HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 7.A-Attch1 06/07/2004EXHUBIT
0 0
Cross Town Mobilit
y
Enha,n`�t"ement —Corona
� Ro,ad,,Intercha,,n,.9e
Alternatives Analysis
ILI
C
Technical Pkn7orandurn
TOWN'CROSS MOBILITYEKHANCNENT-
CORONA D INTERCHANGE
ALTERN-ATIVES ANALYSIS
Prepared for;
Susan Lackie, City of Petaluma
May 24, 2004
Prepared By:
Patrick J. Flynn, PE, HDR` Engineering, Inc.
James Labanowski, PE, HDR Engineering, Inc.
Matthew, Ri dgway', AI'CP., Fehr -Et Peers Associates, Inc
Matt Haynes, PE, Fehr tt. Peers Associates, Inc.
Introduction
At the request of Mr. Michael Bierman, City Manager, and Ms. Susan Lackie, Project Manager
for the City of Petaluma, Fehr & Peers (FPA) and HDR conducted a comparison of several
alternatives for cross town mobility enhancements, focusing on potential changes to Corona
Road. Fehr & Peers developed travel forecasts to assess travel demand for the alternatives and
level of congestion relief afforded to existing arterials such as Washington Street and Old
Redwood Highway.
This technical memorandum includes a description 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. This memo includes a
matrix~°identifying evaluation criteria used for the screening of interchange alternatives and a
preliminary: evaluation of each of the alternatives. This memol also outlines possible issues
Caltrans project,engineers may raise with .regards to these alternatives.
City of Petaluma
Corona Interchange Alternatives
May 24, 2004
F
Technical Memorandum
•
Corona- Road Interchange Alternatives
To simplify the analysis process and provide useful information for decision -makers to
understand the implications of each scenario, the analysis is structured, into two processes. The
interchange configuration options are evaluated immediately below, including the no project
scenario. In the subsequent section, -the interchange configuration and intersection control
options are evaluated according to their,transportation.operations.
Base Year:( on dition's and Additional Land Use Changes
The transportation analysis was conducted using Base Year existing conditions from the City's
transportation model. City staff requested the following projects be, included with the
transportation analysis of each scenario.
Project 1. Petaluma Village Marketplace OutletMall Expansion
Project 2. Petaluma Valley Plaza
Project3. Oak Creek Apartments
Traffic from these projects was added to Base Year conditions using the City's TransCAD
travel demand forecasting model. This model was developed for the General Plan effort and
underwent a rigorous validation process.
Interchange Alternatives
The consensus between the City staff and'HDR/FPA team on reasonable alternatives are the
following:
Scenario 1. Rainier Alternative
Scenario 2. New Corona Alternative
Scenario 3. Original Corona EIR.confguration
Scenario 4. No Project Alternative
These scenarios are described in detail beginning on Page 4.
The table on Page 3 provides a relative comparison -of the alternatives: Build alternatives at
Corona Road and Rainier Avenue would require a California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) Exception to the Mandatory Design Standard for interchange spacing. An
interchange at Corona Road would be less than the required one mile distance .from the
interchange at' Old Redwood Highway, and. an interchange at Rainier Avenue, would, be less
than one mile from the existing Washington Street interchange. This Design Exception would
need to be obtained prior to initiation of 'a Project Study Report.
.City of Petaluma 2
Corona Interchange Alternatives May°24,,2004
[-I
11
Technical Memorandum
Build alternatives at Corona Road. will °`likely require ,replaeing the existing structure at a
considerable construction expense. Auxiliary lanes will be necessary between this interchange
and the one at Old Redwood Highway due to the close spacing. Significant right-of-way
impact should also be expected for any build alternative because of the development that has
occurred in proximity to the Corona Road overcrossing.
City of Petaluma
Corona Interchange Alternatives
3
May 24, 2004
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX
y�
. ^fit... •:a"i at g d�' _
= `tom. `. .Trans ortaiio'
;� alternat e':-,•=aE 13e�ys.crt tion=-yUtil�t Enuirof�n
Scenario 1
New. EIR with
Mitigations:
- - _
Rainier
Visual Enhancements
—�
).
(Alternative 1.,
0.76
Soundwalls
'`#==
South
Tree Replacement
Alignment)
Hydraulic,Study.
Socio-economic
Historical
Technical Memorandum
F�
Calfrans•
r
=::Level'ofs'<4- 'Constrtictab,ility •Coiistluotio.ri7
.ii J
Acce•-"tan .�� >.}-.. _.
_ ;.t.�.n -�_ -
p
ce Cost::-�:.
Significant on'East
Moderate:.
side of Hwy 101
Challerige to
$12.1 Million
13 properties, 1
(• P P
relocation); also 1.28
gef•approval of
($7:3 Million
Moderate underpass, plus
acres in.floodplain,
interchange
spacing design
Challenge $4.8'Million river
0.34 acres.inriparian
exception
crossing)
zones
Scenario 2 New EIR with
Mitigations: Significant;in.NW, Moderate, -
New Visual Enhancements SW, and -SE Challengeto
Configuration Soundwalls Quadrants: get,approval of Moderate
0.42 $13.1 Million
(L-8 Tree Replacement -8.5 Acres interchange Challenge
Interchange) Hydraulic Study -5 Properties spacing design
Socio-economic -3 Relocations exception
Historical
Scenario 3' New EIR with
u Mitigations: Significant in NW, Not Likely
�_'". Gm• Visual'Enhancements Wand SE Approvatile:
Original, EIR Soundwalls Quadrants: Numerous Moderate
0.42 $11.7 Million
.--.
Configuration Tree Replacement -7.3 Acres design Challenge
Hydraulic. Study -6 Properties exceptions
Socio-economic -3 Relocations required
' Historical
Scenari0 4
No Build 0.21 None No
ne- N/A N/A. $0
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. Seethe
Transportation AppendixAfor details on the transportation utility rating.
*Estimated construction cost.does not include costs for land acquisition and relocations.
City nof a Petaluma
Corona Interchange. Alternatives • May
Technical Memorandum
Scenario 1= Rainier Alternative
This alternative was developed as the preferred alternative for Rainier in the 1994 adopted EIR
and refined in the :Cross Town. Mobility Enhancement Alternatives report prepared in December
2003. The Rainier ,Avenue connector follows the -City's adopted precise plan alignment. The
geometrics layout is shown on Exhibit 1. The significant difference between this current layout
and the 1994.configuration is that Rainier Avenue is not elevated thereby eliminating a major
structure -over the freeway. In 2003 dollars, the estimated construction cost for the original
configuration going over the freeway was $24 million. The estimated cost for the alternative
where Rainier Avenue is constructed on existing grades is $7.3 million. An elevated structure
over the Petaluma River and the railroad tracks is also assumed; at a cost of $4.8 million.
The Rainier ' Southern Alignment" connection, to Petaluma Boulevard was used for the
transportation analysis. This alignment has a higher transportation utility and was forecast to
attract more vehicle trips than a north alignment in the Cross Town Mobility Enhancement
Alternatives report.
From a transportation utility perspective, the,'Rainier interchange scenario performs better than
both Corona interchange alternatives and, the No'Project alternative. This means that of the
studied scenarios, a connector ' at ,Rainier would best facilitate cross-town travel and provide
relief to currently congested cross• town roadways. It does, however, also introduce more
additional traffic on feeder, routes to cross' town'roadways. On a scale of zero to one, the
overall transportation utility of the Rainier scenario is 0.76.
City of Petaluma 5
Corona Interchange Alternatives May 24, 2004
Technical i ernorandurn
.7
Scenario 2 = New'Cor„ona Road: interchange, Configuration
This two-quadrantcloverleaf alternative, is the most likely design to fit the existing conditions
at the Corona Road overcrossing. Right -of- vay. impacts to an adjacent mobile home park and
car dealership would .make any four -quadrant alternative difficult and costly. The geometric
layout, is shown on Exhibit 2. Although this alternative can be designed to meet Caltrans
standards, significant- right-of-way impacts will remain. Sizeable retaining walls would be
required to limit the impact to the dealership located in the northwest quadrant. In addition,
existing access roads to several properties adjacent to the interchange would need to be
relocated
To accommodate expected traffic projections, the structure for this alternative would need to be
one lane wider than the configuration proposed in the .1994 EIR. The intersection of Industrial
Avenue with Corona Road, would also need to be relocated to the' west in order to comply with
Caltrans intersection spacing, requirements and to `prevent "vehicle queues from spilling into
adjacent intersections. The relocation of Industrial Avenue is constrained by the planned
Denman Ranch Flood Reduction Project at this location, for which the City recently purchased
the property. This relocation would require reimbursement to the funding agency at a
considerable cost to the City. If Industrial Avenue is not relocated, the interchange project
would need approval of another design exception by Caltrans.
The transportation utility' of the Corona configuration is less than for the Rainier configuration.
Based on the transportation analysis, many of the trips a Corona interchange attracts are from
the Redwood Highway interchange, leaving Redwood. Highway underutilized. There is
substantially less, congestion relief at Washington- Street with a Corona Interchange than with a
Rainier Interchange. On a scale of zero to one, the, transportation utility of the New Corona
Interchange scenario is 0.42.
City of Petaluma
Corona Interchange Alternatives
7
May 24, 2004
Q'
F'
-
. _ US 101"
•
0
•
Technical Memorandum)
Scenario 3 — Original EIR Configuration
This configuration was developed as an alternative to the Rainier Avenue interchange in the
1994 adopted EIR. The geometric layout is shown in Exhibit 3.
Planning, approving, designing, and constructing an interchange in this configuration would
have considerable challenges. Numerous Caltrans, exceptions to design standards would be
required for non-compliance with geometric requirements. Additionally, locating the ramp
intersection opposite the'local road (Industrial Avenue) would not comply with the Caltrans
standard for 'access"'
control. Right-of-way requirements would significantly impact
commercial/indu"strial properties in both the northeast'and northwest quadrant and the livestock
auction yard in the southwest quadrant.
The transportation- utility of the Corona 'EIR configuration is less than for the Rainier
configuration. While interchanges at Rainier Avenue and Corona Road attract roughly equal
numbers of vehicle trips, many ofthe trips a Corona interchange attracts are from the Redwood
Highway interchange, which results in Redwood Highway being underutilized. A Corona
interchange also provides' substantially less congestion relief at the Washington Street
interchange. On a scale of zero to one, the transportation utility of the Corona EIR scenario is
0.42.
City of Petaluma
Corona Interchange Alternatives
9
May 24, 2004
•
IFUR
Scenario 4 — No Project Alternative
Technical Mefnorandum
9
There are no assumed improvements to any roadways under this alternative. This alternative
would maintain the existing two-lane rural overcrossing at Corona Road. The existing facility
has four-foot,sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians; but only a small shoulder (1.5 feet) for
bicycles. This alternative would require no additional right-of-way, have no environmental
impact, and no associated construction cost.
Maintaining the existing overcrossing from a traffic- standpoint would provide no relief to
existing cross town connectors. This scenario has the lowest transportation utility of the
studied alternatives. On a scale of zero to one, thetransportation utility of the No Project
scenario is 0.22.
City of Petaluma 11
Corona Interchange Alternatives May 24, 2004
... '. •.. .., .. 1 �... -.- __:... ..... . ... ":��.�.:-' - -
SCALE 1"-800'
:
•
fl
Ti
N _
M C
O '
V -
I
Ii - _ I
o
_
1 I ,� -•O f ,1 _µ Iti A.
d
BIND NO -
_
- P.ETALUMA
W.
a..:z
a
EXHIBIT 4
CORONA ROADINTERCH ANGE
CITY OFPETALUM
MAY 2004'
2365 Iron PolnT Rooe
SCENARIO 4:
FOleort. G 99630
9,6
EXISTING CONDITIONS
®
I
•
11
Technical Memorandum
Operations of Freeway Interchanges
This section describes the transportation operations results of the interchange scenarios.
Results are: described 'in greater detail in Appendix B of the Transportation Technical
Appendix.
Scenario 1 - Rainier Configuration
This alternative performs .well under the existing traffic conditions plus the three new projects.
Intersection levels of, service and queue lengths are more acceptable under this scenario than
the Corona Road scenarios despite the fact that intersection traffic volumes are projected to be
similar in magnitude.
Scenario 2 - New Corona' Road Configuration
This alternative was developed using the results of the initial modeling effort to determine the
precise roadway geometries and intersection layouts. The Scenario 2 configuration performs
well under existing traffic conditions plus the three new projects. Intersection levels of service
and queue backups are acceptable under this scenario.
Scenario 3 - Original )EIR Configuration
The Scenario 3 configuration has several issues in terms of traffic operations, making its
transportation operations rate as unacceptable according to the rating system described in the
Appendix. Transportation analysis conducted as part of this report indicate there will be
substantial numbers of vehicles making left turns onto Highway 101 from Corona Road.
However, the E1R configuration provides single left turn lanes with short turn -pocket lengths,
which in turn affects intersection levels of service and vehicle queuing. Both Highway 101
ramp intersections perform,worse under the EIR configuration than under the new Corona Road
Interchange configuration.
City of Petaluma
Corona Interchange Alternatives
13
May 14, 1004
Corona Road: Interchange'Evaluation
Transportation Technical Appendix
_May.24, 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIKA TRANSPORTATION UTILITY ANALYSIS ; ................................................................... 1
APPENDIX'S . TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS, ANALY81S ............... ..................................... 4
APPENDD(C LEVEL OFFZERVIICE-AND QUEUE LENGTH PRINTOUTS ........................... ............ 8
•
T-
P L L 1'1 s
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Pagel
E
0
DO 1 E IT
Corona Road Interchange Evaluation
Transportation Technical Appendix
May 24, 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX A TRANSPORTATION UTILITY ANALYSIS...................................................................I
APPENDIX B TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS........................................................4
APPENDIX C LEVEL OF SERVICE AND QUEUE LENGTH PRINTOUTS.......................................8
F C:H R. & PFl K.S
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Page i
•
•
• 1
fpCorona Road Interchange Evaluation
Transportation Technical Appendix
May 24, 2004
APPENDIX,A
TRANSPORTATION UTILITY ANALYSIS
Utility is a term intended to describelthe benefits or disbenefits, of. atransportation option. Utility is
measured through a combination of factors consisting of average trip length, travel demand on the
potential new roadway, congestion relief afforded to other cross-town connectors, and congestion
introduced to feeders to the potential new cross-town routes. 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 — the 2001 Base Year
conditions with the following three projects:
Petaluma- Village Premium Outlets:. For purposes of the traffic model, this project was
assumed to add approximately 250,000 square feet of shopping center / retail use adjacent
to the existing, outlets.
Petaluma Valley Plaza: 346,000 square feet of shopping center use and 52,000 square feet
of,strip commercial use near'the intersection of North McDowell and Rainier Avenue were
assumed-for'the modeling'effort.
Oak Creek Apartments: This project.was assumed to include 312 apartment units with
connections to Graylawn Avenue and Shasta Avenue.
While the magnitude of the above three projects may change to be less than shown, a "worst case"
scenario was assumed for modeling purposes.
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): ther 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.
An overall utility is determined by averaging indices for each measure 'acrossalternatives. Because
the overall utility is an average'of'the indices for each measure of effectiveness, it is possible that the
worst overall alternative:,will have an average utility of greater than zero.
Measures.of Effectiveness
Selecting appropriate measures, ofeffectiveness is likely the most critical step; in preparing an
evaluation of alternatives. The analysis of utility combines 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 of the measure are described in
Table A-1.
Corona Results
Table A-2 summarizes°fhe results of the utility analysis for the fourscenarios. This analysis does not
consider the two Corona Road interchange configuration options separately, only the location of an
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Pagel
Corona;Road Interchange Evaluation
Transportation Technical Appendix
May 24,2004
interchange at Corona Road or Rainier Avenue as compared with a. no project,;alternative: According
to the measures'of effectiveness in Table A-2, the two interchange options at Corona Road would be
equal.
The two Corona Road'interchange options are evaluated and compared to,.,one another'vi'a a
separate, set of measures described'. in Appendix B.
Measure of
Effectiveness
Route Directness
DailyT.ravel'
Demand
Relief Afforded to
Cross=Town
Congested
Roadways
Congestion
Introduced on
Feeders
'Table A-1
Measure of Utility
Explanation of Measures of Effectiveness
Measurement Procedure Significance
Route �d i rectness is measured by thwaverage
vehicle trip length, which-Js aJunction of the total
vehicle miles of travel and the number'of'vehicle
trips in the model. Although this measure
captures.all trips in Petaluma (not`justthose
using Corona or Rainier)tit addresses overall
route, directness. Alternatives'lthatwould,
facilitate travel on the most direct�path of travel
(i.e., with the least°route diversion) will have
lower averageutrip lengths.
Daily travel'demand measures the;amount of,
demand for cross-town connector options at
Corona and Rainier, lt'is a prediction;of°the
number of daily vehicle trips that would be
facilitated by th&connector.
Relief is measured as the amount ,ofdaily,travel
demand on other cross-town, connectors.
Alternatives that.score well.on this assessment
are those that' lower ,the travel demand on
adjacent cross-town connector roadways. For
the studies alternatives„these.are,Washington
Street, Lakeville Highway, and Redwood
Highway. Win important to note ihat only cross -
'town connectors4ith volume -to -capacity ratios
of 1.0 or,gr"eater were considered in this
evaluation.
Congestion.'introduced on feeder routes is
measured through daily travel demand on
congested'rouies feeding the new connector
roadways. Congested r�outes,are considered
those with volume -to -capacity ratios of 1.0 or
greater.
Route directness is important because
it, measureswhether the location of an
interchange facilitates travel where
travel demand; is most rfeeded.
Daily, travel demand is important
because it measures�whether there is
sufficient demand to `justify
construction of'a potentiai'new
connector. Unlike rout& directness, it.
does, not, distinguish, whether the route_
taken inconvenient, onlywhether
vehicles uselthe connector:, "
The,assumptioIn and oftentimes
justification forconstructing a new
roadway or°interchange is"that:it will'
relieve congestion oh�other routes
where capacity enhancements' are;
either infeasible or undesirable. This.
tool measures whether, relief`Js
afforded by interchange alternatives" at
Corona or Rainier,
-
A negative, impectof,new or widened',
roadways can be increased congestion,
on, roadways that feed the new'road.
This measurement assesses the
relative traffic addition on congested
connector feeders.
•
F[.f �P1 &z PEEPS
T'RAN'SPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Page 2
•
•
•
Table A-2
Measure of Utilify
Corona Alternatives Cornpari'son
Measure
Scenario 1:'Rainier
Scenarios 2,3:`Corona
Scenario 4: No Project
I Indicator #1 r Route.Directness Measured by Average Trip Length
(Vehicle Miles of Travel in Model
I 1,438,513
I 1,444,660 I
1,445,909 )
(Vehicle Trips in Model
1 415,409
I 415,409 I
415,409 I
(Average Trip Length (in miles)
1 3.46
I'. 148 I
3.48
Ilndexed Average Trip Length
I 1.00
I 0.17 I
0.00
I Indicator #2 - Overall Daily
Travel Demand on Corona
and Rainier,(vehicle trips)
j
(Corona (North of US 101)
I 13',469
I 32,765 I
18,178
(Corona (Overpass of US 101)
I • 13,469
1 38,607 I
18,178
i,ICorona'(South of US'101)
I 13,469
I 32,277 1
18,178
(Rainier (North of US 101)
I 32;596
I 0 I
0
(Rainier (Overpass of US 101)
I 35,948
I 0 I
0
(Rainier (South of US 101)
1 36,153
1 0_ 1
0 1
Ilndexed Travel Demand on Corona / Rainier
1 1:00
I 0.54 1
0.00 I
Indicator #3 - Relief,:Afforded:to Cross -Town Congested. Roadways
IWashington: (North of,US 101)
I" 321717
I 44,4.19 I
47,288 )
(Washington (Overpass of US 101)
I 27;929
I' 37,425 I
42,216 )
IWashington,(South of'US 101)
I 24,786
1 35,071 I
37',906'
(Percentage of Highest Value
I 0.33
1 0.08 I
000
Ilndexed To Lowest Value
1 1:00
1 0:25 I
0'00 I
IRedwood, Hwy (North,of US 101)
I 31,489
I 27,072 I
36,929
(Redwood Hwy (Overpasslof US 101)
I 22,152
I 16,570 I
28,436 1
(Redwood Hwy (South of US 101)
I 19;9301 I
19,264 1
25,365 {
(Percentage of Highest Value
I 0.19 {
0.31 1
0.00 I
I Indexed To Lowest Value
1 0.62
{ 1.00 I
0.00
(Average Indexed Cross -Town Congestion Relief
I 0.82 _ . I,
0.51, I
0.00 j
I Indicator,#4a r
Congestion Introducted on,Corona Feeders
(Petaluma Bldd (North of Corona)
I 14,145 I
15{812 I
18,252 I
(Petaluma Blvd (South of Corona)
21,506 I
32,641 I
27,504
Ilndexed to Lowest Value
I' 1.00 1
0.00 I
0.21 I
(Highway 101 NB (South of Corona)
li 50;797 I
461878 I
46,286
(Highway 101 NB (North of Corona)
I 50,797 I
521936 j
46,286
Highway 101 SB (North of. Corona)
I° 43,698 I
41,004 I
41,999
IHighway 101 SB (South of Corona)
1 43,698 1
43;289 1
41,999
Ilndexed to Lowest Value
1 0.00 I
0.39
1.00
(McDowell Avenue (North of Corona) ".
I 23;442 I
22,362, I
24,755
IMcDowell Avenue (South of Corona)
I 18,888 1
21,217 1
20,454 j
Ilndexed to Lowest Value
1 1.00 {
0.57 I
0.00 I
]Average Indexed Congestion Introduced (Corona)
{ 0.29 I
0.35 I
0.70 j
I Indicator•#41b•-
Congestion Introducted on Rainier'Feeders
IPetaluma'.Blvd'(North ofRainier/ Shasta)
{ 19244
31,120
28,841
II
(Petaluma"Blv&(South of,Rainier / Shasta)
4
3,
28
Ilndexed to LowesiValue
0.53 I
0.00 I
1.00 1
IHighway 101"NB"(South'of Rainier)
I 48,002 I
46,878 I
46,286 I
IHighway 101 NS (North:bf_Rainier)
I 50i797 1
.46',878' I
4
IHighway 101 SB (North of Rainier)
I 43,698 I
43',289' I
411,999
999 {
IHiohwav 101 SB (Southof;Rainier),
1, 43;936 I
43,289 " I
41,999' {
lindexed to Lowest'Value
I 0.00 1
0.62 1
1.00 {
IMcDowell Avenue.(North of Rainier)
I. 28,689 I
22;832 I
22,895
IMcDowell Avenue (South of Rainier)
I" 21,248 I
19,493' _ I,
19,935 y
Ilndexed to Lowest
1 0.00 I
1.00 I
0.93 {
(Average Indexed Congestion Introduced (Rainier)
{ 0.11 I
0.54 I
0.99 j
{Average Indexed Congestion Introduced
I 0.20 I
0.45 I
0.84
'Average of All"Indicators"
I 0.76 I
0.42 I
0.21
fp
Corona Road Interchange' Evaluation
Transportation Technical Appendix
May 24„ 2004
APPENDIX B
TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Transportation operations are intended to measure the functional quality of'the: potential cross "town
roadways. The interchange configuration and intersection control options for the. Corona Road
alternatives: are compared with each other`and with the Rainier Avenue intersections.
The operations analyses are based on .volume projections from Petaluma's new TranSCAD traffic
model. Based on these volume projections, Fehr & Peersprepared a Synchro'network to analyze
intersection operations at key intersections for the Base Year (plus the three projects mentioned
above) AM and. PM peak hour conditions.
Stud`y'intersections
Transportation operations.analysis focuses on a few key'intersections for each cross-town connector
option. These are:
Corona Road
Corona Road @ Petaluma ;Boulevard North !
Corona. Road ,@ Highway 101 Northbound' Ramps
Corona Road @ Highway' 101 Southbound Ramps
Corona Road @ North McDowell; Boulevard
Rainier Avenue_
Corona' Road @ Petaluma .Boulevard "North
Rainier Avenue .@ Highway 101 Northbound Ramps
Rainier Avenue @'Highway.101 Southbound Ramps
Corona Road @ North'McDowell Boulevard
Measures of'Effectiveness
The operations assessment;is,a tiered assessment ofoverall`transportation,conditions. The output of
this assessment process is a conclusion on whether'the- opt -ion operates "acceptably," The,
or
"'unacceptably." Acceptable operations are -considered to be, any level of operations where
anticipated travel demand can be accommodated. 'It,is,imporiant to note thatthough the,City
maintai'ns.a level of service'(LOS) "C"'operations standards.(Le., it is;the City's objective that all
intersections "operate,.at LOS C.or better co''nditions),'this, analysis permifs LOS D and/or2E conditions
within°the "acceptable" range. "Marginal" conditions are those where traffic flow is;accommodated
during average conditions; but where fluctuations in traffic demand may result in short periods of
over -capacity cond,itlons: "U'nacceFtabie'' conditions are those where traffic. demand exceeds,
capacity at an isolated, intersection and/or'queues'from °one intersection are antidipated'to reach an
adjacent intersection resulting. in a: system wide failure.
The tiered assessmentof traffic operations was conducted according to the following steps:
F;E19R.&Y PFEFzs
T,RANSPO'RTA'TION CONSULTANTS
Page,4
Corona Road Interchange Evaluation
Transportation Technical Appendix
May 24, 2004
1. Isolated intersection analysis — Key study intersections were assessed for volume -to -capacity
(V/C) ratio and average delay. Potential results are:
a. Acceptable=.If'V/C ratios (average for all approaches) are less than 0.95 (the
intersection has sufficient capacity to carry hourly demand) and average delays are
consistent with LOS E or better conditions
b. Marginal — If, average delays are consistent with LOS' E or better conditions and the
average V/C ratio,is'I'ess than 1.20
c. Unacceptable,.— If V/C ratios are greater than 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 "a second tier analysis of queue lengths. Queue lengths are important because
they indicate whether, adjacent intersections will disrupt each other's operations by virtue of
queuing from one affecting the 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 report average queue lengths, the distance back from the intersection stop
bar (in feet) that queues ,will reach during roughly. half of the signal cycles, and 95t' percentile
queues, the distance: that will be exceeded by onlyfive percent of the signal cycles.
Intersections are: normally designed for the 95t' percentile queue, but average queue is a .
critical measure, because if describes conditions that occuron a -regular basis. Potential
results from this analysis are:
a. Acceptable — 95tn percentile queues do not reach ,adjacent intersections
b. Marginal_— Average queue lengths do no reach adjacent intersections, but 951n
percentile queues do:-
c. Unacceptable — Average queues reach adjacent intersection
FEHR. &I PEEM
"' TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Page5'
Corona Road Interchange Evaluation
Transportation Technical Appendix
May'24,,2004
Corona Results
In conducting the Corona 'Road interchange operations assessment, Fehr & Peers made
assumptions about the geometric:.configuration ofiniersections. These assumptions are documented.
below.
• Corona Road would provide four through lanes (two in each direction).
• At signalized intersections, dual left -turn lanes�are provided wherever peak hour;left-turn
volumes exceed 250 vehicles.
o At ramp intersections, free right -turn lanes (i:e., rightAurns that are not controlled_ by°the
signal and.have dedicated turn lanes on the approach with dedicated lanes on'the.' departure
followed by a merge) are assumed wherever, right -turn volumes exceed 500 vehicles: 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
Corona 'Interchange Alternatives
_.
Corona/ "Corona
/
Northbound'
Southbound
Alternative
Petaluma Blvd
McDowell
Interchange
Interchange',
North
Ramps
Ramps
V/C LOS
VIC LOS
I
V/C . LOS
I
V/C
LOS
(Delay)
(Delay)
(Delay)
(Delay)
AM Peak Hour .
1— Rainier
0.72 I_ C (26) l
0.80 I D,(46), I
0:64 _ I A (9)
I 0.87' j
B (20)
2 — Corona New Option
I 0.78 I C (33) I
0.88 I D (37) I
0.77 I C.(20):
I' 0.78, I
C (22)
3 — CoronaEIR':
I 0.78 C (33) I
0.88 I D (37) I,
0.95 I D (44)
I, 1.04.
F (86)
4 —'No Project
I 0.88 I D (43) I
0:89 I D (.41)-
PM' Peak Hour
1 — Rainier, _
I 0.72 I C (321 I
034 I C (30) I
0.64 l A;(9).
I 0.93.
.0 (31)
2 —.Corona 'New Option
I 0.90 I D (52) .I
0.88 I D (48) I
0.79 I C (20)
I ,0.88 I
C�(30)
3— Corona EIR
I 0.90 I D (52) 10:88
I D (48) 1.
0.96 I D'(48)
I ?,1.05' I.
F (164)
4 — No Project'
I 0.90 "I D (42) i
0:75 ) C (33) .l
Three alternatives survive, the Tier 1 operation's assessment: Scenario 1,.Scenario 2; and Scenario.
4. Scenario 3,scores a "marginal" Tier 1_ assessment rating. at the intersection of Corona.Road and
the Northbound 101 Ramps and an "unacceptable" rating at:the intersection'of Corona. Road and the
Southbound 101 Ramps. The "unacceptable" rating, at°the northbound interchange ramps, is
primarily tied the lack_ of dual left-tu ,11anes,for' eastbuound Corona RoadAraffic turning onto
Northbound US 101.
Tier,2 analysis of the alternatives passing the Tier 1 analysis is shown in Table B=2. 'Scenario 4 is not
analyzed because there are no Highway 101 .ramp intersections under this alternative., Based on the
Tier'2 analysis, Scenarios 1 and 2,have.acceptable operations when looking queuing conditions
between intersections.
•
•
•
FE11R & P•EER_5
TR'ANSPO.RTATION CONSULTANTS Pap
As
Corona Road Interchange Evaluation
Transportation Technical Appendix
May 24, 2004
Table B-2
Measure of Operations = Tier 2
Corona Road Results
Alternative
Tier 1 Result Distance between
Maximum
Maximum 951n
Intersections (ft)
Average
Percentile
Queue Length
Queue
AM .(PM)
AM (PM)
1 — Rainier
Acceptable 600
200 (400)
350 (525)
800
2 — Corona New
Acceptable (400Jrom,sB,Ramps to
225 (250)
350 (400)
Configuration
Industrial Ave; 600 from.NB
Ramps to McDowell)
Notes:
(1) The average and_95"'
percentile,queuedengths are provided for the intersection
with the longest queue.
(2) For average ,and 95"
percentile queue lengths, AM values are shown first.and PM values are shown in parentheses.
(3) Lengths are shown.in
feet
FEI,�K & P�-EFs
TRANSPORTATION CO'NSU'LTANTS
Page 7
fpCoron-8 Roa-dInterchange Evaluation
Transportation Technical Appendix
may'24,2004
Appendix
Level of Service and Queue Length PrintbUts
•
FE-H, R, & P E E R-S
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Page 8