HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4.C 11/18/2019DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
Agenda Item #4.0
November 18, 2019
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager
Jeff Stutsman P.E. — Senior Traffic Engineer
Gina Benedetti-Petnic - City Engineer
Discussion and Direction for Design Options for the Petaluma Boulevard South
Road Diet Project
RECOMMENDATION
Discussion and Direction for Design Options for the Petaluma Boulevard South Road Diet
Project.
BACKGROUND
On November 18, 2015, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted the
funding and policy framework for the second round of the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG)
Program which is projected to total approximately $800 million to fund projects from FY 17/18
through FY 21/22. The Surface Transportation Program (STP) and the Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) reestablished in the new Federal Moving Ahead for Progress
in the 21 st Century (MAP -21) will fund the program.
On December 19, 2016, the City Council approved a resolution authorizing the filing of the
application for three separate projects; the Road Diet Extension Petaluma Boulevard South
Project, Lakeville Street Paving Project, and Payran Street Paving Project. The Road Diet for
Petaluma Boulevard South (PBS) was determined to be the priority.
On December 13, 2017, MTC approved the funding for the Road Diet Extension Petaluma
Boulevard South Project. The project includes a road diet on Petaluma Boulevard South from E
Street to Crystal Lane. The work will include the rehabilitation of the roadway, construction of
ADA curb ramps, curb bulb -outs at crosswalks, sidewalk reconstruction in way of some
driveways, installation of rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) at uncontrolled crosswalks,
signal modifications, and new pavement striping. The grant funding for construction is expected
to be available October 1, 2021.
On February 22, 2019 the City was notified by Caltrans that the preliminary engineering funds
were approved, and that the City could proceed with the preliminary engineering.
The proposed action meets the following City Council Goals:
• Workplan Item #7: Leverage local, regional, and state programs and resources to
maximize city revenues.
• Workplan Item # 15: Identify funds and develop plan to improve Petaluma's streets and
roads.
• Workplan Item #19: Establish and improve paths, as useful transportation options, and
make walking and biking easy, fun, and safe.
• Workplan Item #20: Better integrate multi -modal transportation with street designs.
Additionally, the proposed action is consistent with the 2008 City of Petaluma Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan (An Appendix to the General Plan 2025): Create and maintain a safe,
comprehensive, and integrated bicycle and pedestrian system throughout Petaluma that
encourages bicycling and walking and is accessible to all.
Bicycle Improvements Policy 1: Implement the bikeway system as outlined in the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and expand and improve the bikeway system wherever the
opportunity arises.
Bicycle Improvements Policy 5: All new and redesigned streets shall be bicycle and
pedestrian friendly in design.
DISCUSSION
The proposed project is the third and final phase of the road diet on Petaluma Boulevard. Phase
was the road diet on Petaluma Boulevard North between Lakeville Street to Washington Street,
Phase 2 was on Petaluma Boulevard South from Washington Street to B Street. The third and
final phase is a road diet on the 1.1 -mile stretch of Petaluma Boulevard South between the
intersection with E Street and Crystal Lane, the location of the future Caulfield Lane Extension.
The road diet would reduce the number of through lanes along this segment from two lanes in
each direction to one. Additionally, a two-way left -turn lane would be installed with the project.
The primary benefits of a road diet are to enhance safety, mobility, and access for all road users
and a "complete streets" environment to accommodate a variety of transportation modes. Based
on a "before and after" study for Phase II, accidents were reduced by 50% with the construction
of the road diet on that portion of Petaluma Boulevard.
The existing configuration of Petaluma Boulevard South is a 52 -foot road width (measured from
face of curb to face of curb) which includes four 10 -foot travel lanes and two 6 -foot parking
lanes. The existing travel lanes and parking lanes are undersized for today's standards. The
proposed road diet would provide the opportunity to accommodate standard size travel lanes and
parking lane widths; which is a requirement of receiving Federal funds. By reducing the number
of travel lanes, the road diet provides the opportunity to install bike lanes on portions of
Petaluma Boulevard South; although it would require parking removal in certain area. The type
of bike facilities that are being considered with this project includes:
I
Class I bike path is a bike path separated from the street and are typically shared with bicycles
and pedestrians.
Class II bike lane is an on -street facilities that are striped for bicycle use.
Class III bike facilities are streets designated for bicycle travel and shared with motor vehicles.
Class IV Bike Lane / buffered bike lane provide space that is exclusively for bicyclist and
separated from motor vehicles utilizing with additional buffered area identified with paint or
delineators.
Bike Boulevard are streets that are low speeds and low volumes that can offer the basic
components of a safe bicycling environment. These streets can be enhanced using a range of
design treatments tailored to existing condition and desired outcome to create a bicycle
boulevard.
Phases 1 and 2 of the Petaluma Boulevard road diet projects included the reduction of travel
lanes down to one lane in each direction. As part of those projects, a Class III share -the -road bike
facility was installed from Lakeville Street to D Street. Due to the configuration of D Street and
Petaluma Boulevard South there is no way to accommodate a bike lane through the intersection
on any of the legs due to the width restriction.
The proposed project would include repaving Petaluma Boulevard South from E Street to Crystal
Lane. The existing pavement condition index (PCI) is 19, a rating of `Failed.' The project would
also include the installation of curb extensions at uncontrolled intersections to improve sight
distance, reduce the crossing distance and improve safety for pedestrians, new ADA curb ramps,
repairs of existing sidewalks, new fiber interconnect to connect the three intersections into the
rest of the system and allow them to communicate with the City's central management system
and new traffic detection cameras with enhanced bike detection capabilities.
As part of the environmental process, a consultant performed a traffic analysis of the Petaluma
Boulevard South Road Diet and looked at the traffic impacts of the road diet in a future
condition, which included future development and the Caulfield Lane Extension Cross Town
Connector project. The results showed that the signals continued to operate acceptably with
increase in average delay of 5.5 seconds or less at each of the study intersections. As part of this
study the potential for vehicles to be rerouted or overflow on to parallel side -streets was
reviewed. Based on a before -and -after survey that was conducted as part of Phase 1, the results
reflected a decrease in traffic volumes on the side streets while the volumes on the boulevard
remained constant. Based on historical data, it is expected that the proposed project would not
cause traffic on the side streets to increase (See attachment 6, Traffic Study).
At the start of the public outreach process, a preliminary option was proposed, which included
Class III bike lanes from E Street to G Street, Class II Bike lanes from G Street to Crystal Lane.
Through the public outreach process this initial option was refined and expanded into four
distinct options based on input from the community.
The following elements would be consistent with the project, regardless of the option selected:
• No loss of parking from E Street to H Street (East and West sides)
• Class IV bike lane and no loss of parking from Mountain View to Crystal Lane (East side
and West side)
• Future Bike Boulevards on 5th and 2nd Streets
• Road diet, including a two-way left turn lane from E Street to Crystal Lane
• Road Paving E Street to Crystal Lane
The following design options are:
Option 1 (No Bike Lane)
This option proposes a class III bike lane and preserves parking on both sides of the street from E
Street to Mountain View Avenue. A Class IV buffered bike lane is proposed between Mountain
View Avenue and Crystal Lane while preserving parking on both sides of the road (See
Attachment 1).
PRO's
• No parking Removal
• Future Bike Boulevard on 2nd St
and 5th St
COLA's
• Class III bike lane between E Street and
Mountain View Avenue
Option 2 (Hybrid Bike Lane) --Staff's Preferred Alternative Recommendation
This option proposes a Class III bike lane while preserves parking on both sides of the street
from E Street to H Street, Class II bike lanes and removing parking on the north side of the road
between H Street and Mountain View Avenue, and a Class IV buffered bike lane is proposed
between Mountain View Avenue and Crystal Lane while preserving parking on both sides of the
road (See Attachment 2).
PRO's CON's
• Class II bike lane between H •
Street to Mountain View
• Future Bike Boulevard on 2nd St
and 5th St
• Wider Bike Lane (5.5')
Parking Removal on East Side between H St
and Mountain View Avenue (Remove 29
spaces / utilization)
Option 3a (Hvbrid Class IV Buffered Bike Lane)
This option proposes a class III bike lane while preserving parking on both sides of the street
from E Street to H Street, Hybrid Class IV bike lanes and removing parking on the north side of
the road between H Street and Mountain View Avenue, and a Class IV buffered bike lane is
proposed between Mountain View Avenue and Crystal Lane while preserving parking on both
sides of the road.
11
The Hybrid Class IV bike lane is similar to a class IV buffered bike lane but instead of being one
direction it is bi-directional and shared by both eastbound and southbound users (See Attachment
3).
PRO's
• Class IV Buffered Bike Lane
COLA's
• Parking Removal on East Side (Remove 29
spaces / utilization)
• Connectivity issues at H St and Mountain
View Avenue
• Signal Modification at I Street and Mountain
View Avenue (dedicated bike signals due to
turning conflict) including additional delay
• Unique one of a kind
• 17 Driveways (Conflict Points)
Option A (Class IV Buffered Bike Lane), (PBAC's recommendation)
This option proposes a class III bike lane while preserving parking on both sides of the street
from E Street to H Street, Class IV bike lanes and removing parking on the north side of the road
between H Street and Mountain View Avenue, and a Class IV buffered bike lane is proposed
between Mountain View Avenue and Crystal Lane while preserving parking on both sides of the
road (See Attachment 4).
PRO's CON's
• Class IV Buffered Bike Lane •
Parking Removal on North Side (Remove 29
spaces with average peak utilization of 41%)
Parking Removal on South Side (Remove 41
spaces with average peak utilization of 35%)
Staff requests that Council provide direction on a preferred option of the presented options
or combination thereof, as the basis for the project design.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Summarized below are the public outreach efforts related to this project:
March 21, 2019 — Urban Chat 1, Road Diet Subcommittee
• Parking study doesn't show future parking trends or development
• Project should promote non -motorized transportation
• PBS is the future SMART Trail
• Landscape curb extensions / medians
• Bike lane would make development on the south end of town more intriguing
April 4, 2019 — PBAC (Informational Item)
• Concerns about parking removal
• Increase sidewalk width
May 1, 2019 — PBAC (Discussion Item)
• Remove two way left turn lane
• 2 -way protected bike lane on one side of PBS
• Bike boulevard on 2" a 4th or 5th Streets and preserve parking between E to H
• Pilot program
May 5, 2019 — Urban Chat 2, Primary Membership
• Preserve parking from E Street to H Street
• Crosswalk at H Street
• Landscaping
• Not in favor of curb extensions
May 29, 2019 — Council (Caltrans Agreement & Survey PSA)
• Letter of support from business owner to preserve parking
June — July 2019 — Community Online Survey
• See attached summary, Attachment 5
July 23, 2019 — Community meeting
• Interest in a class IV bike lane / cycle track
• Speed limit study is needed
• Doesn't like bulb outs
• Landscaping needs
• Complete streets incentivize bike lane approach
• Pilot program
• Preserve parking / Parking at a minimum downtown
• Interest in bike boulevard concept / Pilot program
• Safety concerns about biking on PBS with or without bike lanes
• Design for all ages and abilities
• 2 -way Class IV bike lane not safe
August 28, 2019 — Know Before you grow PBS Road Diet Presentation
• Balance for all modes
• Install class IV bike lane from E Street to Crystal Lane, encourage class IV bike lanes
• Preserve parking
September 2019 - Resident Survey (East Side between H and Mountain View)
• Eighteen properties with thirteen different business owners
• Seven business approved of the project and not worried about parking
3
• Four business were unavailable for comment
• Two business were not in favor of project
October 2, 2019 PBAC (Design Recommendation)
• Motion to approve Option 3b with added request for same surface treatment for bike path
and gutter and vertical landscape buffer.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
There are no financial impacts with the design direction for configuration of the bike lane.
Below are the funding amounts for the project:
Phase
Preliminary Engineering (Design)
Construction
Total Project Cost
ATTACHMENTS
1. Design Options 1
2. Design Options 2
3. Design Options 3a
4. Design Options 3b
5. Survey Results
6. Traffic Study
7. Parking Study
8. Presentation
Funds (Federal + local match)
$ 323,100
$ 2,972,000
$ 3,295,100
ro D St / SMARTtl tation
Pros
✓ No parking removal
Cons
✓ No Bike lane
M
e
e
vs
Future Bike Boulevardii►'„' „5
Fr�picrse Class III Bike Lane Propos To Lynch Creek
I Mass II Bike Lane`
Pros
✓ Bike lane both sides
✓ 5.5' bike lanes
Cons
✓ Parking rem
(Remove 29
9
»D St I SMART Station
Future Bike Boulevard
To Lynch Creek
P osed
o
PrClass III Bike La h:e
i
Pros
v' Buffered Bike Lane
Cons T, -a -
V Parking removal east side (Removes 29 spaces) 7r
V Connectivity Issues
✓ Signal Modification (Bike Signal)
✓ Driveway
✓ Unique / one of kind
10
RD St I SMART Station
Future Bike Boulevard
To Lynch Creek 0
rroposed Class III Bike, La'ne',�
Project Limits
it „ ,y, N, v� � rvarn i rum eelu mu
r
� I
II e
Ila\
v
Proposed Class IV! Bike Lane
o���
rros
✓ Buffered Bike Lane
11
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project
SurveyMonkey
Q1 Petaluma Boulevard South Road Diet will change the existing road
configuration from four lanes to two lanes plus a two way left turn lane.
Do you believe these improvements will be an overall benefit to the
neighborhood?
Im
RE
ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
TOTAL
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
68.22%
31.78%
88
41
129
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project
SurveyMonkey
Q2 On a scale from 1 (unimportant) to 10 (very important), how important
is it to have a class 11 bike lanes on Petaluma Boulevard South?
RESPONSES
DATE
very important
7/31/2019 11:49 AM
3
7/31/2019 7:52 AM
Very important 10
7/31/2019 12:34 AM
1 - unimportant
7/30/2019 8:16 AM
10
7/29/2019 7:36 AM
8
7/26/2019 2:31 PM
1
7/24/2019 6:20 PM
1
7/24/2019 3:19 PM
5
7/24/2019 11:27 AM
10
7/23/2019 10:12 PM
1
7/23/2019 4:36 PM
1 WASTE OF MONEY/ STOP THIS STUPID PROJECT
7/23/2019 3:00 PM
6
7/23/2019 2:04 PM
10
7/23/2019 12:50 PM
10
7/23/2019 12:43 PM
10
7/23/2019 11:47 AM
8
7/23/2019 8:26 AM
10
7/21/2019 3:27 PM
10
7/18/2019 11:19 AM
5
7/18/2019 9:55 AM
10
7/18/2019 6:00 AM
10
7/17/2019 8:18 PM
10
7/17/2019 5:14 PM
1
7/17/2019 4:36 PM
6
7/17/2019 3:50 PM
10
7/17/2019 3:07 PM
10
7/17/2019 1:59 PM
6
7/1712019 1:56 PM
5
7/17/2019 1:18 PM
5
7/17/2019 8:17 AM
1
7/16/2019 1:52 PM
10
7/16/2019 1:43 PM
10
7/16/2019 1:20 PM
5
7/15/2019 4:00 PM
1/4 13
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
10
1
1
1
10
8
10
7
Don't know what class I I bike lane means
9
5
5
5
10
1
10.. Any bike lanes on Petaluma Boulevard south leading to and from downtown would be a big
improvement and much appreciated. I would use them as would friends and family.
1
5
8
2
1
3
7
10
7
10
4
3
5
5
10
9
10
5
9
7
10
10
10
10
SurveyMonkey
7/15/2019 10:16 AM
7/15/2019 8:50 AM
7/11/2019 10:39 PM
7/10/2019 11:34 AM
7/9/2019 11:46 AM
7/9/2019 7:03 AM
7/8/2019 2:38 PM
7/8/2019 2:13 PM
7/6/2019 7:18 PM
7/6/2019 5:05 PM
7/6/2019 1:30 PM
7/5/2019 6:01 PM
7/5/2019 3:14 AM
7/4/2019 9:55 AM
7/3/2019 9:50 PM
7/3/2019 9:18 PM
7/3/2019 8:20 PM
7/3/2019 8:19 PM
7/3/2019 4:40 PM
7/3/2019 9:00 AM
7/3/2019 8:46 AM
7/3/2019 7:52 AM
7/2/2019 3:17 PM
7/2/2019 12:20 PM
7/2/2019 11:16 AM
7/1/2019 6:44 PM
7/1/2019 5:40 PM
7/1/2019 2:50 PM
7/1/2019 12:17 PM
7/1/2019 11:47 AM
7/1/2019 9:49 AM
6/30/2019 10:52 PM
6/30/2019 8:35 PM
6/30/2019 2:11 PM
6/29/2019 10:36 PM
6/29/2019 7:45 PM
6/2912019 7:34 PM
6/29/2019 4:49 PM
6/29/2019 3:50 PM
6/29/2019 1:17 PM
2/4 14
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project SurveyMonkey
10
6/29/2019 10:11 AM
10
6/29/2019 8:25 AM
1
6/28/2019 10:37 PM
10
6/28/2019 7:34 PM
2
6/28/2019 6:13 PM
1
6/28/2019 2:16 PM
1
6/28/2019 5:49 AM
1
6/27/2019 11:30 PM
10
6/27/2019 11:06 PM
10
6/27/2019 10:07 PM
8
6/27/2019 8:52 PM
9
6/27/2019 7:43 PM
10
6/27/2019 3:07 PM
2
6/27/2019 2:25 PM
1
6/27/2019 1:47 PM
1
6/27/2019 10:26 AM
5
6/26/2019 8:16 PM
10
6/26/2019 4:03 PM
1
6/26/2019 2:34 PM
5
6/26/2019 1:33 PM
10
6/26/2019 1:29 PM
4
6/26/2019 10:37 AM
7
6/26/2019 10:35 AM
10
6/26/2019 8:13 AM
1
6/26/2019 7:37 AM
8
6/25/2019 11:58 PM
1
6/25/2019 9:15 PM
10
6/25/2019 8:51 PM
10
6/25/2019 8:50 PM
2
6/25/2019 8:47 PM
8
6/25/2019 8:05 PM
10
6/25/2019 7:25 PM
10
6/25/2019 7:17 PM
10
6/25/2019 6:48 PM
10
6/25/2019 4:57 PM
5
6/25/2019 3:10 PM
1
6/25/2019 3:09 PM
10
6/25/2019 1:44 PM
4
6/25/2019 10:55 AM
7
6/25/2019 10:28 AM
1
6/25/2019 10:11 AM
3/4 15
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
3
8
1
Do not encourage cyclists until they pass a riding/road test at DMV:
1
1
10
5
3
10
7
8
10
SurveyMonkey
6/25/2019 9:15 AM
6/25/2019 9:14 AM
6/25/2019 9:10 AM
6/25/2019 8:54 AM
6/25/2019 8:41 AM
6/25/2019 8:40 AM
6/25/2019 8:30 AM
6/25/2019 8:26 AM
6/25/2019 8:23 AM
6/25/2019 8:19 AM
6/25/2019 8:17 AM
6/25/2019 8:05 AM
6/19/2019 4:09 PM
3/14/2019 4:13 PM
3/14/2019 2:15 PM
4/4 16
Response
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
40%
15%
30%
25%
201%
10%
5t11s1
0%
Percentage
21%
3%
4%
2%
12%
2%
5%
7%
3%
35%
17
i 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
17
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project
SurveyMonkey
Q3 On a scale from 1 (unimportant) to 10 (very important), how important
is it to have a class IV bike lanes on Petaluma Boulevard South?
RESPONSES
DATE
you will be taken away all the parking on the blvd.
7/31/2019 11:49 AM
6
7/31/2019 7:52 AM
10
7/31/2019 12:34 AM
1 unimportant
7/30/2019 8:16 AM
10
7/29/2019 7:36 AM
1
7/2612019 2:31 PM
1
7/24/2019 6:20 PM
1
7/24/2019 3:19 PM
10
7/24/2019 11:27 AM
10
7/23/2019 10:12 PM
1
7/23/2019 4:36 PM
1 WASTE OF MONEY/ STOP THIS STUPID PROJECT
7/23/2019 3:00 PM
10
7/23/2019 2:04 PM
10
7/23/2019 12:50 PM
10
7/23/2019 12:43 PM
5
7/23/2019 11:47 AM
10
7/23/2019 8:26 AM
10
7/21/2019 3:27 PM
What is a class IV bike lane?
7/18/2019 11:19 AM
5
7/18/2019 9:55 AM
10
7/1812019 6:00 AM
10
7/17/2019 8:18 PM
10
7/17/2019 5:14 PM
10
7/17/2019 4:36 PM
10
7/17/2019 3:50 PM
10
7/1712019 3:07 PM
1
7/17/2019 1:59 PM
8
7/1712019 1:56 PM
5
7/17/2019 1:18 PM
2
7/17/2019 8:17 AM
10
7/1612019 1:52 PM
5
7/16/2019 1:43 PM
8
7/16/2019 1:20 PM
5
7/15/2019 4:00 PM
1/4 18
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
8
10
Don't know what class IV bike land means
1
5
5
10
1
10...My understanding is that class four bike lanes are even safer than class to bike lanes.
Therefore I would like to see the safest option for cyclists possible.
1
5
8
2
1
3
7
10
7
10
10
3
9
5
9
2
10
10
10
1
1
8
7
10
3
10
SurveyMonkey
7/15/2019 10:16 AM
7/15/2019 8:50 AM
7/11/2019 10:39 PM
7/10/2019 11:34 AM
7/9/2019 11:46 AM
7/9/2019 7:03 AM
7/8/2019 2:38 PM
7/6/2019 7:18 PM
7/6/2019 1:30 PM
7/5/2019 6:01 PM
7/5/2019 3:14 AM
7/4/2019 9:55 AM
7/3/2019 9:50 PM
7/3/2019 9:18 PM
7/3/2019 8:20 PM
7/3/2019 8:19 PM
7/312019 4:40 PM
7/3/2019 9:00 AM
7/3/2019 8:46 AM
7/312019 7:52 AM
7/2/2019 3:17 PM
7/2/2019 12:20 PM
7/2/2019 11:16 AM
7/1/2019 6:44 PM
7/1/2019 5:40 PM
7/1/2019 2:50 PM
7/1/2019 12:17 PM
7/1/2019 11:47 AM
7/1/2019 9:49 AM
6/30/2019 10:52 PM
6/30/2019 8:35 PM
6/3012019 2:11 PM
6/29/2019 10:36 PM
6/29/2019 7:45 PM
6/29/2019 7:34 PM
6/29/2019 4:49 PM
6/29/2019 3:50 PM
6/29/2019 1:17 PM
6/29/2019 10:11 AM
6/2912019 8:25 AM
2/4 19
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project SurveyMonkey
1
6/28/2019 10:37 PM
10
6/28/2019 7:34 PM
5
6/28/2019 6:13 PM
1
6/28/2019 2:16 PM
1
6/28/2019 5:49 AM
1
6/27/2019 11:30 PM
9
6/27/2019 11:06 PM
10
6/27/2019 10:07 PM
8
6/27/2019 8:52 PM
8
6/27/2019 7:43 PM
7
6/27/2019 3:07 PM
2
6/27/2019 2:25 PM
1
6/27/2019 1:47 PM
1
6/27/2019 10:26 AM
10
6/27/2019 8:17 AM
10
6/26/2019 8:16 PM
10
6/26/2019 4:03 PM
1
6/26/2019 2:34 PM
10
6/26/2019 1:33 PM
10
6/26/2019 1:29 PM
10
6/26/2019 10:37 AM
10
6/26/2019 10:35 AM
10
6/2612019 8:13 AM
10
6/26/2019 7:37 AM
10
6/25/2019 11:58 PM
1
6/25/2019 9:15 PM
10
6/25/2019 8:51 PM
10
6/25/2019 8:50 PM
2
6/25/2019 8:47 PM
6
6/25/2019 8:05 PM
10
6/25/2019 7:25 PM
10
6/25/2019 7:17 PM
10
6/25/2019 6:48 PM
10
6/25/2019 4:57 PM
5
6/25/2019 3:10 PM
1
6/25/2019 3:09 PM
10
6/25/2019 1:44 PM
4
6/25/2019 10:55 AM
5
6/25/2019 10:28 AM
1
6/25/2019 10:11 AM
3
6/25/2019 9:15 AM
3/4 20
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project
SurveyMonkey
116
1
6/25/2019 9:14 AM
117
1
6/25/2019 9:10 AM
118
6
6/25/2019 8:54 AM
119
1
6/25/2019 8:41 AM
120
1
6/25/2019 8:40 AM
121
1
6/25/2019 8:30 AM
122
1
6/25/2019 8:26 AM
123
10
6/25/2019 8:23 AM
124
5
6/25/2019 8:19 AM
125
2
6/25/2019 8:17 AM
126
8
6/25/2019 8:05 AM
4/4 21
Response Percentage
1
25%
2
5%
3
3%
4
1%
5
10%
6
2%
7
3%
8
6%
9
2%
10
37%
4 0 %c,
3 5s
3 0,X,
20%
as
10%
5%
0%
4 5
1 2 3
3
6
w
4 5
6
7
8 9
w
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project
SurveyMonkey
Q4 In order to install class 11 bike lanes; parking would need to be
removed from Mountain View Avenue to H Street on the northbound
(river side) only. On a scale from 1 (not critical) to 10 (very critical), how
critical is parking for you?
RESPONSES
DATE
very critical it will take away parking and put the cars on second st
7/31/2019 11:49 AM
3
7/31/2019 7:52 AM
1
7/31/2019 12:34 AM
7
7/30/2019 8:16 AM
1
7/29/2019 7:36 AM
1
7/26/2019 2:31 PM
1
7/24/2019 6:20 PM
10
7/24/2019 3:19 PM
1
7/24/2019 11:27 AM
1
7/23/2019 10:12 PM
10
7/23/2019 4:36 PM
10 WASTE OF MONEY/ STOP THIS STUPID PROJECT
7/23/2019 3:00 PM
2
7/23/2019 2:04 PM
1
7/23/2019 12:50 PM
1
7/23/2019 12:43 PM
1
7/23/2019 11:47 AM
2
7/23/2019 8:26 AM
1
7/21/2019 3:27 PM
1
7/1812019 11:19 AM
1
7/18/2019 9:55 AM
1
7/1812019 6:00 AM
1
7/17/2019 8:18 PM
1
7/17/2019 5:14 PM
1
7/17/2019 4:36 PM
1
7/17/2019 3:50 PM
1
7/17/2019 3:07 PM
1
7/17/2019 1:59 PM
1
7/17/2019 1:56 PM
9
7/17/2019 1:18 PM
1
7/17/2019 8:17 AM
1
7/1612019 1:52 PM
1
7/16/2019 1:43 PM
1/4 23
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project SurveyMonkey
2
7/16/2019 1:20 PM
10
7/15/2019 4:00 PM
1
7/15/2019 10:16 AM
10
7/15/2019 8:50 AM
8
7/11/2019 10:39 PM
3
7/10/2019 11:34 AM
1
7/9/2019 11:46 AM
10
7/8/2019 2:38 PM
9
7/6/2019 7:18 PM
1
7/6/2019 5:05 PM
1 --parking at this location is dangerous and should be removed
7/6/2019 1:30 PM
10
7/5/2019 6:01 PM
1
7/5/2019 3:14 AM
1
7/4/2019 9:55 AM
10
7/3/2019 9:50 PM
1
7/3/2019 9:18 PM
5
7/3/2019 8:20 PM
1
7/3/2019 8:19 PM
1
7/3/2019 4:40 PM
10
7/3/2019 9:00 AM
10
7/3/2019 8:46 AM
10
7/3/2019 7:52 AM
1
7/2/2019 12:20 PM
5
7/2/2019 11:16 AM
1
7/1/2019 6:44 PM
1
7/1/2019 5:40 PM
10
7/1/2019 2:50 PM
8
7/1/2019 12:17 PM
1
7/1/2019 11:47 AM
1
7/112019 9:49 AM
2
6/30/2019 10:52 PM
1
6/30/2019 8:35 PM
1
6/30/2019 2:11 PM
2
6/29/2019 10:36 PM
10
6/29/2019 7:45 PM
1
6/29/2019 7:34 PM
1
6/29/2019 4:49 PM
1
6/29/2019 3:50 PM
4
6/29/2019 1:17 PM
3
6/29/2019 10:11 AM
1
6/29/2019 8:25 AM
2/4 24
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project SurveyMonkey
10
6/28/2019 10:37 PM
1
6/28/2019 7:34 PM
9
6/28/2019 6:13 PM
1
6/28/2019 2:16 PM
1
6/28/2019 5:49 AM
1 - Mostly Commerical Property & a couple of rentals
6/27/2019 11:30 PM
4
6/27/2019 11:06 PM
1
6/27/2019 10:07 PM
1
6/27/2019 8:52 PM
1
6/27/2019 7:43 PM
1
6/27/2019 3:07 PM
10
6/27/2019 2:25 PM
10
6/2712019 1:47 PM
10
6/27/2019 10:26 AM
0
6/27/2019 8:17 AM
1
6/26/2019 8:16 PM
1
6/26/2019 4:03 PM
10
6/26/2019 2:34 PM
0
6/26/2019 1:33 PM
0
6/26/2019 1:29 PM
1
6/26/2019 10:37 AM
1
6/26/2019 10:35 AM
1
6/26/2019 8:13 AM
1
6/26/2019 7:37 AM
1
6/25/2019 11:58 PM
10
6/25/2019 9:15 PM
1
6/25/2019 8:51 PM
1
6/25/2019 8:50 PM
9
6/25/2019 8:47 PM
1
6/25/2019 8:05 PM
1
6/25/2019 7:25 PM
1
6/25/2019 7:17 PM
1
6/25/2019 6:48 PM
1
6/25/2019 4:57 PM
1
6/2512019 3:10 PM
10
6/25/2019 3:09 PM
1
6/25/2019 1:44 PM
3
6/25/2019 10:55 AM
7
6/25/2019 10:28 AM
10
6/25/2019 10:11 AM
5
6/25/2019 9:15 AM
3/4 25
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project
SurveyMonkey
115
7
6/25/2019 9:14 AM
116
10
6/25/2019 9:10 AM
117
2
6/25/2019 8:54 AM
118
10
6/25/2019 8:41 AM
119
10
6/25/2019 8:40 AM
120
8
6/25/2019 8:30 AM
121
10
6/25/2019 8:26 AM
122
1
6/25/2019 8:23 AM
123
8
6/25/2019 8:19 AM
124
10
6/25/2019 8:17 AM
125
2
6/25/2019 8:05 AM
126
1
6/19/2019 4:09 PM
127
3
3/14/2019 4:13 PM
128
1
3/14/2019 2:15 PM
4/4 26
Response Percentage
1
53%
2
5%
3
4%
4
2%
5
2%
6
0%
7
2%
8
3%
9
3%
10
20%
60%
5091,
409X,
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
5 6 7 8 9
10
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project
SurveyMonkey
Q5 If you utilize parking between Mountain View Avenue and G Street on
the Northbound side (river side), can you provide alternative parking
accommodations (i.e on-site)?
7,7
. .... .. ....
not applicable
yes, lhave
alternative..,
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
not applicable 70.00%
yes, I have alternative parking accommodations besides on -street parking 10.77%
no, I rely on on -street parking 1923%
TOTAL
1 / 1 28
91
14
25
130
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project
SurveyMonkey
Q6 Based on a recent parking study, parking between E Street and G
Street, parking was highly utilized in both directions. In order to maintain
parking in this section,H Street and First street would be utilized at the
class III bike route to the SMART Station, Downtown and Lynch Creek
Trail. Are you satisfied with this option?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Satisfied 56.59%
Dissatisfied 33.33%
Other (please specify) 10.08%
TOTAL
1 / 1 29
73
43
13
129
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project
SurveyMonkey
Q7 The project incorporates complete streets policies (installation of
class 11 bike lanes, curb extensions (bulbouts) / ADA ramps, high visibility
crosswalk, rectangular rapid flashing beacons at crosswalk and bike
detection at intersections.) Do you believe enough is being done to
accommodate and improve safety for bicycles and pedestrians?
eJ
rM
M
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes 67.69%
No 20.77%
Other (please specify) 11.54%
TOTAL
1 / 1 30
88
27
15
130
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project
SurveyMonkey
Q8 U there other
information
fo stiyou ld want provide?
#
RESPONSES
DATE
1
You would take are parking away just for a bike lane. that means we could not park in from of
7/31/201911:48AM
where we live . If you have grocery how do we get them to are house if all the parking is taken up
from the people who will have to park on second st because they work on the blvd. It will bring
way more traffic where we live. Plus all the big trucks will come down are street Keep the street the
way itis.
2
Concern for traffic impact onside streets ie4th.5tb.0h.1st82nd Sts. 5th SHbetween |3L&&t
7/31/2019 7:52 AM
View Ave is currently experiencing speeding, heavy traffic at certain times of day (with no provision
(oslow traffic)
3
| nm against the road diet asthere isalready a lot ofcommute traffic that comes down S.
7/30/20198:10AM
Petaluma Blvd. to avoid the highway. This will only get worse as construction on 101 through
Petaluma takes place. There ianoneed totake i(from 2lanes 0o1 lane like downtown. P|eoem
reconsider the impact to us residents living just off of S. Petaluma Blvd. It is our main thoroughfare
and we don't need to be so impacted by an increase of traffic slowdowns and stoppage. |1iebad
enough downtown Qtakes forever toQothrough town. VVedon't need itdown G. Petaluma Blvd.
4
Northern Europe countries seem to be a good model for incorporating bikes in urban
7/29/20137:36AM
environments. Those countries go far beyond what is being done in the U.S. I think this is a good
ammU step inthe right direction.
5
When meeting with community on this, it's important to put it in the context of our city climate
7/302O192:31 PM
emergency declaration. Bike and pedestrian travel is what we must plan for and provide.
5
The problems suggested in question #6 would be reduced if all parking was charged to cover the
7/25/201910:09AM
true cost to the city. I do not know class 11 from class IV, so can not help with questions. I would
like to ride mybike (othe CORONA STATION.
7
Bicycle safety iomy#1 priority.
7/24/201911:27AM
0
We need more parking between McNear CIR and Mountain View Ave because of PEP housing
7/23/201910:12PM
development. Add parking spots on the south bound side also, that is facing Bowling alley side.
Reducing speed limit from 35 to 30 miles after the crystal lane round about. A pedestrian bridge on
the river inthe 0cNemrLanding neighborhood hzgive access toPetaluma east.
g
The current road diet downtown has added more time to our commute. D St has to many cars and
7/23/20194:30PM
DStatPetaluma Blvd South ioespecially problematic aa people block the intersection and no
lanes can get through.
10
STOP MAKING STUPID DECISION.... STOP SCREWING UP THE STREETS IN PETALUMA
7/23/2019 3:00 P@
AND START FIXING THE ROADS. STOP WASTING MONEY ON BIKE LANES ON THE BLVD.
PATR|CATUTTLEBROWN |SAL|AR—.AND NDONE SHOULD TRUST THE CITY TDEVER
TOMAKE THE BEST CHOICES FOR ANYONE.—SER|OU8LY... YOU ARE COMPLETE IDIOTS.
—'
11
Design for these types of projects and corridors should have a much more robust public process,
7/23/20182:04FM
discussion and outreach. Conducting public design bypublic survey isgrossly insufficient.
12
Glad to see progress on bike and pedestrian safety on the boulevard. Will there be an alternate
7/23/201812:50PM
route while this inunder construction?
13
Must think about improving bike safety and access throughout Petaluma, especially in high traffic
7/23/201812:43PM
areas, not just inthis small area.
14
May wmhave some trees please?
7/23/201911:47AM
15
My priority would be safety of bicyclists and motorists, parking would be less important.
7/23/20198:28AM
16
1 am concerned how the city will go from two lanes to one and how that will affect the flow of traffic.
7/18/20139:55AM
17
Add signage \odirect bicyclists \uthe safest routes.
7/18/20196:00AM
1/6
31
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project
SurveyMonkey
18
If alternative parallel streets are used please pave them and give right-of-way to cyclists at
7/17/2019818pM
intersections
18
Overall it seems that the entire so-called Road Diet is making any changes based on what is best
7/17/2018436PM
for auto traffic. However the stated public wishes as outlined in the recent city goals clearly show a
desire to move away from carbon producing autos and to move towards bike and pedestrian
friendly transportation. I strongly suggest a Class IV bike route from Mountain View to the
Southern city limits and \ocreate ebike blvd on5th st from Mtn View up1uQs1and 10create e
safe bike along D st to the train station. Access to the Lynch Creek trail could be gained along Pet
blvd Nand down 1ofthe 2short alleyways that connect \oWater street,
20
MORE bike lanes p|eeae!!
7Y17/20193:50P0
21
-Eliminates risk and fear of collisions with over -taking vehicles. -Reduces risk of 'dooring'
7/17/20193:07PM
compared to a bike lane and eliminates the risk of a doored bicyclist being run over by a motor
vehicle
22
The PBS road diet is a very positive improvement for the community. In the wider section -- Crystal
7/17/30191:18PM
to Mt View -- I'd hope for protected bike lanes and pedestrian friendly improvements. In the
narrower section, Mt View to D, it seems that class 11 or IV bike lanes would come at the expense
of parking (which could impact mixed use density) and pedestrians (fewer bulb outs). |nthis area,
narrowest possible lane widths would reduce automobile speeds and will have the biggest impact
on safety for all. The PBS streetscape and entry to downtown could be a vastly improved with
landscaping and trees.
23
The biggest thing is an improved roadway safer for bicycles and pedestrians. If this can be
7/17/20198:17AM
accomplished then this should bethe main goal,
24
Class 11 bike lanes appear to be more hazardous to cyclists than no markings at all, so
7/16/2019132PM
accommodations should be class IV. First Street is unlikely to be used as an alternate route
because the cobblestones and railroad tracks make it uncomfortable or dangerous to ride on a
bicycle, I suspect that in practice riders will use Second or Fourth for the H street to D Street
segment. I'd like to see 10' motor vehicle travel lanes, to provide a traffic calming effect, It will be
wonderful to turn Petaluma Blvd South into a usable pedestrian and bicycle space, rather than just
afast way for drivers 10get out o[downtown.
25
1 find the questions on Class ]I and Class IV bike lanes to be confusing, as only one can be
7/16/20191:45PM
accommodated. Next time, I'd suggest a question asking whether bike lanes are desirable and
then a question asking about a preference for Class 11 or Class IV. Also, I strongly encourage 10 -
foot travel lanes (which I think would be required regardless for the Class IV bike lanes). Ten -foot
lanes would calm traffic to the benefit of ped and bicyclists and yet still provide a comfortable
driving experience with the center pocket providing ashy distance. Lnsthy. given the cobbles un
1 st Street, I suggest that many bicyclists will instead use 2nd Street as their route.
26
Thank you so much. I believe the road diet must provide acceptable -to -bicyclists bike lanes from H
7/16/20191:20PM
to Mt. View, and probably Class IV lanes from Mt. View to the traffic circle (and eventually to the
freeway. Even with H -to -First designated for bike passage to the north, there should minimally be
Class ||| lanes from HhzDStreet, with marking int the CENTER ofthe lane. | strongly encourage
10' travel lanes for motor vehicles to help accommodate parking, bikes, and pedestrians
throughout, Personally, this section of the road diet is one of my most long -cherished wishes for
Petaluma and I will continue to advocate for it to be done in the best, most forward-looking manner
possible. Thank you again so very much for the absolutely essential work staff has been devoting
to this.
27
|amnot efan ufthe road diet concept, and honestly believe most ofCalifornia isone lane shy of
7/15/20194:00pM
its current needs. Parking should be the emphasis given the future development happening in the
downtown area and the lack of public facilities to adequately accommodate this growth. Yes,
bicycle lanes are important, but to emphasize it this much for a crucial road diet project is
foolhardy. East side residents are not going tmbike tothis area.
28
| commute bybicycle and live close to Petaluma Blvd South. this would been outstanding
7Y15/2019 10:16 AM
improvement. Lanes are too narrow currently, most large vehicles straddle the lane divider oeitis.
This ioagreat first step to improving pedestrian and cyclist safety, but until driver & rider education
and law enforcement, as it pertains to ped and cyclist safety, are taken seriously it's unlikely safety
will beimproved significantly.
29
please don't dothis!
7Y15/30198:50AM
2/6 32
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project SurveyMonkey
30
like the 1O1 extension and lane widening we are only pushing people to other streets. where those
7/10/201911:34AM
people will bmcomplaining about fast drivers in25MPH districts. im.the cars will Qoto4th / 5th /
6th and olive streets where the speed limit by most people is 50MPH at least that is what I have
witnessed onOlive
31
1 use Pet Blvd for cycling commute from Stony Point Road to G St. Road diet reconfiguration in
7/9/201911:46AM
downtown eased potential conflicts with drivers. Do not support Option 3 that shifts cyclists to
opposite side ofroad for section nfPet Blvd.
32
1 would appreciate improvements at the corners. When I come off G street onto Petaluma blvd, my
70/20195:05PM
view is often blocked by parked vehicles. Please restrict parking near intersections. Thx. Love the
road diet and it's nanu|ie.
32
Taking away lanes of traffic will make Rate. Blvd. So as unusable as what you did to Peta. Blvd,7/5/20190:O1
PM
NO
34
Keep 4lanes and just re -pave the streets.
7/5/20193:14AM
35
There's nothing wrong with the way itis.
7/3/2019 9:50 PM
30
1 live in the McNear Landing subdivision, I believe that the road diet, one lane going in each
7/3/20198:18PM
direction would be adequate and much safer than the current situation that squeezes two lanes in
each direction with parking on both sides of the street and no room for cyclists. The current
situation encourages drivers to pass cars that are perceived to be going too slow, and is unsafe.
The changes I have read about seem like a massive improvement over what we have now.
37
Petaluma Blvd. needs Lumaintain 4 lanes and parking and be repaved. Bike transportation also
7/3/2019 4:40 PM
needs to be addressed, perhaps by redirecting it to parallel roads with less traffic
38
1 don't believe the bike lanes will do anything but increase vehicle traffic and congestion. (There
7/3/20199:00AM
are plenty of other less trafficed options for bikes (IE 5th or 6th st) Quality of life will decrease and
Petaluma will be less desirable place tolive.
39
Parking iabecoming emajor problem inthe Foundry Wharf area. Noadditional parking has been
7/3/2019 7:52 AM
added in the last ten (10) years with the addition of housing, retail, restaurants and service
businesses. Taking away any parking inthe area will bemproblem.
40
We need sidewalks on Petaluma Boulevard S desperately. We also need more trees. It is awful
7/2/20193:17PM
and dangerous towalk from Quarry Heights toMountain View.
41
Bike and pedestrian safety and improvements should be prioritized in this town.
7/2/20191220PM
42
1 am strongly opposed to decreasing the 4 lanes of Petaluma Blvd South to 2 lanes. There is no
7/1/20192:50PM
way this will improve traffic! A similar change downtown has been a DISASTER; the boulevard is
ALWAYS crowded, cars barely make it through the traffic lights, I have learned to AVOID
downtown because of this which is bad for local businesses, etc. With new PEP housing proposed
for the land adjacent to McNear Landing, limiting lanes & parking is unthinkable! THIS IS A BAD
IDEA!
42
1 use the Boulevard virtually every day and it is dangerous for vehicles and bordering deadly for
7/1/2019 12:17 PM
pedestrians and cyclists
44
Good progress
000201910:52PM
45
Just doit
6/30/20198:55PM
46
| commute bybicycle from Petaluma toSan Rafael inthe mornings and a bike lane along
8/29/2019 10:30 PM
Petaluma Boulevard South would make it much safer for both cyclists and motorists. Thank you!
47
Class IV Bike lane seems overkill given the limited bike usage nnthis street. Parking is very
6/29/2019 7:45 PM
important to the survival of the shops in our neighborhood and also to the visitors at our home.
48
No
8/28/2O194:49 PM
49
Why place the road diet between Crystal Lane and Mountain View when the road is already wide
6/28/20193:50PM
enough tuaccommodate 2lanes uftraffic |neach direction?
50
We are very excited about this project coming to fruition. It needs to happen, people will adjust
0/29/20191:17PM
their transportation choices accordingly.
51
Eliminate the 4Omph block that runs into 15 mph traffic circle on Petaluma Blvd. south at
8/29/2019 10:11 AM
Chrystal Lane. Duiinow!
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project
SurveyMonkey
52
| would bemore likely to vote for these things if the people we voted in to office would tell the truth
6/28/20191O:37 PM
And put the money where it was to go.
53
It is high time to encourage and offer safe and friendly walking and biking for the public.
028/20187:34PM
54
Traffic is already terrible in Petaluma. Sometimes it takes me 20 minutes just to go from 4th and C
6C28/20192:16PM
Street to 101 via Pet Blvd North. No bike lanes, keep two lanes on Pet Blvd South. Why make
getting into and out oftown wome!!
55
Keep it a 2 lane undivided highway. Remove parking on the roadway in both directions. Utilize the
6/28/20185:48AM
open lots for parking.
56
Has anyone noted the constant speeding traffic during early morning and dusk (cars trying to beat
0/27/201811:30PM
lights and a lack of enforcement of speed limits (regularly go 40 to 50 in marked 30 mph).
57
This road diet project will beahuge benefit aaitwill enable mmtoleave mycar ethome and ride
8/27/201911:06PM
my bicycle downtown for a significant amount of my daily shopping and errands. Thank you for
moving this project forward.
58
When will this proposed project begin and end?
6/27/20190:52pM
58
Using 1 st street between H & D for a bike route will require changes to 1 st street including track
6/27/2019 7:43 PM
removal & truck parking inthe middle ofthe street.
60
It will benefit businesses and residents to reduce Petaluma Blvd down to 2 traffic lanes. During
6/27/20193:07PM
commute hours, especially, we have drivers racing through this portion of the Blvd at rates of
speed that make it dangerous to cross even at lighted intersections. There is a real need for
sidewalks and bike lanes. And there isample parking for those who need itonthe side streets.
Please be sure to include provisions for bus stop safety as well. There are close calls for
pedestrians every morning etthe intersection cf Mountain View and Petaluma Blvd aomotorists
pick upspeed asthey head tothe freeway.
61
|nfavor o[the diet not the bicycle lanes
6/27/20191:47PM
62
The small amount of space given to cyclists & pedestrians pales compared to the large amount of
027/20198:17AM
space given to cars & trucks through out the city. This needs to change. Bike lanes can transport
more people with less space
63
Please include class IV (protected bike lanes) not class It. Class 11 do not provide cyclists the
8/26/20198:16P@
protection they need from cars. Pedestrians are also safer with protected bike lanes. Them is
plenty of parking in this area of Petaluma, that removing some would not be impactful. Businesses
dobetter with pedestrian and cyclist traffic. Thank you for your time.
04
Most of the population does not know the difference between a class ii and a class iv bike lane. |0d
6/26/20194:03PM
bareally helpful ifyou'd define these terms with your requests for input.
65
Class 4bike lanes are required 0omake this osafe bike friendly town!
6/26/20191:33PM
80
first street? have you seen the crazy stuff motorists do on that street? it's mind-boggling how you
8/26/20181:28PM
could think that would be an acceptable option. also, class 3 bikeways are death traps, and class
2are just barely better than nothing.
87
Please install protected bike lanes sofamilies can bike downtown.
6/26/20197:37AM
88
1 don't appreciate that the city council is hell bent on turning Petaluma into San Francisco south.
6/25/20199:15PM
We are very unhappy about what is becoming of Petaluma due to Barrett and her far too cozy
relationship with San Francisco, Goggin's tubs on stilts, etc. We are way fed up with her and the
entire extremist progressives on the council We will be opposing you every step of the way.
69
Cyclists will still ride onthe Blvd even if the bike route iannMorFirst streets, nothis option is
6C25/20198:50PM
ignorant.
70
What guarantee will the city provide to ensure congestion will not be worse on a major freeway
6/25/20198:47PM
access corridor? During the morning commute, both lanes are occupied- what will the city do to
ensure the length of time to travel to the freeway will not increase? That is more important than
bike lanes on a major arterial (put the bikes on a parallel street....but, we all know you applied for
and received grant funding for only one street and are going to do it come hell or high water!
Thanks for pretending todnoutreach though!
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project
SurveyMonkey
71
This corridor is not bicycle or pedestrian friendly. The cars are moving too fastand there are no
8/25/20198:05PM
trees. Reducing the traffic lanes would help slow things down. Does the entire center lane need to
be paving? Can plants be added to some sections of the median, What happens at D street?
Parking between E& G was of course used more frequently, as it's closest to downtown and
Walnut Park. Are there other connections that should be explored? Until Lynch Creek is cleaned
up and made safer, showing a connection to this is not a selling point. Creating a safe route of
travel for cyclists and Pedestrians from Petaluma Boulevard to the Smart Train is something worth
further study.
72
Our town need to be part of the solution ... focus on sustainable and ecological transportation
6/25/20197:25PM
option, instead ofencouraging even more driving.
73
First street with its tracks and cobblestone as well as other issues is inappropriate as a SMART
6/25/20197:17P0
route, Dstreet around Lakeville around the SMART station should not utilize weak class |U lanes.
74
lets be creative and figure out how to put in Class IV bike lanes. This might be done via diagonal
6/25/20188:48PM
car parking onone side ufthe street orinthe middle ofthe street. Middle ofthe street parking
could accommodate turn lanes at intersections. It would be sad to another automobile only based
design inthis time ofaclimate emergency.
75
Destination signs for visitors raoomended
6/25/28194:57PM
70
1 can live with this but education needs to be sent to the whole city to help drivers understand how
6/35/20133:29PM
to use the center turn lane. Those of us living on side streets will never get out onto the Boulevard
if the people waiting to turn don't move into the center lane when the lane closest to them is
empty, then wait to merge into the far lane when it's available. On the side streets flowing into
PBN, people wait until they can turn left into the far lane and the whole west side of town will back
up waiting to access the boulevard if people are not taught and compelled to use this configuration
properly.
77
I'd love to see more being done to alleviate traffic around the SMART station. The D
6/25/20133:10PM
street/Washington and Lakeville intersections are a nightmare. It would be extremely helpful to set
up smart traffic lights that work well with the flow of traffic. I live at Payran and D and it takes an
extremely long time o[waiting ioget through those intersections togodowntown. | barely drive,
but when I do it's a huge hassle. I can't imagine how awful it must be for people who commute
every day. There would be a lot more community support for things like this road diet if some
money were being diverted tualleviating traffic concerns.
78
This entire road diet iemterrible idea and awaste ofmoney. Mmand myneighbors will baseverely
6/25/20193:09PM
impacted as drivers will choose to avoid the blvd all together and simply speed along to use 4th 5th
and 6th streets which are entirely residential. This riad diet garbage has only made traffic worse in
the central downtown corridor of the boulevard in the years since it was installed and this version is
longer and more involved and therefore more expensive and a waste of taxpayers funds while also
punishing all ofusthat live inthe neighborhood, Ruining Petaluma with every project where the
coty decides to make a solution for a Iroblem that doesn't exist. If anything removing parking from
both sides of the boulevard and installing these "beloved" bicycle lanes would be a less expensive
and more sensible way to deal with all of this. Besides who really wants to bike when drivers are
constantly ontheir phones driving like drunks every single day?
78
Cars parking on the side walk between H street and E street, it is not a good alternative not only
8/25/20191:44pM
for pedestrians but for bikers. Maybe they need topark onfirst street and open abike lane from
Crystal lane to E street.
80
| don't think the cars are going (ognaway any time soon. Reducing the lanes will only cause more
6/25/201910:55AM
congestion.
81
1 do not ride my bike over many streets because I have almost been hit several times. I believe
6/25/201910:20AM
bike lanes are essential for going forward and approve that the city is working towards this goal.
82
Move the bike lane to an adjacent street parallel to Petaluma Boulevard South. With all the cars on
6/25/201910:11AM
this arterial, it just doesn't make sense to me for the bikes to have to contend. When I ride my bike
I avoid the Main Street and take the side streets. This makes sense because the bikes are slower
as well as there is less traffic. Also, please don't do the bulb out, as they really restrict parking
anywhere they are. I see them on payran, and we're two cars or one car could have parked in a
stretch, just one car or no cars , respectively, are able to park with the bulb -outs. Finally, please
reconsider reducing it come forward to two lanes. Left-hand turns are not an issue for me I drive
that stretch daily. Also sideswiping is not a hard data point, that is anecdotal and submitted by
proponents o[the road diet, which iaflawed analysis. Thanks.
5/6
35
Petaluma's Public Works and Utility upcoming project
SurveyMonkey
83
People already use Petaluma Blvd to avoid high traffic areas. Most of our traffic is from out of
6/25/2019915AM
town*nmmo|don't see how adding bike lanes iegoing tmimprove this odall. Ifanything weshould
befiguring out how toaccommodate the increased traffic.
84
1) Proofread your posts 2) Less lanes in an overburdened city of too many cars is ass -backwards
025/20139:14AM
thinking 3) Emergency evacuations will be impacted by less lanes- bad planning 4) Studies prove
small businesses suffer from road diets- bad business 5) Reducing traffic flow options is not smart
6) Like the phantom middle lane south of the roundabout there are not enough left turns from the
Blvd to justify that lane 7) Just because you CAN do something (funding) doesn't mean you
SHOULD dosomething
85
Need to improve pedestrian access in this area. When matching funds are available, some kind of
6/25/20198:54AM
project needs to get done. Re-evaluate speed limits after project is complete.
80
There isn't any discussion about the safety aspect of a road diet - possible evacuation if there is a
6/25/20198:41AM
wildfire for all the homes west of the Blvd (I St, Mountain View, etc). Too much discussion and
money being thrown at bike lanes when in five years, I have yet to see more than 2-3 cyclists oil
that Blvd. Stop this waste of time and money. Please simply fill the potholes, repave the road and
that will bnmhuge improvement for everyone.
87
Fix the potholes first
0/25/20188:40AM
88
Stop taking away parking to put in bike lanes. Traffic is bad enough and takes a half hour to get
6/25/20138:26A0
through town aaitis.
88
Hoping the plan includes resurfacing (pmving)entire road surface.
6/35/20198:23AM
80
Road diets are the stupidest things I have heard. You paid for more lanes, you want to alleviate
8/25/20198:19AM
traffic, not cause more traffic. You did it on the east side and downtown and now getting across
town is a nightmare, getting through downtown is a nightmare. We try to avoid it at all costs.
Removing lanes after you've paid for them to be added is a waste of taxpayer money. NO ROAD
DIETS!!!
91
Overall a very dumb idea. Traffic is increasing and the city keeps taking roads away which makes
6/25/20198:17AM
traffic even worse! Not that many bike riders here either.
92
You are building a multi -modal future. The road diet is a commitment to SMART ridership by
6/25/20198:05AM
providing a safe and welcoming means to access the train via bike. As car traffic and parking
reaches maximum capacity, the bike lanes provide multi -modal options currently in use in: San
Francisco, Chico, Davis, Portland and throughout Europe. The road diet will lead bicycle north -
south along Petaluma Blvd but also east -west across the future bridge to Hopper Street,
83
Other examples ufsuccessful road diet projects include:
3/14/20192:15pM
6/6 36
Attachment 6
Nlr. Jeff Stutsman, PE
City of Petaluma
202 North McDowell Boulevard
Petaluma, CA 91954
Feasibility Study for a Road Diet on Petaluma Boulevard South
Dear Mr, StUtsman;
As requested, W -Trans has prepared an anzily5is Of Operating conditions an Petaluma Boulevard South in the City
o( Petaluma if a read diet were implemented, The purpose of this letter is to address the potential affect the road
diet WnUld have on operation of the primary intersection's within the limits of the proposed project.
Project Description
The proposed project is a road diet on the '1,1 -mile Stt'ekh Of Petaluma Boulevard SoLith between the intersection
with F Street and Crystal Lane, the location of the future Caulfield Lane extension. The road diet Would reduce
the number of through lanes along this segment from two lanes in each direction to one. Additionally, a two-way
left -tum lane would be installed with the project, To address the potential Impacts associated with vehicles
merging down to one lane, the, intersection of Potaiurna Boulevard South/D Street was incloded in tile study area.
Study Area and Periods
The: study area consists of the following intersections:
1, Petaluma Boulevard South/D Street
2. POtakinla Boulevard South/l Street
I Petaluma Boulevard South/Mountain View Aven Lie
4. Petakirrid BOUlevaid South/McNearAveriue McNear Circle
Operating conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods were eVaILIIted to capture the highest potential
impacts for the proposed project as these aTo the periods when the highest volumes on the local transportation
network are experienced. The morning peak hour occurs between 7:00 and 9:00 a.rn. and reflects conditions
during the home -to -work or school commute, while the P,M, peak flour occurs between 4-00 and 6:00 p.m. and
typically reflectsthe highest levet of congestion during the harneward bound conirnutc.
Considoration was givon to whether the� Unsignalized intersections along the corridor as well zits the roundabout
located at the Crystal Lane intersection shnuld be reviewed. However, the road diet would reasonably 13C
expected to improve condition,,, for drivers entering and exiting the two-way stop -controlled intersections due to
the introduction of the center turn lane and the reduction of the number of lanes the driver WOLfld need to cros;;.
Since the one -lane roundabout was recently constructed, it would have been designed to accO)rnodate the
projected future volumes and was therefore also not included in the arTalyK
Vehicular Circulation
The stucly segment of the Petaluma Boulevar(rl S(Tkrth generally runs 00WIM'St-SOLIthoast but for the purposes of
the analysis was considered east -west, Retweren the Interrwctloris of D Street and Mountain View Avenue there,
aie, two lanes it) each direction with parking on both sides. East of the Mountain Vir_,xiv Avenue intL'r,-eCtior-I
there
iril;) / 17 j�j,I(I
SANI A ROSA - OAKLAND - SAN JOSE
Mr. Jeff Stutsman, PE Page 2 October 1, 2019
are still two lanes in each direction, but there is also a two-way left -turn lane as well as intermittent bike lanes and
on -street parking.
Petaluma Boulevard South/D Street is a four -legged signalized intersection with protected left -turn phasing on
all approaches. Marked crosswalks and pedestrian signals are provided across all four legs.
Petaluma Boulevard South/I Street is a signalized tee -intersection with an unsignalized fourth leg that is a
driveway for an auto body shop. There is protected -permitted left -turn phasing in the westbound direction.
Crosswalks with pedestrian phasing are located on the south and east legs.
Petaluma Boulevard South/Mountain View Avenue is a four -legged intersection with signal control on three
of the four legs. The fourth leg is an unsignalized driveway providing access to an automobile service center.
There are two crosswalks with pedestrian phasing located on the south and east legs.
Petaluma Boulevard South/McNear Avenue-McNear Circle is a four -legged signalized intersection, with
protected left -turn phasing at the eastbound and westbound Petaluma Boulevard South approaches and split
phasing for the McNear Avenue and McNear Circle approaches, which are slightly offset from one another. Bicycle
lanes are present along Petaluma Boulevard South. Crosswalks and associated pedestrian signal heads are present
at the north and west legs, and there is a crosswalk is on the south leg, though it is not served by pedestrian signal
heads or phasing.
Collision History
The collision history for the study area was reviewed to determine any trends or patterns that may indicate a safety
issue that could be exacerbated by the change in geometrics. Collision rates were calculated based on records
available from the California Highway Patrol as published in their Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
(SWITRS) reports. The SWITRS report database includes collisions not only related to vehicles but also pedestrians
and bicyclists. The most current five-year period available is December 1, 2013 through November 30, 2018.
As presented in Table 1, the calculated collision rates for the study intersections were compared to average
collision rates for similar facilities statewide, as indicated in 2014 Collision Data on California State Highways,
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). All the study intersections had collision rates below the
statewide average for similar facilities. The collision rate calculations are provided enclosed.
Study Intersection Number of Calculated Statewide Averag
Collisions Collision Rate Collision Rate
1. Petaluma Blvd S/D St 4 0.11 0.27
2. Petaluma Blvd S/I St 0 0.00 0.21
3. Petaluma Blvd S/Mountain View Ave 1 0.06 0.21
4. Petaluma Blvd S/McNear Ave-McNear Cir 2 0.12 0.27
Note: c/mve= collisions per million vehicles entering
Intersection Level of Service Methodology
Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes and
roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level of Service A represents
Mr. Jeff Stutsman, PE Page 3 October 1, 2019
free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions. A unit of measure
that indicates a level of delay generally accompanies the LOS designation.
The study intersections were analyzed using the "Signalized" methodology published in the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM), Transportation Research Board, 2018. This source contains methodologies for various types of
intersection control, all of which are related to a measurement of delay in average number of seconds per vehicle.
The signalized methodology is based on factors including traffic volumes, green time for each movement,
phasing, whether the signals are coordinated or not, truck traffic, and pedestrian activity. Average stopped delay
per vehicle in seconds is used as the basis for evaluation in this LOS methodology. For purposes of this study,
delays were calculated using signal timing obtained from the City. Since two of the signalized study intersections
have four legs with only three controlled by the signal, for the purposes of applying HCM methodologies the
intersections of Petaluma Boulevard South/I Street and Petaluma Boulevard South/Mountain View Avenue were
analyzed as signalized tee intersections. Volumes to and from the fourth legs were minor during both peaks with
the highest peak hour volumes of four vehicles during the a.m. peak at the intersection with Mountain View
Avenue.
The ranges of delay associated with the various levels of service are indicated in Table 2.
LOS A Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase, so do not stop at all.
LOS B Delay of 10 to 20 seconds. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, but many drivers still do not have to
stop.
LOS C Delay of 20 to 35 seconds. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many still pass
through without stopping.
LOS D Delay of 35 to 55 seconds. The influence of congestion is noticeable, and most vehicles have to stop.
LOS E Delay of 55 to 80 seconds. Most, if not all, vehicles must stop and drivers consider the delay excessive.
LOS F Delay of more than 80 seconds. Vehicles may wait through more than one cycle to clear the
intersection.
Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2018
Traffic Operations
The Petaluma General Plan 2025 has an adopted Level of Service (LOS) D standard, with the following standard of
significance for motor vehicle circulation:
Policy 5-P-10 — Maintain an intersection level of service (LOS) standard for motor vehicle circulation that
ensures efficient traffic flow and supports multi -modal mobility goals. LOS should be maintained at Level D or
better for motor vehicles due to traffic from any development project.
With the current General Plan, the City is shifting toward a multimodal emphasis and LOS standard. "A multimodal
analysis that, in addition to motor vehicles, takes into consideration the overall mobility and conditions for non -
auto road users (i.e., bicycles and pedestrians) is highly encouraged." The Community Character Element of the
General Plan also contains circulation -related objectives and policies. This element directs that pedestrian and
bicycle circulation be integrated into street designs and improvements. It also states that the amount of paving
and the apparent width of streets should be reduced where possible.
Mr. Jeff Stutsman, PE Page 4 October 1, 2019
Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions
The Existing Conditions scenario provides an evaluation of current operation based on existing traffic volumes
during the a.m, and p.m. peak periods and the current geometrics with two through lanes in each direction while
the Existing plus Project Conditions scenario reflects operation with the existing traffic volumes and the proposed
road diet project.
With and without the road diet project, the study intersections are expected to operate acceptably at LOS D or
better. With the project, the intersection delay is expected to increase by about three seconds or less, with the
highest increase in delay at the intersection of Petaluma Boulevard South/McNear Avenue-McNear Circle. At the
intersection of Petaluma Boulevard South/ D Street, little to no change is expected as a result of the project. These
results are summarized in Table 3 and the calculations are enclosed.
• • BMI 0 B •
0
0
Study Intersection
Existing Conditions
Existing plus
Project
AM Peak
PM Peak
AM Peak
PM Peak
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
1. Petaluma Blvd S/D St
39.9 D
41.1 D
39.9 D
41.0 D
2. Petaluma Blvd S/I St
I 8.2 A
7.9 A
( 9.1 A
8.8 A
3. Petaluma Blvd S/Mountain View Ave
I 9.6 A
7.5 A
10.9 B
8.4 A
4. Petaluma Blvd S/McNear Ave-McNear Cir
16.5 B
15.5 B
19.2 B
17.8 B
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service
Finding —The study intersections would be expected to continue operating acceptably with the implementation
of a road diet.
Future and Future plus Project Conditions
Under Future Conditions, the Caulfield Crossover, which would connect from the existing terminus of Caulfield
Lane to Petaluma Boulevard South, was assumed to be completed. At the eastern limits of the study area, the
Caulfield Crossoverwould intersect at the existing Crystal Lane/Petaluma Boulevard South roundabout. Since the
County's gravity demand model did not include the Crossover, an unconstrained model run was obtained from
the County that included this connection as well as other projects in the area. Segment volumes for the horizon
year of 2040 were obtained and translated to turning movement volumes at the intersections of D Street and I
Street with Petaluma Boulevard South using a the "Furness" method. This method is an iterative process that
employs existing turn movement data, existing link volumes and future link volumes to project likely turning
future movement volumes at intersections. For the remaining intersections, based on the unconstrained model,
a growth rate of one percent per year was assumed. This minimum growth rate of one percent per year was also
applied to all movements generated by the Furness method. The shift of the neighborhood traffic pattern was
also considered.
Further, consideration was given to the existing counts' peak hour factors, which account for the peak 15 minutes
of the peak hour. These factors from the counts collected ranged from 0.82 through 0.98. Because traffic demand
can reasonably be expected to spread out more evenly over the peak hour as demand increases, these peak hour
factors are typically not applied for the Future Conditions scenarios. However, under the projected future volumes
and with a PHF of 1.0, the service level was projected to improve. As a result, in addition to the growth rate applied
peryear, the peak hour factors derived from the existing counts were conservatively applied to thefuture volumes.
Mr. Jeff Stutsman, PE Page 5 October 1, 2019
Results
Under future conditions assuming the completion of the Caulfield Crossover and with the current configuration,
the study intersections are expected to operate acceptably at LOS D or better. With the change in geometrics
associated with the road diet, the intersections would be expected to continue operating acceptably with
increases in average delay of 5.5 seconds or less at each of the study intersections. The results are summarized in
Table 4 and the LOS calculations are enclosed.
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service
Finding — Under future volumes, without and with the road diet project, all study intersections are expected to
operate at an acceptable service level.
Unsignalized Intersection
As detailed previously, an operational analysis was not conducted for the two-way stop -controlled intersections
along the study segment. Based on the methodology for two-way stop -control, a level of service for each minor
turning movement is determined by estimating the level of average delay in seconds per vehicle. Because the
proposed project would provide a two-way left -turn lane serving the two-way stop -controlled intersections, a
driver would be able to complete left turns in two stages by crossing the near lane then waiting in the center turn
lane for a gap in traffic in the far lane. This type of maneuver reduces the delay for a driver who would otherwise
have to wait on the minor street approach for simultaneous gaps in traffic coming from both directions.
Side -Street Traffic
As part of the review of the South Petaluma Boulevard Road Diet project, the potential for vehicles to be rerouted
or overflow on to parallel side -streets was reviewed. Before and after the completion of the Petaluma Boulevard
Road North diet, counts were collected on Petaluma Boulevard as well as the parallel streets of Keokuk Street,
Liberty Street, Keller Street, and Kentucky Street south of Oak Street. The counts were collected November 2007
before the road diet project started construction and in February through March 2010 after the road diet was
completed. The findings from these counts showed a decrease in traffic volumes on the side streets while the
volumes on the Petaluma Boulevard remained constant, though with a slight increase. Based on the historical
data for the road diet on Petaluma Boulevard North, it is expected that the proposed project could reasonably be
expected not to cause traffic on the side streets to increase.
The data collected as well as the progress report addressing the Petaluma Boulevard North road diet project are
enclosed.
Study Intersection
Future Conditions
Future plus
Project
AM Peak
PM Peak
AM Peak
PM Peak
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
1. Petaluma Blvd S/D St
52.5
D
47.4
D
52.4 D
47.3 D
2. Petaluma Blvd S/I St
9.0
A
8.6
A
10.2 B
9.7 A
3. Petaluma Blvd S/Mountain View Ave
9.8
A
8.7
A
12.0 B
9.8 A
4. Petaluma Blvd S/McNear Ave-McNear Cir
18.9
B
17.8
B
24.4 C
20.7 C
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service
Finding — Under future volumes, without and with the road diet project, all study intersections are expected to
operate at an acceptable service level.
Unsignalized Intersection
As detailed previously, an operational analysis was not conducted for the two-way stop -controlled intersections
along the study segment. Based on the methodology for two-way stop -control, a level of service for each minor
turning movement is determined by estimating the level of average delay in seconds per vehicle. Because the
proposed project would provide a two-way left -turn lane serving the two-way stop -controlled intersections, a
driver would be able to complete left turns in two stages by crossing the near lane then waiting in the center turn
lane for a gap in traffic in the far lane. This type of maneuver reduces the delay for a driver who would otherwise
have to wait on the minor street approach for simultaneous gaps in traffic coming from both directions.
Side -Street Traffic
As part of the review of the South Petaluma Boulevard Road Diet project, the potential for vehicles to be rerouted
or overflow on to parallel side -streets was reviewed. Before and after the completion of the Petaluma Boulevard
Road North diet, counts were collected on Petaluma Boulevard as well as the parallel streets of Keokuk Street,
Liberty Street, Keller Street, and Kentucky Street south of Oak Street. The counts were collected November 2007
before the road diet project started construction and in February through March 2010 after the road diet was
completed. The findings from these counts showed a decrease in traffic volumes on the side streets while the
volumes on the Petaluma Boulevard remained constant, though with a slight increase. Based on the historical
data for the road diet on Petaluma Boulevard North, it is expected that the proposed project could reasonably be
expected not to cause traffic on the side streets to increase.
The data collected as well as the progress report addressing the Petaluma Boulevard North road diet project are
enclosed.
Mr. Jeff Stutsman, PE Page 6 October 1, 2019
Under the Existing and Future volumes, without anti with the road diet project, the study Intersections would
be expected to operate acceptably.
The road dieI project would be expected to result in nominal increases in delay at the study intersections of
5,5 seconds or less under Existing and Future volurnes.
Thank you for qivinq W- I rans the opportunity to provide these services. Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Briana Byrne, EIT
Associate Engineer
41 AV
DaIeneJ.WhltI ck,P PTOE
Senior Principal
FOUNT11119NOWIN
Enclosures: intersection Collision Rate Calculations
Level of Service Calculations
Pre- and Post -Road Diet Count Collection
Progress Report on Traffic Study Addressing Petaluma Boulevard South Road Diet Project
Intersection Collision Rate Calculations
Petaluma Boulevard South Road Diet
Intersection # 1: Petaluma Boulevard & D Street
Date of Count: Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Number of Collisions:
4
Number of Injuries:
2
Number of Fatalities:
0
ADT:
20100
Start Date:
December 1, 2013
End Date:
November 30, 2018
Number of Years:
5
Intersection Type:
Four -Legged
Control Type:
Signals
Area:
Urban
collision rate = Number of Collisions x 1 Million
ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years
collision rate = 4 x 1,000,000
20,100 x 365 x 5
Collision Rate Fatality Rate Injury Rate
Study Intersection 0.11 clmve 0.0% 50.0%
Statewide Average` 0.27 clmve 0.4% 41.9%
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
Intersection # 2: Petaluma Boulevard & I Street
Date of Count: Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Number of Collisions:
0
Number of Injuries:
0
Number of Fatalities:
0
ADT:
10200
Start Date:
December 1, 2013
End Date:
November 30, 2018
Number of Years:
5
Intersection Type:
Tee
Control Type:
Signals
Area:
Urban
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
collision rate =
ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years
collision rate =
0 x 1,000,000
10,200 x 365 x 5
Collision Rate Fatality Rate Injury Rate
Study Intersection
0.00 clmve
0.0%
I
0.0%
Statewide Average`
0.21 c/mve
0.3%
42.4%
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
. 2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
9/4/2019
ins Pagel of 2
Intersection Collision Rate Calculaions
Petaluma Boulevard South Road Diet
Intersection # 3: Petaluma Boulevard & Mountain View Avenue
Date of Count: Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Number of Collisions:
1
Number of Injuries:
0
Number of Fatalities:
0
ADT:
9200
Start Date:
December 1, 2013
End Date:
November 30, 2018
Number of Years:
5
Intersection Type:
Tee
Control Type:
Signals
Area:
Urban
collision rate = Number of Collisions x 1 Million
ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years
collision rate = 1 x 1,000,000
9,200 x 365 x 5
Collision Rate I Fatality Rate Injury Rate
Study Intersection 0.06 c/mve 0.0% 0.0
Statewide Average' 0.21 c/mve 0.3% 42.4
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans I
Intersection # 4: Petaluma Boulevard & McNear Ave-McNear Cir
Date of Count: Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Number of Collisions:
2
Number of Injuries:
2
Number of Fatalities:
0
ADT:
9200
Start Date:
December 1, 2013
End Date:
November 30, 2018
Number of Years:
5
Intersection Type:
Four -Legged
Control Type:
Signals
Area:
Urban
collision rate = Number of Collisions x 1 Million
ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years
collision rate = 2 x 1,000,000
9,200 x 365 x 5
Collision Rate Fatality Rate Injury Rate
Study Intersection 0.12 clmve 0.0% 100.0
Statewide Average* 0.27 clmve 0.4% 41.9
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
` 2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
9/4/2019
ins Page 2 of 2
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: D St & Petaluma Blvd S
ML
EST
ESP
W61.
WST
WSR
NW.
NST
SIM
SSL
S8T
SBR
Lane Confiquratpn5
1
t
il
I
t
r
'i
Movement
281.
EST
EER
WBL
MT.
MR
NBL
NOT
NBR
98L
S8T
SBR
Lana Configurations
n
Full Volume Ivehh)
F
240
f
r
190
1.
54
'1
t
r
Tratfic ftima (vehlhl
134
240
63
79
190
219
64
318
21
114
392
44
Future Volume ivf+.rhj
134
20
63
79
190
219
54
318
21
114
302
44
Irillicil 0 (Do), veh
0
3
0
0
a
0
5
a
0
i
0
1174
Ped4ke AdIffiphP,
1.0-1)
lVork Zone On Alppma6
0.95
100
0,96
I -co
0.96
1.04
C.96
Parking Bus, Adl,
I On
1,00
1,00
1.00
1 Zo
1,00
11.00
1,011
1.00
I'Do
'1.4'3
1.00
Rork Zone On Approach
1683
No
158
282
,'a
93
224
N.
64
374
ND
134
Adl Sal Flea, vehMri
1683
',R3
1683
1683
1683
1683
1633
1683
1683
1683
1683
4683
Adi Rimy Rate, veh,h
158
282
40
93
224
87
64
374
21
134
461
26
Peak Hour Factor
0,85
0A5
0.05
0.55
DAA
0.0
0.85
0,85
M
0.85
045
0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, Vahih
17t
404
330
124
352
288
121
460
25
298
689
559
A,T've On Green
010
17.24
0.24
0,09
0.21
0,21
0.07
D.29
019
OAR
DA2
0.42
Sal FlawVe'Vh
1603
1683
1354
1603
1683
1375
1603
1575
85
1603
1683
1366
Grp vo;umofv7' VeWh
156
282
40
93
224
57
64
0
395
136
461
26
Grp Set Ri:,AJsl,veht,;b
1603
1683
1354
1603
1683
1375
1603
0
1663
1603
1683
1366
0 Seroe(gLs), s
9,9
13.8
2.1
51
1c.9
4.8
3-5
0.0
19.8
67
t9'8
0,7
Cycle 0 Gear[ -c}, a
BA
13,8
21
5.1
111.9
4.8
3.5
0.0
19.8
51
4B
0,7
Prop In Lane
1100
IPC Ratio(X)
1,00
1.00
0,12
I'C0
t,00
0r30
0.05
1,00
0.81
1,00
Lam Grp Capjt). veWh
171
404
336
129
352
288
121
0
486
296
689
559
Vic Rapw%�'
093
0.70
0.12
032
0-64
D.31)
0.53
0 Do
0.81
0.45
067
0,05
AvM Cap(c-a), vahih
160
488
393
143
473
387
143
0
486
302
7D3
571
HC%l P aloon Ralh'D
1,00
1XI4
1.00
1.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1,00
1.01
100
100
1,00
Upstream Rlet(l)
1-00
1.00
100
0r98
0,98
4G8
1100
0.130
1,00
12
1.10
1.0,0
Uniform Delay (6),
39,9
31,5
266
4DA
32,51
30-C
4D.6
0.0
29-E
32,6
21'Y
6.6
my Delay ld2) , V00
50.9
42
0.2
11,8
21
0'8
13
O'D
13.8
OA
12
0.0
ImW Q Dclay(d3j,svveh
0.0
1.3
0'0
3,0
00
0-0
261
0.0
0-0
O's
0-0
14
"Wks Bacwfolso'h).vchph
5.9
6.4
01
2.4
4,6
1"6
2,7
0.0
96
17
81
03
Uns,g. Mcvemant Delay, stvei
LniSrp LOS
F
B
C
0
D
C
E
A
0
knGrp 0eIr;yld),s?v9h
903
37Z
26.6
522
36,1
309
68.0
0.0
43.4
13.2
2&9
6.6
-rGT LOS
F
0
C
1)
0
C
E
A
0
C
C
A
Approach Vol, v00
480
D
404
D
459
0
621
Apprcnch Delay', si'veh
53.8
1
2
38.1
4
5
468
7
6
252
Approach LOS
0
21.6
31.0
0
26-2
1 DA
D
119
215
'rinnlir - Assituned One
1
2
3
4
5
a
7
8
"4 a
' 4.7
Phs Durafti (G-Y+R6), s
21,13
31.0
11,2
26.2
104
4Z2
119
216
.9
.25
Chaple Period IY*RCj, s
'4$
"4.7
4,0
4-9
40
44
' 4�9
' 4.7
10.9
I2.9
Max Green Selling (Gmax), s
' 12
'26
8.0
26
8.0
304
-9
'25
0.0
11
Max Q ClearTime s
8.7
21.8
7.1
15.6
5.5
21.8
10-9
112,9
Gmer, Ext Time 1p_cj, s
0.1
DG
0'0
1.15
0,13
11
O'D
1.7
HCM 6th LOS
D
HCM 6th CIO Delay
Was
39.9
HC%f 6th LOS
D
Usef apprc"d pedestrar, mlerval to be less than phase max green.
' HCM $In compubLonat engSne requires equal dasher pa times sr the phases crossing the barner.
HCFA 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: 0 St & Petaluma Blvd S
� - --" 'r - 'I- -'u'
movenvent
ML
EST
ESP
W61.
WST
WSR
NW.
NST
SIM
SSL
S8T
SBR
Lane Confiquratpn5
1
t
il
I
t
r
'i
r
Trafric Volume fvehm
*4
240
63
79
190
219
54
318
21
114
392
44
Full Volume Ivehh)
134
240
63
79
190
219
54
W
21
114
352
44
Initial 0 (ob), veh
0
3
0
a
0
D
5
0
D
1
a
0
Pad-Biko Adj(A_pb`rp
1,00
0r95
1L0
0.96
TZ
1,194
180
0.26
Pairlung But, Adj
1,00
T'00
12
100
7.00
I-r'a
"'Oo
im
I'm
1174
l'o
4.00
lVork Zone On Alppma6
No
140
No
No
Adl Sat Rvv, veWbAn
1693
1683
1683
1W
)683
1683
1,683
1683
1683
1686
1683
1683
AJJ Row Rale, v&h
158
282
40
93
224
87
64
374
21
134
461
26
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0,85
085
0.85
085
0,65
DAB
0-85
0185
0-85
0,65
0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, VeWh
171
404
330
129
352
288
T21
459
26
298
689
559
Arrive On Green
DAG
0-24
0,24
0.08
021
G21
0:07
0,219
0.29
0.19
6.42
0.42
Sal Floui, vehfh
t503
1E93
1354
1603
1683
1376
1603
1572
88
161*13
1683
13es
Grp Volunpe(e�, val'Ah
15$
262
4g
93
224
87
64
G
395
134
46T
26
Grp Sat Flowisg,vehlhiln
1603
1683
1354
1603
1683
1375
1603
0
1661
1603
',683
136E
a slxvelg_s7. 9
89
IDS
21
51
10,91
4,8
3.5
0-0
190
51
11916
0'7
Cycle a Claahtl-C), s
8a
118
21
51
10.9
4A
315
OX
19.9
67
19.8
o.'
Prop In Lane
iDo
10
1 no
140
1,04
0'05
I'0C
100
Lane Grp CaNc), vehib
171
404
330
129
352
288
121
G
488
29e
"o
550
IPC Ratio(X)
0,93
0.7.
0,12
0,72
G'64
0r30
153
0.00
0.81
0,45
167
DDE
Avail Caiplc-ay, v6ftm
MO
488
393
10
473
3e7
143
0
45
102
7113
5?1
HCN!, Piploor, fW!o
,DO
1.00
too
I'Do
106
I'DO
1.011
100
1 -ca
4.06
143
1601
Upstream Filler,11)
'00
'.Da
1400
094
0,94
0-:94
1,00
0,00
1 DO
1,00
100
1.001
Un,form Delay ldl, sWh
39.9
31,6
26,13
40.4
32.5
31.0
40E
D.0
29-8
32 6
2%7
6-6
Incy Delay td2), srveh
50,9
42
0,2
11,4
Z6
0.8
1113
O'D
133
0.4
2.2
O'D
Iniiial 0 DeIWOP,ech
0.0
1"2
Do
0.0
O -C
0.0
261
D.o
0 D
11-1
)'Q
O.D'
r6ile Back=t!50%�,vohOn
SA
64
D,7
24
4$
1,6
2.7
GL
97
21
°'l
O'a
Unsig, Movement Delay, &Neh
00rip Woy{d}skoh
90.6
374
26.8
51,8
1.5,0
30.8
513.0
D.0
ASS
332
23.9
LniSrp LOS
F
B
C
0
D
C
E
A
0
C
A
Approach Vol, veNh
484
404
459
621
Approach Delay, wyen
Ma
384
46.9
252
Approach LOS
D
D
0
Timer- Awm6phs,
1
2
a
4
5
6
7
6
Plhs Duration (G+Y+Rc), a
21.6
31.0
112
26-2
1 DA
422
119
215
Change Panod ffRc), s
*46
* 4,7
4.0
' 4-9
4,0
4.6
"4 a
' 4.7
Max Green Getting (Gmax I, s
' 12
'26
&0
" 26
8,0
30A
.9
.25
Max 0 Clear lime 1), a
8.7
21,9
7.1
151
5.5
2%8
10.9
I2.9
Green Ext The (p_:), s
OJ
19
0s0
1.8
D.0
1.7
0.0
11
Intersection Sigmaa
HCM 6th CW Delay
39.9
HCM 6th LOS
D
Was
User approved pedestrian mlerval 0 he less than phase max green.
' HCM 61h computairsnal engine requires equal deafance I for the phases crossing the barnex
lxe"etlna Bcvlevafd Soull, Road Diet W -Deans Petaluma Boulevard South Roar Diat W�'fans
AM Fx�sl]nq =212019 AM ExiMing wih Project C&DZ21IS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2
a
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
a
Phs Duration (G 'Y+130, s
2: 1 St & Petaluma Blvd S
6.6
11,9
18'5
Change Period N+R-,), r
4-6
2: 1 St & Petaluma Blvd S
'4,9
4,9
Max Green Serting (Grhax), s
28A
W012119
"32
32.1
Max 0 Clear Time (SLQ-lt). a
41
2.6
510
3.8
Green Ext Tme (p.,p), a
O'l
')p
41'
1.9
IN
eAl
Movement
98T
E8K
WEIL
WBT
14111.
Ngat
Movement
ST
ESR
'Arai L
WST
NOL
NSR
Lane Conrguratiois
fu
)
"
tm&s for the phases Inawng the bandr,%
IF
Lane Confgurat-ons
T,
'N -Trans
il
F
Tratfic Volume (vthih)
283
80
48
308
IM
100
Tmfft Volume tvcWh)
283
so
48
308
136
1110
Futu,a Vchdnoe (velhn)
283
80
Q
308
16
10C
Future Volume
283
8C
48
308
136
10
lnjtiati 0 (Qb), vab
0
9
0
0
0
0
Inhol 0 (QbY, ooh
0
0
0
8
0
0
Pad4ke Adj(A_pbT;
1'00
1.00'
1.00
f'OO
Fed -Bike Adj(A_pb`r)
1,00
100
1.40
140
Parking Bus, Ad;
10
1.00
1.00
1.00
LOD
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.0
100
1100
1.89
Wo,* Zone On Approach
NO
NO
N, c
Work Zoo o On Appmach
No
N
No
Aq Sot Fives, veh.,11An
1870
1070
1670
1870
1870
'470
Adp $pt Pswy, voWn
1870
'WO
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adl Flow Rat -2. veftth
325
75
55
354
156
66
Ad[ Flow Role, veNh
325
75
.95
354
T56
66
Peak Hour Factor
OW
6.87
0-97
OV
0.87
0,87
Peak How Facirr
0.87
0.87
067
0.87
087
0,87
Pen;rnl Heavy Van, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
percent Hea'q veb, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap. vah;h
579
154
529
1621
402
357
Cap, v&b
463
107
470
96S
367
326
A,Ti%,e On Green
C.24
0.24
1D9
0.46
D.23
023
Arrive Or Gwn
0.32
0,32
11C 8
D,52
021
C,21
Sat FlVe, Velk"ni
2967
654
1701
3647
17611
1585
gal Pow, With
1470
339
1781
I970
1781
1586
Gep Vc'ursfvl, ve-Wh
199
20!
55
$54
156
66
Grp Volume(v}' Vorl
0
400
55
354
156
66
Grp Sal F[ow(s)-veN!h4n
177
1751
1781
4777
1781
JSSS
Grp Sal Flow(&},vahftTh
0
1609
1781
1670
1761
$585
a sene;�S)' s
2,9
10
0.6
I'll
22
1.0
0 Serve(g,sl' s
00
6.6
06
3.9
2.6
1-2
%'dI6 0 Uanqg-c). s
29
3,0
0,6
1.B
22
1.0
cyVe, a Cleangjd)' 5
0.0
6.6
0.6
3.9
2.6
12
Pralo In Lane
0.37
1.80
%00
lZ
Prop In Lane
019
1.0g
111
1.00
Lane Grp Calp(c). vehh
420
413
529
f621
402
357
Lane Grp Cape), yehth
0
570
476
H5
367
326
VIC R 850(X)
0,47
OA9
0,10
D22
0,$9
0-18
WC Ratio(X)
0.00
6.7,0
011
0.37
0.43
D20
Avait Cap(c_a), verdh
1929
190I
1391
3823
1695
1509
Aval Capfc_a), yefipm
0
1717
'12:17
17%
1482
1319
1109 Ralmr, Ratio
1,00
1,09
I'I10
1,00
1.00
1'113
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1 N
1,00
9'00
1.118
II DO
UInavearn Fdter(t)
Loo
1.00
1.00
1100
1,00
9.00
Upstream Flpelqll
0,00
1-0U
1,00
1,00
VA
1!.00
Uniform Delay (d% sNel,
9,8
9.8
62
49
94
9,3
Unilomr. De,3y, (d), sivah
0.0
10.3
63
4.9
118
11.2
Inv Deoy (d2)_sWh
0.6
07
0,0
04
0,2
O'l
trot Delay (d2p, Wvqh
(Lo
Q
0.0
02
0.3
0,1
hiLol 0 De1aAd3)swch
00
0.0
0.9
0 C
0.0
00
Initial 0 DelaVd3),sNah
U
0.0
0-0
U
0.0
0.0
Ir',ile 9ackOf0fS0%),vehjnl
0.8
O's
01
13
03
02
%as 8ack=f50%),veW
V
2.0
0,1
01
OS
03
Unsig, Movement Delay, aW
Unsql. Movement Delay, &Yeh
LnGrp DePay(d),s-N-h
10.4
10,5
6-2
6,0
10.0
9.4
LnGTp DalayydWveh
ab
11.5
6.4
5.1
12.1
11.3
LnGra LOS
9
8_
_ A
A
8
A
LnGpLOS
A
6
A
A
8
8
Approach Vol, Vehn"
400
409
222
Approach Vol, veh?h
400
449
222
Approach Delay. Wyeh
10.5
51
93
Appmach Delay, &;vab
11.5
5.3
11.5
Approach LOS
a
A
A
Approach LOS
8
A
a
TiMat - ASlalmed Phs
2
a
4
a
Phs Duration (G 'Y+130, s
11-3
6.6
11,9
18'5
Change Period N+R-,), r
4-6
4.0
'4,9
4,9
Max Green Serting (Grhax), s
28A
T7.0
"32
32.1
Max 0 Clear Time (SLQ-lt). a
41
2.6
510
3.8
Green Ext Tme (p.,p), a
O'l
10
20
1.9
lnulersedonS4mmar
HCM 61h Uhl Delay
9.2
HCM 9th LOS
A
Notes
HUI 61h computational enpr.e requ;res equal deaance
tm&s for the phases Inawng the bandr,%
Petaluma SoWevard South Road Diet
'N -Trans
AM Existing
ONDb209
Timet' -Asst n9dPhs
2
3
4
8
Phs Dutahan (G+Y-Rtt), s
111'6
U
15.7
225
Charge Ponsd IY+Rcl, s
46
4.0
4,9
4.9
Max Smelt Setting (Gmax), 5
28.4
17,0
32
32.1
Max 0 Oear'iime Ig-c+ll), s
4,6
16
86
5.9
Green EA r1fle (PA , 5
V
0,0
21
11
Summary
HCM 6th chill Delay
9,11
HCla ft LOS
A
NO%
* HCM ft computational engire repwres equal cleaance times for 1ho phases crossing the banner
Petaluma Souta%,ard South Road De:
AM ExVu1@'m'th PTo;ecI
W -Tran,
OIVUZ19
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Mountain View Ave & Petaluma Blvd S *0212019
)i4overnent
SST
ESR
WEL
WBT
N8L
NISR
Lane Conficumlions
fT-
'li
f+
Vi
10
Traffic Volume ivehili
348
55
76
297
tO7
131
Future 'Volume (vWh)
348
55
76
2e7
107
131
Initial 0 fOb), vef
0
a
0
0
0
0
Ped-Sike AdIl
0 F
1.00
1.80
1.01
Parking SJ& AdI
1100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1,00
1,00
ftrk Zorn On Approach
No
No
No
Adg Sat F?ov.�, veh infln,
1870
1870
1870
1670
1870
170
Adi P.m Ra!L, veh'h
424
60
93
362
130
98
Peak HouT Factor
012
0,82
0A2
0.82
0-82
0,82
pencern keavy Veh.
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh)b
7.8
106
582
1797
go
358
Arrive On Green
0.24
0,24
0.15
0_91
0.22
022
Sat Pow, *hm
3211
438
"781
3647
1781
1595
Grp Vniumeo, vahh
240
244
93
362
130
98
Grp San Flowis).velolift
1777
1779
1781
1777
1781
1585
Q Sarvahs-sl' a
43
4,3
I'l
2,0
2-2
IS
Cycle a Ctazr;g-ic). 5
43
4.3
I'll
2.0
2,2
1 A
R,no In Lane
0.25
1.00
7,00
11.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), vell
432
432
M
1797
400
356
VIC Rarjw)
0,56
156
016
6.20
0.32
0.28
Avail Caplc_a), mWh
1883
1885
1749
3765
1446
1287
HC."." Platcon Railo
1,00
1.89
U.,
1,00
1.60
1-00
Upstream, Her(i)
12
1.00
1.60
1.00
1.00
1.00
Unifc,m Delay (d:, &Iwct,
11,9
11.9
6.4
4-9
11.7
11,5
Inv Delay (Q), sfvsh
0.8
0,9
H
0.0
6.2
12
nital 0 Dolay(0),s�,ch
0,0
0.0
0.0
U
0.0
0.0
is BackOq50%),Yehha
L3
1.4
0.2
0.4
83
go
unsig. Movement Delay, S'r'eh
LnGrp Dpipy(d),Oml,
1218
12.8
6-4
0
11.8
11.7
LnGra LOS
8
S
A
A
R
9
Approccfi Vol, Yehq,
484
455
228
Approach Delay, sfvoh
118
52
11.$
Approach LOS
3
A
S
timer- Antirred plis
2
4
6:
Phs Duration (G�Y+Rcg, s
i2-9
9.4
13,6
23A
Change Period fY-,R.,)- a
4.5
4,0
4,9
4,9
ft Green Setting GTnar), a
'29
294
381
38,1
%tax Q Clear Time (q c-lli, s
4.2
3.1
U
4.6
Green Ext Time (p-) ), s
(LI
Ok
24
ZO
Intersedion Summa�
KOMI 6th ON Delay
9,6
HCM 5t) LOS
A
Nene
' HCM 61h compulaforS engine feqLires equal clearance hirl for 'Je phases crossing Che banner
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Mountain View Ave & Petaluma Blvd S
- -t 'r 4- '\
hfavermerrt
58T
SBR
WSL
WST
NEL
NSA
Lane Confrouranans
I.
t
�
r
Traffic Volume (VaWmi
348
55
76
2297
107
131
FUWTO VOInme jVe)b)
'AS
55
76
2971
107
131
Innial 0 (Qbg, veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pec -Bike AQA_pbTl
0.90
1,00
100
1 0
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1,00
1.00
1.00
100
LI)o
'Nork Zone On Approach
No
No
No
Act Sat Flow, veWturri
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1670
Adj Flow Rate, veWh
424
6Q
93
362
13C
98
Peak Roar Famir
0.112
0.82
0.82
0.62
0.82
0.82
Percent HeavyVeh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cfip� vah/h
59
73
515
1080
349
311
ArM On Green
0,54
0.34
0,14
GLE
0.20
X0.20
Sol Flow, vp"
1597
226
1781
1870
1791
1595
Grp Volumelyl. vehih
0
ABA
93
362
430
99
Grp Sat Flowisl,vehilhin
0
1,824
17,81
1870
1781
1585
0 serveo_s), S
0.0
$02
11.1
43
2'7
2-3
Cycle 0 Cleaf(g-C), a
0.0
W
1A
43
2,7
23
Prop In Lane
0A2
1.04
100
1.00
Lane Grp Capfcl, waht,
0
626
515
1080
30
311
WPC RatintX)
0.00
0.77
MIR
0.34
0.37
032
Ava;l Cape_a), wehrh
0
1622
1411
1664
1215
W
HCM Platoon Ratio
4.00
100
1.06
1'00
l'Co
1.00
upstream Fjiicrfl)
0,00
1 -00
1.06
7,00
1,00
1.06
Unifow. Delay (d), s?veh
00
116
6-9
4.7
14.9
141
Inq Delay (0), vveh
0,0
t.5
O'l
01
0.2
U
Initial 0 Dalay+Q,sfveb
U
0.0
10.0
C'o
0.0
010
ft S;ack0f040%),YehAa
00
3,4
0.2
U
11'0
01
Unsrg. Movement Delay, Vvieh
LAG rp Dmlayldk,&cveh
0.0
14.1
TO
4,9
15.2
15.0
LnG,o LOS
A
8
A
A
B
8
Approach Vol. VW4
484
455
226
Apprasch Delay, siveri
"4.1.
53
15.1
Approach LOS
a
A
B
timer- Antirred plis
2
4
Phs Duration (G+Y-Rc), s
13.2
10.0
19.6
24,6
Change Perctl ff-Rcl, a
'4.8
4.0
4-9
4,9
Max Green Belong (Gimax), s
29
29,0
3$.1
36.1
Max a Clear T"me 5
4,7
31
12.2
U
Green Ext rune (P -c), a
0.1
U
2.5
8
HCM 6th CM Delay
10,9
HCA 6117 LOS
8
Notes
' Hch! ft compulploral erginp requires equal dearnnoa fi"s for tie phases cross ng fie parr af
petakina Bndevard scu!h P«A.' on't'N-Trans Petaluma Boulevard South Road Dirt
AM Ex:sl+;ng 024212019 AM Nsling with Projed
HCIVI 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: McNear Ave/McNear Circle & Petaluma Blvd S 002,2019
,.# N e - ,-
"overnent
ESL
EST
ESR
W8L
W8Y
WIBR
NBI.
NST
N9R
SBL
SET
SBA
Lane Conrigu ations
I
"
?
'k
tf
F
i
T.
4L
0 Carlo Volume (Vehlt4
7
4153
22
37
289
9
22
2
76
16
4
21
Future Volume ivotilh)
7
453
22
37
289
9
2,a
2
76
16
4
21
Initial 0 (Ob}, veh,
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -13,11d Adj(A_pbTi
1.00
1.00
Ica
1.00
1,01)
i-04
1 DD
1.00
Park;nq Bos, Adj
1,00
1,00
1.00
1.60
1-00
LoO
lDo
1,00
1.04
100
1,00
IM
Work Zone On Aldroacti
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, ve1qKkn
1870
1870
1870
187D
1970
1870
1370
1870
1870
1870
11170
1670
Adi F,ovt Rate, vehh
8
487
20
40
311,
10
31
2
38
17
4
9
Peak Hair Factor
0,93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0,93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0S3
OM
0-93
Percent Heavy Wh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, Vah"h
49
894
397
225
1245
556
262
12
223
83
20
44
Arrive On Green
0.03
0,25
015
C13
0,35
035
GAS
0.15
0.15
0.09
0,109
0-0
Sat Flow, vehrit
178,
3654
1574
1781
3554
1S65
1781
80
1517
978
230
518
TIP VolumL(,,,), enIr
8
487
4
40
31'
10
31
0
40
30
0
0
Grp Sat
1781
1777
1579
178f
1777
1515
1781
0
1597
1727
0
0
0 Serwe(gLs), s
012
61
05
I'l
33
0.2
0.8
C")
11
0-9
D'o
0,0
Cycle 0 Clear(gLp, S
0,2
6,3
a6
1.1
3,3
0.2
11.8
0.0
11
OR
oio
0,10
Prop In, Lane
1.00
I,oc
5.00
1-00
1,00
CA5
C,57
030
Lane Grp Cap(), vphlh
49
894
397
226
1245
566
262
0
235
147
0
0
Vic Ra'jWM
0.16
054
0.05
0.181
0-25
M
0J2
000
0,17
020
000
0.00
Avail Cap(c_a). vQYh
978
2825
1255
1045
2825
1260
674
0
605
654
0
0
HCM Paloon Raba
1.0
110
1,00
7,00
i -no
1410
140
I'm
1,00
100
1 00
100
Upsbeam Fl(ol)
1-04
1.00
1.00
$.00
1.90
1,60
1.00
0100
1.00
10
0,0
0.00
Uniform Data,,, ld), sleh
25.1
17.1
15.D
20,6
12-2
11-2
19,6
0.0
19,7
225
0.0
0.0
lncr Delay ;d2), slveh
IS
07
0-1
DS
0.1
010
02
0.0
01
14
0.0
0,0
Wfa 0 Delay(d3)„lveh
D'o
0-0
0-0
10
0.0
0.0
O'D
0,0
Wit
Oil)
0.0
0.0
%ile Bacitolofsolli'vehrn
01
2.3
0.2
DA
1,1
0.1
03
0,0
0,4
0.4
4.4
ok
Unsiq. hllovsm?ra Delay. stv,0
LnGrp Delart(d),sYveh
26,7
17,9
ISA
21.2
12,4
11.2
193
0.0
20.1
235
0.0
0-0
LrGroLOS
c
9
B
C
a
B
a
A
0
C
A
A,
Approach Vol, veKlh
W
361
71
30
Approach Delay, sJveh
17 a
13,3
19.9
234
Approach LOS
8
8
a
c
Timor - Assi2nedl Ohs
2
3
4
6
7
a
Pre Duration (G-V+R:), s
13.4
$17
19.0
9.8
5.4
24,2
Ciange Penod (YRc), a
5-6
4.0
* 5.7
5,3
4,0
' 5.7
Max Greer, Selling (Gmatxlt, Z
20-0
31.0
'42
20.0
29.0
'42
Max 0 Clear Time (9-C151 1, 5
32
1t
B.3
2-9
21
5.3
Green Ext 7mr6 fPA, s
02
V
60
01
0.0
2,9
I tarsal Summary
HCM 6th CVI Delay f53
HC64 6r7 LOS B
Notes
User approved Pedeall-0.11 intervat to De less lhan phase Max 700n.
' HCM 6ih computalionil engine requace erloal cleans roe limes for the phases crossing [be baser.
Petaluma Boulevard SnuM Ron d D,pr W -Tran!;
AM Exlvtng C&VZ12019
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: MoNear Ave/McNeer Circle & Petaluma, Blvd S O&OZ2019
-,* , -h, I- - 1- " t r* ,- ;
NIM, Merl
E61.
EBT
EBR
W8L
IA46T
MR
NB L
NET
NklIR
SSL
S8T
SSR
Lare Configurations
i
f
F
i
1,
?
'i
%
4.
Traffic Volume (vehon)
7
453
22
37
289
9
29
2
76
16
4
21
Future Wunne (vehhl,
7
453
22
37
289
S
29
2
76
16
4
21
Inhat 0 (Cl veil
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
Ped-&i,e Ad(kpbT)
100
100
f.00
1.00
1. DO
1,40
I'M
Ogg
Policing Bus, Abd
1,00
1,03
1.00
1,00
1,00
1.00
1.00
1.0D
IM
1.00
1,00
1,011
Work Zone On Approach
No
VNo
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, vrehrrilln
1870
1870
1870
IB70
1870
Wo,
1870
1870
1870
1870
187o
1874
Adj Flow Rate, velulh
a
487
20
40
311
10
31
2
38
4
0
Peak Hour Paetor
0.93
0-83
0,93
0,93
4.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0,93
0,93
1)3
Percent Heavy Vah, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, varyn
4
631
533
213
805
682
241
IT
205
so
19
42
Arrive On Green
0.03
0-34
D.34
0-12
4A3
0,43
014
C.14
014
11.0B
Q.l)S
D.C8
Sat Fra'a, Veft
1781
1870
1580
1701
1870
1585
1711
80
1517
978
130
$t$
Grp Wurr.elv), veYh
8
487
20
40
311
10
31
o
40
3G
0
0
Grp Sol Flools),veWhAm
1781
1870
15,50
1781
1870
1585
1781
0
1597
1725
0
0 Solvefg-sl, s
0-3
14.8
0_5
1.3
7.2
02
T,O
10
1.4
11
0. 0
00
Cycle 0 Cleartiq_cl, s
0.3
14,8
05
12
7,2
12
1.0
O'D
1.4
1.0
0.0
O'0
Prop In Lane
1.00
1,00
I -M
I'm
0,95
037
130
Lane Grp Cap(cl, vehA)
48
631
533
213
805
682
241
0
216
141
0
41
V1C RMio(X)
0.17
017
0.04
019
0.39
0,11
Va
0,00
0,2
C 21
0.01
0.00
Avail Captc�_a), vefi3li
817
1242
1449
873
1242
1052
5W
0
505
$46
0
l
HCM Platoon Rallo
11,00
1 DD
1.00
.DO
1.00
'.00
1,00
1'.10
I ca
1,10C
1:0x5
1 00
Uospealm Fftter(l)
TSO
110
1,00
100
1,00
IAO
1 -DO
0.00
1,0
1.00
00
11,00
'Jn,fbrm Delay (d), S,'.,ch
30.1
ISS
14.1
25,1
12.3
111,3
24-1
10
243
271
D.0
0 D
inor Delay (Q), &Nen
14
2,9
0,0
0.6
0,4
D.0
0.2
0.0
04
1 t
010
0 D
Initial 0 Delayld3)sNah
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11) 0
'U,o
oo
go
6.3
IX
Do
O -D
V
6.1
02
0.5
2-6
M
04
10
M
03
0.0
0 o
uns;q. Move mart Delay, sIveh
LCGqp Detay,'djs�veh
31.7
21,7
14,1
253
117
103
243
Ok
241
28,2
0.4
0 D
LnGrp L S
c
c
9
c
8
a
C
A
c
C
A
A
Approach Vol, veWh
515
361
71
30
Approach Delay, sNefi
21.5
14,1
24,5
26.2
Approach LOS
c
8
C
'dimer. Asst mad Phs
2
3
4
6
7
a
ft DUartan (tg+Y4RC), s
14-2
21.5
271
1015
5-7
32.9
Charge Porrod (Y+Rpl, s
5-6
4.0
IV
6.3
4-0
` 53
Max Green Seung (Gmax), s
20.0
31.0
'42
20.0
29.0
*42
Me% 0 C,ear Time fg-c+ll), a
3A
33
16.8
3.0
23
92
Green Ext Time Ip -c), s
0.2
61
4.6
01
0,6
2.7
lotetsedarr somekaly
HCtA 6th Ctrl Delay
19,2
14CM 6th LOS
Notes
User approved peresIpal interval to be less than phase rrax green.
' HCM 6th compolational engine rt equal clearance Innes for the phases crossiq the barrier
Petaluma Boulevard South Road Diet W -Trans
AM Exa'st,ng Win Prqecl 02702209
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: D St & Petaluma Blvd S
-A - ---t "- - I- 4\ t '
08,10201D
Movement
E81.
SOT-
EBR
%W1.
WET
WOR
HSL
NBT
NSR
SBL
S13T
SSR
Lane Gnnfigirvions
I
+
r
6
f
r
T.
11,
X
r
TraffiG Vn°unro (veh,'hl
91
213
56
93
227
221
23
387
16
153
3S3
78
Future Volume "Vehrh;
91
213
56
0
227
221
93
387
16
'63
383
78
Initia 10 ®h), well
G
0
0
1
J)
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-S^he Ad-?fA_pbTi
1,00
0.93
100
0.95
1.00
0.97
1 N
0,96
Parking Bus, Adj
1,100
$,00
1,00
103
1.00
1.010
1.011
1.00
1,00
I'm
100
1.00
Work Zane On Approach
No
No
NL
No
Adj Sot FloW, VcWhRh
1683
1683
1883
1683
1683
1683
1683
1683
1683
1663
1683
183
Adj Flow Rate, vahh
90
217
36
95
232
119
95
395
16
156
301
57
Peak Hera Factor
Us
0,93
US
M
0198
0."
Ullp
0198
0-93
020
US
0.98
Percent Hem Win, is
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
11
2
Cap, VeNh
125
313
247
119
308
248
127
768
31
180
867
707
Arrive On Green
OW
UP
Ua
0.D7
0,18
0.18
0,07
0,49
0-49
0,11
0,53
0-53
Sat Flour, veNh
1603
1683
1331
1603
1683
1354
1603
1605
65
1603
1683
1374
Grp Vojumefvj, YeWb
93
217
36
95
212
119
95
0
411
156
39IF
57
Grp Sat F'
1603
1683
1331
1603
1683
1354
t603
0
1670
1603
IM
1374
0 Serve(gLs)' s
?'i
14,4
U
72
16.2
7.6
72
U
201
111
17,8
1'7
Cycle 0 Clearlit--c l, a
71
14.9
21
7.2
1152
7.6
72
04
120,8
Its
473
V
Prop Sn Lane
1.00
Us
4.46
1.Nl
1,00
0.04
1,0D
1-01
Lane Grp Cap(c), veWh
125
313
247
119
388
248
127
0
799
180
W
707
WC Ratin(X)
174
0-69
0,15
OSO
075
CAR
0,75
0 W
0.51
0.87
0-45
0.09
Avail Coli(c_o), vvtsh
246
395
312
233
384
309
T66
0
812
264
Us
723
HCV, Piolonn Rate
1.00
I'M
1,00
1,00
"Go
1.0q
1,00
1.00
1,00
1100
!,W
1,00
Upstream FJ.01
1-00
1,00
1,00
DAB
0,99
099
1,00
0,00
1.0
1.04
im
1,00
Unilo"m Delay fcy. gke
55.9
47.2
42.2
56,6
48.0
274
56.5
0.0
22-4
54. t
19.1
7.0
Inv Delay $&)' sjvch
12
4,7
0.4
4.5
7.4
2,0
79
0.0
2 A
9.5
1.7
12
Initial 0 Delay(Q),vieh
U
0-0
0.0
2.5
co
0-0
28.4
010
O -C
ob
)'0
0.0
Ve BackOfQg59'A),Yelflri
3.0
6.7
1.0
3.3
7.4
2.6
4,7
00
8-9
5.3
74
0.9
Jasig, Movement Xoy, svah
LnGrp DelayhQ�stveh
59,2
51.9
42.6
616
55.4
29A
92.7
U
243
634
20.8
72
LnGrp LOS
E
D
D
E
E
C
F
A
C
E
C
A
Approach Vol vehch
346
446
506
6D4
Approach Delay, sNeh
52.9
502
375
30.8
4pro2ch LOS
D
D
D
C
Tamer- AssigiO Phs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11-
Phs Duration (G-Y+Rc), ir
17,9
65.0
110
28.1
129
70D
13.7
27.4
Change PvnoC fy-R.-). s
4,13
'43
4.0
4,9
4.0
'4,7
"49,
4.7
Max Green Selling tGmcer), s
22.0
"37
18,0
29
110
'46
IS
28
0 Clear Time (c s
119
22.8
9.2
1&0
92
',a,8
q'i
18.2
Green Exl; Time (p --c), s
0'I
fA
V
"'S
Ob
23
01
1.7
Intersecton Surmara!j
HW 6th CO Delay
411
HCM 6th LOS
D
Wes
' KM el) ccmpuiatoraV engine requires squall ciaamnoe times fc. the Phases crossing the barrier
PetauUrna Boulevad Sao% Road Del Ir -Trans
PM' ExVvmq O8t02019
HOM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1. D St & Petaluma Blvd S D9!12 119
Notes
' HCM 6,h crimputalioral Engine fortuirLs &:IuM eearancL fimps for the phn5wq cmismq lie b1me
Petaluma BnL,,IEvnrd South Read wel bV-Trans
PM Existing with Project W2059
W
WBT
WSR
NEL
NET
N!8R
Slat.
$87
SSR
Lare Configuratrons
"i
+
f
t
r
14
1
f
Traffic Volume (valhin)
91
213
56
93
227
221
93
387
16
$53
a83
7A
Future Volume fvehb)
91
212
58
93
227
221
93
387
16
153
383
78
Initial 0 (Qty, van
P
0
0
t
0
D
4
0
0
0
D
0
Ped -Eike Adj,kpb)
1.00
093
1,00
D.95
11,00
0.96
1,W
096
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1,00
12
1.00
t0
1,00
1.00
1.0
1,00
"N
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
NO
Na
Adi Sat Flow, velhirlIn
1683
1683
1665
1683
183
1683
1683
1683
1683
1693
4683
1623
Ad,, Flow Rate, veNh
93
217
36
95
232
119
as
395
16
is$
341
57
Peak How Favor
0,98
0-58
Ogll
0.98
0,98
D,98
0.98
0-08
0.98
098
0,96
0-98
Percent Heavy Veh
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
up, velob
128
313
247
119
308
248
127
767
91
iN
867
7D7
Annwe On Ore on
0,07
0-19
0.14
0.07
0,18
8,98
0,07
049
0.49
0.11
0.53
153
Sall Frew. vehl5i
1603
1603
1331
16a3
1683
1354
1603
1603
65
1603
16133
1374
QT Volum,SV)' vehlh
93
217
36
95
23'2
119
95
G,
411
156
394
bF,
G�T Sol Floofo.vabMrni
1603
1681
1331
1603
1683
1354
160
D
1668
1601
`883
1374
a s
71.
10
28
7.2
162
7.6
7,2
1-C
20.8
119
17.8
1.7
Cycle 0 Clear(g-p), s
7,1
14.9
2.8
72
102
7,6
72
00
20.9
119
17,8
V
Prop In Lane
110
1'.00
09
1,00
I'm
0,C4
I ,OC
1,09
Lane Grp Cap(cl, vWh
125
313
247
119
108
248
1127
0
799
186
867
781
VrC Ratio(x)
074
C.n
0.15
080
0,75
04
9.75
0.00
051
0.87
045
Us
Avail Cap(c_a), volub
246
395
312
233
n64
S, 0
168
0
all
284
886
723
HCM Plateor Rallo
100
1,00
IN
1,00
1.00
100
1.00
1 ca
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upsurearn Patell)
X0
I N
T-00
0-26
0,96
0,96
1.00
0.00
1 CD
1,00
1,80
1.06
Uniform Delay (db, sPvoh
55.9
47,2
422
56.6
48-0
27.6
56.5
DZ
22.4
541
14.1
7 D
Inu Delay ld21, sAch
12
4,7
GA
4A
72
2,0
7.9
U
24
9�5
11
02
Inilial 0 Deiayfd3l,&,jFh
0.1
0-0
0,0
2.5
0 C
0,0
28,4
).()
00
60
DO
0-o
%ile Bsxck0fQi5036I,vrchRn
310
67
1,0
31
7A
16
417
10
8:9
5 3
7.6
0.9
Unsig, Movement Delay, s'veh
LnGrp Delayjllrsheh
54.2
519
42.6
63.5
55.2
293
921
0.0
249
63.6
ZDS
7r2
LnGrp LOS,
E
D
D
E
E
C
F
A
C
E
C
A
Approach Vol, vah)h
345
446
506
6E.A
Approach Delay, s,14
52
53.4
37.5
308
Approach LOS
0
D
D
Timor - Ass: grad' Phs
1
2
3
4
5
61
7
a
Pre Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
17.2
$5.0
110
28.1
119
70.0
W
27.4
Change Penod (Y,Rci, s
4,0
'4,7
4,0
'49
40
"4.7
°'4.9
'47
Max Green Setting lGmiyr), s
ZZU
'37
18.1
'2q
13.0
'46
119
` 22
Max Q Clear Time ig, 0+11)' S
139
ZL8
9-2
16.g
92
19-9
9,1
18,2
Green Ext he (p_c), s
0.1
1.9
0.1
15
DG
21
0.1
V
ipteriaccition Summitrir
HCM 6th Ctrj Delay
41.0
HCM lith LOS
D
Notes
' HCM 6,h crimputalioral Engine fortuirLs &:IuM eearancL fimps for the phn5wq cmismq lie b1me
Petaluma BnL,,IEvnrd South Read wel bV-Trans
PM Existing with Project W2059
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: 1 St & Petaluma Blvd S
- -2
3
4
8
OB4112014
107
7.2
$2,3
19,5
Charge Renod iY+Rc), s
4r6
4.0
ktovament
EST
E8A
W81L
WST
NSL
NSR
Max 0 Clear Time tg_c+ll l, s
4,0
28
5,1
3.9
Green Ext Ti me ;p -c), s
D.1
Trafte Wane tvehV
307
88
68
36D
128
67
Future Volurne !veh-'h)
307
88
68
3E0
128
E7
Inilial'o (0b), vch
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-G+e Ada(AjbT)
1.00
0.97
1-00
Petaluma Boulevard Sovib Road Dicot
1,00
100
Pawing Bus, Adj
IDD
i.m
l.Do
I IOD
1,00
1,00
Wk Zone On Approadh
NO
Adj SA Flow, veMAn
1570
No
No
1870
Adj Sat Row, vehlbAn
1870
1870
1870
1 B70
1870
1870
Adj Row Rate, web.lh
330
82
72
387
TM
34
Peak Heir tactor
0,93
0,93
0A3
0,53
013
0,93
Nirmnt Heavy Vah, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, vehlh
686
168
565
1716
361
321
Arnve On Green
0.24
0,24
0,11
0,48
120
0,20
Sol Flow, YeWh
2905
687
T781
3647
1781
1585
Grp Volunnovt, vehf,
20
206
73
387
Ug
34
Grp U Flvails?,vehWlr
1777
1722
IMT
1777
1781
TW
0 Serveig-S) s
10
31
0,8
1.9
2.0
0.5
Cyde 0 CleaT(Lc), a
10
3-1
0.9
1,9
2.0
(LS
Prop In Lane
D.8
0.40
1.00
0.6
1,00
1.00
Lane Grp Cap(e), ve',Vh
434
420
5$5
1716
361
321
VIC RaftM
0.48
0,49
0.13
023
0.38
0.1 f
Avail Cap(c_a), vehIh
1908
1640
1390
3780
1676
1492
HCM Platoon Ratio
1,0
1,00
1.00
1.1310
1.O0
11.00
Upstream Milli
110
100
1.04
1.00
140
1.00
Uniform Delay id), sInh
9 B
9.8
5.8
4.6
104
92
hor Delay fQ, siveh
0.6
01
U
0.0
02
31
Inilial 0 0 e! aVtQ,sIve)
OX
0.0
0.0
0,0
00
0.0
%tla
12
0-0
02
03
0-6
0,11
Linsig. Movement Delay, shoh
on
D.0
0.0
10
D'o
0.1)
LnGfp Nlayfd},&`jLh
IDA
18.4
5.9
4.8
101
5.0
Lr.Gro'OS
B
6
A
A
9
A
Approach Vol, veh1h
412
LnGrp Delayllt,slveh
480
172
61
IropYoaCh De°ay, &'Ven
TDA
11.9
4.9
10.5
B
Approach LOS
8
B
B
A
8
412
ruin" AgLnoj lonh,
- -2
3
4
8
Pro Duration lG+Y-Rc), s
107
7.2
$2,3
19,5
Charge Renod iY+Rc), s
4r6
4.0
-4,9
4,0
Max Greer, Soling lGrnax), a
28,4
174
32
12,1
Max 0 Clear Time tg_c+ll l, s
4,0
28
5,1
3.9
Green Ext Ti me ;p -c), s
D.1
01
21
2"1
Inlovalonan SurrarnLry
in"bat 0 (Q6), vain
0
0
HUI 61h Cul Delay
0
7.5
0
HCM 69) LOS
A
141)
Notes
1,00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
HOIA 6th computational engine requires
equal clearance lifnes for the phases crossing the banner.
Petaluma Boulevard Sovib Road Dicot
1-00
1.01)
IN-TTars
PM Exis',ing
No
08102t2019
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: 1 St & Petaluma Blvd S OB!0 2019
--41 N 11r, - 11\
Movement
88T
EER
M
WST
NBL
N8R
Lave Corifgurabons
T.
I
f
"l
r
Traft Volume (vehrh)
307
88
68
260
128
67
Future Volurne, iveh-hl
907
88
69
360
128
67
in"bat 0 (Q6), vain
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj,kpbT)
0.97
141)
I'Do
1,00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1,00
1.01)
IM
1-00
1.01)
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
Va
Adj SA Flow, veMAn
1570
1670
1876
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, %Olh
310
82
73
387
IaO
34
Peak Hour Factor
0.93
0,93
0.93
093
0.93
0.93
Percent Heavy Veb. %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Up, wNh
467
lt6
508
1013
331
295
Arrive On Green
0.32
0,32
0,10
0-54
0,19
0-19
$at R%W� we"
'6-`pvolume;v-),
1437
357
1781
1870
_1181
1585
YeWh
0
412
73
3877
138
34
Grp Sat Flawi all vehhilp
0
1794
1781
1870
1781
1505
D Sene(q,_si, a
U
TO
0.8
4,2
2-4
U
Cycle 0 Clearlq_ct, 9
0,0
7.0
D.8
4,2
2.4
0.6
Prop In Lane
(1,21]
140
1,00
1-1)7
Lave Grp CaPiq vthfir
0
583
50
100
331
295
VIC RaiPlXj
n DO
0,71
0 14
0.38
0.42
0.T2
Avail Uplca), ve"
0
1668
1195
1722
1451
1291
HCM Nalcon R2be
"on
1,00
1.130
1 Co
1,00
IN
UpstTearn Fllleno
0101
too
110
1,00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), skoh
O'D
*2
6.1
46
112.5
11r9
Incir DeRay (Q), sNeh
oo
12
0-0
02
013
0-1
Initial 0 Dalayl,J31,Vrveh
on
D.0
0.0
10
D'o
0.1)
%h 6dckOfO(5014),vahMri
0,0
2A
D'i
0.7
01
02
Unski- Movement Delay, sheh
LnGrp Delayllt,slveh
O'D
1115
61
AX
118
11.9
LLG9 LOS
A
B
A
A
B
B
Approach Vo,. vWlt
412
460
172
Approach Delay, siveh
11.5
54
IZ6
AppeasichLOS
B
A
a
Timer- Ass nod Phs,
2
3
4
a
Five Duration fG+Y+Rc?' 6
11.1
To
16,2
21B
Change monad fY-RD), G
4.6
4.0
^ 4,9
4,9
Max Green Selling (Gmax), s
28.4
17,0
32
32,1
Mnx Q Clear rime (g -D+114, a
4,0
28
9,0
61
Green Ext Time (p- c).:s
0.1
0,0
2.2
119
Intersection sumneliv
ficlst 6th W Delay
8,6
KNI 6th LOS
A
moles
' HCM 6th cornpunalicial ongino requifes equal dewince frnes, for the phases trossirg the barner
PNalunra Boulevard South Road Dis° N -Trans
PINI Existing with P?qcl 0a"ON019
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3', Mountain View Ave & Petaluma Blvd S B42,120T9
Movement
EBT
EOR
WSL
WBT
NSL
NSR
Lane conrigimlions
+T>
I
tt
I
r
I raric Volume (ve1hrh)
311
71
74
341
63
59
Futuna volume (veNn'
311
71
74
Ul
63
59
InitiM 0 l0b), ven
0
0
0
0
a
0
Ped-S^ke AditA-07)
0.97
1,00
1,00
:'00
Parking But, Adj
U0
lZ
1.00
I -DO
1,00
1.00
Work Zone On Acproach
So
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, vehq5n
1,876
1810
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, venih
327
67
78
359
66
29
Poaa Hour Factor
0,95
0.95
0.95
US
0,95
0,95
PercertHeavyVeh,So
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, vahih
757
153
644
1876
288
256
ATve On Green
0,26
0-26
6.14
0.53
016
0.16
Sat Flaw, vellam
3024
592
17131
3647
1781
1585
Grp VOlUrreflij, Vehib,
196
198
78
359
66
29
Grp Sat Frow(s),vehfinitir
1777
1746
1781
1777
1791
1585
0 ServelgLs). S
2,9
U
0-8
1.7
I'to
0-5
Cycle 0 Cleaqg-c„ s
2,9
3.0
O's
13
410
15
Proem Lane
0,34
1 .QC,
1.3
1.00
Lane Grp Cripfo. v&h
459
451
W
1876
288
256
VIC Ratia4(,
0,43
0,44
0.12
0.19
023
011
Avail Caplq-e), vebd-i,
2166
2128
2045
4882
1664
1481
HCM Platoon Rates
1.1,0
1,00
".m
110
1.00
1.06
Ups'eam Rheri')
1413
1,00
1.00
10
140
IZ
Ujifornadw, idl'sivab
97
93
5.1
3.9
11,4
11.2
I= Delay (d2), sNeh
O'S
05
UZ
0.0
01
0'1
lrritia: 0 DelaV(r:!A).sWh
0.0
0.0
ok
D'o
0-4
U
%!�e 8a.kOf0(50%),veWIn
O's
0-6
01
0'2
U
0,1
Unvig Movement DaOay, SIVEn
LRGfp Dajay}d),Vviut
10.1
$0.2
5.2
19
11.6
11.3
LnGr2'.OS
9
B
A
A
5
6
Approach Vol, vahlh
394
437
95
Aoipfoacl- Dakay. s,veh
102
4.1
11.5
Approach LOS
B
A
a
Timor - Assigned Fits
2
3
4
a
Phis Duration (G+Y-Rc), s
9,9
8.4
110
21.4
Chong, Period (Y+Rc�, s
4,8
4.0
4.9
4,9
Max Own, Setting (Gmax), 8
129
29.0
loll
36.11
Max Ou-lear Tirme 4-c+l 1,. a
3,0
28
U
3.7
Green EA Time (PA, S
D'o
10
1.9
ZO
mf'isectiori S'JMMW
HCM 61h Ctrl Delay
7,5
HC'M 81% LOS
A
Notes
" HCM 6th compubliDnal engine requires equal clearance Imes for the phases cross,riq The banter
Petaluma Soutavard South Road Diet VJ"Trarrs
PM Exisdrg )KC22019
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3a Mountain View Ave & Petaluma Blvd S CVC201,9
.... . .. .....................
-no 4, 4- *\
MovemeN
59T
88A
'AL
WAT
N8L
NBR
Lane Configural,.Qirs
T<
)J
+
1
31
Traflio Volume (Veh1h)
311
71
74
341
63
59
Future Volume Neh"M
311
71
74
341
83
59
Initial a (0b), vah
0
0
0
a
0
'a
Pad -Bike ,AdjikpbT'o
0.95
1 GO
',,gO
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
I'M
12
tco
1,04
1.00
168
Work Zone On Approach
Na
No
No
Adj Sat Rovv, voWn
1874
1970
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adi Raw Rate. Ve'dh
327
'67
7$
359
66
29
Peak How Factor
4.45
0.95
0.95
US
0.95
1315
Pe,ocql Heavy Veh. %
Z
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, vehyn
465
95
574
1054
278
247
Arrive On Green
0.31
031
0.14
0,56
0,16
6.16
Sat Fiva, wefVh
;499
307
1781
1670
1781
158$
Grp Voiurre(v), vehill
0
394
78
°59
66
29
Gnp Sal Flowls),vehUm
0
1806
1781
1870
1781
1585
a Serveig-st, 5
CO
5.6
02
3.6
1'1
0.5
Cycle a Clearl S
U
6.6
02
�-k 6
1.1
4,5
Prop In Lane
0.17
1.00
1,0C
Lane Grp Caps c}, vaF,-h
0
568
$70
1044
278
247
Ver- Ratio(X)
O -DO
4.711,
0.14
034
D.24
0-12
Avail Caplr-M,, YnKih
0
1992
ISM
2063
1,506
1340
HCM Pla=r Rato
I DO
1.04
i'co
1,00
1.00
110
Upstream Filtv(l)
O -DO
1,00
1.00
1.1,8
1'.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (dl, skeh
on
10.5
5.6
4.1
12,15
12,5
Incr Delay (Q), sVeh
0.0
1.21
13.0
0.1
11.2
6.1
Initial 0 Delayfd3l,eveh
U
0 C
0'o
O'D
D.0
0.3
%ite Back0110(50%),veNIP
0.0
10
4.1
0,5
14
02
Ur'sig- laevernerit Delay. s�ven
LnGrp Oelayfd),s�vth
0.13
11.7
5,6
4.2
12,9
12,6
LnGrp LOS
A
B
A
A
E
B
AppmarhVol,vehXh
3.04
437
95
Approach Delay, srwh
11.7
4:$
I2.8
Approach LOS
6
A
6
lime -
Phs Duration (0-Y+Pci, s
101
87
15,15
24A
Change Period fY¢Rc), s
'413
40
4.9
4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
29
29,0
38.1
38.1
Max 0 Clear 7ime S9 -c+114, s
31
2,15
8.6
5-6
Green Ext Mme (p S). s
0.0
0-0
ZO
1.8
hiarsection 8
HCM 6m Call Delay
8.4
HCM 6th LOS
A
Notes
' ^ACM 61h computational engine mouines equal clearance times for Im, phases crossing the barrier
Pelaimmm Boulevard South Road Dic W-Trars
K! Existing mth pmecl os02'2019
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: McNear AvelpAcNear Circle & Petaluma Blvd S
-0 -', '- - 4- .N t e '-
hwremert
EBL
EST
EBIR
WBL
A08T
WBR
NEL
NST
NBR
SBL
SOT
SBR
Lane ccnrigu'oeons
)
tt
f
I
ff
r
I
Max Green Stiting lGiw, s
20.0
31.0
�
210
Traffic Vinnode (veinh)
7
319
38
67
367
11
32
1
w8
ID
1
6
Future Volume (vehAh)
7
319
38
67
367
11
32
1
Q
i[t
t
6
Iflial 0 (0b), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Red -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
504
1,00
1.06
796
OAS
1,00
0
0,95
1.00
C
0,99
Parmg Bus, Adl
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
''00
i'Do
I al)
1,00
1-0
1-00
9.06
1.00
Work Zone On Approarrh
898
No
1153
960
No
4,129
619
No
543
59'
No
0
Apt Sat In aw, veh.Kin
1870
1870
',870
1870
1870
1870
1670
1870
1870
9970
1870
1870
Alp Role, vehW)
8
362
31
76
417
12
36
i
22
11
1
5
Peak Hour Factor
0,88
0.89
0.88
OLES
0.89
0188
0198
0.98
188
D.98
0.88
0.98
Pofcvn, HeawvcK %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, voloh
45
nS
358
340
1385
603
234
9
193
59
6
31
Anwo On G,,otn
003
0,23
023
019
139
0,39
013
0 13
013
0-06
0,6'6
DL6
SatPowv,vehfh
1781
3554
1578
1781
3554
9545
1781
69,
1507
1113
101
506
Gr) Volumeiv}, veK-h
8
362
ill
76
477
12
26
0
23
17
0
D
Gro U, Floirrls),venftlir
1781
1777
1578
1781
1777
`546
1781
It
1576
1720
0
0
a same"g-S), a
01
4.8
D,8
'I'S
4,3
33
02
0-0
V
0.5
00
0.0
Cycle a Creaflg_s1' 5
02
4,6
0,8
1.9,
43
63
09
U
V
0S
0.0
U
?,no In Lan
100
C
i'Do
1.0
B
1.60
10
C
096
0.65
C
0.29
Lane Grp cap(c), veh'h
49
$05
358
340
1366
603
234
0
97
"07
0
0
VIC qatiofx)
0,16
OAS
0,09
6,22
0.30
0.02
115
0.00
0,11
DAG
0.00
000
Avail Cap(cL9),,;re0
476
2819
1252
TD43
28I9
1226
671
0
59S
656
0
0
HC%I` Platoon Rolla
1.00
100
12
1.00
1.00
1-00
lCD
1.00
1.00
1 cl)
1.00
1,00
Upstneam Aliorp)
1,00
1,00
1J00
1,OD
1,00
1.00
14D
0,00
100
141)
0.00
UO
Uniform Delay 1,&, Vveh
25,2
17.6
16.2
181
112
9,9
2114
O.O
20,3
23.5
0,0
6'0
nor Delay toz, Vveh
116
0.6
11
03
02
Og
0.3
0.0
01
1.0
0.0
011
Mital Q DeiaAd3l,slveh
O.o
O'D
O'D
a D
13.0
0.0
0_0
01.0
0.0
OD
10
0.0
%its
DA
I'T
0.3
01
1.4
11
14
0.0
0.2
0-2
D'O
0.0
Unsig, Movement Delay. siv-t,,
LnGro Doay(d)'S'wh
261
18,2
16,3
I8,6
11,3
9.9
207
U
20.5
24.5
0.0
U
LnGrp LOS
c
3
B
B
3
A
C
A
C
C
A
A
Approach Vol, vehir,,
401
505
59
17
Aporoaah Delay, skeh
182
12A
201
24.5
Approach LOS
B
B
C
C
Timor - ASsioned Phe
2
3
4
6_
7
a
Fibs Dorollon $G
2,6
14T
171
86
5.4
26A
Change Period (Y -R--), s
5.6
4.0
`5.7
5.3
4.0
*57
Max Green Stiting lGiw, s
20.0
31.0
'42
210
294
' 42
tAnxQ Clear Time s
19
3.9
6.6
2.5
2.2
6.3
Green Ext 11mis (p, el, s;
V
0.3
V
).D
D'O
4.1
Interseelion Suarmarit
hFhl 6th CM Delay 15.5
4CM 6tri LOS B
Notes
User appmved pedestrian anlenal to be less than phase max green
I FCM 61h compulabonal engine requires equal clearance times Far ft phases crossing the border,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: McNear Ave/McNear Circle & Petaluma Blvd S 03102+2619
Movement
EBL
5ST
EBR
kWL
We"
WSR
KSL
NET
NER
SSL
S8T
SBR
Lane configural;ori
I
t
r
1781
t
il
I
TO
1562
1717
4+
0
Traffic Volume Ivehdh)
7
319
IR
67
1,67
11
32
1
4A
to
I
D 0
Future Vin'urne
7
119
38
67
'67
it
22
1
4,0
'q
0_13
D.0
1ptim 0 (Go), veh
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
Ped -Bike Adi(AjbT)
1.00
504
1.00
1100
796
0.98
11)(1
0
328
1,00
C
q.99
Parking Bus, Adi
1,00
I=
11,00
',DO
1.00
1.00
1.00
I=
11c0
1.00
1101
100
Work Zone On Approach
898
No
1153
960
140
4,129
619
No
543
59'
No
0
Apt Sal Flow, vehiroir,
1870
1870
1970
1870
1870
1870
187q
'670
1870
1870
1670
11370,
All Flow Rare, veWh
8
362
31
76
417
12
36
1
22
1 i
1
5
Peak Wour Factor
0.09
024
0.0
0,88
0.68
025
038
0,88
028
0,88
048
nZb
Percent Heavy veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cpp, Velith
48
504
426
327
796
659
227
9
190
58
6
31
Agrive Or Green
0,03
0.27
027
0.18
0.43
0,43
0.13
013
1,13
0.06
0.06
0.06
Sal Flow. VeNih
1781
"670
JS79
1781
1870
1547
1781
68
14g4
1111
ID1
505
Grp Volumetv), Vetih
8
362
31
76
417
12
36
0
23
17
0
0
Grp Sol
1781
1070
1579
1781
1870
1547
1781
0
1562
1717
0
0
Q seng(m)- s
0.3
10.1
0.8
2.7
9.5
03
10
0 �O
OS
C' 5
0,0
D 0
Cycle 0 Cleau(9-C), S
0.3
111
0,8
2'1
9.5
03
1.0
ao
03
0,5
0_13
D.0
Prop in Lane
1.00
1 co
i'00
1.06
0,96
0 6S
Notes
0.29
Lane Grp Cajplc;l, vetill,
4,8
504
426
327
796
659
227
0
199
in
C
0
ViC Ratio' XI
017
0.72
0.07
0.23
052
6.02
0.16
O.rb
0-12
0 :6
1.00
0_00
Ava I] Capip-a). -ichih
898
1366
1153
960
1365
4,129
619
0
543
59'
0
0
HCM Platoon Rabo
1.00
1_cM
100
'.00
1-G0
1.00
11 01
1.00
1'"
'Dr,
1,00
1100
Upsharm Filleo(l)
1.00
1,00
101)
2.,00
1,04
1.00
1.00
0.00
1'co
1.00
000
0C'0
Uniform Delay (djt' shein
27.3
19.0
15,6
20.0
12.2
93
22.4
O -C
22,2
255
0.0
0:3
Incr Delay (142), sNeh
15
21
O.T
D,5
0,8
0,0
0,3
0J)
OZ
IX
1).0
0.0
Iriflal 0 DoWt13)Vver
0 1)
0.0
16
G,0
0-0
DD
0.0
OX
0.0
Q_C
1).0
0 D
lee Sackofo(50%),Vemn
0."
4,2
0.3
CA
3.3
D'i
0.4
0.0
01
0-2
1)'0
0
Uns1 ' Movement Delay, &Wh
LnGrip Delay(dr,sorelh
28,9
21,8
I's's
20.5
13.0
9S
223
0.0
22,5
266
0.0
0
LnGip LOS
C
C
8
C
B
A
C
A
C
A
k
Approach 'Vol, veWh
401
505
59
17
Approach Delay, slveh
211A
f4,0
22,6
26.6
Approach LOS
C
B
C
C
_ VedlonS
Ilanor. -A_0
2
3
4
6
7_
Phs Duratrep (G+Y+Rcj, a
12a
14,5
212
8.8
5-6
30.2
cbonge Ponod (Y+Rc}' s
5-6
4-0
51
13
4.0
5'7
Max Green Setting p0max), a
20.0
31,0
42
20.0
4.0
42
Max 0 clearTme a
10
41
12,1
2.5
23
14.5
Green Ext Time a
ti!
03
3.4
0.0
04
3.8
Intorsedon Summary
HCM 64h CM Delay
17.9
HCM 61J, LOS
8
Notes
User aporoved pedestrian rnemal to he less than phase max preen,
" HCV 61h awirpultlliorrat enginue requires equal c?aararice ties for the phases crossing the barner
Peraiurna Boulevard soutit Read Dial: W."neris Petaluma Booln,rord so'41 Pool Dint Niran5
P.1A Exashng OBM212019 Pull [AsItig +00'. Project `8!V2120"9
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
I: D St & Petaluma Blvd S 05?30r2019
Movement
ESL -
EST
58A
Mi L
-WIST-
MR
N81.
NBT
NBR
S8L
SBT
S9R
Lane Comiguralons
I
+
IT
"i
t
r
Iq
T*
I
t
r
Traffic Volume (veh ll
165
4105
77
97
234
269
66
400
26
140
452
54
FutureVolume lveh(p)
165
255
77
97
234
269
66
400
26
14D
482
54
[INN Q (0b), veh
0
3
0
D
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
Pi AdjiA_pbT,
1.00
0,96
flop
0,97
f,00
0.96
11-00
0-96
Parking BUS, Adj
1.011
IM
1,D0
1.00
i, DO
1.013
MO
1, DO
1-00
1,00
1,00
1.00
Work, Zone Or Approach
No
No
No
No
Adi Sal Rov4 Vol' Wln
1683
10
483
1683
1693
1683
8683
16$3
1683
1683
103
1683
Adt Pcw Role, vahb
194
347
57
,14
275
146
78
471
27
165
567
38
Peak Hour Parlor
0.05
1).85
D.85
0,85
0.65
0.85
0.85
0.e5
OAS
DA5
0-115
0,85
Percent Heavy Van, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh!,n
las
430
361
139
386
316
129
460
26
270
720
584
Arrve On G,eer
0 10
D.25
025
0.09
0-23
0.23
0,08
0.29
D.29
0.17
0,39
On
Sat Flow, veNlh
1603
_1683
1359
1603
1683
1380
1603
1573
90
1603
1683
1364
Grp Voldrne(v, veWh
194
347
57
114
275
145
78
0
495
1165
567
38
Grp Sat FIcvv(s),vehmflr,
1603
I683
1359
1603
1683
190
1603
D
°1363
1603
1683
t264
0 Swvejg_S)' S
92
17 S
2,9
6.3
13.5
e.1
4,3
00
26.3
e,6
27,9
1-0
Cycle a vear(g-)' 5
9.2
17.5
2,9
63
13.5
81
43
O -D
-46,3
U
27.9
tO
Prop In Lari,
1,0D
1.00
1.00
$'00
I -CO
0.05
I'M
1.00
La no Grp Coale), veh1h
185
QO
361
139
386
116
129
D
486
270
7211
684
vic qaflo(x1
1,05
0,81
0-16
182
D,71
0,46
0-61
0.00
1,02
0-61
G.79
OW
Avail Cap4c.,a). volkin
163
488
394
143
473
108
145
0
405
267
657
S33
licrA Plawn Ratio
1.00
1.00
1-00
1,00
1 M
1,00
100
1.00
1,010
1-0
I'M
1,00
Upstream Filleril)
1100
1.00
1.00
0.97
0,97
0,97
1-00
0,00
1,00
1,01
lcD
140
UnJorr, Way (di, 51:eh
393
311
25.4
40A
32,6
259
406
0-0
31.9
34.8
22-
7.7
Iner Delay (d2), s,'Veh
802
9.5
0.3
27ja
4.6
1.4
3.5
0.0
473
3-0,
6-7
D,O
Initial 0 Delav(M)ssverl
OD
12
C.0
M
00
DO
277
OD
GO
03
O'D
0.0
% le So :kOfQf5O%).,vefi,m
Tg
87
D.9
3,5
61
M
3.2
0,0
I6,7
37
113
0.4
Unsg, Moverruml Delay, slvO
Lr,,Grp De,`iay(d),&tv&h
119,7
411
253
67A
36,5
31.3
711
O,O
79,1
38.1
29.1
7,7
LnG!2 LOS
F
D
c
E
D
C
E
A
F
0
C
A
Aoproach Vol, qe,',Vh
598
534
$76
770
Approach Delay, sivell
662
417
79.1
304
Approach LOS
E
0
E
C
Ticar -Ass` nedPhs
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
Phi Duration tG+Y+Rr), s
19.6
311.0
114
27-6
103
39.6
TM
2E3
Change Period (Y+Rc), a
4.6
4.7
4.G
14,9
4.0
4-6
'4.9
4,7
Max Greer, Setting (Gmax), a
12
26
6-0
"26
8-0
30,4
- q
25
Max a clean'rme (g_:+H a
14,6
283
83
195
63
299
112
18.5
Green Ext irme (p -t), s
0,0
0'0
10
1,7
0.0
012
0,0
2.1
Indiatention summa
HCM. aild Ctrl Delay
525
HCIM 6in LOS
D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be iess than ph.8ae max green,
' HCM 6th computational engine req&es equal clearance lbmn for the phases cross, ng the harmer
Petaluma Boulevard Surh Road Dist V7 -Trans
AM Future o9,3o729119
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: D St & Petaluma Blvd S OMOZWa
. -.* 4, - 4_ 4\ t /. 1. 1 .1
Movement
ESL
EBT
ESR
PBL,
MOST
MR
NSL
NOT
NSR
SEL
SIST
SBR
Lane Configuroions
I
t
r
"i
+
r
Iq
T*
+
r
Tratfic Volume ivehilk)
165
295
77
97
234
269
66
400
26
140
462
:tel
Fulure Volume (Vrm1h)
165
295
77
W
234
269
66
400
26
14C
482
64
Initial 0 (Oh!, veh
0
3
0
0
D
0
5
0
0
1
D
D
?ed-ffike AdJA pb-nL
DO
0.95
1.00
0:97
1400
Org"t
1.00
MCI
Parking Sus, Adj
't.Do
1 ,CD
100
I.Do
LOD
1.00
1.00
1,00
1X0
1,00
11-00
1 op
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
NO
Adj Sat Flow, veh,`Jhlln
1683
1683
1686
1663
1683
IM
1663
1683
1681
1683
1663
1683
Adj M%v Rate, YLWh
194
347
57
114
275
1145
79
471
27
JAS
567
3e
Peat Kour Pactoe
0-115
OM
0.85
0.85
0,85
O,e5
0,85
0,85
U85
HS
0.95
D,85
Percent Reavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, vehlh
185
430
361
139
386
316
129
459
26
270
740
$84
Arrive On Green
0-10
1,25
0.25
0.09
0.23
0.23
D.08
0,29
019
0A7
0.39
0,39
Sat Flow. vehb
1603
f683
1359
16D3
1683
1360
1603
1570
90
1603
1633
1364
Gi Volurnel v), v&hlh
194
347
57
114
275
';45-
78
0
49e
165
$67
E
Grp Sat Ftswsj,votnhitn
1603
183
1359
1603
193
13E0
1603
0
1660
1 613
1665
1364
a S
9.2
175
2,9
63
13.5
81
4,3
0.0
263
e.6
27,9
1.0
Cycle 0 CleaT(g-cl, 8
9.2
175
2,9
6.3
115
8-1
4.3
0.0
26,3
M
r, 4
I'D
Prop in Lane
1.00
1X10
1,00,
1,00
1 DO
D'05
1A01
1:130
Lane Grp GalplcY, vabil,
165
430
361
139
386
316
129
a
485
270
720
684
WC RalcIx
1,05
0,81
0-16
0.82
0-71
046
0.61
000
1.03
0-61
0.79
0.07
Avon Caplc„al, wimit,
163
486
394
143
473
$88
14,A
0
485
267
657
633
HCM l2ahoar, RaUo
IM
100
1-00
',00
1 OD
1,00
".O0
1.00
t'oc-
1-0
I.OD
1.136
upstream Fflan(l)
1,00
IM
1.00
0.90
090
0.90
11,00
0,00
IM
1.130
1.00
1.01
Uniturn Delayed), sMh
39r5
31,7
25.1
40.5
32.0
29.9
44,6
0,0
31.9
;14.6
22,4
7,7
kinT Delay ;i:12A, shah
80,2
9.5
0.3
25,4
4,2
11
15
0.0
47.8
3-0
6,7
C,o
inibal 0 Oekey(d3),skeh
O.D
1.8
00
0.0
0.0
10
277
0.0
0.0
O'D
10
DD
Klie BarkOtQ(50%).vsMr.
7,9
83
)-9
34
53
2.6
12
0.0
16.7
37
11.3
13A
Jnsiq. Movement Delay. slyen
LnGrp Delay(o),Vveh
119.7
43.1
25.7
55.8
3G.2
312
71,$
0.0
79.7
311,1
211
7
LnG2 LQS
F
D
c
E
D
C
A
F
D
C
A
Approach Vol, vehin
598
534
576
-7 0
Approach Delay, s;v&
66.3
41-2
78.6
30.0
Approach LOS
E
0
E
C
Tomin - Assioned Pius
1
2
4
5
6
1
a
Phs Ducilion fG-Y-Rc). s
4g,6
3°.0 .0
119
27,6
10.9
398
14,1
25-11
Charge Period (YtRb). s
4,15
-4-7
4.0
4,9
4,0
4.6
* 0
4.7
MaxD
Max Green Saving (GmaxI, s
12
' 26
26
8.0
30.4
.9
25
:'.ax a Clear Time (g -c+1 1 i, a
10,6
283
8.3
19,5
63
219
11.2
1S5
Green U Time 1p_c), s
0.0
0.0
Do
1.7
01
32
04
211
Iniewc4an Summa
HCM Sth CM Delay
52,4
4C1,1M LOS
D
Notes
User nptpraved pedestnan interval to be less lhon phase max green,
, �cm 6th Computational engine requira- equal clearance times for the phases, pressing the Kamer
. . ... . ... .......
PWRWrra Soulevard South Road Diet W -Trans
AM Future %Iih Protect 09,30=19
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: 1 St & Petaluma Blvd S Do,=Oig
Movement
EST
EBR
WSL
Wrl
NSL
NS
Lane Conagurapons
t1r.
1777
"I
tt
'i
r
Traffir:;Volumo (veli
348
74
108
398
149
148
Futum'Vorjrre lvelh,11,1)
348
74
109
398
749
148
lmtla6 0 (Ob), Veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped,8J1keAdt(A_pbT)
435
'1,D9
1,00
1788
110.3
1,00
Parking Bus, Adj
Uo
1.00
I=
1100
I -N
1.00
Work Zone On Alprmach:
No
1682
1215
No
No
',316
Adj Sat Poi %,ofLhln
1870
1970
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rale, vehlh
400
68
12.1
457
171
121
Peak Hour pastor
0,87
D.87
0.87
017
0.87
0,87
Peicen^ Heavy VOL %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Can, vehih
744
125
582
1788
390
347
Arrive On Green
024
0,24
0,14
0,50
D.22
0,22
Sal Flow, VLM
3134
M
1781
3647
1781
1585
Grp Volunne(%+;, vehlh
232
236
124
457
171
121
Grp Sal Flow(s),vril*dn
1777
1777
1781
1717
1781
$695
0 Seroe�g-sj, s
Max Green solt'ng (Gmapr), t;
4-0
1A
2.5
23
22
CrA a Cleaq;_c)' S
3.9
4,0
1.4
15
2.R
12
Prop In Lane
Z5
0,29
1,00
Injifel 0890'„ v8h
1.00
1.00
Laro Grp Coiplc), vealh
435
435
582
1788
no
347
VIC Raflo(X)
0,53
0,54
0,21
0,26
0.44
0.35
Avail Cip(q_a), weh.0r
1662
1682
1215
3334
1476
',316
HCM Platoon Ratio
1,00
7M,
too
1'C3
1,00
1.00
Upsheam Filief(l)
1,6D
1,00
UO
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform, Delay (d;, sNeb
11.2
11,3
U
4.8
Ils
113
Incir Delay IdZjI, stvah
0.0
U
o'l
01
U
02
Initial 0 Do!ayid3),Vven
00
0.0
ob
04
0.0
0.0
Me Sazk=f 50%);webdn
1,2
13
0.3
0.4
0.9
016
Uns:g. Movement Delay, s,%eb
516
1067
342
U4
Arrive On Green
LrGrlp De:atr(d),Vveh
12.0
12.0
&S
4.9
11.8
11,5
!-rPrp :.Os
B
-T68-
6
A
A
B
B
Approach Vol, vehli
Grp Volume(v), vehM
0
468
581
292
171
ADp raaeh Delay. slweh
12,0
Grp Sat Ro"j$)'veIV'h4n
0
5-2
til
1870
Apirroa&,, LOS
a
0 Servc(g-s), s
N
5
14
Tamer Ansi ned Phs
2
34
L
8
Phs Duration (G+Y<Rc), s
12,11
BA
1313
221
Change PerW (Y4Rc), s
4,6
4,0
4,9
4,9
Max Green solt'ng (Gmapr), t;
28.4
17,4
32
32. b
Max a Mar Tirne (g-;,] 1 l' a
4.8
3.4
6-0
45
Green, EA Time (p -c), s
0".
0.0
2.4
Z5
Intersvoton Summary
Injifel 0890'„ v8h
0
0
MCM 6M Cad Delay
0
9.0
0
HUI 6th LOS
A
i.00
Notes;
HCM 61h computpiranm eigme requires equal c' earap iIe times to Ire phases crossing the barrier
PMOunta Boulevard South Road Diet
ALI Future
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2:1 St & Petaluma Blvd S
l'b"Irent
1T
ESR
L
tV6T
N54
N6R
Lane Configurahons;
t
I
r
Traffic Volume (veWh)
348
74
108
'19e
149
146
Fulutc, Volume (vel-L't,)
348
74
108
3DB
149
^48
Injifel 0890'„ v8h
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-SikeAdj(A-pbT)
1.M
i.00
1.00
1X0
Parldng Sm, Adj
IN
1.00
In
1.00
1,00
1.00
Work Zone On Aparwo
No
No
No
Adj Sal Plow, vehlhiln
1870
1870
1870
1870
WO
1870
Adj Ftmv Rale, veWh
400
68
124
457
171,
121
Peak Hour Factor
0,87
0,87
Mir
0,87
0.87
0,87
Percent Heavy Leh. %
2
2
2
2
2
2
cao, ve"
530
90
516
1067
342
U4
Arrive On Green
0.34
0.34
9J3
0,57
0.19
0 19
SM Flow, vehA
1557
265
1781
1870
"781
1585
Grp Volume(v), vehM
0
468
124
457
171
121
Grp Sat Ro"j$)'veIV'h4n
0
I822
178I
1870
"781
1585
0 Servc(g-s), s
0.0
9.1
14
5.6
3,4
Z7
Cycle 0 cleartg-r), s
0.0
9.1
1A
5A
3,4
2,7,
Prop In Lane
0,15
1.00
IM
LM
Lane Grp Oapic), vent
0
620
516
1067
342
304
VIC RofioM
0,00
0,76
0,24
0,43
MO
DQ
Awl Cag(c-a), va"
0
$474
1040
7499
1283
1124
HCM PIarcon Rate
1.00
TDO
I -co
1,00
1.00
1-60
Upstream FillefItt
0.00
1,00
1101)
1100
1.00
1.00
Untorm Delay (d), Vveh
U
11.7
61
4 9
14,5
14.2
Incr Delay {d2), sNah
0.0
1.4
01
0-2
0.4
U
hi al Q Delay(63),0,0
00
M
oo
0-0
D.0
U
%ile
0.0
11
0,3
IJ
1.2
QA
Unsig. Mmement Delay. Vveh
LnGrp Delayfd),sNeh
M
13.2
6.8
5.1
14,9
14-5
LnGro LOS
A
B
A
A
B
B
Approach VO, vehrh
46$
581
292
Approach Delay. s1vah
13-2
5-5
14.7
Appromh LOS
B
A
S
Thhel - fts3 aed Phs
2
3
4
Phs Duration (G-Y+Rrt, s
12,3
92
la's
271
Change Period iYRt:), a
4,6
4 D
'4,9
4,9
l Green set re iI. raxti, s
28.4
17,0
"3Z
32-1
Max 0 Clear Time s
5.4
3.4
11-',
7.6
Green Ext Time (P -r1, s
DA
00
2.5
21
HCM 6th Call! Delay
10.2
HCM Eth LOS
8
Notal
* HChf, 61'r corapulaimal ergine requires equM c:eamr=, lirnes for the phases cross ng the barrier
W -Trans Petaluma Boulevard South Road Diet Al-Ttam
091WM19 AM Future e4th Project
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3. Mountain View Ave & Petaluma Blvd S
Notes
'HCM 6h computal criai engne requires equal deamrm Pirres for the plasms crossing harder.
. ..... . ........
Petaluma Boulevard Souih Read Diet W-Tmns
AM Future 09130079
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1 Mountain View Ave & Petaluma Blvd S
+
Movement
SBT
EBR
ASL
WST
NBL
NSR
&lvvement
EBT
ESR
'NBL
WST
NBL
iriSR
Lane, C-crilligurmions
01
51
1$0
++
I
r
Trafic VWunue (yvhb)
429
51
110
365
118
175
rowe Volume NeNh,
429
51L
110
365
118
IT5
jnhjWQlQ!i)''vcfi
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pei!Zke Adl(A._pb7)
1,00
0-98
1-00
1.00
1.00
1.'6'9
Parking Bus, Ad)
1.00
1,00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Wet Zone on A oproo'h
No
1870
1870
ND
No
$870
Adj Sat Floor.vaWhb
4670
1870
1870
1870
1870
WO
Adj now Rate, veh1h
429
45
110
365
118
124
Peak Hour Fsctor
t,00
tDO
1,00
1,00
1.00
7.00
Percent Heavy Va[,'
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap'rrar'lh
763
BO
600
1814
400
356
A+rr4e On Green
0.24
0.24
0.17
0.51
0,22
0-22
Sat Flow, yeSh
3332
339
1781
3647
1781
1585
Grp Volume(v), veh;h
234
419
110
365
118
124
Grp Sat fnow(sj,vehWri
1777
1800
1781
1777
178'
1565
0 Stveiq-s}' g
.2
4.3
13
21
ZO
2.4
Cycle 0 Clear(9-cl" S
4.2
4,3
1.3
2.1
2,0
2.4
prop tn' Lane
0
0A9
1.00
1162
1."
1.00
Lane Grp Captc), veNh
419
424
600
1914
400
46
Vic Ra!:ON
1155
056
0.1-8
0,20
0.29
0.35
Ava=l Caqiica), venalh
164B
172
1716
3596
1420
1264
HCM P�aloan Raft
1.60
1.00
t.00
I.M
1.00
lZ
Upstream Fjlcrr(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.130
1,00
1.00
Uniform Delay (0). Vveh
12.3
12-3
6A
4.9
11.6
119
Inor Delay (d2), s+veh
01
0.9
lt.i
0.0
0,2
0,2
Im[W a Delw(M)'&Iveh
D'O
0-0
OD
DG
U
O -D
Wile 8ackofai50% l,vefvlft
6.4
1,4
03
DA
0,6
17
Unsig Mover-entDecay, sNell,
U
15.3
7.8
48
182
18-7
LnGrp Oelay(d)s�veh
132
13.2
IIA
4,9
11,9
122
LnGrp LOS
B
9
A
A
B-
B
Approach Vol, Vehm
473
475
242
Apprrvck Daley. &Wh
132
5-3
12-1
Approach LOS
8
2
3
A
a
8
Ttmer - Assigned Phs
2
3
41
41
Phs Dwaptin (G+Y-Rc), s
13'.0
10.1
135
23.6
Charge Pend (Y,Rc), s
129
4,0
L9
4,9
Max Green Seltrig (Gmax), a
29
294
38.1
38,4
Max a Gear rime 49_1+11 j, s
4.4
3.3
U
4.1
Green Ext Time 1p_j:i, s
0."
0.0
23
10
11hats"'on Summon
12,0
HCM 6th Cid Delay
9,8
HCM 6th LOS
A
Notes
'HCM 6h computal criai engne requires equal deamrm Pirres for the plasms crossing harder.
. ..... . ........
Petaluma Boulevard Souih Read Diet W-Tmns
AM Future 09130079
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1 Mountain View Ave & Petaluma Blvd S
+
Movement
SBT
EBR
ASL
WST
NBL
NSR
Lane Confgurabons
'to
I
t
hi
r
TFarlevolum. (Velraiij
428
51
1$0
365
118
175
Future%rc°unn lveW
428
51
1101
365
118
175
In4all 0 (p6), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Ske AdlfA,pbl)
0-96
1.0
1-0
1,00
Parking Us, Adj!
1,00
1-00
1,00
1.00
1,00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
Adl Sat Flixv, vehVri
1670
1870
1870
'.870
1870
$870
Adj Flow Rate, Ah -h
522
55
134
445
144
1511
Peak Hour Factor
0S2
012
0,82
0,82
0,82
DS2
Percent Heave Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cop, vehilh
W
67
509
1162
322
286
Arrive On Green
0.39
0-39
0,15
0-62
018
0.18
Sat NW. Ve"
1659
175
1781
1870
1781
1585
Grp Vciurr%vi. vahrin
0
577
134
445
144
16'.
Grp Sal Fl0*q)'vqWhrn
0
1'834
1781
1870
1781
1685
a Selve(q_sj' s
0'0
13.8
1.7
5.8
3.5
42
Cycle 0 Ciear(g-c), a
0.0
13.8
1.7
5.8
35
4,2
Prop In Lane
00
1,00
1,00
7;00
Lane Grp Cap(c), v-Wh
0
707
508
1162
322
286
n Rallo(X)
0,00
0,82
0.26
028
GAS
0.53
Avail Cap(c_as, vohrh
0
14211
I289
1456
4063
945
HUI Plaicor RaLo
100
1.00
t0
1D6
1.00
1-00
Ups#eam Friterit)
0-N
1,00
1,00
Itto
1.00
i'Do
Uirlorm Delay (d), Vveh
0,0
135
7,7
4,6
179
18.2
]nor Delay (0), Shreh
0.0
18
01
U
0.4
0.6
Initial 0 Delay(o3),&Neh
0.0
01
0.0
0.0
14
U
%f ile Back=n%},YeMn
O'D
41
9.4
12
Q
TA
unsiq, %lovement Delay- skth
LnGrp Delayo),eveh
U
15.3
7.8
48
182
18-7
LnGrp LOS
A
B
A
A
a
9
Approach Ve. ;eh
577
579
2S5-
Apotorioni Delay, ev8h
15.3
55
IRS
Approach LOS
8
A
a
Time - 8jEi nod; ft
2
3
4
8
Phs Duration lG*Y+Rci, a
13,6
11.5
21$
853
Change Period (Y"Re), s
4.8
kD
49
49
Max Green Setting lGmax). s
129
29.0
81
381
Max 0 Clear Time (g_c-1 1), s
62
3.7
151
78
Green Ext Time t%c), s
0.1
U
3.1
23
WorserAon sommary
HCM 61h CM Delay
12,0
HCM 6th LOS
8
Notes
' HCW, 61h =mputaimnot ergine requires equal errarame Lrines 'or rhe phases vossong the banxiT
.... .... .....
Petaluma Boulevard Sinhh'inad Diet
AM Rjlaire with Project 09x3001,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4; McNear AveiiMcNaar Circle & Petaluma Blvd S
2
3
4
a
7
093012019
Phs Duration (C.Y+Ro)' 5
15.4
12,9
2*
113
5.9
29.0
-\
t
4,O
5-7
5.3
4:0
movement
1581L
ST
SSR
ML
WST
WEIR
NBL
Nat
NOR
SSL
SOT
SSR',
Lane Confgurrujois
I
ff
r
I
tt
F
I
3.4
(ntersill $Uirncrraj�
53
4o
11
TraftWume (veKlm)
9
557
20
53
355
11
42
2
97
20
5
26
Futum *ru,,M Norio)
9
557
2G
E3
355
il
42
2
97
20
5
26
Imbal Q (Op), van
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
It
Ped-9ne Ad[tA-pO7
100
1,011
1.06
1,00
1,00
1.00
1X0
No
1.00
1.60
No
1,00
Parking Bus, Adt
1.00
1.00
1.00
1-00
1100
1.00
1.00
1.00
11-00
1.00
lZ
1,00
i Zone On Approach
1870
No
18701
!B'fD
Xo
Adp Row Rate, Vehin
110
No
18
57
No
12
Adj Sak Floo, vohWlr
1876
1870
1870
1870
1870
;870
1$10 0
1870
:870
1870
1870
1,870
Adj Flow Rate, veil
9
557
16
63
355
1 t
42
2
56
zi
5
1»
Peak Haar FaTIor
1-00
1.00
1.00
1.110
1.00
1.00
1 X
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Percent Heovy Veil. %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
cap, vWrr
54
934
415
259
1343
599
285
9
246
BE
22
57
A�ive an Green
CZ
0.26
0-26
0-15
0.38
03a
0-16
0,16
016
0-10
0.10
010
Sat Floe. VeNth
97$1:
3554
1579
1781
3554
1595
1781
55
11538
904
226
W
GTIP V6uMLf'v)' Vsh?h
9
557
16
58
155
11
42
0
58
aB
0
0
Grp Set Fp*%'Weh,Km
I781
17777
1579
f-fBI
1777
1505
1781
0
'1S3
1717
0
0
0 Serve g-51' S
03
BA
OS
11
4.2
DA
12
0.0
Zo
1-3
11)
D'O
Cycle 0 Cleartg_,:), s
0.3
BA
0,5
16
42
0.3
12
0,0
2,0
13
0.0
010
P,u In Lane,
1A0
216
1.00
1.00
nr
1.00
1.00
014
0,97
0,53
0,42
0,34
Lane Grp Capto), ve"
54
934
415
259
1343
599
285
0
M
167
0
0
VC Ratio(X)
0.17
0.60
G.04
0.20
026
0,02
0.15
0,00
0,23
0,23
1:00
000
Avail Caplc_ a), veh;h
840
2426
1078
896
2426
1062
579
0
518
558
0
a
HCM R almin Rate
1-00
110
1.011
1.00
1-D0
"Do
tco
I -W
110,
1.00
1.50
1.00
Upstream Fiftflt)
I'm
11011
1D0
1,00
1,00
1D0
1.00
0.00
1 DO
100
0.00
0,00
Uniform Delay (0;' &'veh
29.1
19 B
169
23.2
13.2
12,0
22.2
0.0
22.5
25.6
0,10
0.1)
Intr Delay igvveh
l's
OS
01
0,6
0,1
0,0
0.2
0.0
015
1.0
D'O
0.0
InXd 0 Delay(03i,Vvah
0.0
0.0
0.0
D,Q
11.0
0-0
114
0,0
00
0.0
0.0
0-0
%ife
0,1
3.2
02
D,7
1,5
O'l
0.5
0.0
03
05
0.0
10
Unsig- Vevoment De!ay. s+ven
10
3119
35,0
04
0.0
Lnqrp LOS
D
C
8
c
B
8
LrGrp oelay(d).sNah
30,5
207
1'6.9
217
13.4
120
22,5
0.0
230
26'0
0.0
0.0
LpGm LOS
C
C
B
C
B
B
c
A
c
c
A
A
Approach Vol vehlh
311'5
582
15 0
419
Approach LOS
100
38
Approach, Delay. s'vah
c
20-7
2
141
22.3
26.6
Approach LOS
c
8
c
c
'rmnar-Asst nedPhs
2
3
4
a
7
a
Phs Duration (C.Y+Ro)' 5
15.4
12,9
2*
113
5.9
29.0
Charge Period s
5.15
4,O
5-7
5.3
4:0
' 5,7
Max Green Selling (Grnax). s
20,0
3$.()
42
20.0
29 D
*42
Max a eeaf Time 11, s
4,0
3.6
10.4
3.3
2.3
6+2
Green EXI Time 1p-�e'l. a
0.3
02
5.7
01
O -D
3.4
(ntersill $Uirncrraj�
53
355
11
42
2
97
HicM 6th CM Delay
5
1819
Initial Q lob), van
0
0
0
HCM 5th LOS
0
a
0
0
0
0
Notes
0
Ped-BNeAdjiA-pbT)
1.00
i'00
1.01)
User aDploved peeeV.Par, interval ro.e less than erase max green,
' HCM SCh compurattonai engine tecones equal durance times to Me phases crossing the banner
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4; McNear AvelMcNear Circle & Petaluma Blvd S 09130+2019
Movement
M
EST
EBR
INIEL
WST
VAR
NSL
NST
NSR
SBL
SST
SSR
Lane Comiguratsins
ei
f
r
'S7
t
r
* 5-7
T.
213.0
31.0
lu
20-4
Tmfk Volume Ivehih)
9
557
20
53
355
11
42
2
97
20
5
26
Future Volume (Yeftlhl
9
557
20
53
355
11
42
2
97
20
5
26
Initial Q lob), van
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
Ped-BNeAdjiA-pbT)
1.00
i'00
1.01)
1 co
1.00
1.00
1-00
Drjlq
Falling Bus, All
1 DO
1'00
1,00
1.00
1.00
'I'm
1.00
9.00
1,011
11.03
1100
1,00
fti Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat &Ptorv, ve"fln
1870
1170
1870
1870
l870
1870
!670
1870
1670
18701
!B'fD
1970
Adp Row Rate, Vehin
110
599
18
57
382
12
45
2
60
22
5
14
Peak Hour Factor
0,93
0,93
0,93
0,93
0.93
0.93
0,93
0,93
0,93
0.93
C.93
0�3
Pexent Heavy Veb. 14
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
22
2
2
cap, vefilh
58
710
600
240
W1
763
242
7
209
86
19
55
Arrive Of, Green
0,03
0.38
0 30
0,13
OAS
DAB
014
0.14
0,14
OZE
ON
OZ.
Sal, Flow, *h1h,
1781
1870
1561
1781
1870
1535
1781
51
1542
920
209
585
Grp Volume(v), vehA
10
599
2
57
392
112
45
G
X62
41
C,
0
Grp Sag Rderl,,)•wmOhrn
1781
1970
15$1
ITBI
1870
1585
1781
0
159,6
1714
0
0
a Serve(q-sj' s
0A
23.4
0.6
21
11'7'
0'3
1.8
O'D
2.8
18
0,0
00
cytift a 8
0.4
214
0.6
2.3
103
0.3
1.8
OrD
2A
1.8
ID
O'n
Prop In Lane
1,00
1.00
1.00
1'..00
1.03
0.97
.1.54
0134
Lane GP Captor vabb
58
710
600
240
901
763
242
0
216
160
0
nr
VIC Ratio(X)
0-17
014
0,03
0-24
0,42
0.02
J,lg
0,00
0,29
026
0,0
3.00
Avail Caip(c_ al, vehm
644
980
928
689
980
00
444
0
$97
426
0
H Platoon Ratio
00
1,01
100
1 Go
1,00
1.00
I'Do
1'00
110
1.00
100
1,00
Upstream Filterfl)
9g0
1.06
1'00
i -N
1,00
Iluo
1100
0.00
1.040
1,00
0. DO
11110
Un,form Delay (d), slush
37,7
22-7
15.6
31.0
155
10,9
30-7
10
31,2
316
0'0
00
Iner Delay IdZ, shohr
1.4
58
0.0
0.7
0.5
D'O
0A
010
0-7
12
0.0
OD
Inlial 0 Delayxc!3),siveh
cl.o
0.0
0,0
O'D
13,G
0,0
00
D'o
00'
0.0
0-0
00
Wle 9adiOr0[50%),veN1n
0,2
fts
11.2
11,0
4,0
01
0-8
10
1A
0'6
0,0
00
unsig. Movement Delay 94!1
LnGrp Ddpykd;,qlveh
39,2
28,6
15.6
31,7
14.0
10,9
31,1
10
3119
35,0
04
0.0
Lnqrp LOS
D
C
8
c
B
8
C
A
C
c
A,
A
Approach Vol, Yettih
627
451
107
41
Aporoac) Delay, sNeh
29.4
18.1
311'5
15 0
Approach LOS
C
B
c
2
Phs.
2
a
4
6
7
a
Phs Duration lG-Y+Rq' a
16.5
14,8
361
121
6.6
443
Change Period (Y+Ri:)' 5
5,15
0
'S7
5,3
4,0
* 5-7
Max Green Belting (Grnaxt. s
213.0
31.0
'42
20-4
29,0
'42
Max 0 Cleaf 'Tme (q_c411j, s
4-8
4,3
25.4
3,8
2.4
12-7
Green Ext Time (pr), s
0.3
0.2
5.0
02
0.0
34
Intlersecdon, Summary
HCM 61h CM Delay 24,4
HCM 681 LOS c
User approved pedestrian inlemal to be less than phase max Veer,
' HCM ft cnmpulallanni orgins, retiIihes ami al durance limes for the phases acissing the barner,
Petaluma Boulevard South Road Diet W -T rare Detaluma Boulevard South Roan Diet 4'd -Tans
AM Fruits 01=2019 AM Frilure with .Project 09!313;2219
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: D St & Petaluma Blvd S
"N t
Movement
98L
W
ESR
AISL
W"
WBA
NEL
N9T
Lane Conligvratsons
I
f
If
I
t
IN
"I
T+
Traffic Volume (Yehh)
112
262
72
126
279
272
114
476
Fubr- Volume fv&h)
112
262
72
126
279
272
114
476
1 nrI4 0 (Qbj, vera
0
(1
0
1
0
0
4
0
Pao•Siko AdjyApb`rl,
1.00
12
0,94
1,00
DO
0,96
1.00
1.6
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1 DO
TZO
1,00
1.00
1.00
1.00
I'Do
'Norx Zone Or- AppTcarr
95
No
47.4
13
No
1
D
No
Adj Sat Fow, velOVIn
1693
IM
1693
1683
1683
t683
1683
1683
Adj Flow Role, vehrh
its
267
52
129
285
171
'16
486
Peak Hour Factor
0.98
0.98
OSS
0.98
198
0,98
0-98
193
Perccn! Heavy Veh, %
2
2
11
2
2
2
2
2
Cop, verron
149
329
261
55
337
272
14T
681
A,tNe Or Green
6.09
0.20
020
OM
0.20
420
0-04
0A3
Sat Fim, *hb
1603
1683
1336
1603
103
1358
1603
1603
G'p voiumejv), veh+h
114
267
EF
129
285
171
146
0
Grp Sat R'w(s)vewn
1603
16M
1336
1603
1683
1358
1603
0
0 Servelg_sj, s
5.7
18.8
4.0
9.13
20.2
10.6
84
04
Cycle 0 Clear(g-cj' s
8,7
118.8
4.0
ILB
20,2
IDA
8,8
0,0
Prop Un. Larle,
1.00
155
1,46
1'00
147
1.06
IM
:16
Lane Grp Cap(c), vehM
149
329
261
155
337
272
147
0
VIC Raiii:(Xl,
0L77
0161
0,20,
0,83
0,65
0,63
0.79
0,00
Avetll Cap(cLa), vcNh
246
395
313
233
384
310
168
a
HCM Paio:n Raw
1.00
1.00
I'M
1'00
I'M
I'm
1.100
I'M
Uparoam Fihetll)
1.00
11,00
1,00
0.97
197
0.97
1.00
0.00
Uniform Delay (d). S;yc.n
55.,3
477
41.8
55,2
47.7
25.1
557
0.0
Ira Delaydd2l, sNeh
3.1
11-5
045
819
15'0
4.0
16.7
0.0
INWa nelay(d3),s!4reh
0.0
0.0
0.0
1'8
O -D
10
25.1
0.0
%de SackDfqS0%l.vehfln
16
10
IA
4,6
9.9
37
5.8
oo
Lms'g, Movement Delay, sNeb
1,00
°M
1.00
IM
0,94
LnGro Wly(d),s.lveb
50
54.3
423
65-4
617
251
974
0.0
LrGrD LOS
E
E
D
E
E
G
F
A
ApprDact, Vol, ve%`b
0.20
433
6,85
0.03
US
0,00
0,71
622
hprcach Delay, VvO
0.12
SU
246
395
53.6
233
384
471
Apprpa- ch LOS
0
E
284
810
D
HW Platcor, Rala
100
D
MSR SBL
1
20 1811
20 188
a D
0.97 1.00
1,00 1140
1683
20
0.98
2
28
0.43
66
506
1669
30,6
30.6
0.04
709
071
722
1.00
1,00
29.5
6.1
0.0
1316
9683
142
US
2
216
0-13
1603
192
1603
14-6
14.6
IM
216
049
284
100
1100
517
193
0.0
71
471
471
0
1.00
Na
1683
491
6,58
791
6.49
1693
481
1863
25.7
251
791
0,61
610
1.00
24.4
M
U
11,3
ME
1663
75
6.98
644
0.48
1372
75
13712
2.6
16
9160
644
0.12
660
1.66
I'M
8,5
OA
0-0
1.3'
35.5 72.1 27.9 9.9
D E C A
74e
37-3
D
Ilrner-Assoghedft
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
,
Pis Duration IG+Y+Rcl, s
201
5813
15.6
2942
114,7
641
153
29,5
C'wge Period (Y,Rc). a
4.0
47
4,11
* 4,9
4,0
'47
*42
' 4.7
Max Green Setting IGrraxl, s
22,0
37
18.0
'29
13,0
'46
'19
'28
Max 0 Clear'r'me a
16,6
32-6
11,8
20$
10.8
27-7
W
22.2
Green Ext 7mo s
D'i
12
U
I's
DO
21
D'i
1.6
262
72
126
279
272
114
476
20
IW
HCM 61h CM Detay
95
Initial 0 {Cb), veh
47.4
13
D
1
D
0
HCM Un LOS
0
0
D
0
0
Ped-Efike Adj(kpbTI
00
Wes
IM
0,95
1.00
DOD
I'M
' HCM ftccmputator a] engine requires equal clearance Imes for thL phases crosvnq the barrier
Peta;drna Boulevard Soul, Read Leel
Phi FUIUTe
A'•Trans
0913M019
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: D St & Petaluma Blvd S
' HCM 69h compulAjonal engine requites equal c!earznce firnes fa, Inc phases crossing I'* hamar.
Petaluma Boulevard South Road Net
PM Future YnIn Project
4'-Trung
CV30;20T,2
Nlovemarl
E8'L
EBT
ERR,
V48L
WST
VJSR
NEIL
APRT
NSR
SBL
S5T
M
Lane Onfittwaters
+
r
11
is
I
t
?I
Tra%cVolume lveWh)
111,
262
72
126
279
272
1,14
476
20
Ise
471
99
F'ofure Volume (Vem`h)
112
262
72
126
279
272
114
476
20
IW
471.
95
Initial 0 {Cb), veh
0
13
D
1
D
0
4
0
0
r,
0
0
Ped-Efike Adj(kpbTI
00
5+,94
IM
0,95
1.00
DOD
I'M
096
PaMng Us, Adj
1.00
140
1,00
1 DO
1,00
1.0
1,00
f.00
100
1-00
1.0
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Pull Sat Flow, vehMn
1683
1683
1683
1683
"683
1683
'1683
160
1683
11663
1683
1663
Act Flow Raw veK,)
114
267
52
129
285
171
116
486
2D
192
481
75
Peak Hour Factor
0,98
OM
0,99
GM
0,98
0-9s
0192
0.98
0'9e
0158'
0.98
D� 1%
Percent Hem Vat,
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
calp, V�hffi
149
329
261
155
337
272
147
M
28
:16
791
644
Arnve Or, Green
0.09,
0.20
0,23
0.09
020
023
009
043
0.43
0.13
C.48
0.48
Sol Flw veNh
1603
1683
1336
1603
1683
1358
1603
1602
66
1603
1683
1372
Gro Volume(vl, vehm
114
267
62
129
285
171
116
0
506
192
481
75
Grp Sat Flows),ve9ift4an
1603
1683
1336
103
1683
t359
1633
0
1668
1603
1633
1372
a Semelg-S), s
87
18,8
4.6
9.8
20.2
116
U
0.
36.7
14,15
257
2.6
Cycle 0 Claaf(g-c), s
81
18.8
4 D
9,8
20.2
116
8.8
10
30.7
146
25.7
26
'Imp in Lane
1100
1,00
°M
1.00
IM
0,94
1,01,
1 CD
Lane Grp Cap(e), YoNh
149
329
261
155
337
272
W
C-
708
2116
791
644
V,IC RatloIX)
077
9.51
0.20
0.63
6,85
0.03
0.79
0,00
0,71
UIR
3,61
0.12
Avail rap(c�,a}, veN'h
246
395
313
233
384
310
168
0
721
284
810
660
HW Platcor, Rala
100
1,013
1.00
IDI
1'00
1M
I'M
1.00
1.00
11.00
IM
i.00
Upshearn Afltec(i)
1.00
ToD
140
X0.91
0,9t
0.91
1'00
040
"Ou
1.00
1-00
1.00
Uniform Delay (0), &Iveh
55.0
47.7
41.8
55.2
47.7
251
55.7
D.0
29.5
52.7
24.4
&S
Inns Delay (Q). sIveh
3"1
it's
0.5
8,4
14,2
18
161
D'O
61
IM
15
0,4
164 0 Delay(610,&tveh
O'D
M
D'o
1.8
M
M
25,1
0.0
DO
C.0
U
M
Me aackon(soA).veiyft
36
9.0
1.4
45
9,8
3.7
5.8
U
IM
7'1
11,3
Q
Unsig. Movement Delay, sAah
LnGrp Dalay(d),civeh
59.0
59.3
42.3
65.4
61,9
28.9
07,6
U
35.6
721
27,9
9'r
LnGrp LOS
E
E
D
E
E
C
F
A
D
E
C
A
Approach Vo!, vehi)
43;9
5115
622
748
Approach Delay, sNeh
569
53,3
47,1
37.3
Approach LOS
E
D
D
D
4
$
6
1
a
Phs Oumcon IG+Y+Ro), s
20,7
53,3
152
29.2
147
34,3
154
24.5
Charge Pencd (Y -Pc), s
4,0
*47
40
4.9
41
' 4.7
42
'4,7
Max Green Setling (Gmax) , s
22.0
'37
MD
29
110
'46
19
'28
Max 0 C:ear Tme (g -c W }, s
16,6
32.7
11.8
20.8
10.6
27,7
IQT
22,2
Green ExI, Time (pj), s
V
1'2
5.1
i'5
00
2,7
0.1
1,15
ffilarsedton Sitmryn
HCM 60, Ctrl Delay
47,3
HCM 6Eh LOS
D
' HCM 69h compulAjonal engine requites equal c!earznce firnes fa, Inc phases crossing I'* hamar.
Petaluma Boulevard South Road Net
PM Future YnIn Project
4'-Trung
CV30;20T,2
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: 1 St & Petaluma Blvd S
ESP
-0.
Ntovemant
Fit"
Lane Confgunitions
1870
Traft Volume (vehb)
378
Future Vo! me rwIhN)
378
In hal Q (ota), Van
0
Ped-Bilie Adj(A _pbTj
134
Piing Sax, Adj
110
Work Zane' Or, Aep-ach
No
Adj Sat Flow, vehMn
1870
Adj Flow Rate, vehrlh
AM
Peak Hour Fader
0.93
Percent Heavy'Veh, %
2
Cap, VeN)
766
Arrive On Greer,
025
Sat %.v, vehIh
3121
Fra Vti,jme{,),ve1P'h
237
Grp Sat
1777
0 Sen vefg-S)' s
3'l)
Cycle 0 s
3.9
Pr,i:) In Lane
125
Lane GTP Qip(c), v&.;,)
449
Vic ftio(x)
0.53
Avail Cap(ci-m), vohm
1698
HCM Platoon Ralio
t.00
upsuearn Flieffi)
1.00
Uniform Delay hl y, Vver,
15.9
trier Delay (d2l, srveh
0,7
liptol 0 DeIay(d3j,s!,nh
3.0
%ile 3ackOfQ(544;)'VW'M
1.2
unsig, Movement Delay, seml,
140
LnGrp D&Iay(d),0veh
1IG
LnGrp LOS
8
Approach Val, velIb
475
Appmach Delay, alveh
I%T
Approach LOS
3
ESP
VJISL
Wr,
NSL
NRR
1870
Vi
tt
'i
r
76
116
443
134
105
76
116
443
°a4
105
0
0
0
0
0
0.97
t.00
1826
1.00
1.00
LOU
1,00
1,00
1-00
1,00
1'rYnar=ALPS" ad Phs
SIST
No
Na
0
1870
1370
1870
1870
1870
69
?25
476
144
75
0,93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0,93
2
2
2
2
2
129
$92
1826
367
327
0,25
014
051
6.21
021
510
178:1
.1647
1781
1505
238
125
476
144
75
1760
1791
1777
1781
1595
4,0
iA
2.5
2,4
13
4,0
IA
15
2.4
13
0.29
140
1,00
I -DO
445
592
1826
367
327
0,54
0.21
0.26
0.39
0,23
1683
1230
3366
1492
1328
1-0
1.00
1.00
"ao
1.44
1.00
1,04
1.00
1.40
1.00
10.9
&D
4.6
1.G
IQ
0.7
0,1
01
4,3
01
D'O
0.01
11
0'0
0-0
12
03
OA
0.7
0.4
11.7
6,1
41
11.9
10
8
A
A
B
B
Grp Volunne(v), veKi
0
601
219
476
144
76
5.0
11,7
0
1814
1781
A
'181
1585
1'rYnar=ALPS" ad Phs
SIST
3'
4
0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), a
11.6
8,8
115
22A
Change Period (1` -Rel, s
4-6
4,0
-4,g
4,g
Nex Green Selling �Gmax). s
28.4
17.0
' 32
32.1
&Lu 0 Clear Time (g-c+ll),,a
4.4
3,4
6.0
4.5
Green U Time (p -c), a
01
OLD
2.4
2.6
indenaakdon Summary
Initial 0 fOb), veh
0
0
HCM 61) CW Daley
a
8,15
0
HCI,I 611 LOS
A
1.00
Notes
laa
Parking bus, Ad(
1.04
' HCM an computational engine requires equal cleawce Was for the phases crosang the baMeT,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2:1 St & Petaluma Blvd S
- "It, or' , '\
to
SIST
M
MfflL
1AST
INSIL
ND R
Lane Configura"ns
T.
11
t
a
r
Tiefrit Volume (vefifhj
378
76
116
443
134
105
Fi.dufe Volume (vehh)
378
76
716
443
134
"45
Initial 0 fOb), veh
0
0
0
a
0
0
Ped-SkeAdYA-pbl)
1.97
1.00
1.00
laa
Parking bus, Ad(
1.04
1,00
1,60
1 Za
8'00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach'
No
No
No
Adj Sat FkTN, veWn
1870
1970
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adi Flow Rate, velhm
In
69
'25
476
144
75
Peak Hour Factor
0.93
0,93
0.93
alga
0-93
0 R
percent mem v Veh. %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, weli
538
91
521
1083
326
290
Ame On Green
0,35
035
0 13
0.58
016
1-$8
Sal Flow. vah'n
1551
264
1781
I870
176I
1585
Grp Volunne(v), veKi
0
475
125
476
144
76
Grp Sat Flow(s),va!Vhiln
0
1814
1781
I670
'181
1585
0 S&VE(g-S). S
0.0
R.2
',A
51
2.9
1.6
CY6-- 0 clewlg-cl' a
O'D
R,2
1.4
5.7
2.9
116
Prop In Lane
0.15
1-00
1 on
1'00
Lane Grp Caiptcl,veblh
0
630
521
5083
326
290
Vic Ratom
0.00
015
124
0.44
0,44
0,26
Aval Gapfc-a),,johlh
0
1474
1046
1505
1268
1129
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.43
104
Ir. 0 0
1.01
iol)
Uptcream Fifter(l)
0.00
IZ
1.00
`rllp)
1.00
1,00
Uniform Delay (M, Vveh
010
11.5
6.6
41
141
14.0
Irrr Delay (C2), sIveh
a,0
1,4
O'l
02
0.3
0.2
INdal 0 Defay:A),sveh
0.0
0.0
0.0
a.0
O'D
0.0
%il& Rack=1 50%),vehhl
Do
10
0.3
I'l
ib
015
Unsig. lvlovamont Delay, s'Weh
LnGrp DaIayh:I),sWh
0,0
12.9
67
6.0
14.6
14,' ,
LnGrp LOS
A
S
A
A
el
B
Approach Vol, velub
475
601
219
Approach Delay, s;veb
i29
5.3
146
Approach LOS
B
A
a
"rimer -,
Pro Ovilahtri (G+Y�Ra), s
II'D
92
16.7
28,0
Charge P-rcd ff+R(.), s
4-6
0
' 4.5
4,9
Max Green Setting (Giriali), s
28A
17.0
.32
321
Max 0 C�ear Tuna (g-c+II l, s
41
3.4
11,2
71
Green ExI, Time, a
11
4.0
2.5
24
Intersection suWriaN,
HCM 60 Chil Delay
91
HCM 61A LOS
A
Notes
' HCM 6th computational engine reciurps equal clearance times ro, the phases crossing She Barrer
. . . . . ... ......
Petaluma Boulevard Smolt" Road Dat W -Trans Petaluma Boulevard South Road Mal N'T'ans
Phi Fuium 000112019 PM Futuriewilh Prc,ecf 09+30079
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Mountain View Ave & Petaluma Blvd S 0901019
Movennent
S8T
58R
WSL
WBT
NSL
NSR
Lane Coilligunniv-,s
tT.
Vi
t+
'5
r
, raff: Volume iyWh
399
61
Illit
419
67
95
Future Volume fvnh?h)
39D
n"
i17
4I9
67
46
Initial Q IQb), van
0
0
0
D
0
0
Pod -610 Adj(A-p6n
0S7
l'O
"DO
1-00
Parking Sus, Adj
Igo
1,00
1."
100
1.00
1,00
Wong Zimp On Approach
No
No
No
Adl SRI Flow, vehhqn
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Row Rolle, vehrr,
420
56
123
W
71
67
Peak Hour'Factor
Us
O:35
0,95
0,95
0.35
Us
Peraern: HluiqVeh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Calp,vehlrt
764
101
636
1902
337
300
Arrve On Green
0.24
0.24
G.1$
0,54
019
0.!5
Sat Flow, veh;h
3237
416
1781
3647
1781
1585
Grp Volurneiiij, veh�h
236
244
123
41
71
67
Grp Sac Flow(s},vehlhin
1777'
1763
1781
1777
1781
T585
0 Sermrg_s)- 6
4-1
4A
1,4
2.3
U
13
Cycle Q Clear(q-c), s
4,1
4j
1.4
13
1,2
13
Prop !n Lane
0.23
1,00
1,00
1,00
Lane Grp Capfc), verily
432
433
638
19112
337
300
Vic Rafio.,X)
0,55
0,555
019
0,23
D,21
0,22
Avail CapIa_a), vienih
1922
1928
1786
3344
1477
1314
HUI Platoon Ratio
1.G11
1.00
IM
I -CD
1,00
1.00
Upstream Fileqlj
1.00
100
1,00
im
1,00
1.00
U 94orin DoTay id), Vvim
11.6
117
63
4,3
12-1
111
Iner Delay id2), siveh
OS
01
01
0,0
0.1
DA
Initial 0 Delay(i:13), 2M)
O,C
0.0
0.0
0.1D
OD
D'o
%ile
1,3
1.3
D3
DA
0,4
0.3
Unsig- Movement Delay, sNeb
LrGrp Delay�d),s&ch
12.4
112.5
53
4.4
12.2
12.2
LnGqp-'OS
B
B
A
A
B
8
Aar, aarh Vol, vehlb
476
564
185
Aptarmch, Deal, &v8h
12.5
4,7
12.2
Apprca&, LOS
B
A
B
11miar - Assigned Phs
2
3
4
8
Phs Durafer, (G+Y*Ra), s
11.5
1013
13.5
2318
Change Peried (Y+Rc), s
• 4.8
4.0
4 9
4.9
Max Green Setl,nq (Gni a
'29
25,0
38.1
38.1
Max 0 Clear Tame s
3.3
3.4
61
43
Green al Time s
0.1
0.0
13
2,5
Sommanf
HCM ft Cul Delay
8,7
HCV gin LOS
A
Notes
'HC11,4 ft computational engine requires equal deirarce dr -es In! no phases crossing the barrier,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Mountain View Ave & Petaluma Blvd 8
M,30019
1,10vement
EBT
SBR
W8L
WST
NBL
NSR
Lane Confiravalors
T.
"I
t
I
fly
Trafk Volitme (Venuh)
399
61
117
419
67
95
Future Volume tveh+h7
399
61
117
419
67
95
Initial 0 iW0 veh
0
0
D
0
D
0
Ped-Mke AII
099
140
1.0
i,00
Parking Bus, Ad)
t 00
1.00
1,00
".,OO
1.OD
1.00
Work Zone On Aparoal
No
No
No
Adj Sal Flow, vehifi.,in
1870
1870
1870
1870
1970
1970
Adj Flow Rate, vehffi
420
56
123
441
71
67
Peak Hour Factor
OAS
0195
0,95
015
US
0.95
Percent Heavy VeN %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, Vahh
547
72
560
1110
305
272
Arrive On Grew
0.34
0.34
0-16
0.150
U7
0,17
Sat Pow, vehul
1611
215
.781
1870
t781
1585_
Grp Volumeqi). vehN
o
7176,
123
"ll
71
67
Sip Sat Fiowhii),vehrhiln
0
1825
17111
1870
9781
1525
0 SetvElq-a�, 5
0.0
9-8
1A
5,2
14
1,5
Slats 0 cleaffg--ill, 5
OA
9.8
1A
5,2
1.4
IS
Prop In Lane
0.12
1.80
100
I.00
Lane Grp Cople). yetrA
0
M
560
1119
3115
272
V.IC RntoiX)
0,00
C17
022
0,39
OM
0.25
AvaN Caplc_a), veWh
0
1653
1497
1694
1,237
1100
HCV, Ka*ori Rate
1-00
U0
1.0
1,00
100
1,00
UP54eam Pherih,
0.00
1.00
1100
1,00
1,00
1,00
Unifarm Delay (C), sivch
0.13
t2-4
U
44
15.0
151
[nor Delay (Q), sheh
0.0
i's
01
0.2
D.i
0,2
I m6al 0 DeIaqtd3),&1veh
ob
D.0
0.0
O -D
010
0-0
%he 6lck0iQl50%),vehNn
0.9
3,2
0.3
1.0
0.5
OLS
Umsig. Movement Deiny, he)
LnGrp Dalayidl,sivah
0.0
119
6-5
4-6
15,2
153
LeGrp LOS
A
8
A
A
8
B
Approach Vol, veKnii
476
564
138
Approach Delay. sSvO,
9,9
5.0
15.2
Approach LOS
B
A
9
Thmer - Assigned Phs,
2
3
4
Phs duration tG.Y+Rcy, S
IZO
103
192
30-1
Change pence [Y-Rc), s
4.8
4,D
4,9
4n
Max Green Satiling (Gerax) . S
29,
29.0
36.1
Xf
Max Q CleerTrrii W_c111I, s
35
34
11.8
72
Green Ext Time fp-c7. a
D'i
10
2,$
2,3
inhensectiop sumfugiry
HCNI 6th Cal Delay
92
RCM 6th LOS
A
Notes
I Hichl 6th mmputafinnal engine requites Liloal clearance Imus for Phe phases rossirg the barrier
Pe;p;uma Boulevard South Road Diet W--mas Petaluma Eulevand Soufth Roac Diet Yi-Trans
PM Futire G9012019 PM Future with Prolect 01M,,=119
HCM 5th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: McNear AvefMcNear Circle & Petaluma Blvd S
Movement
M
EST'
EOR
WBL
une corrfi�vmbons
)
ff
F
I
Traffo Volume (vefith)
9
413
45
96
Puri, v Vor)mo iveh1h)
9
413
45
96
lnitral 0 (Qh), veh
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A _pDT)
1.00
1
1100
1'00
Parking Bus, Ad)
1,00
1,00
TOO
1.00
Wom Zcr a Or Apurpach.
0
rap
0
0
Adj Sat Raw, vethwIrl
1870
ISM
170
1870
Ads' Flow Rate, vehtn
10
469
39
09
Peak Hour Facl6r
0 U
616$
OAS
0.88
Ppfcen: Heavy Veh 9a
2
2
2
2
Cap, vehAn
59
e22
'95
372
Anrive On Green
0,03
0,23
023
021
Sat R ow, vehlh
1781
3U4
1578
1781
Gro Voljme(vi, vpnh1�
41
469
39
11 G9
Ord Sal Row(s).varVilim
1781
ITTF
1578
17151
a Smeog-s). S
03
7.0
12
3.1
Cycle 0 aearLg_c), s
03
TZ
1,2
3.1
Proo In Lane
1.00
629
1 Go
1.09
Lane Grp Cap(c), whlh
59
622
US
M
Wc Rado(x)
13.17
0.57
011
6,29
Avail Cap(c_a), vlbhfn
356
2479
1101
917
HCM Platoon, Ratio
1.00
'.00
1.00
1.03
Upalrearn Ftrar(l)
TM
IM
1.00
1.00
Uniform Doay td?, siveh
28.3
26.5
181
20.1
nor Delay (62). &iveh
1.3
0.9
0.2
0.6
Initial 0 De!ay,1d3),s1veh
M
O.O
Co
0-0
%ie
DI
2:7
OA
12
Uns17, Movement Delay, vveh
11
O'D
1.4
0,7
LnGro Delay(d),0veltz
29.6
21.4
18.4
201
LnGro LOS
C
C
IS
C
Approach Vol, vehib
64
518
0
231
Approach Delay, sMil
0
21.3
0.35
0.03
Approach LOS
0.00
C
6,17
O.00
WST
WSR
NSC
NBT
NSR
SSL
SST'
SER
14,5
16-6
19.6
95
6,0
30.2
Orange Period (Y+Rc), s
5.6
451+
14
33
1
65
12
1
7
451
14
33
1
65
12
i
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,0
0.96
1.00
?6
499
11,00
33
0199
1,00
1.04
1.00
1.DO
1,00
1.00
1.00
1100
No
J)
B
Na
0
0
No
0
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1876
512
16
38
1
41
14
1
6
0.80
OAS
0.08
0,68
0-86
DIU
iLU
0,88
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1447
629
262
5
225
IlI
6
35
0A1
OAt
015
8,15
0.15
0,07
0,07
0.07
3554
1546
1791
37
1533
1147
82
491
512
16
38
0
42
21
a
C
1777
1546
1781
0
1570
1720
0
0
6-0
14
11
00
1.4
0.7
0.0
04
6.0
DA
11
O'D
1.4
0,7
GO
0,0
2
1,00
1.139
2
OM
0-67
596
0,29
1447
64
262
0
231
121
0
0
0.35
0.03
0-15
0.00
0.16
6,17
O.00
0,00
2479
1079
592
0
Sn
571
0
0
1.00
10'0
1,03
1.00
1. DO
1.60
1.00
1.60
1.00
1.00
1,00
0.00
1,00
1.00
0.00
0100
1A
101
224
0.0
22.5
26-3
DO
D'o
0,2
0,0
0.3
G'O
04
1.0
0.0
010
D'O
010
O -C
M
0'0
0 D
0.13
0.0
2.0
OJ
0.5
0.0
0,5
0-3
OZ
0.0
12.6
10.7
22.6
DO
22,9
27.3
OG
DA
B
B
C
A
c
C
A
A
637
1.130
80
1.05
21
1119
067
22,8
Lane Grp Calettt. wahh
50
27,3
504
S
US
732
C
0
201?
c
0
'I'itner - Aslngnpil Phs
2
3
- 4
_._.6_
7
8
Ph$ Duration (G+Y+Rc), a
14,5
16-6
19.6
95
6,0
30.2
Orange Period (Y+Rc), s
5.6
4-0
',47
5-3
co
, S7
Max Green Setting lGmaxj, s
20.0
31.0
'42
20-0
210
*42
fu= Q Clear TMe lg_C+"t S
34
51
9.0
27
22
8.0
Green Ext Time s
0.2
OA
4,9
0.1
0,0
51
inlersotbom Summary
?6
451
14
33
65
HC10 Sic Ctrl Nay
1
ITS
Initial Q fQb), van
a
0
0
HCM f3v4 LOS
J)
B
a
0
0
0
Notes
User approved pedestrian inervalt to be less lhai phase max green.
' HUI 61h comrputallonbi enoine requires equal cleafance *as for the phases crossing the barriw.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: McNear AvOMcNear Circle & Petaluma Blvd S
Mover"ni
eft
EST
EBR
WBL
WST
WISR
NEL
NST
NER
SSL
S6T
$69,
Lane Configurators
"!i
t
r
t
r
`1
T.
41
Traffic Volume (vefifl
9
41
45
96
451
14
3e
1
65
2
1
7
Future Volume (vehh)
0
413
46
?6
451
14
33
65
12
1
7
Initial Q fQb), van
a
0
0
0
J)
0
a
0
0
0
0
D
Pod -Bike AdYA,,pb"rP
1-50
rM
IM
198
1,00
198
T'00
0,99
PaMng Bus, Adj
I'm
1.00
1,00
1D6
1,00
1,00
1.00
LOO
1.0
1,00
1.00
I'M
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
NO
Adj Sat Flow, vehN,n
1870
WO
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
!870
1874
1870
1870
1876
Act Flow Rale, vehln
10
469
39
109
512
is
38
1
41
14
1
6
Peak Hour Factor
088
GAS
0,28
0.8a
6,88
Q'etl
Ole,
0188
DIES
008
0.66
0.88
Percent H--vy Ve, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, vahm
58
596
504
333
US
732
239
5
204
78
6
34
Arrive On Green
0,03
632
0,32
0,19
0.47
0A7
0.13
0-13
DID
0 67
0-07
0,07
Sal Flaw, veM
1781
t B70
1580
1781
11370
1547
1781
37
1519
1144
82
4E
Grp Volume(y), vWr)
tO
469
29
13
$12
ts
38
0
42
21
'a
0
Grp Sat Flowts),vatVilln
1781
1870
1590
1781
1,370
1547
1781
0
1556
1716
0
0
0 Sene(q_s). s
OA
16-1
1,2
37
14.0
OA
1'3
M
17
13.8
0.0
0,0
Cyc!e 0 cleau(g-;p' a
OA
16.1
12
17
I'LO
OA
I.S
0.0
1.7
O,S
0-0
11.0
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.130
1.06
1.05
1 M
0.%
067
0,29
Lane Grp Calettt. wahh
50
596
504
On
US
732
239
0
201?
117
0
0
vic Oal;o(x)
017
0.79
O -CS
0,33
0-58
0.02
0.16
0,00
0.20
lljl)
0.00
000
Ava'l Upit,a), veMh
730
1111
939
781
1111
919
504
0
440
465
0
0
HCM Platoon Raur
1,00
IOD
1,06
1,00
1-00
1.16
'-00
1.00
".00
1X0
1,00
1 CO
Upstream Fli
1.00
IM
10
Loo
1,00
1,00
1-00
0,00
140
1.00
MO
0.130
Unif orm, Delay (d), Vveh
38,3
21,9
160
24.9
13,5
19
27.1
0,0
27,2
31.1
3.0
0-0
trrer Delay {62}' sheh
1.4
M
0 1
018
0'0
0,0
0,3
O -D
0.5
1.0
DD
0.0
1004 0 Derry�c]S.Wveh
O'D
0'0
0-0
OD
0.0
0.0
6,0
01
D'o
DO
O -O
00
%�o Backt)IWONvehfln
02
7.1
0.4
IS
51
0'
016
GO
DA
O'A
10
OYO
UnsF9 Movwre.il Delay, &Iveh
LRGrp Dolay(d)js6w6h
34.6
25,2
16.9
251
14.4
99
27,4
M
273
32.1
D'O
00
LnGrc LOS
C
C
a
C
a
A
0
A
c
C
A
A
Approach Vol, vehm
518
637
so
21
Approach Decay, s;veh
24.9
16.2
275
32.11
Approach LOS
C
B
C
C
Timer -Ass' nedPhs
2
3
4
6
7
a
Phs Duration (G+Y-pos
15,1
17,2
26,2
10.1
5,3
39.2
Change Par rd (Y -Rd), 5
5.6
4,0
5.7
;"S
4.0
Max Green Setting (0max) , s
20,0
31,0
42
20D
290
-42
Mar 0 Mar Time (9-c+ll t a
3.7
57
18.1
18
2-4
16.0
Green Ext Trrn2 ipA, s
0,2
0,4
4,4
D'I
0.9
4"7
Inta'sectarn Surnmany
Hcr'l 61h CW Delay
20.7
HC" 60, LOS,
Notes
User approved ped osifian interval to be less man phruse rrax gr"n-
I 14GM 6th compulaflitnal engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the homer
Petaluma Boulevard South Road Diel Y1' -Trans Petaluma Boulevard South Road Dler, ALTa,s
PM Future 095012019 PM Future with Proiec., OMOTO19
ATTACHMENT 3
Traffic Counts before and after on PBN Road Diet
7
N:
:O; 0: r-
:Nect:M:
N!C41
COi00,N-
CO'q'
>
iN!O!0);;CO,
.CP:h:
N; If)
CA!T.G);
•CO N
�'
mlrnioo
Iti;in to
:,-!Initn
r,mom
:M CO
[� >
' ao !'t I In...,
. m rim
CO m
C
h• t -:Cf(
N t�;tD!
�
II�!Oi0 .'-
OO:T--!O
T= I-
r- CD: CO {
(n ; m
LO Lr) LO:
01 CO '
T T
I N CO ce)
SCA (nlrl-
109 rc,I (D �
0 C)) ' CO
ca! r, ' N i
- CO W
,N
-
' �.
!OI[�Ir+!
O m CO ;
�i-�<t!(n.,
CO MfT".'
r`
O O'Mi
(D .
VI'l1'•�
T r- coI
'CO�
I
1ooLr)-
-li' to '
-•---.!r--
.--
miC0l
'CpjCp N':.
ODIODjLoI
ION - '-
•
•'��
` •a' ( to i Cil ,
I0 (M CO
I N N °'q l
ICOICD!CD.!
! (3) t 0 CO "'
jNI(D CO .,•
I- r-' 0:
LOIM
101 CA
rn .
r-. In M
i0 CO
-LO r_00,-
1m; CD;N!
r-!m!r-
y
L
'r; 00: Lf):
0)'COt
!T-'lM iT-
�ICDST'
.
m Cn
U
O Oi
100'In.COi
%N:'Cnf(D
N: COi CM
cn:o0.d�r:r�id;
to CO.O
m LO
-a
O m U)
N: It;
!r' -Ir m
(A [t.CO
i1- O
N
'Cn 0) 0'
:CO %CD; CD:
Imo; CD 1 CO
NJO r
c - CD
_
IN"N:%N!
0) 1n0- .'.._}C'O!0;N
C'j r
!CP CO
t/1Or.
0:[.C7;
'O'N:N'
et-IC-jN
0) U) N;
its- r
(1):V
0!0):
:CO (D; (D.
?I—jLO! W
N_ CO SCA..
.:00 V
iIn In
.0 sn'rn
:I,-:N;m'
i00iKtICO
Mico CD:
%ei' N-
'sm
rl-
-rl- N CO
i0);0);Cn�
;N;CAiM
CD; LO;
O
O
m.a) CO
ti:In:U7.
!v— tO n
Niro M•
!r I`
.{�0'T
ir-
:C) r ri
!O.Tjr
Oir-: T!
'P O
O
N N
;N•N
N'N:
NIN �•
O U
Q
0
r,
O N
o' N -
O N
O d
V
-Z U-
Z U-
Z U-
Z U-
--�—
YY
ccs • ccs m'
o.o o
>
o0
(Q m m
m Y-
w
�
0
O OO
:
O.0
J
O.
O O O
v- 4-:4-
[fl
0
o 0.0
U) a) CO
0 0. 0
>>:
73 o
XYY
-dl CAU)
U U
41
to
.0
N�
Q
O O D
N O QI
—.•- —
:.
C C C
r N
° a) Cl)
.0 .0
� � a�
a) a) m
m m
Y Y Y
Y Y Y
CO
7
89 25 28.1% 29 32.6% 30 33.7% 31 34.8% 28 31.5% 23 25.8% 24 27.0% 19 21.3%
Notes: total available parking and utilization rates for Petaluma Blvd South pre project, existing
Attachment 6
75
85
17 20.0%
29
34.1%
Petaluma Boulevar Borth
38.8%
31
36.5%
25
29.4%
27
31.8%
25
29.4%
28
32.9%
Time Period Counted
Street to Crystal Lane
9:00 -10:00
-11:00
11:00 -12:00
12:00 -1:00
1:00 - 2:00
2:00 - 3:00
3:00 - 4:001
4:00 - 5:00
Parking Occupancy (Pre Project, Exlstin
s)
�10:00
Occupancy
Occupancy
Occupancy
Occupancy
Occupancy
Occupancy
Occupancy
Occupancy
Block
Date- 3/6/19 Weather- Overcast/
Rain
Stalls
%
Stalls
%
Stalls
%
Stalls
%
Time Period Coun
:ed
9:00 - 10:00
%
10:00 -11:00
11:00 -12:00 12:00 - 1:00
1:00 - 2:OOI
2:00 - 3:00
5 35.7%
3:00 - 4:001
57.1%
4:00 - 5:OO
64.3%
11
78.6%
10
Occupancy
5
Occupancy Occupancy Occupancy
Occupancy
Occupancy
4
Occupancy
Occupancy
E Street to F Street
Block
Available Spaces
Stalls
%
Stalls
% Stalls % Stalls %
Stalls
%
Stalls
Stalls
%
Stalls
%
12
2
16.7%
7
58.3% 9 75.0% 11 91.7%
8
66.7%
7
58.3%
6
50.0%
6
50.0%
2
E Street to F Street
2
28.6%
2
28.6%
F Street to G Street
10
1
10.0%
8
80.0% 9 90.0% 8 80.0%
6
60.0%
6
60.0%
7
70.0%
7
70.0%
9.1%
F Street to G Street
182 0
./o
3
27.3%
2
18.2%
4
36.4%
3
27.3%
0
0.0%
o
G Street to H Street
11
4
36.4%
4
36.4% 5 45.5% 2 18.2%
2
18.2%
5
45.5%
2
18.2%
3
27.3%
o
G Street to H Street
t
5
2
40.0%
2
40.0% 1 20.0% 2 40.0%
2
40.0%
1
20.0%
1
20.0%
2
40.0%
v°y
H Street to I Street
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Z
H Street to I Street
41
=$
22
6
27.3%
4
18.2% 5 22.7% 4 18.2%
4
18.2%
4
18.2%
6
27.3%
7
31.8%
v'
I Street to K Street
20
1 5.0%
1
5.0%
1
5.0%
1
5.0%
1
5.0%
1
-cs
1
5.0%
1
-
V)
I Street to K Street
m
14
0
0.0%
1
7.1% 0 0.0% 1
7.1%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
7.1%
:_
K Street to Mountain View Ave
co
Mountain View Ave to McNear
0
0
0.0%
0
0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
3
Ave
2
33.3%
E
K Street to Mountain View Ave
10
2
20.0%
3
30.0% 3 30.0% 3 30.0%
3
30.0%
4
40.0%
3
30.0%
2
20.0%
McNear Ave to Rovina Lane
M
Mountain View Ave to McNear
10
7 70.0%
6
60.0%
5
1
0
0.0%
0
0.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Rovina Lane to Crystal Lane
89 25 28.1% 29 32.6% 30 33.7% 31 34.8% 28 31.5% 23 25.8% 24 27.0% 19 21.3%
Notes: total available parking and utilization rates for Petaluma Blvd South pre project, existing
Attachment 6
75
85
17 20.0%
29
34.1%
33
38.8%
31
36.5%
25
29.4%
27
31.8%
25
29.4%
28
32.9%
Time Period Counted
9:00 -10:00
-11:00
11:00 -12:00
12:00 -1:00
1:00 - 2:00
2:00 - 3:00
3:00 - 4:001
4:00 - 5:00
�10:00
Occupancy
Occupancy
Occupancy
Occupancy
Occupancy
Occupancy
Occupancy
Occupancy
Block
Available Spaces
p
Stalls %
Stalls
%
Stalls
%
Stalls
%
Stalls
%
Stalls
Stalls
%
Stalls
%
14
5 35.7%
8
57.1%
9
64.3%
11
78.6%
10
71.4%
5
35.7%
6
42.9%
4
28.6%
E Street to F Street
7
2 28.6%
5
71.4%
3
42.9%
3
42.9%
2
28.6%
2
28.6%
2
28.6%
2
28.6%
F Street to G Street
11
0
0 0.0%
1
9.1%
2
182 0
./o
3
27.3%
2
18.2%
4
36.4%
3
27.3%
0
0.0%
o
G Street to H Street
0
3
0 0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Z
H Street to I Street
4�
p
20
1 5.0%
1
5.0%
1
5.0%
1
5.0%
1
5.0%
1
5.0%
1
5.0%
1
5.0%
V)
I Street to K Street
co
6
3 50.0%
3
50.0%
3
50.0%
3
50.0%
3
50.0%
3
50.0%
3
50.0%
2
33.3%
E
K Street to Mountain View Ave
M
Mountain View Ave to McNear
10
7 70.0%
6
60.0%
5
50.0%
4
40.0%
4
40.0%
3
30.0%
3
30.0%
5
50.0%
Ave
18
7 38.9%
5
27.8%
6
33.3%
6
33.3%
6
33.3%
5
27.8%
6
33.3%
5
27.8%
McNear Ave to Rovina Lane
0
0 0.0%
0
0.0%
1
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Rovina Lane to Crystal Lane
89 25 28.1% 29 32.6% 30 33.7% 31 34.8% 28 31.5% 23 25.8% 24 27.0% 19 21.3%
Notes: total available parking and utilization rates for Petaluma Blvd South pre project, existing
Attachment 6
75
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
Petaluma boulevard South - southbound direction
(Peak hour)
0 60.0%
nJ
v
�
�
(B
J
m
z
c
>
i
O
U .
O
�O
.Q
N
c O
:
N
J W
N U
Q
Q O
cLa v
O
QJ
CU
Q
U N
U
50.0%
aJ
Q
z
Q
i.:
>
Q)
Q 40.0%
U
L
>
O
+'
4'
+'
v
30.0%
• aJ
aJ
v v
aJ
v v
+,
aJ
a
c
n
Q
.a
v °'
o
>
N
i>
= v
F
N Q
UO
U-
O
UO
+ O
O
41
N,
20.0%
4O
u
Ln
—
N •Q
+- N
vO
�j
M
a) U
N U
'�' 41
4, �
Q) f6
y
Q
" Q
C,-
QJ 6
N U
41 Q"
4- U
N
O�
CL
10.0%
LU
C7
= N
o
N
O
roU
N Q
N
L
0.0%
STREET SEGMENT
gm
76
nJ
v
�
�
(B
J
m
46
c
>
i
O
U .
O
�O
.Q
N
c O
:
N
J W
N U
U
Q O
cLa v
O
QJ
CC
Q
U N
U
gm
76
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
0
z
0 50.0%
a
N
J
F
z 40.0%
Y
Q
a
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
4-
v a
4' U
Ln
LL O
+- v
4� U
N �
iJQ
V7
4N
Ln
LU
Petaluma boulevard South - Northbound direction
(peak hour)
t limits of Parking Removal
H Street to Mountain View Ave (4 spaces)
CU 41
,Q)
�_
Q
a
N
to
4 N
N U
U
O O
O O
+' N
�-
41
STREET SEGMENT
�
Q
N
i Q
LL Ln
Ln
(D S
t limits of Parking Removal
H Street to Mountain View Ave (4 spaces)
a�
C
v
c�
3
LU
C
f0 -�
a N
a-
0 O
c U
O 041 N
N U
4J Q
0
>
Q
v
z
U
IP-
0
E
O
4-
W
C
> O
Q .
D
N O
U
U
0
C �
f0
+- U U
C M
D o_
O
aj
C
J
f0
4-
i v
V CL'
O
U
U
Ci
O
JQJ
N
U
� U
C M
o a
0 O
77
CU 41
•a
CU Q
N U
(n U
U
O O
O O
Cu
4 N
N U
4- Cu
N U
O ra4J
C
Q
VN
)
= o
— v
STREET SEGMENT
a�
C
v
c�
3
LU
C
f0 -�
a N
a-
0 O
c U
O 041 N
N U
4J Q
0
>
Q
v
z
U
IP-
0
E
O
4-
W
C
> O
Q .
D
N O
U
U
0
C �
f0
+- U U
C M
D o_
O
aj
C
J
f0
4-
i v
V CL'
O
U
U
Ci
O
JQJ
N
U
� U
C M
o a
0 O
77
PetalLm.-,a Roulevard South,
F Sti eet Io Cl y4ta' I are
Parking 0000V),.3r7Cy (`ire Project, FXISt'r'ii_'.5), Veilic 3tlon of pievloll5
Dare:
10/19/1.9 Weather:
Clear / Cold
Time Period Counted
5:00 - 6:00
9:00 - 10:00
11:00 -
12:00
4,00-5:00
Block 1 Available Spaces
Occupancy
Occupancy
Occupancy
Occupancy
Stalls %
Stalls %
Stalls
%
Stalls
12
0 '�, 0.0%
7 58.3%
8
66.7%
8
66.7%
E Street to F Street
10
3 30.0%
4 'i 40.0%
5
50.0%
6
60.0%
F Street to G Street
11
3 27.3%
5 I, 45.5%
3
27.3%
4
36.4%
o G Street to H Street
5
0 0.0%
1 20.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
v H Street to I Street''
I
�
p
22
6 27.3%
8 '', 36.4%
6
27.3%
7
'', 31.8%
'^ I Street to K Street''
14
3 21.4%
5 353%
3
21.4%
3
'I, 21.4%
EK Street to Mountain View Ave
v Mountain View Ave to McNear
a
0
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0
0.0%
1
0.0%
Ave
10
2 20.0%
2 20.0%
3
30.0%
4
40.0%
McNear Ave to Rovina Lane
1
0 'I 0.0%
0 '' 0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Rovina Lane to Crystal Lane
85
17 20.0%
32 37.6%
28
32.9%
33
1 38.8%
Time Period Counted
5:00 - 6:00
9:00 - 10:00
11:00 -
12:00
4:00 -5:00
Block Available Spaces
Occupancy -
Occupancy
Occupancy
Occupancy
Stalls % _
Stalls %
Stalls
%
Stalls
%
14
0 ''� 0.0%
8 57.1%
10
71.4%
0
0.0%
E Street to F Street
7
0 0.0%
1 ,, 14.3%
1
14.3%
1
14.3%
F Street to G Street
11
3 27.3%
2 18.2%
1
9.1%
2
18.2%
o G Street to H Street
-
0
3
0 ', 0.0%
0 0.0%
0
0.0%
0
', 0.0%
z H Street to l Street
13
20
1 S.0%
5 25.0%
6
30.0%
6
'�, 30.0%
N
.6 I Street to K Street
_ 'I
R
6
4 66.7%
5 I 83.3%
6
100.0%
6
'', 100.0%
EK Street to Mountain View AveI,',,
'
m
Mountain View Ave to McNear
10
9 90.0%
9 90.0%
8
80.0%
9
90.0%
Ave
18
9 I, 50.0%
9 50.0%
9
50.0%
9
'', 50.0%
McNear Ave to Rovina Lane
0
0', 0.0%
0 0.0%
1
0.0%
0
0.0%
Rovina Lane to Crystal Lane
89
26 29.2%
39 ', 43.8%
42
47.2%
33
37.1%
Notes: total
available parking and utilization rates for
Petaluma Blvd South
pre project,
existing
W