96
1693
755
171
921
957
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.81
0.81
0.81
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), slveh
56.4
51.0
51.2
50.1
39.7
40.0
53.2
1.6
1.5
54.3
20.6
20.6
Incr Delay (d2), slveh
15.7
15.1
19.0
30.2
0.8
0.9
50.6
2.0
0.7
106.3
3.2
3.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ileBack lo(95916),veh/ln
4.4
10.4
10.7
14.4
8.2
8.0
6.7
2.3
0.8
16.1
17.6
18.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
72.1
66.2
70.2
80.3
40.5
40.9
103.7
3.7
2.2
160.6
23.7
23.6
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
F
D
D
F
A
A
F
C
C
Approach Vol, vehlh
434
597
1492
1361
Approach Delay, slveh
68.8
56.8
9.2
43.0
Approach LOS
E
E
A
D
Timer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
16.0
61.7
22.6
19.7
11.0
66.7
10.4
32.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4,5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
13.5
7.8
18.1
14.5
7.7
29.6
6.5
13.2
Green Ext Time (p -c), s
0.0
13.5
0.0
0.7
0.0
9.5
0.0
1.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.0
HCM 6th LOS D
Scenario 2 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-101:59 pm 03/02/2022 Existing Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing Conditions PM 04118/2022
Intersection: 2: 1-10 WB Ramps (West) & Glendon Way
Movement
EB
EB
WB
WB
NB
SB M
Directions Served
T
R
L
TR
L
LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)
87
67
53
73
31
30
Average Queue (ft)
56
19
25
26
31
6
95th Queue (ft)
85
63
62
70
31
26
Link Distance (ft)
466
67
67
19
67
Upstream Blk Time (%)
0
0
11
Queuing Penalty (veh)
1
1
7
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
87
Storage Blk Time (%)
0
Queuing Penalty (veh)
0
Scenario 2 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 SimTraffic Report
GTC Page 1
Queues
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way
04118/2022
T
1
-'
EBL
EBR
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
Lane Group flow (vph)
23
195
220
201
186
2051
1099
351
vlc Ratio
0.23
0.46
0.73
0.63
0.71
0.55
0.54
0.33
Control Delay
46.8
9.1
61.2
39.4
62.9
6.3
11.3
1.1
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
Total Delay
46.8
9.1
61.2
39.4
62.9
6.4
11.5
1.1
Queue Length 50th (ft)
16
0
164
98
139
180
110
6
Queue Length 95th (ft)
40
61
235
169
206
271
m331
m14
Internal Link Dist (ft)
82
47
493
Turn Bay Length (ft)
195
Base Capacity (vph)
134
501
401
401
361
3746
2029
1057
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
222
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
1
0
109
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v1c Ratio
0.17
0.39
0.55
0.50
0.52
0.56
0.61
0.33
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Scenario 2 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-101:59 pm 03102/2022 Existing Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 04/10/2022
Scenario 2 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-101:59 pm 03/02/2022 Existing Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
�EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
NBL
NBR
Lane Configurations
ft
I
r
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
0
0
0
177
211
164
Future Volume (Veh/h)
0
0
0
177
211
164
Sign Control
Yield
Stop
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
0
0
192
229
178
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
458
0
458
458
0
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
458
0
458
458
0
tC, single (s)
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
55
86
cM capacity veh/h)
429
1085
458
429
1623
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
Volume Total
96
96
229
178
Volume Left
0
0
229
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
178
cSH
429
429
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.22
0.22
0.14
0.10
Queue Length 95th (ft)
21
21
12
0
Control Delay (s)
15.8
15.8
7.6
0.0
Lane LOS
C
C
A
Approach Delay (s)
15.8
4.3
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
23.2%
ICU
Level of
Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 2 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-101:59 pm 03/02/2022 Existing Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
Existing Conditions with Project
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St
0411812022
--*
--•
--*
'r
~
k
t
'-
1
4'
obvement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
+I
TT
tt
r
t1i,
Traffic Volume (vehlh)
44
89
103
158
77
52
40
1177
97
84
1267
24
Future Volume (vehlh)
44
89
103
158
77
52
40
1177
97
84
1267
24
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, vehlhM
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, vehlh
48
97
112
172
84
57
43
1279
105
91
1377
26
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap,vehlh
62
162
145
201
355
222
57
2068
922
114
2192
41
Arrive On Green
0.03
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.17
0.17
0.06
1.00
1.00
0.06
0.61
0.61
Sat Flow,veh/h
1781
1777
1585
1781
2098
1313
1781
3554
1585
1781
3568
67
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
48
97
112
172
70
71
43
1279
105
91
685
718
Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1634
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1858
Q Serve(g_s), s
3.2
6.3
8.3
11.4
4.1
4.5
2.9
0.0
0.0
6.0
29.1
29.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.2
6.3
8.3
11.4
4.1
4.5
2.9
0.0
0.0
6.0
29.1
29.1
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.80
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), vehm
62
162
145
201
301
276
57
2068
922
114
1092
1142
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.60
0.77
0.86
0.23
0.26
0.76
0.62
0.11
0.80
0.63
0.63
Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh
131
267
238
275
410
377
96
2068
922
171
1092
1142
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.94
0.94
0.94
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
57.4
52.4
53.3
52.3
43.1
43.3
55.7
0.0
0.0
55.4
14,5
14.5
Incr Delay (d2), slveh
18.3
3.5
8.5
17.4
0.4
0.5
17.7
1.3
0.2
14.2
2.7
2.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(95%),vehl1n
3.2
5.3
6.6
10.1
3.3
3.4
2.8
0.7
0.1
5.7
17.6
18.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),slveh
75.8
55.9
61.9
69.7
43.5
43.8
73.4
1.3
0.2
69.6
17.3
17.2
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
E
D
D
E
A
A
E
B
B
Approach Vol, vehm
257
313
1427
1494
Approach Delay, slveh
62.2
58.0
3.4
20.4
Approach LOS
E
E
A
c
Timer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
12.2
74.3
18.0
15.4
8.3
78.2
8.7
24.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
8.0
2.0
13.4
10.3
4.9
31.1
5.2
6.5
Green Ext Time (p -c), s
0.1
14.6
0.2
0.7
0.0
12.1
0.0
0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
19.9
HCM 6th LOS
B
Scenario 5 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:50 pm 0310712022 Existing with Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing with Project Conditions AM 0411812022
Intersection: 2: 1-10 WB Ramps (West) & Glendon Way
Scenario 5 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 SimTraftic Report
GTC Page 1
EB
EB
WB
Directions Served
T
R
L
Maximum Queue (ft)
55
30
26
Average Queue (ft)
45
23
21
95th Queue (ft)
63
42
38
Link Distance (ft)
471
471
71
upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Scenario 5 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 SimTraftic Report
GTC Page 1
Queues
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way
04/18/2022
--*
--v
'r
~
t
4\
t
1
-'
EBL
"
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBT
SBI
Lane Group Flow (vph)
13
146
39
111
167
62
1348
408
1318
339
v/c Ratio
0.12
0.49
0.21
0.56
0.65
0.44
0.32
0.30
0.52
0.28
Control Delay
48.4
13.1
49.6
60.8
33.4
61.6
3.2
0.9
4.4
0.5
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
Total Delay
48.4
13.1
49.6
60.8
33.4
61.6
3.2
0.9
4.6
0.5
Queue Length 50th (ft)
9
0
28
83
50
47
72
0
79
1
Queue Length 95th (ft)
28
59
60
136
118
90
119
20
97
0
Internal Link Dist (ft)
82
47
493
Turn Bay Length (ft)
195
100
Base Capacity (vph)
183
403
317
333
364
186
4159
1369
2541
1232
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
377
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
3
0
157
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.07
0.36
0.12
0.33
0.46
0.33
0.34
0.30
0.61
0.28
Intersection Summary
Scenario 5 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:50 pm 03/07/2022 Existing with Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 04/10/2022
7 4� �— 4
BT EBR WBL WBT fik NBR
Lane Configurations
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
tt
Volume Total 39
r
Traffic Volume (vehm)
0
0
0
72
230
74
Future Volume (Veh/h)
0
0
0
72
230
74
Sign Control
Yield
1623
1700
Stop
Free
0.15
Grade
0%
Queue Length 95th (ft) 8
8
0%
0%
0
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
0
0
0
78
250
80
Pedestrians
Approach LOS B
Lane Width (ft)
Average Delay
7.5
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
16.6%
ICU Level of Service A
Percent Blockage
15
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
500
0
500
500
0
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
500
0
500
500
0
tC, single (s)
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
80
85
cM capacity (veh/h)
400
1085
424
400
1623
Direction, Lane # WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
Volume Total 39
39
125
125
80
Volume Left 0
0
125
125
0
Volume Right 0
0
0
0
80
cSH 400
400
1623
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity 0.10
0.10
0.15
0.15
0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft) 8
8
14
14
0
Control Delay (s) 15.0
15.0
7.6
7.6
0.0
Lane LOS B
B
A
A
Approach Delay (s) 15.0
5.8
Approach LOS B
Average Delay
7.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
16.6%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 5J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:50 pm 03/07/2022 Existing with Project Condifions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St 0411812022
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
I
TT
Tk
TT
if
Tk
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
63
251
86
224
183
143
79
1100
193
177
1036
40
Future Volume (veh/h)
63
251
86
224
183
143
79
1100
193
177
1036
40
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow,vehmM
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
68
273
93
243
199
155
86
1196
210
192
1126
43
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap,veh/h
87
332
111
269
446
329
96
1693
755
171
1808
69
Arrive On Green
0.05
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.23
0.23
0.11
0.95
0.95
0.10
0.52
0.52
Sat Flow, veh/h
1781
2618
872
1781
1948
1440
1781
3554
1585
1781
3490
133
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
68
183
183
243
181
173
86
1196
210
192
573
596
Grp Sat Flow(s),vehmM
1781
1777
1713
1781
1777
1611
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1846
Q Serve(g_s), s
4.5
12.1
12.5
16.1
10.5
11.2
5.7
5.8
1.0
11.5
27.5
27.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4.5
12.1
12.5
16.1
10.5
11.2
5.7
5.8
1.0
11.5
27.5
27.6
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.51
1.00
0.89
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
87
225
217
269
406
369
96
1693
755
171
921
957
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.81
0.84
0.90
0.44
0.47
0.89
0.71
0.28
1.12
0.62
0.62
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
131
267
257
275
410
372
96
1693
755
171
921
957
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
0.91
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
56.4
51.0
51.2
50.1
39.7
40.0
53.2
1.6
1.5
54.3
20.6
20.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
15.7
15.1
19.0
30.2
0.8
0.9
54.6
2.3
0.8
106.3
3.2
3.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(95%),vehlln
4.4
10.4
10.7
14.4
8.2
8.0
7.0
2.4
0.8
16.1
17.6
18.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
72.1
66.2
70.2
80.3
40.5
40.9
107.7
3.9
2.3
160.6
23.7
23.6
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
F
D
D
F
A
A
F
C
C
Approach Vol, veh/h
434
597
1492
1361
Approach Delay, s/veh
68.8
56.8
9.7
43.0
Approach LOS
E
E
A
D
Timer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
16.0
61.7
22.6
19.7
11.0
66.7
10.4
32.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
13.5
7.8
18.1
14.5
7.7
29.6
6.5
13.2
Green Ext Time (p -c), s
0.0
13.5
0.0
0.7
0.0
9.5
0.0
1.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
35.2
HCM 6th LOS
D
Scenario 6 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:51 pm 03/0712022 Existing with Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing with Project Conditions PM 04/18/2022
Intersection: 2: 1-10 WB Ramps (West) & Glendon Way
Scenario 6 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 SimTraf6c Report
GTC Page 1
EB
EB
WB
Directions Served
T
R
L
TR
Maximum Queue (ft)
102
79
72
30
Average Queue (ft)
55
39
30
11
95th Queue (ft)
98
72
68
34
Link Distance (ft)
471
471
71
71
Upstream Bilk Time (%)
1
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
.+s,.
Scenario 6 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 SimTraf6c Report
GTC Page 1
Queues
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way 04/18/2022
�� r F k- '6\ T l
ne Group
EBL
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NET
NBT
NBR
SBT
SBR '
Lane Group Flow (vph)
23
195
104
248
201
186
1480
571
1099
351
v/c Ratio
0.23
0.44
0.33
0.74
0.60
0.72
0.39
0.44
0.56
0.35
Control Delay
45.5
8.4
43.9
59.0
37.7
63.6
6.4
2.0
12.0
1.6
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
Total Delay
45.5
8.4
43.9
59.0
37.7
63.6
6.4
2.0
12.1
1.6
Queue Length 50th (ft)
15
0
71
183
99
139
133
12
114
10
Queue Length 95th (ft)
39
59
116
257
169
207
195
50
m332
m20
Internal Link Dist (ft)
82
47
493
Turn Bay Length (ft)
195
100
Base Capacity (vph)
129
524
420
442
422
346
3782
1307
1978
1016
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
195
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
1
0
119
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced vlc Ratio
0.18
0.37
0.25
0.56
0.48
0.54
0.40
0.44
0.62
0.35
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Scenario 6 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:51 pm 03/0712022 Existing with Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 04/10/2022
--* 7 4� ~ 4\ /01
'', T EBR WBL WBT NBL NBF
Lane Configurations
0
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
0
Future Volume (Veh/h)
0
Sign Control
Yield
Grade
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
Hourly Flow rate (vph)
0
Pedestrians,,
Lane Width (ft)
0%
0
0
177
332
164
0
0
177
332
164
Stop
Free
0%
0%
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0
0
192
361
178
Walking Speed (ttls)
Percent Blockage
Right tum Flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
722
0
722
722
0
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
722
0
722
722
0
tC, single (s)
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.1
IC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
30
78
cM capacity (veh/h)
274
1085
283
274
1623
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
Volume Total
96
96
180
180
178
Volume Left
0
0
180
180
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
0
178
cSH
274
274
1623
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.35
0.35
0.22
0.22
0.10
Queue Length 95th (ft)
38
38
21
21
0
Control Delay (s)
25.0
25.0
7.9
7.9
0.0
Lane LOS
D
D
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
25.0
5.3
Approach LOS
D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
10.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization
21.0%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 6 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:51 pm 0310712022 Existing with Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
Future 2025 Conditions without Project (Opening Year)
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St
04118/2022
m
k
4\
t
'-
1
4'
f-~
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
Vi
tl
+I+
tt
r
TS*
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
44
90
104
159
77
52
40
1184
98
84
1274
24
Future Volume (veh/h)
44
90
104
159
77
52
40
1184
98
84
1274
24
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
48
98
113
173
84
57
43
1287
107
91
1385
26
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap,veh/h
62
163
146
202
358
224
57
2063
920
114
2188
41
Arrive On Green
0.03
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.17
0.17
0.06
1.00
1.00
0.06
0.61
0.61
Sat Flow,veh/h
1781
1777
1585
1781
2098
1313
1781
3554
1585
1781
3568
67
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
48
98
113
173
70
71
43
1287
107
91
689
722
Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1634
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1858
Q Serve(g_s), s
3.2
6.4
8.4
11.4
4.1
4.5
2.9
0.0
0.0
6.0
29.4
29.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.2
6.4
8.4
11.4
4.1
4.5
2.9
0.0
0.0
6.0
29.4
29.5
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.80
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh
62
163
146
202
303
278
57
2063
920
114
1089
1139
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.60
0.78
0.86
0.23
0.25
0.76
0.62
0.12
0.80
0.63
0.63
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
131
267
238
275
410
377
96
2063
920
171
1089
1139
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.89
0.89
0.89
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
57.4
52.4
53.3
52.2
43.0
43.2
55.7
0.0
0.0
55.4
14.7
14.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
18.3
3.5
8.5
17.6
0.4
0.5
16.8
1.3
0.2
14.2
2.8
2.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(95%),vehlln
3.2
5.4
6.6
10.2
3.3
3.4
2.7
0.7
0.1
5.7
17.8
18.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
75.8
55.9
61.8
69.9
43.4
43.6
72.6
1.3
0.2
69.6
17.5
17.4
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
E
D
D
E
A
A
E
B
B
Approach Vol, veh/h
259
314
1437
1502
Approach Delay, s/veh
62.2
58.0
3.3
20.6
Approach LOS
E
E
A
C
rimer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
12.2
74.2
18.1
15.5
8.3
78.1
8.7
24.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
8.0
2.0
13.4
10.4
4.9
31.5
5.2
6.5
Green Ext Time (p -c), s
0.1
14.8
0.2
0.7
0.0
12.1
0.0
0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Scenario 3 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03/07/2022 Opening Year without Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year without Project Conditions AM 0411612022
Intersection: 2: 1-10 WB Ramps (West) & Glendon Way
Wbyement ",c
EB
Eff
V8
W5
NB
SB
Directions Served
T
R
L
TR
L
LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)
55
30
50
27
31
28
Average Queue (ft)
45
17
31
5
31
6
95th Queue (ft)
63
40
47
23
31
24
Link Distance (ft)
466
67
67
19
67
Upstream Blk Time (%)
0
9
Queuing Penalty (veh)
0
6
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
87
Storage Bilk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Scenario 3 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 SimTraffic Report
GTC Page 1
Queues
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way
SBL
EBR
WBT
WBR
04/1812022
NBT
SBT '
SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)
13
147
Lane Group
SBL
EBR
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
SBT '
SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)
13
147
81
168
62
1765
1326
351
v/c Ratio
0.11
0.51
0.46
0.69
0.44
0.43
0.52
0.28
Control Delay
48.4
14.0
58.0
37.1
61.6
3.1
4.3
0.5
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
Total Delay
48.4
14.0
58.0
37.1
61.6
3.1
4.4
0.5
Queue Length 50th (ft)
9
0
61
52
47
84
80
1
Queue Length 95th (ft)
28
58
106
122
90
150
98
0
Internal Link Dist (ft)
82
47
493
Turn Bay Length (ft)
195
Base Capacity (vph)
222
404
325
364
186
4089
2573
1246
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
386
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
3
0
157
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.06
0.36
0.25
0.47
0.33
0.45
0.61
0.28
Intersection Summary
Scenario 3 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03/07/2022 Opening Year without Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 0411012022
Scenario 3 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03/07/2022 Opening Year without Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
Movement
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
NBL
NBR
Lane Configurations
tt
r
Traffic Volume (vehlh)
0
0
0
72
168
74
Future Volume (Veh/h)
0
0
0
72
168
74
Sign Control
Yield
Stop
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
0
0
78
183
80
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (f 1s)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
366
0
366
366
0
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
366
0
366
366
0
tC, single (s)
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
84
89
cM capacity (veh/h)
499
1085
539
499
1623
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
Volume Total
39
39
183
80
Volume Left
0
0
183
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
80
cSH
499
499
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft)
6
6
10
0
Control Delay (s)
12.8
12.8
7.5
0.0
Lane LOS
B
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
12.8
5.2
Approach LOS
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
7.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
19.3%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 3 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03/07/2022 Opening Year without Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St 04/18/2022
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBf"
s3I
Lane Configurations
0
0.
tt
r
Vi
1T+
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
63
253
87
226
184
144
80
1108
194
178
1043
40
Future Volume (veh/h)
63
253
87
226
184
144
80
1108
194
178
1043
40
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/hM
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
68
275
95
246
200
157
87
1204
211
193
1134
43
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
87
333
113
272
449
335
96
1684
751
171
1800
68
Arrive On Green
0.05
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.23
0.23
0.11
0.95
0.95
0.10
0.52
0.52
Sat Flow,veh1h
1781
2608
881
1781
1941
1446
1781
3554
1585
1781
3491
132
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
68
185
185
246
182
175
87
1204
211
193
577
600
Grp Sat Flow(s),vehmlln
1781
1777
1712
1781
1777
1610
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1847
Q Serve(g_s), s
4.5
12.2
12.7
16.3
10.5
11.2
5.8
6.6
1.1
11.5
28.0
28.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4.5
12.2
12.7
16.3
10.5
11.2
5.8
6.6
1.1
11.5
28.0
28.0
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.51
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
87
227
219
272
411
373
96
1684
751
171
916
952
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.82
0.84
0.91
0.44
0.47
0.90
0.72
0.28
1.13
0.63
0.63
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
131
267
257
275
411
373
96
1684
751
171
916
952
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.81
0.81
0.81
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), slveh
56.4
51.0
51.2
50.0
39.5
39.8
53.2
1.8
1.7
54.3
20.9
20.9
Incr Delay (d2), sNeh
15.7
15.5
19.5
30.8
0.8
0.9
53.2
2.1
0.8
108.3
3.3
3.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(95%),vehlln
4.4
10.5
10.8
14.6
8.3
8.1
6.8
2.5
0.8
16.3
17.9
18.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
72.1
66.5
70.7
80.8
40.2
40.7
106.4
4.0
2.4
162.5
24.1
24.0
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
F
D
D
F
A
A
F
C
C
Approach Vol, vehih
438
603
1502
1370
Approach Delay, s/veh
69.1
56.9
9.7
43.6
Approach LOS
E
E
A
D
Timer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
16.0
61.4
22.8
19.8
11.0
66.4
10.4
32.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
13.5
8.6
18.3
14.7
7.8
30.0
6.5
13.2
Green Ext Time (p -c), s
0.0
13.6
0.0
0.7
0.0
9.5
0.0
1.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
35,5
HCM 6th LOS
D
Scenario 4 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03/07/2022 Opening Year without Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year without Project Conditions PM 04118/2022
Intersection: 2: 1-10 WB Ramps (West) & Glendon Way
Movement
EB
EB
WB
WB
Directions Served
T
R
L
TR
L
Maximum Queue (ft)
81
30
70
54
49
Average Queue (ft)
59
12
47
28
40
95th Queue (ft)
88
36
89
57
57
Link Distance (ft)
466
67
67
19
Upstream Blk Time (%)
3
0
12
Queuing Penalty (veh)
8
0
8
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
87
Storage Blk Time (%)
1
Queuing Penalty (veh)
0
Scenario 4 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 SimTraffic Report
GTC Page 1
Queues
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way 04118/2022
--* ~ k- 4\ t 4
ratteftlup ""`'
EBL
EBR
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
SST
SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)
23
196
222
202
187
2065
1107
353
vlc Ratio
0.23
0.46
0.74
0.64
0.71
0.55
0.55
0.33
Control Delay
46.8
9.1
61.3
39.8
62.9
6.4
11.5
1.1
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
Total Delay
46.8
9.1
61.3
39.8
62.9
6.4
11.6
1.1
Queue Length 50th (ft)
16
0
165
100
140
184
111
6
Queue Length 95th (ft)
40
61
236
170
207
275
m338
m14
Internal Link Dist (ft)
82
47
493
Turn Bay Length (ft)
195
Base Capacity (vph)
132
502
401
400
361
3742
2024
1056
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
221
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
1
0
110
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.17
0.39
0.55
0.51
0.52
0.57
0.61
0.33
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Scenario 4 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03107/2022 Opening Year without Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 04/10/2022
Lane Configurations
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
tt
96
Traffic Volume (vehlh)
0
0
0
178
212
Future Volume (Veh/h)
0
0
0
178
212
Sign Control
Yield
Volume to Capacity 0.23
0.23
Stop
Free
Grade
0%
12
0
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
0
0
0
193
230
Pedestrians
Intersection Summary
Lane Width (ft)
8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Walking Speed (it/s)
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Percent Blockage
Right turn Flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
460
0
460
460
0
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
460
0
460
460
0
tC, single (s)
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
2.2
p0 queue flee %
100
100
100
55
86
cM capacity (veh/h)
427
1085
456
427
1623
165
165
0.92
179
Direction, Lane # WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
Volume Total 96
96
230
179
Volume Left 0
0
230
0
Volume Right 0
0
0
179
cSH 427
427
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity 0.23
0.23
0.14
0.11
Queue Length 95th (ft) 21
21
12
0
Control Delay (s) 15.9
15.9
7.6
0.0
Lane LOS C
C
A
Approach Delay (s) 15.9
4.3
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
23.3%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 4 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03/0712022 Opening Year without Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
Future 2045 Conditions without Project (Design Year)
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St
12.2
74.2
18.1
15.5
8.3
78.1
8.7
24.9
0411812022
4.5
t__,,
4.5
--V
4,-
4---
4_
-.
t
r
54.0
18.5
4/
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBI
Lane Configurations
V1
Tl+
0.2
0.7
tk
12.1
0.0
tt
r
I
tT*
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
44
90
104
159
77
52
40
1184
98
84
1274
24
Future Volume (veh/h)
44
90
104
159
77
52
40
1184
98
84
1274
24
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/Mn
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
48
98
113
173
84
57
43
1287
107
91
1385
26
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap,vehm
62
163
146
202
358
224
57
2063
920
114
2188
41
Arrive On Green
0.03
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.17
0.17
0.06
1.00
1.00
0.06
0.61
0.61
Sat Flow, veh/h
1781
1777
1585
1781
2098
1313
1781
3554
1585
1781
3568
67
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
48
98
113
173
70
71
43
1287
107
91
689
722
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hM
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1634
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1858
Q Serve(g_s), s
3.2
6.4
8.4
11.4
4.1
4.5
2.9
0.0
0.0
6.0
29.4
29.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.2
6.4
8.4
11.4
4.1
4.5
2.9
0.0
0.0
6.0
29.4
29.5
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.80
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
62
163
146
202
303
278
57
2063
920
114
1089
1139
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.60
0.78
0.86
0.23
0.25
0.76
0.62
0.12
0.80
0.63
0.63
Avail Cap(c_a), vehm
131
267
238
275
410
377
96
2063
920
171
1089
1139
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.94
0.94
0.94
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
57.4
52.4
53.3
52.2
43.0
43.2
55.7
0.0
0.0
55.4
14.7
14.7
Incr Delay (d2), slveh
18.3
3.5
8.5
17.6
0.4
0.5
17.7
1.3
0.2
14.2
2.8
2.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
°/pile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In
3.2
5.4
6.6
10.2
3.3
3.4
2.8
0.7
0.1
5.7
17.8
18.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),slveh
75.8
55.9
61.8
69.9
43.4
43.6
73.4
1.3
0.2
69.6
17.5
17.4
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
E
D
D
E
A
A
E
B
B
Approach Vol, veh/h
259
314
1437
1502
Approach Delay, s/veh
62.2
58.0
3.4
20.6
Approach LOS
E
E
A
C
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
12.2
74.2
18.1
15.5
8.3
78.1
8.7
24.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
8.0
2.0
13.4
10.4
4.9
31.5
5.2
6.5
Green Ext Time (p -c), s
0.1
14.8
0.2
0.7
0.0
12.1
0.0
0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:03 pm 0212812022 Future with Project Conditions (Opening Year) AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Future with Project Conditions (Opening Year) AM 0411812022
Intersection: 2: 1-10 WB Ramps (West) & Glendon Way
MIJIgnt
EB
EB
WB
SB
Directions Served
T
R
L
LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)
72
30
48
28
Average Queue (ft)
40
17
15
6
95th Queue (ft)
66
41
47
24
Link Distance (ft)
471
471
71
66
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 SimTraffic Report
GTC Page 1
Queues
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way
0411812022
f-),
t
4\
t
l
Lane Group
EBL
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBT ,
Lane Group Flow (vph)
13
147
39
111
168
62
1355
410
1326
351
vlc Ratio
0.12
0.49
0.21
0.56
0.65
0.44
0.33
0.30
0.52
0.28
Control Delay
48.3
13.1
49.5
60.6
34.0
61.6
3.2
0.9
4.5
0.5
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
Total Delay
48.3
13.1
49.5
60.6
34.0
61.6
3.2
0.9
4.6
0.5
Queue Length 50th (ft)
9
0
28
83
52
47
72
0
80
1
Queue Length 95th (ft)
28
58
60
135
120
90
121
20
98
0
Internal Link Dist (ft)
82
47
493
Turn Bay Length (ft)
195
100
Base Capacity (vph)
183
404
317
333
364
186
4157
1369
2540
1235
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
377
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
3
0
162
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced vlc Ratio
0.07
0.36
0.12
0.33
0.47
0.33
0.34
0.30
0.61
0.28
Intersection Summary
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:03 pm 0212812022 Future with Project Conditions (Opening Year) AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 04/1012022
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:03 pm 02128/2022 Future with Project Conditions (Opening Year) AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
Movement
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
NBL
NBR
Lane Configurations
tt
M
if
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
0
0
0
72
231
74
Future Volume (Vehlh)
0
0
0
72
231
74
Sign Control
Yield
Stop
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
0
0
78
251
80
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
502
0
502
502
0
vCt, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
502
0
502
502
0
tC, single (s)
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
80
85
cM capacity (vehlh)
399
1085
423
399
1623
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
Volume Total
39
39
126
126
80
Volume Left
0
0
126
126
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
0
80
cSH
399
399
1623
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.10
0.10
0.15
0.15
0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft)
8
8
14
14
0
Control Delay (s)
15.0
15.0
7.6
7.6
0.0
Lane LOS
C
C
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
15.0
5.8
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
7.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
16.6%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 1 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:03 pm 02128/2022 Future with Project Conditions (Opening Year) AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St 04118/2022
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
I
?T+
4T+
I
tT
i
TT+
Traffic Volume (veh1h)
63
253
87
226
184
144
80
1108
194
178
1043
40
Future Volume (veh1h)
63
253
87
226
184
144
80
1108
194
178
1043
40
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow,vehIh/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Act Flow Rate, veh/h
68
275
95
246
200
157
87
1204
211
193
1134
43
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
87
333
113
272
449
335
96
1684
751
171
1800
68
Arrive On Green
0.05
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.23
0.23
0.11
0.95
0.95
0.10
0.52
0.52
Sat Flow, veh/h
1781
2608
881
1781
1941
1446
1781
3554
1585
1781
3491
132
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
68
185
185
246
182
175
87
1204
211
193
577
600
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1781
1777
1712
1781
1777
1610
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1847
Q Serve(g_s), s
4.5
12.2
12.7
16.3
10.5
11.2
5.8
6.6
1.1
11.5
28.0
28.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4.5
12.2
12.7
16.3
10.5
11.2
5.8
6.6
1.1
11.5
28.0
28.0
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.51
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
87
227
219
272
411
373
96
1684
751
171
916
952
VIC Ratio(X)
0.78
0.82
0.84
0.91
0.44
0.47
0.90
0.72
0.28
1.13
0.63
0.63
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h
131
267
257
275
411
373
96
1684
751
171
916
952
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.92
0.92
0.92
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
56.4
51.0
51.2
50.0
39.5
39.8
53.2
1.8
1.7
54.3
20.9
20.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
15.7
15.5
19.5
30.8
0.8
0.9
57.8
2.4
0.9
108.3
3.3
3.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In
4.4
10.5
10.8
14.6
8.3
8.1
7.2
2.7
0.9
16.3
17.9
18.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, slveh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
72.1
66.5
70.7
80.8
40.2
40.7
110.9
4.2
2.5
162.5
24.1
24.0
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
F
D
D
F
A
A
F
C
C
Approach Vol, veh/h
438
603
1502
1370
Approach Delay, slveh
69.1
56.9
10.2
43.6
Approach LOS
E
E
B
D
Timer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
16.0
61.4
22.8
19.8
11.0
66.4
10.4
32.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
13.5
8.6
18.3
14.7
7.8
30.0
6.5
13.2
Green Ext Time (p -c), s
0.0
13.6
0.0
0.7
0.0
9.5
0.0
1.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.7
HCM 6th LOS D
Scenario 2 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-101:59 pm 03/02/2022 Future with Project Conditions (Opening Year) PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Future with Prosect Conditions (Opening Year) PM 04116/2022
Intersection: 2: 1-10 WB Ramps (West) & Glendon Way
18
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 55 79
Average Queue (ft) 53 27
95th Queue (ft) 56 75
Link Distance (ft) 471 471
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Bilk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Scenario 2 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 SimTraffic Report
GTC Page 1
Queues
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way 04118/2022
FAne Group
EBL
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NB L "
Lane Group Flow (vph)
23
196
105
250
202
187
1490
575
1107
353
A Ratio
0.31
0.46
0.36
0.82
0.63
0.89
0.38
0.43
0.52
0.35
Control Delay
55.4
9.7
47.8
70.2
37.6
91.7
5.3
1.4
9.0
4.3
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
Total Delay
55.4
9.7
47.8
70.2
37.6
91.7
5.3
1.4
9.3
4.3
Queue Length 50th (ft)
16
0
72
186
89
-150
131
0
106
22
Queue Length 95th (ft)
44
64
126
#300
171
#301
153
26
m122
m37
Internal Link Dist (ft)
82
47
493
Turn Bay Length (ft)
195
100
Base Capacity (vph)
81
444
317
333
346
211
3872
1342
2141
1015
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
382
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
1
0
122
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced A Ratio
0.28
0.44
0.33
0.75
0.59
0.89
0.40
0.43
0.63
0.35
- 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.
Scenario 2 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-101:59 pm 0310212022 Future with Project Conditions (Opening Year) PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 0411012022
Scenario 2 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-101:59 pm 0310212022 Future with Project Conditions (Opening Year) PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
__,.
-�*
4,�
~
4�
/1�
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
NBL
NBR
Lane Configurations
+t
r
Traffic Volume (vehlh)
0
0
0
178
334
165
Future Volume (Vehlh)
0
0
0
178
334
165
Sign Control
Yield
Stop
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
0
0
193
363
179
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
PX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
726
0
726
726
0
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
726
0
726
726
0
tC, single (s)
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
29
78
cM capacity (vehlh)
273
1085
281
273
1623
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
Volume Total
96
96
182
182
179
Volume Left
0
0
182
182
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
0
179
cSH
273
273
1623
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.35
0.35
0.22
0.22
0.11
Queue Length 95th (ft)
38
38
21
21
0
Control Delay (s)
25.3
25.3
7.9
7.9
0.0
Lane LOS
D
D
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
25.3
5.3
Approach LOS
D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
10.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
21.1%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 2 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-101:59 pm 0310212022 Future with Project Conditions (Opening Year) PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
Future 2025 Conditions with Project (Opening Year)
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St
04/18/2022
L
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SIS
Lane Configurations
I
TT+
►j
TA
Vi
TT
if
I
?A
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
46
93
108
165
80
54
42
1228
101
88
1322
25
Future Volume (veh/h)
46
93
108
165
80
54
42
1228
101
88
1322
25
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj (A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
50
101
117
179
87
59
46
1335
110
96
1437
27
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
Percent Heavy Ven, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
65
168
150
208
367
229
59
2031
906
120
2162
41
Arrive On Green
0.04
0.09
0.09
0.12
0.17
0.17
0.07
1.00
1.00
0.07
0.61
0.61
Sat Flow, vehth
1781
1777
1585
1781
2098
1313
1781
3554
1585
1781
3568
67
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
50
101
117
179
73
73
46
1335
110
96
715
749
Grp Sat Flow(s),vehmlln
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1634
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1858
Q Serve(g_s), s
3.3
6.5
8.7
11.8
4.2
4.7
3.1
0.0
0.0
6.4
31.8
31.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.3
6.5
8.7
11.8
4.2
4.7
3.1
0.0
0.0
6.4
31.8
31.9
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.80
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
65
168
150
208
311
286
59
2031
906
120
1077
1126
V/C Ratio(X)
0.77
0.60
0.78
0.86
0.23
0.26
0.78
0.66
0.12
0.80
0.66
0.67
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
131
267
238
275
410
377
96
2031
906
171
1077
1126
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(1)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.88
0.88
0.88
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
57.3
52.2
53.1
52.0
42.6
42.8
55.6
0.0
0.0
55.2
15.6
15.6
Incr Delay (d2), stveh
17.6
3.4
8.6
18.8
0.4
0.5
17.6
1.5
0.2
16.0
3.2
3.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(95%),vehM
3.3
5.6
6.8
10.5
3.4
3.5
2.9
0.8
0.1
6.1
19.2
19.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
75.0
55.6
61.7
70.9
43.0
43.3
73.2
1.5
0.2
71.1
18.8
18.7
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
E
D
D
E
A
A
E
B
B
Approach Vol, veh/h
268
325
1491
1560
Approach Delay, s/veh
61.9
58.4
3.6
22.0
Approach LOS
E
E
A
C
Timer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
12.6
73.1
18.5
15.8
8.5
77.2
8.8
25.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
8.4
2.0
13.8
10.7
5.1
33.9
5.3
6.7
Green Ext Time (p -c), s
0.1
15.7
0.2
0.7
0.0
12.2
0.0
0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.7
HCM 6th LOS C
Scenario 5 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03/0712022 Design Year without Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year without Protect Conditions AM 04/18/2022
Intersection: 2: 1-10 WB Ramps (West) & Glendon Way
Movement
EB
EB
Directions Served
T
R
L
L
Maximum Queue (ft)
56
30
74
31
Average Queue (ft)
40
17
48
25
95th Queue (ft)
60
40
98
45
Link Distance (ft)
466
67
19 x
Upstream Blk Time (%)
2
4
Queuing Penalty (veh)
4
2
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
87
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Scenario 5 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 SimTraffic Report
GTC Page 1
Queues
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way 04/18/2022
--,* --* ~ 4-
Lane Group
EBL
EBR
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)
14
152
86
175
64
1832
1376
364
v/c Ratio
0.11
0.50
0.45
0.71
0.45
0.45
0.54
0.29
Control Delay
47.2
13.1
56.1
41.8
61.7
3.5
4.7
0.5
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
Total Delay
47.2
13.1
56.1
41.9
61.7
3.5
4.9
0.5
Queue Length 50th (ft)
10
0
64
67
48
100
88
1
Queue Length 95th (ft)
29
59
110
137
92
172
106
0
Internal Link Dist (ft)
82
47
493
Turn Bay Length (ft)
195
Base Capacity (vph)
228
420
341
366
175
4048
2540
1239
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
363
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
3
0
194
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.06
0.36
0.25
0.48
0.37
0.48
0.63
0.29
Intersection Summary
Scenario 5 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03/07/2022 Design Year without Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 04110/2022
—10. 7 %4,
EBT EBR WBL
~ 4\ /P.
WBT
Lane Configurations
tt
r
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
0
0
0
75
174
77
Future Volume (Veh/h)
0
0
0
75
174
77
Sign Control
Yield
Stop
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
0
0
82
189
84
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
378
0
378
378
0
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
378
0
378
378
0
tC, single (s)
6,5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
83
88
cM capacity (veh/h)
489
1085
528
489
1623
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
Volume Total
41
41
189
84
Volume Left
0
0
189
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
84
cSH
489
489
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.08
0.08
0.12
0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft)
7
7
10
0
Control Delay (s)
13.0
13.0
7.5
0.0
Lane LOS
B
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
13.0
5.2
Approach LOS
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
7.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
19.6%
ICU
Level of
Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 5 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:23 pm 03/07/2022 Design Year without Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St 04118/2022
Movement
� � 4- � 4\ T 1
1
NBL NBT NBR
M
Lane Configurations
1
0
3
4
5
6
7
??
F
16.0
60.7
23.0
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
66
264
91
236
193
151
83
1158
203
186
1091
42
Future Volume (veh/h)
66
264
91
236
193
151
83
1158
203
186
1091
42
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/hM
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
72
287
99
257
210
164
90
1259
221
202
1186
46
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
92
344
116
275
455
338
96
1664
742
171
1778
69
Arrive On Green
0.05
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.23
0.23
0.11
0.94
0.94
0.10
0.51
0.51
Sat Flow, veh/h
1781
2608
881
1781
1943
1444
1781
3554
1585
1781
3488
135
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
72
194
192
257
191
183
90
1259
221
202
604
628
Grp SatFlow(s),vehmM
1781
1777
1712
1781
1777
1610
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1846
Q Serve(g_s), s
4.8
12.7
13.2
17.1
11.1
11.8
6.0
9.3
1.5
11.5
30.3
30.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4.8
12.7
13.2
17.1
11.1
11.8
6.0
9.3
1.5
11.5
30.3
30.3
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.51
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
92
234
226
275
416
377
96
1664
742
171
906
941
VIC Ra6o(X)
0.78
0.83
0.85
0.94
0.46
0.48
0.93
0,76
0.30
1.18
0.67
0.67
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
131
267
257
275
416
377
96
1664
742
171
906
941
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2,00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(1)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.78
0.78
0.78
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
56.2
50.8
51.0
50.2
39.4
39.7
53.3
2.3
2.1
54.3
21.8
21.8
Incr Delay (0), slveh
17.7
17.2
21.3
37.4
0.8
1.0
60.3
2.6
0.8
126.8
3.9
3.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(950/D),veh/In
4.7
11.0
11.3
15.8
8.6
8.4
7.1
3.2
1.0
17.7
19.3
19.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
73.9
67.9
72.2
87.6
40.2
40.7
113.6
4.9
2.9
181.0
25.7
25.6
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
F
D
D
F
A
A
F
C
C
Approach Vol, veh/h 458
Approach Delay, s/veh 70.7
Approach LOS E
631 1570 1434
59.6 10.8 47.5
E B D
Timer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
16.0
60.7
23.0
20.3
11.0
65.7
10.7
32.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
13.5
11.3
19.1
15.2
8.0
32.3
6.8
13.8
Green Ext Time (p -c), s
0.0
14.4
0.0
0.6
0.0
9.8
0.0
1.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.9
HCM 6th LOS D
Scenario 6 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:24 pm 03/07/2022 Design Year without Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year without Project Conditions PM 04/1812022
Intersection: 2: 1-10 WB Ramps (West) & Glendon Way
Movement
BB
WB
Directions Served
T
R
L
TR
L
Maximum Queue (ft)
81
49
48
27
50 4 ,,
Average Queue (ft)
59
16
34
5
33
95th Queue (ft)
98
49
52
23
48
Link Distance (ft)
466
67
67
19
Upstream Bilk Time (%)
0
16
4,
Queuing Penalty (veh)
0
10
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
87
Storage Blk Time (%)
1
Queuing Penalty (veh)
0
Scenario 6 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 SimTraffic Report
GTC Page 1
Queues
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way
04/18/2022
--*
--*
F-
t
4\
t
1
-'
EBL
EBR
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)
24
204
233
212
196
2160
1157
370
v/c Ratio
0.25
0.46
0.75
0.67
0.72
0.58
0.58
0.35
Control Delay
47.5
8.9
61.9
43.9
63.1
6.9
12.0
1.1
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
Total Delay
47.5
8.9
61.9
43.9
63.1
7.0
12.2
1.1
Queue Length 50th (ft)
16
0
173
114
146
206
116
5
Queue Length 951h (ft)
42
62
249
188
216
298
m353
m14
Internal Link Dist (ft)
82
47
493
Turn Bay Length (ft)
195
Base Capacity (vph)
125
508
401
393
361
3721
1992
1053
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
214
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
1
0
119
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.19
0.40
0.58
0.54
0.54
0.60
0.65
0.35
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Scenario 6 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:24 pm 03/07/2022 Design Year without Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 04/10/2022
EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
TT
if
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
0
0
0
186
222
173
Future Volume (Veh/h)
0
0
0
186
222
173
Sign Control
Yield
Stop
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
0
0
202
241
188
Pedestrians
Lane Width (it)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (it)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
482
0
482
482
0
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
482
0
482
482
0
tC, single (s)
6.5
6,2
7.1
6.5
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
4.0
3.3
3,5
4.0
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
51
85
cM capacity (veh/h)
412
1085
438
412
1623
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
Volume Total
101
101
241
188
Volume Left
0
0
241
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
188
cSH
412
412
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.25
0.25
0.15
0.11
Queue Length 95th (ft)
24
24
13
0
Control Delay (s)
16.6
16.6
7.6
0.0
Lane LOS
C
C
A
Approach Delay (s)
16.6
4.3
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
8.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
24.1%
ICU
Level of
Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Scenario 6 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 7:24 pm 03/07/2022 Design Year without Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
Future 2045 Conditions with Project (Design Year)
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St 04118/2022
--* -,* 'r ~ t 4\ T �- 1 4/
EBL EBT EBR
Lane Configurations
I
tl�
tT+
Tt
r
I
?T+
Traffic Volume (vehlh)
46
93
108
165
80
54
42
1228
101
88
1322
25
Future Volume (veh/h)
46
93
108
165
80
54
42
1228
101
88
1322
25
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow,vehmfln
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
50
101
117
179
87
59
46
1335
110
96
1437
27
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
65
168
150
208
367
229
59
2031
906
120
2162
41
Arrive On Green
0.04
0.09
0.09
0.12
0.17
0.17
0.07
1.00
1.00
0.07
0.61
0.61
Sat Flow,veh1h
1781
1777
1585
1781
2098
1313
1781
3554
1585
1781
3568
67
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
50
101
117
179
73
73
46
1335
110
96
715
749
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1634
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1858
Q Serve(g_s), s
3.3
6.5
8.7
11.8
4.2
4.7
3.1
0.0
0.0
6.4
31.8
31.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.3
6.5
8.7
11.8
4.2
4.7
3.1
0.0
0.0
6.4
31.8
31.9
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.80
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
65
168
150
208
311
286
59
2031
906
120
1077
1126
V/C Ratio(X)
0.77
0.60
0.78
0.86
0.23
0.26
0.78
0.66
0.12
0.80
0.66
0.67
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
131
267
238
275
410
377
96
2031
906
171
1077
1126
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.93
0.93
0.93
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
57.3
52.2
53.1
52.0
42.6
42.8
55.6
0.0
0.0
55.2
15.6
15.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
17.6
3.4
8.6
18.8
0.4
0.5
18.5
1.6
0.3
16.0
3.2
3.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In
3.3
5.6
6.8
10.5
3.4
3.5
3.0
0.8
0.1
6.1
19.2
19.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),slveh
75.0
55.6
61.7
70.9
43.0
43.3
74.1
1.6
0.3
71.1
18.8
18.7
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
E
D
D
E
A
A
E
B
B
Approach Vol, veh/h
268
325
1491
1560
Approach Delay, slveh
61.9
58.4
3.7
22.0
Approach LOS
E
E
A
C
Timer - Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
12.6
73.1
18.5
15.8
8.5
77.2
8.8
25.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+It), s
8.4
2.0
13.8
10.7
5.1
33.9
5.3
6.7
Green Ext Time (p -c), s
0.1
15.7
0.2
0.7
0.0
12.2
0.0
0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
20.7
HCM 6th LOS
C
Scenario 3 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:02 pm 03/02/2022 Design Year with Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Desiqn Year with Proiect Corn
04118/2022
Intersection: 2: 1-10
WB Ramps
(West) & Glendon Way
e'
. - EB
EB
WB
Directions Served
T
R
L
Maximum Queue (ft)
55
49
50
Average Queue (ft)
44
20
30
95th Queue (ft)
62
59
46
Link Distance (ft)
471
471
71
Upstream Bilk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage BIk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Scenario 3 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 SimTraftic Report
GTC Page 1
Queues
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way
04/18/2022
7
-
4-
4-
4N
T
l
-'
EBL
EBR
WBIL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBT
SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)
14
152
41
116
175
64
1407
425
1376
364
v/cRatio
0.12
0.49
0.21
0.56
0.68
0.45
0.34
0.31
0.55
0.30r
Control Delay
47.7
12.6
48.7
59.7
38.4
61.7
3.4
0.9
4.6
0.5
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
Total Delay
47.7
12.6
48.7
59.7
38.4
61.7
3.5
0.9
4.8
0.5
Queue Length 50th (ft)
10
0
30
87
64
48
78
0
83
1
Queue Length 95th (ft)
29
58
61
139
133
92
135
22
102
0
Internal Link Dist (ft)
82
47
493
Turn Bay Length (ft)
195
100
Base Capacity (vph)
179
408
317
333
356
187
4134
1366
2520
1232
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
371
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
3
0
200
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.08
0.37
0.13
0.35
0.50
0.34
0.36
0.31
0.64
0.30
Intersection Summary
Scenario 3 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:02 pm 03/02/2022 Design Year with Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 04/10/2022
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 7.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.8% ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 15
Scenario 3 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:02 pm 03/02/2022 Design Year with Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
T
EBR
WBL
WBT
NBL
NBR
Lane Configurations
tt
r
Traffic Volume (veh1h)
0
0
0
75
240
77
Future Volume (Veh/h)
0
0
0
75
240
77
Sign Control
Yield
Stop
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
0
0
82
261
84
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
522
0
522
522
0
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
522
0
522
522
0
tC, single (s)
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
79
84
cM capacity (veh/h)
385
1085
408
385
1623
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
Volume Total
41
41
130
130
84
Volume Left
0
0
130
130
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
0
84
cSH
385
385
1623
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.11
0.11
0.16
0.16
0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft)
9
9
14
14
0
Control Delay (s)
15.4
15.4
7.6
7.6
0.0
Lane LOS
C
C
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
15.4
5.8
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 7.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.8% ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 15
Scenario 3 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:02 pm 03/02/2022 Design Year with Project Conditions AM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Rosemead BI & Marshall St
04/1812022
--*
--p.
--v
r
*--
4-
�,
T
�►
1
41
Movement SBL
EBT
EBR
W13L
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
►j
tT+
to
tt
r
I
?T+
Traffic Volume (vehlh)
66
264
91
236
193
151
83
1158
203
186
1091
42
Future Volume (veh/h)
66
264
91
236
193
151
83
1158
203
186
1091
42
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-BikeAdj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/hM
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
72
287
99
257
210
164
90
1259
221
202
1186
46
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
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap,veh/h
92
344
116
275
455
338
96
1664
742
171
1778
69
Arrive On Green
0.05
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.23
0.23
0.11
0.94
0.94
0.10
0.51
0.51
Sat Flow,veh/h
1781
2608
881
1781
1943
1444
1781
3554
1585
1781
3488
135
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
72
194
192
257
191
183
90
1259
221
202
604
628
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln
1781
1777
1712
1781
1777
1610
1781
1777
1585
1781
1777
1846
Q Serve(g_s), s
4.8
12.7
13.2
17.1
11.1
11.8
6.0
9.3
1.5
11.5
30.3
30.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4.8
12.7
13.2
17.1
11.1
11.8
6.0
9.3
1.5
11.5
30.3
30.3
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.51
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh
92
234
226
275
416
377
96
1664
742
171
906
941
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.83
0.85
0.94
0.46
0.48
0.93
0.76
0.30
1.18
0.67
0.67
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h
131
267
257
275
416
377
96
1664
742
171
906
941
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
56.2
50.8
51.0
50.2
39.4
39.7
53.3
2.3
2.1
54.3
21.8
21.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
17.7
17.2
21.3
37.4
0.8
1.0
65.7
2.9
0.9
126.8
3.9
3.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(95%),vehlln
4.7
11.0
11.3
15.8
8.6
8.4
7.5
3.3
1.1
17.7
19.3
19.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, slveh
LnGrp Delay(d),slveh
73.9
67.9
72.2
87.6
40.2
40.7
119.0
5.3
3.0
181.0
25.7
25.6
LnGrp LOS
E
E
E
F
D
D
F
A
A
F
C
C
Approach Vol, veh/h
458
631
1570
1434
Approach Delay, slveh
70,7
59.6
11.5
47.5
Approach LOS
E
E
B
D
Timer Assigned Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
16.0
60.7
23.0
20.3
11.0
65.7
10.7
32.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.5
54.0
18.5
18.0
6.5
59.0
8.8
27.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
13.5
11.3
19.1
15.2
8.0
32.3
6.8
13.8
Green Ext Time (p -c), s
0.0
14.4
0.0
0.6
0.0
9.8
0.0
1.9
Intersectlon Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
38.2
HCM 6th LOS
D
Scenario 4 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:02 pm 03/02/2022 Design Year with Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 3
Queuing and Doi
Desiqn Year with
04/18/2022
Intersection: 2: 1-10
WB Ramps
(West) & Glendon Way
Movement'
Directions Served
T
R
L
TR
Maximum Queue (ft)
73
30
51
30
Average Queue (ft)
54
24
31
18
95th Queue (ft)
75
43
47
41
Link Distance (ft)
471
471
71
71
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Scenario 4 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 SimTraffic Report
GTC Page 1
Queues
3: Rosemead BI & Glendon Way
EBL
EBR
WBL
WBT
WEIR
NBL
04/1812022
-�* --*
j ~
4-
Lane Group Flow (vph)
T
204
l
261
Lane Group
EBL
EBR
WBL
WBT
WEIR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBT
SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)
24
204
110
261
212
196
1559
601
1157
370
v/c Ratio
0.35
0.47
0.37
0.84
0.67
0.95
0.40
0.45
0.54
0.37
Control Delay
58.8
9.6
47.9
72.5
42.3
103.4
5.5
1.4
9.1
4.8
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
Total Delay
58.8
9.6
47.9
72.5
42.4
103.4
5.5
1.4
9.4
4.8
Queue Length 50th (ft)
16
0
75
195
104
-167
140
0
111
26
Queue Length 95th (ft)
46
66
132
#321
190
#319
162
26
m126
m44
Internal Link Dist (ft)
82
47
493
Turn Bay Length (ft)
195
100
Base Capacity (vph)
74
451
317
333
338
207
3859
1346
2138
1009
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
383
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
2
0
163
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced A Ratio
0.32
0.45
0.35
0.78
0.63
0.95
0.42
0.45
0.66
0.37
Intersection Summary
- Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may he longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
in Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal
Scenario 4 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:02 pm 03102/2022 Design Year with Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: 1-10 WB Ramps (East) & Glendon Way 04/10/2022
ABT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
++
if
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
0
0
0
186
349
173
Future Volume (Veh/h)
0
0
0
186
349
173
Sign Control
Yield
Stop
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly now rate (vph)
0
0
0
202
379
188
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (f ls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
758
0
758
758
0
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
758
0
758
758
0
IC, single (s)
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
22
77
cM capacity (veh/h)
258
1085
265
258
1623
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
Volume Total
101
101
190
190
188
Volume Left
0
0
190
190
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
0
188
cSH
258
258
1623
1623
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.39
0.39
0.23
0.23
0.11
Queue Length 95th (ft)
44
44
23
23
0
Control Delay (s)
27.7
27.7
7.9
7.9
0.0
Lane LOS
D
D
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
27.7
5.3
Approach LOS
D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 11.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.8% ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 15
Scenario 4 J1976 Rosemead BI & 1-10 3:02 pm 03/02/2022 Design Year with Project Conditions PM Synchro 11 Report
GTC page 1
ATTACHMENT B
Caltrans Quality Management
Assessment Process (QMAP)
ATTACHMENT B
Quality Management Assessment Process (QMAP)
1) Checklist to determine if a Project can qualify for PEER Review:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPLICANT'S CHECKLIST TO DETERMINE APPLICABLE REVIEW PROCESS
Form: TR 0416
No.
Scope
True
False
1
Project has an approved environmental document (CE, ND, EIR, EIS, etc.) or
project is CE by CEQA and/or NEPA and has completed studies or public
outreach.
2
Project design and submittal is complete (at 100%) and the EPAP includes all
required supporting documents, reports, etc.
3
Project doesn't involve any ROW conveyances (e.g., dedications,
relinquishments, modifications to ROW limits, etc.).
4
Project doesn't propose constructing new structures (e.g., earth retaining
structures such as retaining walls, tie backs, soil nails. sound walls, culverts, etc.)
that are not per Caltrans Standard Plans.
5
Project doesn't propose conduits greater than 60" in diameter to be installed
by trenchless methods or tunneling (diameter 30" and above) with depth of
cover less than 15 feet.
6
Project doesn't propose high priority utilities, liquid and gas carrier pipes on or
throw h bridges/structures.
7
Project doesn't propose structural modifications of Caltrans structures (certc n
SuDerficial attachments are not considered structural modifications).
a
Project doesn't propose new permanent stormwater treatment facilities, create
5000 sq. ft. or more of new non -highway impervious surface or create 1 acre or
more of newer highway imr>ervious surface.
9
Project is not proposed in known slip/slide prone areas and proposed work will
not adversely impact geological stability.
10
Project doesn't require agreements to be executed with Caltrans, or, an
agreement is required but Caltrans standard templates can be used (e.g.,
maintenance, lease, Joint Use Agreements, etc.).
11
Project doesn't propose non-standard roadway design features (lane widths,
super elevation, etc.) requiring a Design Standard Decision Document (Not
—applicable
to utifi nly projects).
12
Project doesn't require CTC action for other than funding approval (e.g.,
retin uishments, new public road connections, etc.).
13
Project doesn't propose new sound walls on bridges or modifications to existing
sound walls on bridges.
7 4
Project doesn't propose increasing highway capacity or converting operational
nature of h hway lanes (e.g. converting to HOT or Toll lanes, etc.).
15
Project's total construction costs within the existing or future State highway right-
of-way is $1 million or less. Not applicable to utility -only projects)
I hereby certify that the above information provided related to this project is hue and correct to
the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand and agree that if information contrary to
aforementioned table at any stage during the Calhons review process or if the project scope
changes the results of any of the above elements, project may have to be managed through a
different Caltrans Review Process and may be subject to delays, revisions, or denials.
Name of Applicant Signature of applicant Date
05/12/2020
2) Design Engineering Evaluation Report (DEER) Guidelines:
These guidelines replace the Permit Engineering Evaluation Report review process and
requirements for the project delivery program specified in the Project Development
Procedures Manual.
For a project that is sponsored, financed, and its preconstruction project development
work is administered by external entities, a Design Engineering Evaluation Report
DEER can be used in lieu of PSR -PDS, PSR -PR, and Project Report if the project meets
all the following conditions:
• Project has approved environmental document (CE, ND, EIR, EIS, etc.) or project is
CE by CEQA and/or NEPA and has completed studies or public outreach.
• Project only has a Single -Build Alternative
• Project does not require CTC action
• Project doesn't involve any ROW conveyances from the Department to the local agencies
(e.g. dedications, relinquishments, modifications to State ROW limits, etc.)
• Project doesn't require FHWA approval for Relinquishments or NPRCs involving a
modification to the access control
• Project doesn't involve construction of new structures or bridge widenings.
The DEER application checklist is included in the Appendix I on next page.
Appendix I
Design Ennineering Evaluation Report (DEER) Application Checklist
This checklist is used to determine whether a Design Engineering Evaluation Report (DEER)
can be used for project approval of encroachment projects on the State Highway System.
No.
Scope Criteria
Yes
No
1
Project has approved environmental document (CE, ND, EIR, EIS,
etc.) or project is CE by CEQA and/or NEPA and has completed
studies or public outreach.
2
Project only has a Single -Build Alternative.
3
Project does not require CTC action.
4
Project doesn't involve any ROW conveyances from the Department to
the local agencies (e.g. dedications, relinquishments, modifications to
State ROW limits, etc.).
5
Project doesn't require FHWA approval for Relinquishments or NPRCs
involving a modification to the access control.
6
Project doesn't involve construction of new structures or bridge
widenings.
If the answer is "Yes" to all of six criteria, the project can use the DEER for project
approval.
Abbreviations:
1. CE: Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion
2. CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act
3. EIR: Environmental Impact Report
4. EIS: Environmental Impact Statement
5. ND: Negative Declaration
6. NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act
7. CTC: California Transportation Commission
8. FHWA: Federal Highway Administration
9. NPRC: New Public Road Connection
10. ROW: Right-of-way
ATTACHMENT C
Professional Services Agreement
Template and Insurance Requirements
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
NAME OF PROJECT
(CONTRACTOR NAME)
PARTIES AND DATE.
ATTACHMENT C
This Agreement is made and entered into this this INSERT DATE (Effective Date)
by and between the City of Rosemead, a municipal organization organized under the laws
of the State of California with its principal place of business at 8838 E. Valley Blvd.,
Rosemead, California 91770 ("City") and CONTRACTOR NAME with its principal place
of business at ADDRESS ("Consultant'). City and Consultant are sometimes individually
referred to herein as "Party" and collectively as "Parties."
2. RECITALS.
2.1 Consultant.
Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain
professional services required by the City on the terms and conditions set forth in this
Agreement. Consultant represents that it is experienced in providing TYPE OF SERVICE
to public clients, is licenced in the State of California and is familiar with the plans of City.
2.2 Project.
City desires to engage Consultant to render PROJECT SERVICE OR NAME
("Services") as set forth in this Agreement.
3. TERMS.
3.1 Scope of Services and Term.
3.1.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to
furnish to the City all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and
customary work necessary to fully and adequately supply the TYPE OF SERVICE
services necessary for the City, herein referred to a "Services". The Services are more
particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the
CONSULTANT
Page 2 of 11
exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local,
state and federal laws, rules and regulations.
3.1.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be for a INSERT TERM
YEAR year time period from Effective date with the option for up to two (2) one-year
extensions at the sole and absolute discretion of the City, unless earlier terminated as
provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of the
Agreement, and shall meet any other established shcedules and deadlines.
3.2 Responsibilities of Consultant.
3.2.1 Control and Payment of Subordinates; Independent Contractor. The
Services shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision. Consultant will
determine the means, methods and details of performing the Services subject to the
requirements of this Agreement. City retains Consultant on an independent contractor
basis and not as an employee. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different
services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel
performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall also not be
employees of City and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and
control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel
in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required
by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such
additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax
withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation
insurance.
3.2.2 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services
expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement. Consultant represents that it has the
professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance
with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with the Schedule,
City shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of City,
Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the
Schedule of Services.
3.2.3 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by
Consultant shall be subject to the approval of City.
3.2.4 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to City
that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement.
Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute
other personnel of at least equal competence upon written approval of City. In the event
that City and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, City shall
be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause. As discussed below, any personnel
who fail or refuse to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the City, or who are
determined by the City to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or
timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property, shall be
CONSULTANT
Page 3 of 11
promptly removed from the Project by the Consultant at the request of the City.
3.2.5 City's Representative. The City hereby designates the City
Manager, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this
Agreement ("City's Representative"). City's Representative shall have the power to act
on behalf of the City for all purposes under this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept
direction or orders from any person other than the City's Representative or his or her
designee.
3.2.6 Consultant's Representative. Consultant will designate to act as its
representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative").
Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the
Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall
supervise and direct the Services, using his/her best skill and attention, and shall be
responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the
satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement.
3.2.7 Coordination of Services: Consultant agrees to work closely with
City staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to City's staff, consultants
and other staff at all reasonable times.
3.2.8 Standard of Care; Performance of Employees: Consultant shall
perform all Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent
with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same
discipline in the State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled
in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that
all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the
Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and
subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature
that are legally required to perform the Services, including a City Business License, and
that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this
Agreement. As provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement,
Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from
the City, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the
Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein.
3.2.9 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of
and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any
manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA
requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all
violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant
performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and
without giving written notice to the City, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs
arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold City, its officials, directors,
officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification
provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged
CONSULTANT
Page 4 of 11
failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations.
3.2.10 Insurance: Consultant shall maintain prior to the beginning
of and for the duration of this Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit B
attached to and part of this agreement.
3.2.11 Safety: Contractor shall execute and maintain its work so as
to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the
Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal
laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of
employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work
is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited
to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions
in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways,
scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures,
trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing
apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C)
adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures.
3.3 Fees and Payments.
3.3.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including
authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement and shall not
exceed INSERT COST AMOUNT per fiscal year. The City agrees to pay Consultant a fee
of INSERT COST AMOUNT WRITTEN ($INSERT NUMBERICAL COST) a month. Extra
Work may be authorized in writing, as described below, and will be compensated at the
rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.
3.3.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to City a monthly
itemized statement which indicates work completed and Services rendered by
Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided
since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods,
as appropriate, through the date of the statement. City shall, within 45 days of receiving
such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon.
3.3.3 Reimbursement for Expenses: Consultant shall not be reimbursed
for any expenses unless authorized in writing by City.
3.3.4 Extra Work: At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may
request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any
work which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project,
but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution
of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work
without written authorization from City's Representative.
3.3.5 Prevailing Wages: Consultant is aware of the requirements of
CONSULTANT
Page 5 of 11
California Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code
of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1600, et seq., ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the
payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on "public
works" and "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the
total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such
Prevailing Wage Laws. City shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rates
of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall
make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft; classification or type
of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request,
and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project
site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its elected officials, officers,
employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any
failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws.
3.4 Accounting Records.
3.4.1 Maintenance and Inspection: Consultant shall maintain complete
and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred under this
Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a
representative of City during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make
transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this
Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings,
and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final
payment under this Agreement.
3.5 General Provisions.
3.5.1 Termination of Agreement.
3.5.1.1 Grounds for Termination: City may, by written notice
to Consultant, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without
cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the
effective date thereof, at least seven (7) days before the effective date of such termination.
Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for those services which have
been adequately rendered to City, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further
compensation. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause.
3.5.1.2 Effect of Termination: If this Agreement is terminated
as provided herein, City may require Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished
Documents/ Data and other information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection
with the performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to
provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request.
3.5.1.3 Additional Services: In the event this Agreement is
CONSULTANT
Page 6 of 11
terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, City may procure, upon such terms and
in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated.
3.5.2 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this
Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such
other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:
CONSULTANT:
NAME
ADDRESS
Attn:
Tel:
CITY:
City of Rosemead
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
Attn: City Manager
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed,
forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and
addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate
notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.
3.5.3 Ownership of Materials and Confidentiality.
3.5.3.1 Documents & Data; Licensing of Intellectual Property:
This Agreement creates a non-exclusive and perpetual license for City to copy, use,
modify, reuse, or sublicense any and all copyrights, designs, and other intellectual
property embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, and other
documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including
but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on
computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under
this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to
agree in writing that City is granted a non-exclusive and perpetual license for any
Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant
represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to license any and all
Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to
Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant
or provided to Consultant by the City. City shall not be limited in any way in its use of the
Documents and Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes
intended by this Agreement shall be at City's sole risk.
3.5.3.2 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications,
plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data,
CONSULTANT
Page 7 of 11
written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to
Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held
confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of
City, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services.
Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the
performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is
otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the
related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use City's name or
insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the
Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other
similar medium without the prior written consent of City.
3.5.4 Cooperation; Further Acts: The Parties shall fully cooperate with one
another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be
necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement.
3.5.5 Attorney's Fees: If either parry commences an action against the
other parry, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with
this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover
from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and all costs of such action.
3.5.6 Indemnification: To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant
shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and
agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs,
expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons,
including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any alleged acts,
omissions or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents,
consultants and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the
Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all
consequential damages and attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses.
Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such
aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or
instituted against City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers.
Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered
against City or its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers, in any
such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse City and its
directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and/or volunteers, for any and all legal
expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the
indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to
insurance proceeds, if any, received by the City, its directors, officials officers, employees,
agents or volunteers.
3.5.7 Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains the entire Agreement
of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior
CONSULTANT
Page 8 of 11
negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by
a writing signed by both parties.
3.5.8 Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of
the State of California. Venue shall be in Los Angeles County.
3.5.9 Time of Essence: Time is of the essence for each and every
provision of this Agreement.
3.5.10 City's Right to Employ Other Consultants: City reserves right to
employ other consultants in connection with this Project.
3.5.11 Successors and Assigns: This Agreement shall be binding on the
successors and assigns of the parties.
3.5.12 Assignment or Transfer: Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate,
or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein
without the prior written consent of the City. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void,
and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by
reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer.
3.5.13 Construction; References; Captions: Since the Parties or their
agents have participated fully in the preparation of this Agreement, the language of this
Agreement shall be construed simply, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or
against any Party. Any term referencing time, days or period for performance shall be
deemed calendar days and not work days. All references to Consultant include all
personnel, employees, agents, and subcontractors of Consultant, except as otherwise
specified in this Agreement. All references to City include its elected officials, officers,
employees, agents, and volunteers except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. The
captions of the various articles and paragraphs are for convenience and ease of reference
only, and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the scope, content, or intent of this
Agreement.
3.5.14 Amendment; Modification: No supplement, modification, or
amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by
both Parties.
3.5.15 Waiver: No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any
other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver,
benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a Party shall give the other
Party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel, or otherwise.
3.5.16 No Third Party Beneficiaries: There are no intended third party
beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties.
3.5.17 Invalidity; Severability: If any portion of this Agreement is declared
invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
CONSULTANT
Page 9 of 11
remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect
3.5.18 Prohibited Interests: Consultant maintains and warrants that it has
not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee
working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant
warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than
a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage,
brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or
making of this Agreement. Consultant further agrees to file, or shall cause its employees
or subconsultants to file, a Statement of Economic Interest with the City's Filing Officer
as required under state law in the performance of the Services. For breach or violation
of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For
the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of City, during the term of his
or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any
present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
3.5.19 Equal Opportunity Employment: Consultant represents that it is an
equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor,
employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin,
handicap, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited
to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment
or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all
relevant provisions of City's Minority Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action
Plan or other related programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted.
3.5.20 Labor Certification: By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies
that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which
require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services.
3.5.21 Authority to Enter Agreement: Consultant has all requisite power and
authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement.
Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal
power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party.
3.5.22 Counterparts: This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each
of which shall constitute an original.
3.6 Subcontracting.
CONSULTANT
Page 10 of 11
3.6.1 Prior Approval Required: Consultant shall not subcontract any
portion of the work required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without
prior written approval of City. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them
subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement.
[Signatures on next page]
CONSULTANT
Pagel 1 of 11
CITY OF ROSEMEAD CONTRACTOR
By: By:
City Manager Date Date
Attest:
City Clerk Date
[If Corporation, TWO SIGNATURES, President
OR Vice President AND Secretary, AND
CORPORATE SEAL OF CONTRACTOR
REQUIRED]
Approved as to Form: By:
Date
City Attorney
Name:
Title:
/:113r1J
PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES/ RATE SCHEDULE/RESUME
A-1
EXHIBIT B
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Work, Consultant will maintain
insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. Consultant will use
existing coverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage does not
meet the requirements set forth here, Consultant agrees to amend, supplement or
endorse the existing coverage to do so. Consultant acknowledges that the insurance
coverage and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of
coverage required. Any insurance proceeds available to City in excess of the limits and
coverage required in this agreement and which is applicable to a given loss, will be
available to City.
Consultant shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance:
Commercial General Liability Insurance: Consultant shall maintain commercial general
liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG
00 01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general
aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must
include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting
standard ISO "insured contract" language will not be accepted.
Automobile liability insurance: Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance at least as
broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property
damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Work to be
performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non -owned or
rented vehicles, in an amount not less than 1,000,000 combined single limit for each
accident.
Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance (Over Primary) if used to meet limit requirements,
shall provide coverage at least as broad as specified for the underlying coverages. Any
such coverage provided under an umbrella liability policy shall include a drop down
provision providing primary coverage above a maximum $25,000 self-insured retention
for liability not covered by primary but covered by the umbrella. Coverage shall be
provided on a "pay on behalf' basis, with defense costs payable in addition to policy limits.
Policy shall contain a provision obligating insurer at the time insured's liability is
determined, not requiring actual payment by the insured first. There shall be no cross
liability exclusion precluding coverage for claims or suits by one insured against another.
Coverage shall be applicable to City for injury to employees of Consultant, subconsultants
or others involved in the Work. The scope of coverage provided is subject to approval of
City following receipt of proof of insurance as required herein. Limits are subject to review
but in no event less than $1 Million per occurrence.
C-1
Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written
on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or
omissions of the consultant and "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the
policy must specifically include work performed under this agreement. The policy limit
shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. The policy must "pay on
behalf of the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to
defend. The policy retroactive date shall be on or before the effective date of this
agreement.
Insurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by insurers that are
admitted carriers in the state of California and with an A.M. Bests rating of A- or better
and a minimum financial size VII.
General conditions pertaining to provision of insurance coverage by Consultant.
Consultant and City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by
Consultant:
1. Consultant agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general liability
coverage required herein to include as additional insureds City, its officials,
employees and agents, using standard ISO endorsement No. CG 2010.
Consultant also agrees to require all contractors, and subcontractors to do
likewise.
2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement shall
prohibit Consultant, or Consultant's employees, or agents, from waiving the right
of subrogation prior to a loss. Consultant agrees to waive subrogation rights
against City regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to
require all contractors and subcontractors to do likewise.
3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Contractor and available or
applicable to this agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies.
Nothing contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to the City or
its operations limits the application of such insurance coverage.
4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these
requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been
first submitted to City and approved of in writing.
5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve to
eliminate so-called "third party action over" claims, including any exclusion for
bodily injury to an employee of the insured or of any contractor or subcontractor.
6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification and
additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Consultant shall not make
any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or
reduction of discovery period) that may affect City's protection without City's prior
written consent.
C-2
7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of certificates
of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional insured
endorsement to Consultant's general liability policy, shall be delivered to City at or
prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance
is not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled at any time
and no replacement coverage is provided, City has the right, but not the duty, to
obtain any insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests under this or any
other agreement and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid by City shall be
charged to and promptly paid by Consultant or deducted from sums due
Consultant, at City option.
8. Certificate(s) are to reflect that the insurer will provide 30 days notice to City of any
cancellation of coverage. Consultant agrees to require its insurer to modify such
certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that failure of the insurer to
mail written notice of cancellation imposes no obligation, or that any party will
"endeavor' (as opposed to being required) to comply with the requirements of the
certificate.
9. It is acknowledged by the parties of this agreement that all insurance coverage
required to be provided by Consultant or any subcontractor, is intended to apply
first and on a primary, noncontributing basis in relation to any other insurance or
self insurance available to City.
10. Consultant agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party involved with
the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Consultant, provide
the same minimum insurance coverage required of Consultant. Consultant agrees
to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring
that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section.
Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with subcontractors and
others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
11.Consultant agrees not to self -insure or to use any self-insured retentions or
deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein and further agrees that
it will not allow any contractor, subcontractor, Architect, Engineer or other entity or
person in any way involved in the performance of work on the project contemplated
by this agreement to self -insure its obligations to City. If Consultant's existing
coverage includes a deductible or self-insured retention, the deductible or self-
insured retention must be declared to the City. At that time the City shall review
options with the Consultant, which may include reduction or elimination of the
deductible or selfinsured retention, substitution of other coverage, or other
solutions.
12.The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change
the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90)
days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial
additional cost to the Consultant, the City will negotiate additional compensation
proportional to the increased benefit to City.
[M]
13. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be deemed
to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps that
can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this Agreement.
14. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part
of City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any insurance requirement in
no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it waive any rights
hereunder in this or any other regard.
15.Consultant will renew the required coverage annually as long as City, or its
employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to
this agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the agreement is canceled
or terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until City
executes a written statement to that effect.
16. Consultant shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring
during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other
policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been
ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter from
Consultant's insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance
and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these specifications
applicable to the renewing or new coverage must be provided to City within five
days of the expiration of the coverages.
17.The provisions of any workers' compensation or similar act will not limit the
obligations of Consultant under this agreement. Consultant expressly agrees not
to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its
employees, officials and agents.
18. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are
not intended as limitations on coverage, limits or other requirements nor as a
waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference
to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a
given issue, and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all-
inclusive.
19.These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from any
other provision in this agreement and are intended by the parties here to be
interpreted as such.
20.The requirements in this Section supersede all other sections and provisions of
this Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts with or
impairs the provisions of this Section.
21. Consultant agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any
party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or
Consultant for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this
agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not
C-4
the intent of City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these
requirements. There shall be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or
other amounts with respect thereto.
Consultant agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against
Consultant arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City assumes no
obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the
handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City.
C-5
Attachment C
Professional Services Agreement with
ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
DESIGN SERVICES FOR ROSEMEAD BLVD & 1-10 FREEWAY RAMP
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
(ADVANTEC CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.)
PARTIES AND DATE.
This Agreement is made and entered into this this 13th Day of December, 2022
(Effective Date) by and between the City of Rosemead, a municipal organization organized
under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 8838 E.
Valley Blvd., Rosemead, California 91770 ("City") and ADVANTEC CONSULTING
ENGINEERS, INC. with its principal place of business at 1200 Roosevelt I Irvine, CA
92620 ("Consultant'). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to herein
as 'Party" and collectively as "Parties."
2. RECITALS.
2.1 Consultant.
Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain
professional services required by the City on the terms and conditions set forth in this
Agreement. Consultant represents that it is experienced in providing Design Services to
public clients, is licensed in the State of California and is familiar with the plans of City.
2.2 Project.
City desires to engage Consultant to render Design Services for Rosemead Blvd &
1-10 Freeway Ramp Improvement Project ("Services") as set forth in this Agreement.
3. TERMS.
3.1 Scope of Services and Term.
3.1.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to
furnish to the City all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and
customary work necessary to supply the TYPE OF SERVICE services necessary fully
and adequately for the City, herein referred to a "Services". The Services are more
particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the
CONSULTANT
Page 2 of 11
exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local,
state, and federal laws, rules, and regulations.
3.1.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the Effective Date
shown above to December 13, 2025, at the sole and absolute discretion of the City, unless
earlier terminated as provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the
term of this Agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines.
3.2 Responsibilities of Consultant.
3.2.1 Control and Payment of Subordinates; Independent Contractor. The
Services shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision. Consultant will
determine the means, methods, and details of performing the Services subject to the
requirements of this Agreement. City retains Consultant on an independent contractor
basis and not as an employee. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different
services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing
the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall also not be employees
of City and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control.
Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in
connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by
law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such
additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax
withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation
insurance.
3.2.2 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services
expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement. Consultant represents that it has the
professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance
with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with the Schedule,
City shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of City,
Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the
Schedule of Services.
3.2.3 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by
Consultant shall be subject to the approval of City.
3.2.4 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to City
that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement.
Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute
other personnel of at least equal competence upon written approval of City. In the event
that City and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, City shall
be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause. As discussed below, any personnel
who fail or refuse to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the City, or who are
determined by the City to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or
timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property, shall be
CONSULTANT
Page 3 of 11
promptly removed from the Project by the Consultant at the request of the City.
3.2.5 City's Representative. The City hereby designates the City Manager,
or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement
("City's Representative"). City's Representative shall have the power to act on behalf of
the City for all purposes under this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction or
orders from any person other than the City's Representative or his or her designee.
3.2.6 Consultant's Representative. Consultant will designates Leo Lee to
act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's
Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to represent and
act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's
Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his/her best skill and
attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences, and
procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this
Agreement.
3.2.7 Coordination of Services: Consultant agrees to work closely with City
staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to City's staff, consultants, and
other staff at all reasonable times.
3.2.8 Standard of Care; Performance of Employees: Consultant shall
perform all Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent
with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same
discipline in the State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled
in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all
employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the
Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees, and
subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature
that are legally required to perform the Services, including a City Business License, and
that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this
Agreement. As provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement,
Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from
the City, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the
Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein.
3.2.9 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of
and in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws, rules and regulations in any
manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA
requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all
violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant
performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules, and regulations and
without giving written notice to the City, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs
arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold City, its officials, directors,
officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification
provisions of this Agreement, from any liability to the extent found to be arising out of any
negligent failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations.
CONSULTANT
Page 4 of 11
3.2.10 Insurance: Consultant shall maintain prior to the beginning
of and for the duration of this Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit B
attached to and part of this agreement.
3.2.11 Safety: Contractor shall execute and maintain its work so as
to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the
Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal
laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of
employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work
is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited
to: (A) adequate life protection and lifesaving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions
in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways,
scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures,
trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing
apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C)
adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures.
3.3 Fees and Payments.
3.3.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including
authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement and shall not
exceed Six Hundred Sixty -One Thousand and One Hundred Seventy -Six Dollars and
Thirty-two Cents ($661,176.32) and in accordance with consultant's proposal dated July
12, 2022. Consultant's proposal is hereby incorporated and found in Exhibit "A". Extra
Work may be authorized in writing, as described below, and will be compensated at the
rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.
3.3.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to City a monthly
itemized statement which indicates work completed and Services rendered by
Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided
since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods,
as appropriate, through the date of the statement. City shall, within 45 days of receiving
such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon.
3.3.3 Reimbursement for Expenses: Consultant shall not be reimbursed
for any expenses unless authorized in writing by City.
3.3.4 Extra Work: At anytime during the term of this Agreement, City may
request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any
work which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project,
but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution
of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work
without written authorization from City's Representative.
3.3.5 Prevailing Wages: Consultant is aware of the requirements of
CONSULTANT
Page 5 of 11
California Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code
of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1600, et seq., ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the
payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on "public
works" and "maintenance' project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the
total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such
Prevailing Wage Laws. City shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rates of
per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make
copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft; classification or type of
worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request and
shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project site.
Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its elected officials, officers,
employees, and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any
failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws.
3.4 Accounting Records.
3.4.1 Maintenance and Inspection: Consultant shall maintain complete
and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred under this
Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a
representative of City during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make
transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this
Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings,
and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final
payment under this Agreement.
3.5 General Provisions.
3.5.1 Termination of Agreement.
3.5.1.1 Grounds for Termination: City may, by written notice to
Consultant, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without
cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the
effective date thereof, at least seven (7) days before the effective date of such termination.
Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for those services which have
been adequately rendered to City, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further
compensation. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause.
3.5.12 Effect of Termination: If this Agreement is terminated
as provided herein, City may require Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished
Documents/ Data and other information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection
with the performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to
provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request.
3.5.1.3 Additional Services: In the event this Agreement is
CONSULTANT
Page 6 of 11
terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, City may procure, upon such terms and
in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated.
3.5.2 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this
Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such
other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:
CONSULTANT:
ADVANTEC CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
1200 Roosevelt, Irvine CA 92620
Attn: Chris Buscarino
Tel: (562)-665-3138
CITY:
City of Rosemead
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
Attn: Ben Kim, City Manager
Tel: (626) 569-2100
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight
(48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the
party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date
actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.
3.5.3 Ownership of Materials and Confidentiality.
3.5.3.1 Documents & Data; Licensing of Intellectual Property:
This Agreement creates a non-exclusive and perpetual license for City to copy, use,
modify, reuse, or sublicense any and all copyrights, designs, and other intellectual
property embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, and other
documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including
but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on
computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under
this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to
agree in writing that City is granted a non-exclusive and perpetual license for any
Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant
represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to license any and all
Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to
Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant
or provided to Consultant by the City. City shall not be limited in any way in its use of the
Documents and Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes
intended by this Agreement shall be at City's sole risk.
3.5.32 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications,
plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data,
CONSULTANT
Page 7 of 11
written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to
Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held
confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of
City, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services.
Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the
performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is
otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the
related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use City's name or
insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the
Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other
similar medium without the prior written consent of City.
3.5.4 Cooperation; Further Acts: The Parties shall fully cooperate with one
another and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be
necessary, appropriate, or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement.
3.5.5 Attorney's Fees: If either party commences an action against the
other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with
this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover
from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and all costs of such action as part of
prevailing party's total damages as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.
3.5.6 Indemnification: To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant
shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and
agents free and harmless from any and all costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or
injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, to the extent
found to be arising out of or incident to any negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct
of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants and contractors
arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this
Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages and
reimbursement of reasonable attorney's fees as part of City's total damages and other
reasonable related costs and expenses. Consultant shall reimburse reasonable defense
costs and attorney's fees to City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents or
volunteers tied directly to Consultant's determined percentage of fault as set forth in
California Civil Code 2782.8 as it is written as of the date of this Agreement. Consultant
shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City
or its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers, in any such suit, action
or other legal proceeding to the extent that Consultant has been found legally liable.
Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any,
received by the City, its directors, officials' officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.
3.5.7 Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of
the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior
CONSULTANT
Page 8 of 11
negotiations, understandings, or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by
a writing signed by both parties.
3.5.8 Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the
State of California. Venue shall be in Los Angeles County.
3.5.9 Time of Essence: Time is of the essence for each and every
provision of this Agreement.
3.5.10 City's Right to Employ Other Consultants: City reserves right to
employ other consultants in connection with this Project.
3.5.11 Successors and Assigns: This Agreement shall be binding on the
successors and assigns of the parties.
3.5.12 Assignment or Transfer: Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate, or
transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement, or any interest herein
without the prior written consent of the City. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void,
and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by
reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation, or transfer.
3.5.13 Construction; References; Captions: Since the Parties or their
agents have participated fully in the preparation of this Agreement, the language of this
Agreement shall be construed simply, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly foror
against any Party. Any term referencing time, days or period for performance shall be
deemed calendar days and not work days. All references to Consultant include all
personnel, employees, agents, and subcontractors of Consultant, except as otherwise
specified in this Agreement. All references to City include its elected officials, officers,
employees, agents, and volunteers except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. The
captions of the various articles and paragraphs are for convenience and ease of reference
only, and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the scope, content, or intent of this
Agreement.
3.5.14 Amendment; Modification: No supplement, modification, or
amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by
both Parties.
3.5.15 Waiver: No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any
other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver,
benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a Parry shall give the other
Party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel, or otherwise.
3.5.16 No Third Party Beneficiaries: There are no intended third party
beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties.
3.5.17 Invalidity; Severability: If any portion of this Agreement is declared
invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
CONSULTANT
Page 9 of 11
remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
3.5.18 Prohibited Interests: Consultant maintains and warrants that it has
not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee
working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant
warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than
a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage,
brokerage fee, gift, or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or
making of this Agreement. Consultant further agrees to file, or shall cause its employees
or subconsultants to file, a Statement of Economic Interest with the City's Filing Officer
as required under state law in the performance of the Services. For breach or violation of
this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the
term of this Agreement, no member, officer, or employee of City, during the term of his or
her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any
present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
3.5.19 Equal Opportunity Employment: Consultant represents that it is an
equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor,
employee, or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin,
handicap, ancestry, sex, or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited
to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment
or recruitment advertising, layoff, or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all
relevant provisions of City's Minority Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action
Plan or other related programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted.
3.5.20 Labor Certification: By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies
that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which
require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services.
3.5.21 Authority to Enter Agreement: Consultant has all requisite power and
authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement.
Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal
power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party.
3.5.22 Counterparts: This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each
of which shall constitute an original.
3.6 Subcontracting.
3.6.1 Prior Approval Required: Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of
the work required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein,
without prior written approval of City. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a
provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this
Agreement.
CONSULTANT
Page 10 of 11
CITY OF ROSEMEAD ADVANTEC CONSULTING ENGINEERS,
INC.
Ben Kim, City Manager Date
Attest:
Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk Date
Approved as to Form:
in
Name: Leo Lee
Title: Chairman
[If Corporation, TWO SIGNATURES, President
OR Vice President AND Secretary, AND
CORPORATE SEAL OF CONTRACTOR
REQUIRED]
0
Name:
Rachel Richman Date
City Attorney Title:
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES/ RATE SCHEDULE/RESUME
A-1
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Work, Consultant will maintain
insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. Consultant will use
existing coverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage does not
meet the requirements set forth here, Consultant agrees to amend, supplement, or
endorse the existing coverage to do so. Consultant acknowledges that the insurance
coverage and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of
coverage required. Any insurance proceeds available to City in excess of the limits and
coverage required in this agreement and which is applicable to a given loss, will be
available to City.
Consultant shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance:
Commercial General Liability Insurance: Consultant shall maintain commercial general
liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG
00 01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general
aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must
include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting
standard ISO "insured contract" language will not be accepted.
Automobile liability insurance: Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance at least as
broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property
damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Work to be
performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non -owned or
rented vehicles, in an amount not less than 1,000,000 combined single limit for each
accident.
Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance (Over Primary) if used to meet limit requirements,
shall provide coverage at least as broad as specified for the underlying coverages. Any
such coverage provided under an umbrella liability policy shall include a drop down
provision providing primary coverage above a maximum $25,000 self-insured retention
for liability not covered by primary but covered by the umbrella. Coverage shall be
provided on a "pay on behalf' basis, with defense costs payable in addition to policy limits.
Policy shall contain a provision obligating insurer at the time insured's liability is
determined, not requiring actual payment by the insured first. There shall be no cross
liability exclusion precluding coverage for claims or suits by one insured againstanother.
Coverage shall be applicable to City for injury to employees of Consultant, subconsultants
or others involved in the Work. The scope of coverage provided is subject to approval of
City following receipt of proof of insurance as required herein. Limits are subject to review
but in no event less than $1 Million per occurrence.
C-1
Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written
on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors, or
omissions of the consultant and "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the
policy must specifically include work performed under this agreement. The policy limit
shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. The policy must "pay on
behalf of the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to
defend. The policy retroactive date shall be on or before the effective date of this
agreement.
Insurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by insurers that are
admitted carriers in the state of California and with an A.M. Best's rating of A- or better
and a minimum financial size VII.
General conditions pertaining to provision of insurance coverage by Consultant.
Consultant and City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by
Consultant:
1. Consultant agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general liability
coverage required herein to include as additional insureds City, its officials,
employees, and agents, using standard ISO endorsement No. CG 2010.
Consultant also agrees to require all contractors, and subcontractors to do
likewise.
2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement shall
prohibit Consultant, or Consultant's employees, or agents, from waiving the right
of subrogation prior to a loss. Consultant agrees to waive subrogation rights
against City regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to
require all contractors and subcontractors to do likewise.
3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Contractor and available or
applicable to this agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies.
Nothing contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to the City or
its operations limits the application of such insurance coverage.
4. None of the coverages required herein will follow these requirements if they include
any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and
approved of in writing.
5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve to
eliminate so-called "third party action over" claims, including any exclusion for
bodily injury to an employee of the insured or of any contractor or subcontractor.
6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification, and
additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Consultant shall not make
any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or
reduction of discovery period) that may affect City's protection without City's prior
written consent.
C-2
7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of certificates
of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional insured
endorsement to Consultant's general liability policy, shall be delivered to City at or
prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance
is not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled at any time
and no replacement coverage is provided, City has the right, but not the duty, to
obtain any insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests under this or any
other agreement and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid by City shall be
charged to and promptly paid by Consultant or deducted from sums due
Consultant, at City option.
8. Certificate(s) are to reflect that the insurer will provide 30 days' notice to City of any
cancellation of coverage. Consultant agrees to require its insurer to modify such
certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that failure of the insurer to
mail written notice of cancellation imposes no obligation, or that any party will
"endeavor" (as opposed to being required) to comply with the requirements of the
certificate.
9. It is acknowledged by the parties of this agreement that all insurance coverage
required to be provided by Consultant or any subcontractor, is intended to apply
first and on a primary, noncontributing basis in relation to any other insurance or
self-insurance available to City.
10. Consultant agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party involved with
the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Consultant, provide
the same minimum insurance coverage required of Consultant. Consultant agrees
to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring
that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section.
Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with subcontractors and
others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
11. Consultant agrees not to self -insure or to use any self-insured retentions or
deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein and further agrees that
it will not allow any contractor, subcontractor, Architect, Engineer or other entity or
person in any way involved in the performance of work on the project contemplated
by this agreement to self -insure its obligations to City. If Consultant's existing
coverage includes a deductible or self-insured retention, the deductible or self-
insured retention must be declared to the City. At that time the City shall review
options with the Consultant, which may include reduction or elimination of the
deductible or self-insured retention, substitution of other coverage, or other
solutions.
12. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change
the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90)
days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial
additional cost to the Consultant, the City will negotiate additional compensation
proportional to the increased benefit to City.
C-3
13. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be deemed
to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps that
can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this Agreement.
14. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part
of City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any insurance requirement in
no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it waive any rights
hereunder in this or any other regard.
15. Consultant will renew the required coverage annually as long as City, or its
employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to
this agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the agreement is canceled
or terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until City
executes a written statement to that effect.
16. Consultant shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring
during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other
policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been
ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter from
Consultant's insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance
and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these specifications
applicable to the renewing or new coverage must be provided to City within five
days of the expiration of the coverages.
17. The provisions of any workers' compensation or similar act will not limit the
obligations of Consultant under this agreement. Consultant expressly agrees not
to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its
employees, officials, and agents.
18. Requirements of specific coverage features, or limits contained in this section are
not intended as limitations on coverage, limits, or other requirements nor as a
waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference
to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a
given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all-
inclusive.
19. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from any
other provision in this agreement and are intended by the parties here to be
interpreted as such.
20. The requirements in this Section supersede all other sections and provisions of
this Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts with or
impairs the provisions of this Section.
21. Consultant agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any
party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or
Consultant for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this
agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not
C-4
the intent of City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these
requirements. There shall be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or
other amounts with respect thereto.
Consultant agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against
Consultant arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City assumes no
obligation or liability by such notice but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the
handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City.
C-5