HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7.B 01/05/2004Vy?„
4
4
4
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
AGENDA B BILL
Agenda. Title
Meeting Date:
5 January `2004
C
` OSS -TOWN MOBILITY ENHANCEMENT
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
` Meeting Time ❑ 3:00 PM
Z 7 :00 PM
Category (check one) ❑Consent Calendar ❑Public Hearing ® New Business
❑ Unfinished Business ❑ Presentation
Department
Director
Conta Pe o :
Phone Number
GP Administration
Pamela Tuf
Pamela T t.
(707) 778 -4552
Cost of Proposal i' �,
Account Number
N/A
N/A
Amount Budgeted
Name of Fund:
N/A
N/A
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item i
Cross Town Mobility Enhancement Alternatives Analysis Report - December 2003
Summary Statement
`'ln July 2003 the City Council was updated on the progress of study for possible cross -town connections,
being undertaken in conjunction with the preparation of the new General Plan 2004 — 2025. The report
,presented eight optional alignments' (2 Corona Road, 3 Rainier, 2 Southern Crossings, and an interim
Corona/Rainier). 'As the work progressed on the General Plan Land Use and Mobility Alternatives, staff
has proceeded with preparation of a feasibility analysis on Rainier and the Southern Crossing alternatives.
The work effort was to 'conduct an initial screening of the alternatives, prepare conceptual geometric
drawings, review the alternatives with Calirans as to their feasib'il'ity in relation to planned Highway
improvements, and to prepare preliminary 2003 capital construction cost estimates (excluding land
acquisition and mitigation costs). These cost estimates also. assume: that Caltrans will construct the actual
underpass structure in conjunction with "" the Highway '101 widening and site distance correction'
improvements. Without that cost commitment by Caltrans, the estimates would be increased by an
additional S5 -7 million to cover ''the cost of the underpass structure and the pumping system needed to
contain and redirect storm flows accumulating in the underpass area. The attached technical memorandum
provides the summary of this work effort.
Patrick Flynn of HDR Engineering Inc. and .Matthew Ridgway of Fehr and Peers will attend the Council
meeting to discuss the analysis report.
Recommended City Council Action /Suggested Motion
No action is requested at'thi's time.
Reviewed by Finance - Director:
Reviewed by City Attornev :;
Date: "
A rove City Mana er:
Date:
Dater
/
oday's Date
Revision # and Date' Revised:
Vile Code:
#
29 December 2003
H`pt/Rainier \CC alternatives analysis 010504.doc
CITY OF PETALUNIA, .CALIFORNIA
5 JANUARY 2003
AGENDA REPORT
FOR
CROSS -TOWN MOBILITY ENHANCEMENT
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In July 2003 the City Council was updated on the progress of study for possible cross -town
connections, being undertaken in conjunction with the preparation of the new General Plan 2004 —
2025. The report presented eight optional alignments (2 Corona Road, 3 Rainier, 2 Southern
Crossings, and an interim Corona/Rainief). As the work progressed on the General Plan Land Use
and Mobility Alternatives, staff has proceeded with preparation of a feasibility analysis on Rainier
and the Southern Crossing alternatives'. The work effort was to conduct an initial screening of the
alternatives, prepare conceptual geometric drawings, review the alternatives with Caltrans as to
their feasibility in relation to planned 'Highway improvements, and, to prepare preliminary 2003
capital construction cost estimates (excluding land acquisition and mitigation costs). These cost
estimates also assume that Calt "fans, will, construct the actual underpass structure in conjunction
with the Highway 1'01 widening and site distance correction improvements. Without that cost
commitment by Caltrans, the estimates would be increased.by an ,additional $5 - -7 million to cover
the cost of the underpass structure and the pumping system needed to contain and redirect storm
flows accumulating in the underpass area. The attached technical memorandum provides the
summary of this work effort.
2. BACKGROUND
A brief history of cross -town connectors and the US Highway 101 interchange follows:
1965: The Petaluma General Plan incorporates a. ,four =lane arterial and future
cross -town connector to Petaluma Boulevard North, with a freeway
interchange at US 101.
1994: Council certifies an EIR and approves the Rainier overpass /interchange
proj ect.
1995: City Council adopts the Precise Plan. Line, illustrating the probable
alignment of the project.
1998: Council adopts Resolution determining the preferred interchange design
configuration and /or other design options for preparation of the Project
Report.
1998: Council directs staff to prepare a Work Plan and budget for the project as
part of the future General Plan update.
1999: Council deletes project from CIP and halts preliminary design work on
Rainier.
2003: Council directed staff to place a cross -town. connector -in the CIP project list.
2003: Council adopted Central Petaluma Specific Plan, including the identification
of a southern crossing (extending Caulfield Avenue to cross the River to
Petaluma Boulevard South).
2003: Council updated on Direction' on Cross -Town Mobility Enhancement
Options for Inclusion in General Plan 2004 -2025 Alternatives.
3. ALTERNATIVES
Hear presentation of report, direct questions or comments to City management team and
consultant team members.
4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The Council :directed .the 'inclusion of a cross -town connector in the CIP project list. This
technical memorandum begins the preferred project; evaluation and ,selection process. Future
selection- of a preferred project, in conjunction with the General Plan 2004 — 2025 adoption, or as a
separate project will include appropriate budget preparation and adoption.
5. CONCLUSION
Identification of additional cross -town connectors within the context of .a Draft General Plan will
lead to `the inclusion of the selected improvements in the adopted Implementation Plan, Capital
Improvement. List, ,Traffic Impact Fee list of improvements and the eventual, development, of a
Plan Line to reserve the necessary right -of -way and a Work Plan and Schedule for undertaking
the work effort.
6. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS'THAT`WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR
COMPLETION:
Work will continue on 'the evaluation of mobility, . alternatives (including the cross -town
connectors) through the public discussion on the General Plan Land Use and 'Mobility
Alternatives.
7. RECOMMENDATION 0
No action is requested at this time.
Attachment
•
H:pt/Rainier \CC altema[ives? analysis 0;10504.doc
i
I�.�d f�
Prepared ,for:
Pamela Toft,.AICP, Director of General
Plan. Administration, .City of Petaluma December 18, 2003
Prepared By:
Patrick J. Flynn, P.,E., :HDR; Engineering, Inc.
James Lab,anowski, P.E., HDR' Engineering; Inc.:,
Matthew Ridgway, AICP,.'Fehr and Peers Associates, Inc.
Matt Haynes, Fehr and Peers,Associates, I,nc.
Introduction
Mr. Michael Bierman, City.Manager,,and Ms. Pamela Tuft', Director of General Plan
Administration for the City of Petaluma, requested Fehr'and Peers (FPA) and HDR to conduct
an initial screening of alternatives for cross town mobility enhancements. Fehr and Peers
developed travel. forecasts to assess travel demand for the alternatives and level of congestion
relief afforded to existing, arterials such as Washington. Boulevard and Lakeville Highway. The
City directed the FPA/HDR team,to assume thar Highway 101 would be raised by Caltrans as
part of a future high occupancy vehicle (HOV) Jane project tolcorrect a deficient sight distance
problem, thereby allowing. an extension of Rainier Avenue to cross beneath the raised freeway.
The City also requested an initial screenin three options for the connection between
Lakeville Highway and Petaluma Boulevard South the Southern Crossing) as an extension of
Caulfield Lane.
This technical memorandum includes a descript on of the alternatives developed through the
initial screening process with the City and the FPA%HDR team, as well as conceptual geometric
drawings and estimated construction costs for the various alternatives. HDR; recently met with
Caltrans project.engineers responsible for the Highway 1`01 corridor and obtained their
opinions on -each of the alternatives. Their opinions are reflected 'inthis memo. This memo
also includes matrices - identifying evaluation criteria typically used for.the screening of
interchange alternatives and a FPA/HDR� preliminary evaluation of each of the alternatives.
The,alternatives +also: include an "interim" improvements project that could be constructed at a
relatively lower cost than full interchange improvements.
City ,of Petaluma
Cross Town Mobility Enhancement alternatives
1
December 18, 2003
lul fp.
Interim Freeway Access Alternative.
This short term alternative would include a frontage road west .of Highway 101 from - Corona
Road to the Factory Outlets and would construct southbound Highway 1,01 on an&offhook
ramps that would intersect the frontage road. The hook -ramp design on the west -side of
Highway 101 would significantly encroach into the planned Phase 2 Factory Outlet
development. On the east side of the freeway a set of hook ramps would be constructed at the
approximate location of the future Rainier Avenue extension and would provideAirect access
for nort hbound Highway 101 traffic and WDowellaAvenue. The estimated construction cost.
for'this alternative is $5.1 million. A conceptual geometric layout is provided on the next page.
The Caltrans -chief of geometric design expressed his opinion that approval of this alternative
would bervery difficult to obtain. Caltrans design policy is structuredlo facilitate the
development of complete interchanges that provide long term solutions. Higher accident, rates,
limited access (nearest over crossin&greater than '% mile away) and driver confusion are all
reasons why Caltrans would be reluctant to approve this type of interchange. if the Citywere
to secure 'funding and initiate the development of'a complete interchange.solution, Caltrans
might consider some interim alternative.
0 1
City of Petaluma, 2
Cross Town Mobility Enhancement Alternatives. December 18; 2003
- -.�
cnva ve�aw� 3
c,w. ta.�um�nv e�narce�, uie,�nire, onemo�, ,e, ime
17M, f
r fi'cniu ,'r)Cs.fr,';
Rainier Avenue Connector. to Petaluma Boulevard North
The Rainier Avenue project has two alignment options and five interchange "configuration and
-control options, making;for 10 possible combinations, plus the interim alignment and no project
scenarios. The south alignment. option (shown on Page 6) is shown connecting to Petaluma
Boulevard just north of Shasta Avenue. The north alignment (shown on'Page 6) connects to
Petaluma Boulevard farther north, near the intersection of Jesse Laneand Petaluma Boulevard
North.
In order to simplify the analysis ,process, but still provide enough.,information for decision=
makers to understand the implications of each potential choice, the Rainier Avenue
structured into two processes. The alignment options are evaluated immediately below,
including the no project scenario and theinterim alignment described on the prior page.
In the subsequent section, the five interchange � configuration and intersection control options
are. evaluated. These are evaluated for a single al gntnent�option, but it is the alignment option
that captured the,_most travel demand (i.e„ was forecast'ao carry the mostAraffic) therefore the
analysis of the various interchange - and, options is a worst -case assessment.
Alternative. Alignments
City staff requested the: FPA/HDR team to evaluate an alternative to "the °adopted precise:,plan
alignment, for Rainier Avenue. Connector as shown on the preliminary. ; geometric layouts on the
next page. The.southern .alignment would tie into Petaluma Boulevard just north of Sycamore
Lane Shasta.Avenue intersection. The advantages to this alignment are;,
1. It could provide a direct access to the Payran- neighborhood.
2. It would provide a greater distance between the railroad grade crossing and the freeway
ramps and minimize a;potential traffic queuing problem .betweenahe.at grade railroad
crossing and the freeway ramps.
3. Because it would intersect Petaluma Boulevard North closer to Washington, Street, it would
atiract.more traffic and - provide greater relief to'Washington Street.
The South alignment construction cost is $4.8 million,as,compared to $5.0 million. for the North
alignment. The next page provides a relative comparison hetween the two alternatives, the
Interim alignment and.themo project condition.
Planned improvements to th ,railroad line could present the greatest challenge to constructing
at -grade crossings on either alignment. An:Army Corps,of Engineers (ACOE) project is
scheduled for the spring of 2004 to construct a siding parallel to the existing track. This siding
would likely be utilized to store: rail cars. Rail car storage may preclude'the ability to provide
an at -grade crossing for the Rainier Avenue South,alignment the South aligninentwas
City,of Petaluma 4
Cross Town Mobility Enhancement Alternatives .December 18, 2003
therefor' , analyied' with ,a grade, separation. In addition, the planned future historic trolley line
paralleling the existing tracks may require that„ the possible North alignment be grade separated.
The California Public Utility Commission (P.U.C.)', the Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Authority,
who now owns'the Northwest Pacific Railroad (NWPRR), and the North Coast Rail Authority,
who operates the freight service, would have to review and approve any crossing at this
location.
Based on the transportation analysis, the North and. South alignments differ from one another in
several ways. The alignment provides easier access to downtown Petaluma, and
correspondingly draws greater levels,of traffic from Petaluma Boulevard North. It also travels
adjacent to an existing`neighborh'ood,; which may pose a new set of concerns about the cross-
town roadway.
RAINIER AVENUE ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX
Rightof�Way Ri gh't of way ,Transportation Potential
*Estimated construction cost does not included costs for land acquisition and relocations.
Based on the results of the matrix above, the South alignment warrants additional investigation
and, may prove inorebeneficial than the adopted plan line. Travel demand`forecasting for the
South alignment; indicated that it`would attract more vehicle trips, so interchange configuration
from uth alignment model runs. This rovides' a worst -case asses volumes derived
and intersection control options evaluated.in the next sect3on based
the South, � p assessment of potential
traffic congestion on. Rainier Avenue.
City of Petaluma 5
Cross Town Mobility. Enhancement Alternatives December 18, 2003
_,
Impacts ;,
Impacts
Utility
Environmental•
Constr uctablility'
Constructio
:_
,
..
Impacts'
t
Cost*
North
1.01 Acres in.
Alignment
6.2 Acres
Flood Plain
Straightforward
Structure over
$5.0 million
(Adopted Plan
-8 Properties
.0.64
-1:08 Acres,
River
Line)
Riparian Impact
- 1.28,Acres:in.`
Moderate
South
-6.4 Acres
0.77
Flood Plain
Structure,over
$4.8 million
Alignment
-4 Properties
-0:34 Acres
Riverand.
Riparian Impact
„ Railroad
Interim
4.0 Acres
No substantial
Alternative
-11 Properties
0.19
flood plain or
Straightforward
$ 5A million
-4 Relocations
riparian impact
No Project
_
0.34
-
-
-
Alternative
Notes: - Transportation utility "is�rated on a scale of zero_(0) to one (1') with zero representing the
least utility and one representing the, most utility. See the Transportation. Appendix Afor details on
he transportation.utility�rating.
- Interim alternative, included for informational . purposes only. It is not intended to serve as a
omparable alternative to the north and'south Rainier alignments.
*Estimated construction cost does not included costs for land acquisition and relocations.
Based on the results of the matrix above, the South alignment warrants additional investigation
and, may prove inorebeneficial than the adopted plan line. Travel demand`forecasting for the
South alignment; indicated that it`would attract more vehicle trips, so interchange configuration
from uth alignment model runs. This rovides' a worst -case asses volumes derived
and intersection control options evaluated.in the next sect3on based
the South, � p assessment of potential
traffic congestion on. Rainier Avenue.
City of Petaluma 5
Cross Town Mobility. Enhancement Alternatives December 18, 2003
A
M CD0WELL--13LV1D,.-.-.-.
4 ,
7
f iL
1 0.
L
Jr
_T
N�l
L J ------
_
7 7
3?
A ......
7
v
41
Y-
v,
P -
A .
y
&
�tj
V
7�
0
0_ A ,
X"
', Z
4
NV\
n\� v"
T
C.
J
RAINIER AVENUE INTERCHANGE
CITY PETALUMA.
DECEMBER,2003
2365 Iron Pbint,Rciad,-Sutes300
Folsom, I som, CA §5630 • RAINIER' I AVEtONNECTOR TO PETALUmA BLVD
(916) 817-4700 NORTH/ SOUTH ALI6N M, ENT'ALTERNATIVES
1 0
•
City oi Petaluma 6
Cross Town Enhancement Alternatives December 18, 2003
1, DR, fp
Rainier Avenue Interchange Alternatives
The consensus between the City staff and HDR/FPA team on reasonable alternatives are the
following:
Alternative 1. Original EIR configuration
Alternative 2. Corona Reach Specific Plan Subcommittee recommended configuration
Alternative 3. A :split diamond configuration:
A) With signalized intersections
B) With roundabout intersections
Alternative 4 A single point urban interchange configuration.
The next page is an evaluation. matrix that provides a relative comparison amongst the
alternatives. The Transportation Operations results are summarized` from Appendix B of
the Transportation Technical Appendix. The subsequent pages contain.illustrations and
greater description of each alternative.
Y
City of Petaluma 7
Cross Town Mobility Enhancement Alternatives December 18, 2003
1FD f �
HIGHWAY 101 INTERCHANGE, ALTERNATIVES'EVALUATION MATRIX
Technic-al ;vemorancduni
f (tuft; afu fw if ajor differences, In impacts among the aiternanves.
** Estimated construction cost does not included costs.for land acquisition and relocations.
City of Petaluma - 8
Cross Town'Mobility Enhancement Alternatives December18, 2003 .
a,
Transportation
. n _:'_
'.
Caltrans.:LeVel of
4.
Estimated:
ve' s
,,. Altecnati�
Descn tton
~, p,
Operations
Potential Env Im acts ,
P _
ROW Im acts
p
Acce t . _...
Constructability
Construction
}
39- 7
' p ance „
v
COS
' r
I
NB int — LOS B
Updated EIR with
Significant on
_.
Original EIR
SB int— LOS' E
Queues barely
Mitigations Likelyc
- visual Enhancements
East Side of Hwy'
101
Moderate
�!
Configuration
High
$7.3 Million
(WO,underpass)
within
-Sound Walls
-13.2 Acres
Challenge
r r = .•mot;,
acceptable
-Tree Replacements
-13 Properties
F
range
- Hydraulic Study
-1 Relocation
' t?:
Updated EIR with
Significant on
9
Corona Reach
NB int.— LOSE
Mitikely:
Mitigations Li
S. P.
SB int — LOS F
- Visual Enhancements
West Side of
Hwy 1.01
High
Moderate
$8.0 Million
Subcommittee
Unacceptable
- Sound Walls
-13.8 Acres
Challenge
Configuration
queue lengths
-Tree Replacements
-1' Properties
- HydraulicStudy
i yf
Split Diamond
NB int — LOS D
Updated EIR with
Mitigations Likely.
g
Significant on
West Side:of
S,
,
with
SB int — LOS E
Unacceptable
- Visual Enhancements
Sound`Walls
Hwy 101
Nigh
Straightforward
$6.7 Million
aw
Slgnalization
queue lengths
-
-Tree Replacements
-12.9 Acres
z5 tai
- Hydraulic Study
-1.3 Properties
r
r , `
Split Diamond
NB int —LOS F
-
Updated EIR with
Mitigations Likely:
g Y
Significant on
East Side of Hwy
Pre- Approved
�
with
SB int —LOS F
Unacceptable
- Visual Enhancements
101
Additional Studies
Moderate
$6.2 Million
Roundabouts
-Sound Walls
-Y2.1 Acres
Required
Challenge
queue lengths
-Tree Replacements
-14 Properties
-Hydra ulic;Study
-5: Relocations
Updated EIR with
Significant on
'
Single Point
LOS C
Mitigations Likely:
East Side of Hwy
n w 41. F
Urban
Acceptable
p
- Visual Enhancements
101
Additional Studies
Considerable
$7;6 Million
Interchange
queue lengths
Sound Walls
- 1'4.3.Acres
Required
Challenge
r,�t" , sa v r
�� t
- Tree Replacements
-17 Properties
y x
- FiydrauticStudy
- 5.Relocations
f (tuft; afu fw if ajor differences, In impacts among the aiternanves.
** Estimated construction cost does not included costs.for land acquisition and relocations.
City of Petaluma - 8
Cross Town'Mobility Enhancement Alternatives December18, 2003 .
Alternative 1 - Original EIR Configuration
This alternative was developed as the 1 preferred, 1994 adopted EIR. The
Rainier Avenue connector follows the City's adopted :pr&Jse plan alignment. The geometrics
layout is shown on the page. The significant difference between this current layout and
the 1994 configuration is that Rainier Avenue is.not elevated"th6reby eliminating major
structures over the NWPRR and the freeway. It also provides access roads onto the adjacent
properties. In 2003 dollars, the, construction cost for the original configuration going
over the freeway is $24 million. The estimated cost for this alternative, where Rainier Avenue
is constructed on grades is $7.3 million. Caltrans Headquarters geometrician
expressed no significant opinion on this. alternative and only stated that this would be 'an
acceptable configuration. The NWPRR "at-grade" crossing poses some potential challenges.
See page 16 for further discussion. From a circulation perspective, this is among only two.
options that are forecast to operate acceptably,, although .the operation of this alternative, is only
marginally acceptable.
City. of Petaluma 9
Cross Town Mobility Enhancement Alternatives December 18, 2003
FDR fp
City ofPetaluma 10
Crass Town MobilitY Enhancement Alternatives December 18, 2003
Alternative 2 - Corona' Reach Specific Plan Subcommittee Recommended
Confituration (1998)
This alternative is also a single loop configuration. The difference between the EIR
configuration and this alternative is the loop that is in the .northwest quadrant for southbound
movements to Highway 101. Access can also be provided to : adjacent properties as: was
identified in the original 1998, recommendation. This, alternative was developed as the
preferred alternative after a detailed analysis, numerous. meetings with City staff and City
Council discussions in 1'996 -1998. The estimated coWfor this alternative is $8.0 million. This
is compared to the (inflated) 2003 cost for the 1998 configuration, which was planned to be
constructed over the freeway for $24.7 million. The Caltrans Headquarters geometricians were
primarily concerned with'the local road access opposite of the Southbound off ramp. This
intersection would require:a design exception that is' only allowed when no other options are
j available or when extreme costs would be required. If the local road access were relocated,
intersection spacing would need to'be considered so that additional, design exceptions would
not be required.., From•a circulation perspective, the southbound ramps intersection would be
expected to fall below acceptable volume to capacity?standards ;under the long -term (20 -year
growth) scenario. Also, the spacing between the northbbund and southbound ramp
intersections is 500 feet, and queue lengths between signals in the PM peak hour are expected
to exceed this storage,distance.
City. of Petaluma
CrossTown'Mobility Enhancement Alternatives
11
December 18, 2003
I ill,
rN t Ff
City of Petaluma
Cross Town Mobility Enhancement Alternatwes
4
A
m N4
SCALE 1"-400'
'N
N
g
tj-
z'
LEGEND:
- Te
\A Riparian Area
...........
A
100 Year Fibod Plain
\ \� \ \1 1 r 1 ,1 1 , " 1 • RAINIER AVENUE N INTERCHANGE OF 'PE TALUmA
"'
DECEMBER, 29, 2003
T
KAR 2365 , 1ron Point Road, Suite 300 ALTERNAT,IVE 2
Fo1§oni,,'CA 95630 CORONA REACH SPECIFIC PLAKCOMMMEE
L (916) 817-4700 RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION (]AN 1998)
12
December 18, 2003
•
0
k "
J i4N L
-q-
A
'N
N
g
tj-
z'
LEGEND:
- Te
\A Riparian Area
...........
A
100 Year Fibod Plain
\ \� \ \1 1 r 1 ,1 1 , " 1 • RAINIER AVENUE N INTERCHANGE OF 'PE TALUmA
"'
DECEMBER, 29, 2003
T
KAR 2365 , 1ron Point Road, Suite 300 ALTERNAT,IVE 2
Fo1§oni,,'CA 95630 CORONA REACH SPECIFIC PLAKCOMMMEE
L (916) 817-4700 RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION (]AN 1998)
12
December 18, 2003
•
0
e C�:I lr� e,IIr r:7r c'.r, °�r�
Alternative 3A, Split Diamond (with Signalized' Intersections)
Configuration
This alternative is the simplest of all,.interchange configurations and provides diagonal on and
off ramps for northbound'and southbound movements. The estimated cost for this alternative is
$6.7 million. Caltrans had':no,significant opinion of this configuration, but did state that the
configuration should be�designed to, ensure that sight distance can be maintained at ramp
intersections. The eliminatiomof loop.ramps creates greater operational concerns for the
intersection and the southbound'ramp intersection wou Id,operatet marginally. The tight
diamond configuration -would, result in less storage length between intersections, and queues
between intersections' would -affect the operations of adjacent intersections. Additional analysis
and design refinement ma acceptable operation of this interchange alternative..
•
•
City. of Petaluma
Cross Town Mobility Enhancement Alternatives
13
December 18, 2003
Technic,f hiemarp-ndbro
11, :6, N,I F
-
L f
'fit
SCALE V-4W
U
N
Y
tli
"J - u
f j
t
4
7=
.... .........
..........
t
W_
W
�7
ji 1
-7
"n
k. f i0i
T
- - mrn. N
r
A �
-' j
�7.
IA, w
V .,
C .
'A1 1—
J.,
"T
v f Y, L
A I-
7
i
A
Y- —
RAINIER AVENUE INTERCHANGE LEGEND:
CITY OF PETALUMA
DECEMBER 29
Riparian Area
2365 Iron Point Road, Suite 300 ALTERNATIVE, 3A
Folsom, CA 95630 SPLIT DIAMOND ,CONFIGURATION 100 Yeas Flood Plain
(916) 8174700 WITH SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
'
City of Petaluma 14
Cross Too m Mobility Enhancement Alternatives December 18, 2003
'r r h t l ii;er;,o,
Alternative 3B - Split Diamond (with Roundabout intersections)
Configuration
This alternative is the same as alternative3A, with the, difference: being instead of
signalized intersections at ,the freeway ramps, roundabouts'`would.,be- constructed. Roundabout
intersections are now'being considered in' the United States as a replacement to signalized
intersections. Roundabouts can provide more efficient flow of traffic in.heavily congested
intersections. Caltraris, has recently adopted standards for roundabout intersections at
interchanges, and they are reflected in the conceptuaf geometries shown on the attached
diagram, The estimated cost °for this alternative is $6.2 million Caltrans chief geometrician
indicated that. conceptual approval from Headquarters Design; and Traffic Divisions would be
required prior,to initiation of a full study. In addition, a more detailed analysis would be
required for this alterhative to ensure conformance with standards. A local road access to the
west.side intersection wouldrnot likely beacceptable',and spacing to the local road would need
to be maintained. From an operational perspective, initial analysis.indicates that roundabouts
would not meet acceptable design standards for volumetQ,capacity in this location. However,
because roundabouts are fairly new in the' United States, research and analysis techniques are
less reliable than for other intersection,control types: While it;- isclear that a roundabout, like
the signalized alternatfue, is likely to be challenged given.thPhigh projected volume for this
facility, more detailed.analysis maybe warranted before this alternative is dismissed for
transportation operations.reason"s.
Cityof,Petaluma - 15
Cross Town Mobility Enhancement Alternatives December 18, 2003
faq f� Technical Memorandtj.fn
City of Petaluma 1
Cross Town Mobility Enhancement Alternatives December 18, 2003
I L, 0- TD
7 . e C 1 ni c ai fV eft7ot ;i du ri)
Alternative '4 - Single Point Urban Imerchange: Configuration
This is a relatively new °configuration adopted by Caltrans'in recent years. The primary
advantage of this type of configuration is reduced right of way by�conf ping the ramp
movements into one single intersection beneath the freeway. The nearest recent example'of
this interchange type is located on Monument Boulevard on Interstate 680 in the City, of
Pleasant Hill.. The °estimated cost for this configuration is $7.6 million. The Caltrans chief
geometrician indicated that special approval and,,additional study work would be needed for
this alternative. .The: Caltrans chief did state that the concept of the <intersection configured .
under Highway 101 was favorable for sight distance standards. From an operational
perspective, this.alternative does two things that the other cannot:. (1)''it`has'only a single
intersection thereby alleviating intersection spacing concerns, and (2) it allows left -turn
movements from the northbound and southbound ramps tomo concurrently. For these -
reasons alternative. operates significantly better than any of the others.
City ofPetaluma 1 7
Cross Town Mobility Enhancement- Alternatives December 18, 2003
rp
City of Petaluma 18
Cross Town Mobility Enhancement Alternatives December 18, 2003
Technical i"i/leIi7Cr%iilC uan
M
Southern Crossing Alternatives
The City staff and FPAMDR three potential alternatives for connection between
Lakeville Highway and Petaluma Boulevard South. The connection would extend Caulfield
Lane making a four way intersection of the Caulfield/Lakeville intersection and proceed
directly across the NWPRR with an at grade crossing. Alternative 1 would provide an
alignment crossing the vacant property south of the City of Petaluma's sewer plant. It,would
incorporate two reverse curves I and proceed over'the.Petaluma River. The intersection would
have to be controlled at Petaluma Boulevard South, `with a _signal , or roundabout. Alternative 2
alignment gn nt would,extend Caulfield Lane across the railroad tracks and then make a 90 degree
tum heading south paralleling•the tracks: and then curve south southward parallel to Highway
101. Alternative 3 issimilar in alignment to Alternative 2 with the exception that the arterial
would cross underneath Highway 10.1 and proceed southbound,on the opposite side of the
freeway from Alternative,2.; .A comparative analysis is shown on the matrix on the next page.
Challenges that will be encountered on these alternatives include the crossing of rail lines and
the Petaluma River.' The alignments also intersect the City's sewer treatment plant. Additional
study of the NWPRR tracks and associated storage' sidings are needed to determine how these
alternatives will cross the tracks. If storage�sidings are actively used and cannot be relocated, a
grade: separation may,berequired. A gradeseparation structure�is physically feasible at this
location but would add.approkimately $500 to the construction cost. Vertical clearances
above the Petaluma River will necessitates moveable structure be provided for the river
crossing. For cost estimating purposes, a: bascule type structure with 65 feet of horizontal
clearance an&a hard driving surface "was assumed. The Coast Guard may require a different
type of structure and costs could vary considerably from those provided in this report. Finally,
impact to the sewer treatment plant will need to be fully evaluated in order to determine which
alignment would be rriost favorable. Timing, ofroadway construction could be scheduled to
coincide with sewer plant relocation to minimize the conflict.
From a transportation utility perspective, ihe,Aliernative 1 (North Alignment) attracts the
greatest number of vehicle trips and provides the greatest level of relief to key roadways such
as Petaluma Boulevard, D Street, Lakeville. Street (north of Highway 10 1) and Highway 101. It
Also introducesthe most additional. traffic on Lakeville Highway south of US 101. This is
critical because this portion'of Lakeville is projected to experience the most growth in travel
demand'ofall major roadways in Petaluma, largel'yas a result of the Southern Crossing.
The transportation operations of the three alternatives; are favorable, with Alternative 1 having
the worst overall" operations, but.still operating acceptably.
•
City of Petaluma 19
Cross Town Mobility Enhancement. Alternatives December 18, 2003
I DR fp
<
k
>
AKOVIL
toffy,
M
7'
V,
Olt
1 \t fupAj6j
�X
7
-0
A v
6
NNV,
AAl
`V�
-
v. v Fit
p
khy AI- ` 41
IS , I' -
0
wp
'V
IOU TQ
E
zg!i - 'E t
A-W
A
x g
v. � = 1 , (+ b< �' ,',L��',.� �. I' _ t I �.. S ; �, f ; y i �� ��. p � ;...?r � , I'm -
& \ t '� \ ��� ti �•�
- PIETALUMA : BLVD 00 - -- -- ---- �!�:
V x
i - ' �i r r s n ` 1 _ G <- �� 1 ,� h " " "•tP ,,,.^' '�.�.;# i' {rte? -"s1�. �1 — L, } ... v.�� t .\
RAINIER AVENUE INTERCHANGE
CITY of PETALUMA
DECEMBER 2003
2365 Iron Point Road, Sjite 300
Folsom, CA 95630 SOUTHERN CROSSING ALTERNATIVES
17Uq (016) 80-4700
•
City ofiPetaluma 20
Cross Town Mobility. Enhancement Alternatives December 18,:2003
h - )R fp JVL 9 n tfi,
SOUTHERN CROSSING ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX
-' ' =
Transportation „
p b��d, ,,`K�,{
" Estimated
Concept
: Utilrty�tand
Potential Environmental lmpacfs�
Right of Way l.mpacts
Constructabi,lity „
-
'Co
Operations
�',
y _
Construction
y
-Fewer freeway R/W impacts
utility .= 0.62;
Open.space /biology impacts.
- Possible land use /severance conflicts
Lakeville — LOS E
- Permitting needed from Corps of
Alt Y
Petaluma —LOS C
Engineers, CA Fish & Game, Water Board,
,6.7 Acres
Straightforward
$23.3 million
(signal.and roundabout)
US Fish and'Wildli_fe and Coast Guard: All
-4 Prope
alternatives.
Acceptable queuing
- May impact Caltrans maintenance yard.
conditions
Focused EIR likely'CEQA action.
Utility = 0.56
Fewer open space /biology impacts.
Lakeville - LOSE
Fewer aesthetic and. land use impacts:
Alt 2
Petaluma - LOS. D
Possible RNV conflicts Caltrans.
,6.1 Acres
Straightforward
$23.1 million
(Roundabout: Los B)
Focused EIR likely CEQA action.
-4 Properties
Acceptable queuing
conditions
Utility = 0.49
-Fewer open; space impacts.
Potentially more wetland impacts
- Considerable
Lakeville — LOS D
New aesthetic impacts on Petaluma Marina
Challenge between
Alt 3
Petaluma — LOS D
- Rail road encroachments;and :coordination.
=5:4 Acres
Highway 101,. & Railroad.
$24.2 million
(Roundabout: LOS A)
More Coast -Guard coordination with
-6 Properties
Structure at Highway
existing bridge.
101 required.
Acceptable queuing
Focused EIR likely CEQA action.
conditions
Note: Transportation utility is -rated on a scale of zero (0) to one (1) with zero representing the least utility and one representing the most utility. See
he Transportation Technical, Appendix A for details on the transportation utility rating. See Transportation Technical Appendix B for details on
operations analysis.
"Estimated construction cost does not included costs for land acquisition and relocations.
City of Petaluma 2
Cross Town Mobility Enhancement Alternatives December 18, 2003
a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CrossJowh Connector Evaluation
Transportationjechnical Appenclik
December 18, 2003
APPENDIX I A -TRANSPORTATION UTILITY ANALYSIS ..................................................... -
..........
APPIENDIKB -TRANSPORTATION 0 . PERATION&ANALYSIS ..............................................
APPENDIX C -LEVEL OF SERVICE PRINTOUTS ............................................... ;.; ............. 13
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Page'i
E
fp Cross -Town Connector Evaluation
Transportation Technical Appendix
December 18, 2003
APPENDIX A
TRANSPORTATION UTILITY ANALYSIS
Utility is a term intended to describe the benefits or disbenefits of a transportation option. Utility is
measured through a combination of factors consisting of average trip length, travel demand on the
potential new roadway (Rainier and/or Southern Crossing), congestion relief afforded to other cross-
town connectors, and congestion introduced to feeders to the potential new cross -town connectors.
All of these factors are combined to,form.an overall utility assessment. Utility is intended to measure
only changes to the circulation system, so all travel forecasting has been conducted using the same
land use assumptions - Alternative B of the General Plan Alternatives Analysis. This land use
scenario was selected because it has the highest residential unit count and total vehicle taps roughly
comparable to Alternative A.
Indexing
One method of combining' measures 'that are taken through dissimilar processes is to index the
results to a common scale. This analysis is prepared using 'indices,, with each measure of
effectiveness rated on a scale from zero '(0) to one (1::00): the alternative that performs worst on a
particular measure of effectiveness receives a zero; and the alternative that performs the best
receives a one. The other alternatives are indexed on a constant scale between zero and one.
Measures of Effectiveness .
Selecting appropriate measures of effectiveness is ; likelythe most critical step in preparing an
evaluation of alternatives. The analysis of utilitycombines four key measures of effectiveness that
cover a wide range of potential project benefits as well .as disbenefits. Each of the measures of
effectiveness, the way in which it is measured, and -the importance "the measure are described in
Table A -1
Rainier Results
Table A-2 summarizes the results of the , utility analysis for the Rainier Alignment options. Note that
this analysis does not consider interchange configuration options, only roadway alignment options.
Interchange options are evaluated'via a separate set of measures that are described in Appendix B.
The southern alignment option, which includes multiple connections to Petaluma, Boulevard including
one that would align with Shasta. Avenue, has the, highest,averag&,score of °all alignment option's. It
would have the h'i'ghest travel demand; if scores best on route,directness, likely because its
intersection with,Petaluma.; Boulevard is closest to Washington Street, the street with the highest
cross -town demand. in Petaluma; and it scores highest on relief to congested routes for the same
reason. As `a consequence;of its attractiveness of "vehicles, it would,introducesignificant new
congestion on adjacent segment of Petaluma Boulevard and McDowell Avenue.
The northern - alignment option scores relatively but Wouldinotifacilitate cross -town travel as
effectively as4hesouthern alignment options, The potential interim connection, which would not
cross US 101 or connect to Petaluma Boulevard, scores worse than the no project alternative
Fcilr:.
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Page 1
Cross -Town Connector Evaluation
Transportation Technical Appendix
December 18', 2003
because it would increase average trip lengths and add congestion on feeder routes, have fairly low
travel demand, and offer less relief to othertfoss =town roadways.
P I.LIS
TRANSPORTATION CONS'U.LTAN -TS Page ..2,
•
3 {N
r.
Cross -Town Connector Evaluation
Transportation Technical Appendix
December 18, 2003
Table A -1
Measure of Utility
'Explanation of'Measures'of Effectiveness.
Measurement Pr
Route directness is measured by the
average vehicl'e'tr p length, which. is.a
function of total'vehicle miles d4ravel
and the =number of.ve inbe.
model Although this measure captures
all tdps Petaluma'(not just those, using
potential n l new cross -town connectors) it
addressesFoverall route directness.
Those' cross-towmconnector alternatives
that would facilitate %travel on the most
direct path of "travel (i.e., with the least,
route diversion)�will have lower average
Daily Travel Daily'travel: demand measures °the amount
Demand of dernand.foe a cross - town connector
option. tt isNa.,predidion.of the number of
dailyvehicle trips that wouldlibe facilitated
by the connector.
Relief Afforded to
Relief iv as.th6amount:of daily
Cross -Town
travel demand on other cross -town
Congested
connectors. Alternatives that score well'
Roadways
on this assessment are those that lower
the ,travel demand .on adjacent cro §s -town
connector roadways: Forthe Rainier
evaluations, these are',VNashington- Street„
'Corona "'Road, and Redwood Highway. '.It
in important to note that only cross- town,
connectors vrith volume- to-capacity ratios
of 1.0 or greater were considered "i'n "this
Route directness is important
because it.m easures whether the
cross -town connector and /or
specific alignment:of a cross -town
connectorfacilitates: °travel where
travel demand is most needed.
Daily travel demand is important
because it measures whether there.
is sufficient demand to justif y
construction of a potential new
connector. Unlike route directness,
it does not distinguish whether the
routeAaken is convenient, only
whether vehicles use the
The assumption,and.oftentimes
justification:for constructing a. new
roadway is. that 'it will "relieve
congestion on other routes where
capacity enhancements are either
infeasible or undesirable. The tool
measures whether`relief'is afforded
by thezross -town connector
alternative.
Congestion Congestion introduced on'feeder routes is A negative impact of new;.roadwa
Introduced�om. 'measured through daily travel demand on can,be; increased .congestion on
Feeders congested routes feeding the new,. roadways that feed the new,road.
connector roadways., Congested routes This measurement assesses the
are.considered those with volume=to- relative traffic addition on
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Page 3
Table A -2
Measure of Utility
Rainier Alternatives Comparison
Measure North, Alignment South Alignment No Project: Interim
Indicator #1 - Route'Directness Measured'by,
Average. Trip - Length
.41;907
Vehicle Miles of Travel in Model
2,189,433
2,181;463
2;,197;937
2;208,857
Vehicle Trips iri Model
636,921
636,921_,
636,92:1 -
636,921
Average TripiLe th miles)
3.44.
3.43 ._
3:45
3.47
Indexed Average Trip Length
0.71
1:00'
0.40
0:00
Indicator'#2 - Dail ' Travel Demand:on Rainier vehiclelri s
Rainier (North:of US 101;);
.41;907
42,768,
- 0
19,439
Rainier(South of US 101) -
35
47,389
0
0
Indexed Travetbemand on Rainier
0.86. ,
1 1.00
0.00
1 0.22
indicator #3 = Relief Afforded to Cross- TowntCbn ested Road wa s,
Washington North of. US 101:
52,093
'50,425
66,000
57,330
Washi, ton' Southof'US 10,1
52,181
47,858
61,385
58,503
Indezed7o Lowest Value
0.79
'1.00
0.00.
F 0.40
133;634
Corona°' North of US`101
17,549
17,015
1 22
22,495:
Corona'; South of US 101-
20;364
19;676. . ,
24
22,590
Indexed7o`Lowest Value_
0.88
100
0:00
0.19
1 28,013
Redwood'H North of US 101)
52,823. _
52;774 1
59,251`
56,348
Redwood�H South of US 101 )
`45,068
43;275
51673
52,469
Indexed To Lowest' Value.
0.89
1.00
0.00
0:24
Avera a Indexed Cross= Town'Con estion`Relief 1 0.85 1.00 0.00 030
Indicator #4 - Congestion Introducted on, Rainer Feeders
Petaluma Blvd, South ofRaiNer
42,878'
52,983
40,191
37;381
Indexed'to Lowest Value
0.65
0:00
0:82
1.00
Highway 101 North of Rainier -
134,006
135,105
129,459'_
133;634
Highway 101(Southpf'RaiNer).
137,103
1,35,431
129;459
138
Indexed',to Value
'0:05
0.09
1:00
0.00
McDowell Avenue (North of Rainier )
31 „713
32;732
26
1 28,013
McDowell Avenue South.of Rainier
27,969
28,849,
21,377
'23,075
Indexed to Lowest Value
0.16
0.00
1.00
090
[ Ave rage Indexed Congestion Introduced 0.14 0.07' 0.98 1 0:23
Average of All Indicators 0.64 0.77 0.34 0.19
Note: The North and South Alignment' volumes: are based on Alternative 1 ' (Diamond Interchange at Rainier).
•
•
•
fp Cross -Town Connector Evaluation
Transportation Technical Appendix
December 18, 2003
Southern Crossing Results
Table A -3 presents the results,of utility;analysis,forthe Southern Crossing. The. southern
crossing alignment,.had onlyslight•Vanations' in average trip lengths, so this measure of effectiveness
did not - provide a good comparison _and„ was°not used. The a►ternatives provided little,travel benefit to
other cross-town, roadways such as D Street or Washington Street, with the bulk of the benefit
coming on U& 101,'Petaluma Boulevard and Lakeville Road north of US• 101,. The roadway link
experiencing the most disbenefit-from "the Southern Crossing is Lakeville Road south of US 101.
Alternative 1, which would have an intersection with Petaluma Boulevard furthest north, has the
y roadwa as;the lowest score for con estionand:and congestion !relief afforded
to g g ators. It has;the hi hest'score for'dem introduced on akeville Highway
highest avers a all Indic
south of 101. b Altea tv
es, 3, which have intersections progressively furthersouth on
Petaluma Boulevard, score,corTiparatively worse, but the increment of difference between the
alternatives is slight. , This:. coul&be,interpretedto mean that each of'the�options
considerable benefit and that the increriment:of difference like[ ymeans utility should not be a
major determinant in determining the best alignment.
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Page 5
Table A -3
Measure of Utility
Southern Crossing Alternatives Comparison
Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No, Project
Indicator #1 - Daily Travel Demand on the Southem' Crossin vehicle trips
Southern Crossing
Indexed Travel;0emand on the Southern,Crossin
17,831
1.00
14,939'
0.84 4
12,046°
0.68
0
0.00
Indicator #2 - 'Relief Afforded to.Ad'acent'Con
Petaluma Boulevard East of Crossin" 24,844
Petaluma Boulevard West of Crossing) 35,360
Indexed To Lowest Value 048 -
"ested-Roadii4 s
25,259
33,561
0.:74
25,673
31,761
1.00
:32,616
30,174:
'0:00
38,539
10.01 .
37,994_ .
0.03
35;207
0.10;
Hi hwa " 1.01 Northbound (South of Lakeville )
'hwa
59,381
59,632-
0.00
59,882
'63,180
Hi '1.01 Southbound South 61 Lakeville
Indexed To Lowest Value _
57,451
1.00
57,819
0.92
58,186
0:84 -
6.1')
0.00
Lakeville Hi hwa , (North'of'US. 101 )
52,720
53
53,411
53,775
1.00
0.67'
0.35
0.00
Average Indexed Cross -Town Congestion Relief
0:86
0:82'
0:77
0.00
Indicator #C- Congestion Introducted on. Sou_
thern Cross Feeders
Lakeville Highway South of US 101'
Indexed 'to Lowest Value
39;0.83
0.00
38,539
10.01 .
37,994_ .
0.03
35;207
0.10;
Avera a lridezed.Congestion Introduced
0.00
0.01
0:03
0:10
Average of AI Indicators.
0.62 0.56
0.4§. 0.03.
fp Cross -Town Connector Evaluation
Transportation Technical Appendix
December 18, 2003
APPENDIX;B
TRANSPORTATION'O'PERATIONS ANACY- SIS
Transportation operations are.intended :to measure the "functional quality of. the potential cross -town
roadways. For the' Ralnler Avenuealtematives, there are multiple alignment:options for connecting to
Petaluma Boulevard° North, and multiple'interchange configuration and"intersection control options.
To simplifythe analysis, alignment options'were- evaluated based on utility. As noted in Appendix A,
the Southern Alignment would hays; the greatest utiliy trav :demand for`Rainier'Avenue. For
the operations analysis thatjs documented: in this appendix, Southern Alignment'volumes are used
for each of the iriterchange,contiguration and "control options. As such, th& operations analyses are
based on the highest possible.volume, projections, and are conservative.
Fehr & Peers wasscoped to review g "eometric assumptions.used in prior transportationanalyses
prepared for the ,Rainier Avenue and Southern Crossing projects and Wconfirm and /or adjust these
assumptions for the purposespf 'this preliminary aitemetives analysis. How!ever,'in,the process of
conducting new travel demand forecasting for the various Rainier AvenueAnd Southern Crossing
alignment options, fairly considerable differences.from prior analyses were,noted. These are likely
the result of significantly revised cumulative land . .use assumptions and the improved travel demand
forecasting capabilities of the'City's'hew T_ransCAD traffic model'. As a resultof these differences,
Fehr & Peers prepared newintersection operations analyses'for key intersections for the cumulative
AM and PM peak hour conditions.
Study Intersections
Transportation operations analysis focuses on, a_ few key intersections for each cross -town connector
option. These are:
Rainier Avenue,
Rainier Avenue Interchange intersection(s)
Southern Crossing
Southern' Crossing @ Lakeville Highway
Southern Crossing Petaluma Boulevard South
The intersections, of Rainier Avenue@ .Petaluma.:Boulevard North and Rainier Avenue @ McDowell
Avenu a re also criti o cft cal al; but;operations.of these intersections will .be similar across alternatives since
-
all alter natives t he Southern Alignment. connection:4o. Petaluma Boulevard North and all
alignment options assume a fourth leg to, the Rainier Avenue @ McDowell Avenue.intersection. In
addition,, the. interchange' intersections'have major queuing concerns stemming from closely= spaced
intersections.
Forecasts were conducted using General' Plan Alterative a land use Inputs.
Fl�r:�
TRANSPORTATION CON'SULTAN'TS
Page 7
9
IWeasures of Effectiveness
Cross -Town Connector
The operations assessment is a tiered iassessment, of overall ;transportation conditions. The output.of
this assessment process is a conclusion;on whetherthe optionoperates "acceptably; ''marginally;" or
"unacceptably." Acceptable operations are considered t6be;any level of operations where
maintalna tlevel:of senricec LOS a C" o maons�statnd m�portent :that though the City
) ' pe (i City's objective that all
mtersections LOS C :or better conditions), this,analysis permits LOS D.and /or E.conditions
within'the "acceptable "range. "Marginal^' conditions are those where traffic floWis accommodated.
duri.ng.average conditions, but where fluctuations in traffic demand may result in short,periods of
over- ca,pacityconditions. "Unacceptable" conditions are those, where traffic demand exceeds
capacity at,an isolated intersection and /or.queues from one intersection are anticipated to reach an
adjacent.intersection resulting in a system wide failure:
The tiered assessment,of traffic operations conducted according to thefollowing steps:
i /C 'ratio' and intersection
a a delay. PotY study' intersections were assessed' for volume -to- capacity
1,. .Isolated intersection anal sis — Ke
,(V ) g _'ential results are:
a. Acceptable - If V/C ratios (average for approaches) less than 0,95 (the
intersection has sufficient capaCityto Carry hou rly demand and - average dela are
consistent with E or better conditions
b: :Marginal — If average delays are consistent with LOS E or better conditions and the
average V/C ratio is less than 1;.20
c: Unacceptable— If V/C ratios are greater 1.20 and /or average delays;are
consistent'with LOS F conditions
2. Queue lengths = Options that score "acceptable" or "marginal" in the first tier assessment
proceed to aaecond "tier analysis of queue lengths: Queue lengths are important because
they indicate ;A6theradjacent intersections will disrupt each other's operations_ by virtue of
queuing.from;one affecting other. This 'is'a fairly simple analysis.and could'be taken
many steps further to determine how. signalization could maximize traffic flow through ;a
series of�intersections but queuing analysis is essentially a fatal flaw's °level analysis ..
Queuing results;reportaverage queue lengths, the distance backfrom the intersection stop
bar (in feet) tfiat will reach during roughly'half of the signal.cycles and 95 percentile
queues, the distance that will be',exceeded'by only five percent of the signal cycle's.
tntersections,are normally designed for the 96 percentile queue, but average,queue is a
critica(measure because it describes conditions'that occur on -a regularbasis. Potential
results from this analysis are:
a. Acceptable — 05` percentile queues do not reach adjacent intersections
b . Marginal — Average queue lengths do no reach adjacent intersections, but 95`
percentile queues; do.
c. Unacceptable —Average queues reach adjacent intersection
F ilric: & I'
'TRA'NSP,OR'TATI0'N CONSULTANTS
Page 8
•
Rainier Results
Cross-town Connector Evaluation
Transportation Technical Appendix
December 18, 2003
In conducting the Rainier, Avenue interchange operations assessment, Fehr & Peers made
assumptions about the geometric eonfig.uration!of intersections: 'These assumptions are documented
below.
Rainier Avenue' would provide fourthrough lanes:(two in each direction)..
Atsi nalized intersections,
g dual left -tum lanes are provided`wherever peak hour left-turn
volumes exceed 250 vehicles,
At ramp intersections, free right- tum (i.e., right -turns that are not controlled by the
signal: have dedicated turn lanes on the ,approach and dedicated'lanes:on,the departure
followed by a.merge) are assumed wherever right -turn volumes exceed' 500vehides per
hour.
Tier 1 results are shown:in Table B =1. Appendix C contains the -level of service printouts.
Table B =1
Measure of Operations — Tier 1
Rainier Avenue Results .
Alternative
Northbound Ramps
Southbound Ram
V/C
LOS. (Delay)
V/C
I Los (Dela
1 — Rainier 'EIR'.
0;89'
B 17.0
1.15
E 79.3
2 — Corona Reach SP Subcommittee
1.09
E,; 01.2
1.26
F 105.6
3a - Split Diamond with Signals.
1.00
D 41.8
1.12
E 63.7
3b —S lit Diamond with_Roundabouts
>1.05
F 133
>1:05
F .157
4 — Sin Ie Point Urban .I rTtecchan a 1
0.81
C' 30.4
Note: The Single point urban interchange has only one intersection that controls flows for the
northbound and southbound traffic to and from US 1.01.
Three alternatives survive the Tier.1 operations assessment; Alternative 1, (Rainier EIR); Alternative
Point Urban nte�rch ith Signals) and %Altemative 4 (Sing le Point lJrban Interchange). Only the Single
( S p lit
Intercha optiomperforms :acceptably with "the,oth_er two performing marginally well.
Tier 2 analysis of these alternatives. is.shown in Table 6-2.
T acce able ow Alternative 4 (Single Point Urban Interchange) is the only alternative with
pt o pe rat ions ons ooking at isolated intersections and acceptable queuing conditions
between intersections. Alternative 1 (Rainier Avenue, EIR) °marginally survives the isolated
intersection analysis tier and 'has queue lengths between intersections that:are acceptable, but close
to the upper end of the acceptable range.
TRANSPORJAT CONSULTANTS
Page 9
8
Cross -Town Connector Evaluation
Transportation Technical Appendix
December 18; 2003
Southern Crossing Results
Theintersection of the.Southem Crossing. @' Caulfield Lane @: Lakeville•Highway is likely to,be
significantly challenged in the future: There.is very heavy travel`demand east- west,on Lakeville
Highway,: making accommodation- of"increased north -south traffic "from the.SoutIhem Crossing difficult:
In order toyield intersection.levels of service within the acceptable range, a series of assumptions
about intersection.9pometrics were made. These are summarized below:
• Northbound and le und, I approach of Southern Crossing to;Lakeville Highway will provide dedicated right- -
anes, and a sin le h,lane.
• Eastbound approach of Lakeville; Highway to Caulfield Lane will provide dedicated right- and
left -'turn lanes:and two through lanes,.
• Southbound Caulfield Lane to Lakeville Highway will provide' dual right - and left -turn lanes
and a single through lane:
• Westbound Lakeville: Highway to Caulfield Lane Will prove dual right -turn lanes, a dedicated
left -turn lane, and two through lanes.
Some of these assumptions, particularly the dual right -turn, lanes • should be considered in the�broader
context of the area. If the arealis.expected to be a pedestrian;node, the +dual right -tums and general
width of this. intersection will make :' icult and unattractive for pedestrians.
Some faidy'aggressive.assumptions were made about intersection geometries at the Southern
Crossing @.Ntaluma.Boulevard intersection as well. These are:
fsl °i:I `. Pi:isi:
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Pager 10
Table B=2
Measure of 0 erations — Tier 2
Rainier Avenue Results
Alternative
Tier 1 Result
Distance. between
Average
95 ,Percentile
Intersections
Queue Le_ n th
Queue
1 — Rainier Avenue
Marginal
600
500
600
EIR
2 Reach SP
Unacceptable
500
550.
650
Subcommittee
3a _ ' plit'Diamond with
Marginal
450
550
650'
Signals
3b — Split Diamond with
Unacceptable
450
WA
1050
Roundabouts
4 — SinglePoint Urban
Acceptable
N/A
200
300'
Interchange
Notes:
(1,) Theaverage and 95 "' percentile queue lengths are provided for the intersection with the
longest queue.
(2) Average queue length is not available as.an output for the roundabout analysis.
(3) Since the single pant urban interchange controls both ramps at a single intersection, queuing
between'si pals is not a concern. -`
Southern Crossing Results
Theintersection of the.Southem Crossing. @' Caulfield Lane @: Lakeville•Highway is likely to,be
significantly challenged in the future: There.is very heavy travel`demand east- west,on Lakeville
Highway,: making accommodation- of"increased north -south traffic "from the.SoutIhem Crossing difficult:
In order toyield intersection.levels of service within the acceptable range, a series of assumptions
about intersection.9pometrics were made. These are summarized below:
• Northbound and le und, I approach of Southern Crossing to;Lakeville Highway will provide dedicated right- -
anes, and a sin le h,lane.
• Eastbound approach of Lakeville; Highway to Caulfield Lane will provide dedicated right- and
left -'turn lanes:and two through lanes,.
• Southbound Caulfield Lane to Lakeville Highway will provide' dual right - and left -turn lanes
and a single through lane:
• Westbound Lakeville: Highway to Caulfield Lane Will prove dual right -turn lanes, a dedicated
left -turn lane, and two through lanes.
Some of these assumptions, particularly the dual right -turn, lanes • should be considered in the�broader
context of the area. If the arealis.expected to be a pedestrian;node, the +dual right -tums and general
width of this. intersection will make :' icult and unattractive for pedestrians.
Some faidy'aggressive.assumptions were made about intersection geometries at the Southern
Crossing @.Ntaluma.Boulevard intersection as well. These are:
fsl °i:I `. Pi:isi:
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Pager 10
Cross -:Town Connector Evaluation
Transportation Technical Appendix
December 18, 2003
Eastbound Petaluma Boulev
'and to SouthermCrossing will provide dual left -turn lanes and two
through lanes.
Southbound Southern Crossing to Petaluma Boulevard will provide dual right -turn lanes and
a: single left -turn lane. In the event „thatthe Southern Crossing is,aligned With one of the
existing streets.on the south side of Petaluma Boulevard, the. left -turn lane would become a
shared, left/through r lane.
Westbound Petaluma Boulevard to the Southern Crossing will provide a dedicated right -turn
lane and two through lanes.
Table B-3 presents the results of the level of service analysis. Level of service analyses indicate that
the Lakeville Highway intersection will operate acceptably for all three alternatives.
Table B=3
Measure of Operations — Tier 1
Southern Crossing Results
Alternative
Lakeville. Highway
Petaluma Boulevard
V/C
LOS'(Dela
V/C
Los Dela
1 — ; :Nortliem Ali nm' ent
1.01 '
. E_ 66.4 ,
0.85
G (2Q 3
2 — Middle Ali nment
0.99
E (60.2),'
0.88
D 35.9
3 —Southern Ali nment
0.97
D (54.Oy
0.91
D (51.5
Tier 2 analysis of the Southern Crossing; alignments:foouses ,on the intersection of the Southern
Crossing @ Lakeville Highway @Caulfield Lane. As demonstrated in the`Tier 1 analysis, this
intersection is challenged. In addition, the major queuing constraint for the Southern Crossing is the
distance between Lakeville, Highway and the Northwest Pacific Railroad tracks, located about 525
feet south of a Lakeville. Ter-2 queuing analysis focuses on this critical roadway segment
and shows that whileAlternative 1 (Northern Alignment), which experiences the greatest travel
demand, has the longest expected queue, all alternatives operate acceptably from a queuing
perspective.
F & I'l:�_:is
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Page 11
f mp Cross - Town =Connector Evaluation
Transportation Technical Appendix
December'1'8 2003
EtIIti & PI II: ti
TRANSPOR` XTION CONSULTANTS
Page 12
Table B-4
Measure of Operations — Tier 2
Southern Crossin ,Results
Alternative
Tier 1 Result
Distance between
Average Queue
95 Percentile
Intersections
Len h
Queue.
1 — Northern
Acceptable
525
300
500
Alignment:
2 — Middle
Acceptable
- 525
250
400
Alignment
3 — .,Southern
Acceptable
525
200
30.0
Alignment
Notes:
(1) The,average and 95` percentile;queue;lengths
are provided for the northbound approach of
the Southern Crossin 'to Lakeville Highway.
EtIIti & PI II: ti
TRANSPOR` XTION CONSULTANTS
Page 12
!.
FrAriR & PEERs
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Appendix C
Level of Service Printouts
Cross -Town Connector Evaluation
Transportation Technical Appendix
December 18, 2003
Page 13