The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 09/19/2011 4.A L U1L Ae'v4ct' Ite'vn44A a w e /85e DATE: September "19, 2011 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Larry Zimmer, Capital Improvements Division Manager SUBJECT: Discussion and Direction Regarding the Replacement and /or Modification of Twenty -Six Left Turn Protected/Permissive Intersections RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached recommendation regarding the replacement and /or modification of up to twenty -six left -turn protected /permissive intersections. BACKGROUND . In 2009 a Traffic Safety Evaluation Report : for the City of Petaluma was completed by the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California Berkeley, in collaboration with the City of Petaluma Police Department, to evaluate the protected /permissive left-turn signal operations. There are 26 protected/permissive left -turn signal intersections within the City of Petaluma. Once the protected', green arrow goes to a regular green light (permissive left turn) it opens the possibility, for a driver to . make last minute decisions that can cause an accident. Utilizing the Berkeley report recommendations, staff applied for the Highway Safety Improvement Program Cycle 3 (HSIP) grant through Caltrans. The grant was accepted by Council on March 1, 2010 . with the.condition that . staff presents, to Council the analysis and modification recommendations of the 26 intersections prior to finalizing project plans and specifications. DISCUSSION In 2010, and the first time in city history, right -of -way collisions surpassed speed collisions as the highest cause of collisions in Petaluma. This is statistically significant because speed in most jurisdictions is the highest cause of collisions. Protective /permissive left -turn (PPLT) signal collisions are .right -of way collisions In an effort to reduce .these collisions, this comprehensive report considers the collisions at the 26 intersections with PPLT signals from the time that they were installed in May 2003. Capital Improvements staff, the City's Traffic Engineer, Police Department Sergeant Traffic Team and the Traffic Engineering consultant agreed upon the criteria by which each intersection Agenda Review: City Attorney Finance Director /j,_I,,,,,,,,,,_, Ma would be evaluated. The criteria include number of collisions, sight distance, intersection geometry and other considerations which add complications for drivers and are discussed in more detail on. page _3 of the evaluation: report. The Police: Department added additional, in- depth collision details from their files. Table 3 of the report provides a detailed overview of each intersection, which criteria were applied and the recommendation to retain or modify the left-turn signal. If Staff's recommendation is approved. by Council, these intersections will be modified as discussed here. The following summarizes the recommendations for all 26 intersections: ® Nine intersections will retain the current PPLT signals. ® Eight intersections will be converted to protected left turn signals. ®. Four intersections will retain the current PPLT signal on the major street approaches and replace the street signal with a permissive left turn signal on the minor cross street. ® Four intersections will replace the current PPLT signal with a protective left turn phase on the major street approaches and will replace the minor cross street signal with a permissive left turn signal. ® One intersection will retain the PPLT signal on the major . street approach and will convert the minor cross streets to a split phase such that only one direction of traffic is moving at a time. Of the intersections on major thoroughfares listed above to retain the protected/permissive left turn signal, staff recommends that these signals be replaced with a new flashing yellow arrow signal technology that has been shown to clarify the difference,of the protected left turn phase and the permissive left turn phase for drivers. The existing "doghouse" style signal housings will be replaced with a new four- section signal head and associated signage. The left turn portion of the'signal will begin as the customary green'left pointing arrow which will move to a solid yellow arrow to keep additional cars from beginning a left turn movement followed by a red solid arrow to clear the intersection of cars turning left. This portion of the signal will then begin a flashing yellow arrow to permit drivers when conditions are clear to make a left turn. The Police Department will lead the public outreach program regarding the new signal type. The Flashing Yellow Arrow signal technology is a relatively new application in California. In response to a 2008 request by the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) authorized the interim use of Flashing Yellow Arrows to all jurisdictions within the State of California. The FHWA provides interim approval based on the results of successful experimentation, studies or research and an intention to place the new device into a future rulemaking process for MUTCD revisions. The Flashing Yellow Arrow signals have been incorporated' into the current Federal Manual on. Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the handbook on how to design vehicular traffic control devices. The State of California is expected to include the Flashing Yellow Arrow systems in the next edition of the California MUTCD. The project will require approval from Caltrans prior to bidding. As part of the initial analysis, the consultant Traffic Engineer .performed field evaluations and peak period traffic counts at all project intersections and calculated the current level of service for both the morning and afternoon peak period, comparing current and recommended conditions. Level of Service (LOS) expresses ranges of delay from very short (Level A) to long delayed (Level .F). The City of Petaluma General Plan Policy 5 -P -10 states LOS should be Level 2 • D or better. Table 4 in the attached report shows the calculated delays with five intersections dropping by one level, none below level D. Attwo intersections, the proposed changes will improve the level of service. Appendix A shows detailed level of service calculations per intersection. The Police Department. (enforcement) and the Public Works Department (engineering) employ an aggressive Collision Reduction Program to reduce traffic collisions and improve traffic safety through analysis of collision data. FINANCIAL IMPACTS The City has been approved for $441.,000 of Cycle 3 Federal, Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds to make traffic safety improvements at 26. intersections. The HSIP Program will fund 90% of design, environmental, construction, and construction management. The 10% required match plus City overhead costs come from the Street Maintenance Fund and 08/09 Prop 1B funds. A budget: transfer requested in the amount of $65,760 ($16,760 from Gas Tax funded Street Maintenance Fund operating budget and $49,000 requested in previous . resolution as planned use of 0.8/09 ,Prop 1B funds) has been approved in previous resolutions. No additional funding is requested .or required at this .time. ATTACHMENTS . 1. Protective - Permissive Left-Turn Signal Evaluation Report by W- Trans, pages 1 -39 E Items listed below are large in volume and are not attached to this report, but may be viewed in the City Clerk's office. Protective- Permissive Left-Turn Signal Evaluation Report by W- Trans, Appendix A: Intersection Level of Service Calculations (pages 40 -87) 3 nq a r�,� Fp ' ATTACHMENT 1 .G � ��p „ # r W ` w , st wa.5 1 5 ,� p1 M �,f�j1 l �1 IA 11 ' 1 I 19 ' O4 ,, * R I - } t I R A I f ,, . • ,- ¢ r lr z "ai r wt , , r k' w� d� i p , ` r a �`i11 W'Qn�r i r 1 { fin' ��'� ry '� "�„�'P • �+4�, ; a te'' ° fi ° : * G a , *' ' 4 �+ * • • e u I Protective- P ermissive eft ® T ur d s ' � Y , a " b a ;,4,0;'..-, . � Ir 1 U �7 � � I� kt g�6 n `�, • I I '° g 7 p^ NYV b d!',' "'' P; ' "4 4 "' "°' ''. z` �t, .t n. � (IlM d' b '' "tri er }1 1 ■ J v �q s � � ti �� r �� t.. , 6 sac 9 Y: r 4 • • Prepared for the Q rA��,r.t� City of Petaluma p z p B $ • Submitted by 2 � I '' ^ •ew} Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. µ 490 Mendocino Avenue 475 14th Street '1 r " Suite 201 Suite 290 Santa Rosa,, CA 95401 Oakland, CA 94612 " ,, Santa voice 707.542.9500 voice 510.444.2600 •d , 1 web www.w- trans.com v �� w .4 r P - �a August 30, 2011 n 4 1 Balancing Functionafrty and Livability Traffic Engineering *Transporta Plann • • Table of Contents Page ~ Introduction and Preliminary Assessment —' | Capacity Analysis ~ - 7 Conclusions and Recommendations - - - 38 Study Participants .and References 39 Figure | Location Map ' ` � ` ' 2 Tables | Collision History 4 2 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria ^ ` 7 3 Summary of Evaluation and Recommended Action - 36 4 ofG�sd Peak intersection of 37 uumnnury Existing . our eco Level Appendices .. A Intersection Level Calculations � . • | , ' � \ - ` . • • Signa! Evaluation for the City of Petalum3 . 20l| '' Page i vv- ,a °_, . . .� Introducfiidn and Preliminar y A §essment Introduction A number of intersections.,in the City of Petaluma Were converted, from protective left -turn phasing to protective - permissive phasing, and there have been concerns about the need for this conversion at some locations. Though " protective- permissive .left -turn phasing sometimes can be a useful tool to address: congestion, its use where ,it is not needed may instead result in safety concerns or other Operational issues. This report presents` an analysis of the need to retain or eliminate protective- permissive left -turn phasing at :26 intersections .in the City of Petaluma. Standard traffic engineering techniques were applied in developing the recommendations to 'retain or modify controls at each intersection. Study Locations City staff identified the following 26 intersections where the protective - permissive phasing on one or both streets could potentially 'be eliminated. Note that the intersections are identified by the numbering system used for all of the Citys signalized intersections: Also observed in this evaluation is the convention in Petaluma to consider streets that nearly parallel US 101 as being north /south and those that are nearly perpendicular, are east/west. Figure 1 , shows the locations of th'e study intersection as well as the directions that currently have protective - permissive: phasing. 1. Stony Point Road /Industrial Avenue /Petaluma Boulevard North 3. . McDowell Boulevard /East Madison Street 4. Maria Drive /East Washington. Street 5. McDowell Boulevard 'South /Maria, Drive 6. McDowell Boulevard South /McGregor Avenue 7. McDowell Boulevard South /Caulfield Lane. 10. Lakeville Street/East Washington; Street • 12. Petaluma Boulevard North /Magnolia Avenue 19. Payran Street/East Washington "Street 20. Ellis Street/East Washington Street 21 McDowell Boulevard North /Lynch Creek Way 22. North Webster StreetJBodega Avenue 24. McDowell Boulevard North /Community - Center 26. McDowell Boulevard North /Rainier Avenue 30. Petaluma Boulevard North /Sycamore Lane 3;1. McDowell Boulevard North /Redwood Way • 33. Petaluma Boulevard :South /I Street 34. Petaluma Boulevard South /Mountain View Avenue Frates Road /Calle Ranchero 44. Sonoma Mountain Parkway -Ely Boulevard /East Washington. Street 46. Sonoma Mountain Parkway /Rainier Avenue 5!5. Bantam Way /Bodega Avenue 57.. ,McDowell Boulevard North /Southpoint. Boulevard 72: Redwood Way /Old Redwood Highway . • 73. McDowell: Boulevard North/Old Redwood. Highway 78. Payran Street/Caulfield Lane Protective- Permissive Left-Turn.Signal Evaluation for the City of Petaluma August ,30, 201 1 Page 1 vv-trans, . . ' y ,, . p g vw r v ` e$ N. f , "0". & u r , • t / ' 'W ' 0 � f ,� _ { � : � a_ x � • ' / � � ..�•`` r� � t v , 1 , it AtA , .4,, K . , e: . ♦fir ► J, .. se- , in iti.-, .._ = f,....:.+ :: - 1, -,...,.. , . o �._. l'N ''' , -,, - , „ , ,,,,, , ifi r-„,, ,, , . kr 44,1 ■ i , c . co ,m c , 4 ,/ � . r,' /`. 1 1 ...,01. ic � � ,,o�_ ®sue',� te7 1.:N7se ' 7,e , ce - 0. - 41.. 444 si {' a i yr © / s, ("� Q . N s f , > Lu ' „._,,/ 4W 0 , --1 -___ °3 t r .2 cu k a ‘... ,, / 4, 1 , 1.,-, , — . i ( _ -- ,....,.,,,,, , ,.„,,,,47..".. 4_ , a n - i Evaluation Approach Over the past few decades, the use of protective - permissive, Ieft=turn phasingat intersections has grown • in popularity in the'United States. With this increased 'use, studies have been conducted to evaluate; • tinder wh u at conditions permissive, protective- permissive and protective Ieft- turn phasing are most . • appropriate. Factors .considered ,include approach 'speeds, number of opposing :through lanes, number of Ieft turning lanes, intersection geometry; and collision experience: Protective= permissive Ieft =turn phasingshould be replaced with protective only phasing; if any of the following criteria are met. i. Collisions ' - • On one approach, four left-turn 'crashes in one, year, or six' left -turn' crashes' in two years, I On two approaches, sixieft -turn crashes in one year or eight left -turn crashes in two years Sight Distance . . i Left-turning driver has lessthan secorlds of sight distant- ea approaching vehicles ,Geometry , i ,. Two or more left -turn lanes Four , or more opposing' through lanes . . Other °Considerations . •� Signal' Si ' indication`s ,are Io ated. outside. normal field of.left=turnin motorists' g g view Protective- e Phasing • p rmissive left-turn hasin should be replaced with; permissive only phasing if the following criteria,are met. • If two,vehicles or less turn left per signal :cycle, during the peak hour., Typically, if the volume of left= turning traffic '.is less than°: 72 vehicles during a peak ,hour the. average will. be less than two vehicles • per cycle using an average of I00 ♦seconds per cycle. • If the product of the left turning `volume and the opposing, volumes during peak hours' is less than . I 50;000 for one approach ;'lane and 100,0.00 for two approach lanes. Collision History • • ' Records; available from the C alifornia Highway Patrol •as ,published in their 'Statewide Integrated Traffic Records' System ( reports were used for the analysis:. The mo current five =year period available July.2005 through,: June 2010. The collision history for each (of the study intersections was I eviewed to.deterrnine if there have beenany collisions reported' involving drivers. turning left. This type of collision would typically be • correctible through use of protective left- tur,.n phasing rather than . permissive. . Y • Six intersections were determined to have met the 'collision threshold where protective •only phasing is most appropriate. .These ,intersections are East Washington Street/Maria Drive, Petaluma, Boulevard - North /,Magnolia'Avenue-West Payran Street, East .WashingtonStreetILakeyille , Street, East Washington • . Street/Pay.ran Street East Washington Street/Sonoma Mountain Parkway -Ely Boulevard and McDowell Boulevard North /Southpoint Boulevard. The 'collision histories for each of the,, study' intersections are, • „ ; s ummarized,in 'Table 1., - P rotective - Permissive � Le ft -Turn Signal Evaluation . for the City of ,Petaluma A ugust 3 0, 2 0:11 Page 3 w- tran • , Table I • . Collision History • • North -South Street East -West Street Number of Collisions North -South Street East -West Street I Approach 2 Approaches ' I Approach 2 Approaches • in 1 yr in 2 yrs in I yr in ,2 yrs in 1 yr in 2 yrs in 1 yr in 2 yrs Stony Point Rd- Industrial Ave Petaluma BIvd .N 2 2 2 .3 x x x x McDowell Blvd ,EastMadison St 1 I 2 2 I 1 1 I Maria Dr East Washington St x x x x 4 5 3 5 McDowell Blvd S Maria Drive 2 2. 3 3 1 1 I I McDowell Blvd S McGregor Ave I ' 1 1 I 0 0 0 0 McDowell Blvd S Caulfield Lane 2 4 4 6 x x x x Lakeville St East Washington St x x x _ x 6 8 6 10 i Petaluma Blvd N Magnolia Ave 5 6 5 7 I 1 1 I I Payran St East Washington St x x x x 4 4 5 7 Ellis St East Washington St x x x x j 3 4 4 5 1 . McDowell Blvd N Lynch Creek Way 1 1 1. I � x x x x North Webster St Bodega Ave x x x x I 2 3 0 0 i McDowell Blvd N Community Center 1 I 1 1 I 0 0 0 0 McDowell Blvd N Rainier Ave 0 0 x x I x ' x x x I Petaluma Blvd N Sycamore Lane 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 x x McDowell Blvd N Redwood'-Way 2 3 2 3 I 0 • 0 0 0 Petaluma Blvd S 1 St 0 0 • x x ;- x x x x Petaluma Blvd S Mountain View Ave 1 2 x x 1 x x` x x Frates Rd Calle: Ranchero . 0 0 x• x 0 0 0 0 Sonoma Mountain Parkway East Washington St 4 5 5 7 i x x x x Sonoma Mountain Parkway Rainier Ave I 1 2 2 I 2. 2 3 3 . • Bantam Way Bodega Ave x x x x I 0 0 0 0 McDowell Blvd N Southpoint Blvd ' 5 5 6 I I 1 I . Redwood Way Old Redwood Hwy I 1 1 '1 2 2 2 2 . McDowell Blvd N Old Redwood Hwy 0 0 x x I x x x x ' Payran St , Caulfield Ln x x x x I 2 2 3 4 Notes: x = approaches that do not have protective- permissive phasing so were not evaluated # indicates collisions`for'the approach or approaches in one or two years; as indicated Bold text indicates that the applicable threshold is met Site Analyses • After reviewing the collision data operating conditions at each of the 26 study intersections were observed. Factors 'such as approach street alignment, sight lines, placement of signal equipment and lane configuration were noted. Additionally, observations were made of driver behavior such as aggression or uncertainty when making turns from lanes where protective- permissive phasing is used. Protective- Permissive Left -Turn .Signal Evaluation for the City of Petaluma August 30, 20I I Page 4 vv-trans * • General Description • Protective - Permissive left -turn (PPLT) phasing combines the, protection of a;separate left -turn green arrow with a permissive left -turn during the opposing through movement green phase. The advantage of PPLT phasing is that it increases intersection capacity by allowing left - turning motorists, greater opportunity to complete their maneuver.. Approaches with PPLT phasing typically have five indications, including a green arrow during the protective operation, a yellow arrow during left -turn clearance, a green ball indication during the opposing green movement, a yellow ball during the phase clearance and a red ball indication. These five- section PPLT indications are generally configured in one of two ways: doghouse or stacked. The doghouse configuration has the red ball indication on top with the left -turn green and yellow arrows on the left side and the through, movement green and yellow ball indications on the right. This configuration creates a five -sided shape that has the appearance of ,a doghouse, which is where it gets the name. The stacked configuration has the through movement red, yellow and green ball indications above the yellow and green left -turn arrows. These configurations are shown below. R A' A 9` vrz J7ati . , +m;.Nc +gc�. ,+„arm- a.,'unrp„ F AIR 7A r G G :9, bra" -r There is a variation of the five - section stacked head that combines the green and yellow left -turn arrows into a single head by changing the ,color on the indication. This results in a four- section configuration and is used at Bodega Avenue / North Webster Street, Bodega Avenue/ Bantam Street and McDowell Boulevard North /Community Center. Several other signal phasing options are referred to in this report and ;include "permissive only ", "protective only" and "split phasing." A brief discretion of these terms is presented below:' "Permissive- only" (also known as "permitted- only ") .phasing allows two opposing approaches to have a • green ball indication concurrently, with .left turns allowed after yielding_ to conflicting traffic and pedestrians. Minor side street movements can function acceptably using "permissive -only' left-turn phasing, provided that traffic volumes are low enough to operate, adequately and safely without additional left -turn protection. "Protected- only" phasing consists of providing a separate phase for' left-turning traffic and allowing left turns to be made only on a green left arrow signal indication, with no pedestrian movement or vehicular traffic conflicting: with the left turn. Protective- Permissive Left -Turn Signal Evaluation for the City of Petaluma August 30, 2011 Page 5 w- trans "Split phasing" consists of having two opposing ;,approaches time consecutivelyrather than concurrently (i.e., all movements originating from the west followed by all. movements from the east). Split phasing is used appropriate at,signaliized intersections .under the following' conditions: • A pair of opposing approaches is physically offset such that the opposing left turns could not proceed simultaneously or a permissive left turn. could not be expected to yield to the opposing through movement. • The angle of the intersection Is such that the paths of opposing left turns would not be forgiving of errant behavior by turning motorists. Protective - Permissive Left -Turn Signal Evaluation for the City of Petaluma August 30, 201 1 Page 6 w- trans • Capacity Analysis Purpose To evaluate the potential impact of the recommended changes to the operational performance of the study intersections during peak hours the level, of service was calculated under current conditions and with the proposed changes to the signal operation. For the purposes of this analysis the Citywide Synchro a.m. and p.m. peak hour signal simulation models were used Protective - permissive phasing typically improves intersection capacity as it allows left- turning ,motorists to share the green of the opposing through movement. However, protective- permissive phasing can reduce capacity where there is an insufficient volume of left-turning and opposing through traffic to justify its. use. Intersection Level of Service, Methodologies Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types • of facilities based on traffic volumes and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F Generally, Level of Service A represents free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions. A unit of measure that indicates a level of delay generally accompanies the LOS designation. The study intersections were .analyzed using the signalized methodology published in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Transportation Research Board, 2000. This source contains methodologies for various types of intersection control, ail of which are related to a measurement of delay in average number of seconds per vehicle. _ The signalized methodology is based on factors including traffic volumes, green time for each movement, phasing, whether or not the signals are coordinated, truck traffic, and pedestrian activity. Average stopped delay per vehicle in seconds is used as the basis for evaluation in this LOS'methodology. For purposes of this study, delays were calculated using optimized signal timing. . The ranges of delay associated with the various levels of service are indicated in Table 2. Table 2. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria LOS A Delay of 0 to I 0 seconds. Most vehicles arrive .during the green phase, so do not stop at all. LOS B Delay of I0 to 20 seconds. More vehicles stop than. with LOS A, but many drivers still do not have to stop. LOS C Delay of 20 to 35 seconds. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many still pass through without stopping. LOS D Delay of 35 to 55 seconds. The influence of congestion is noticeable, and most vehicles have to stop. LOS E Delay of 55 to 80 seconds. Most, if not all, vehicles must stop and drivers consider the delay excessive. LOS F Delay of more than 80 seconds. Vehicles may wait through more than one cycle to clear the intersection. ' Reference: Highway Capacity Manual; Transportation Research Board, 2000 Protective- Permissive Left -Turn Signal Evaluation for the City of Petaluma W trans August 30, 2011 . Page 7 • • Traffic Operation Standards The City of Petaluma General Plan Policy 5- P' -1 establishes the following' criteria for level of service for motor vehicle travel. Maintain an intersection level ,o of service (LOS) standard: for motor vehicle circulation that Petaluma General Plan 2025 ensures efficient traffic flow and supports multi-modal mobility goals. LOS should be maintained at Level D or better for motor vehicles due to traffic from any development project. • To evaluate the potential impact of conversion of protective permissive left -turn phasing to either protective or permissive only operation service levels were ,calculated under current operating conditions and with the changes recommended in this evaluation. Where the changes would be expected to reduce service levels below LOS D during peak hours additional enhancement measures were considered. Existing Conditions Operating conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods were evaluated to determine the conditions against which the changes would be measured. The morning peak hour occurs between 7 :00 and 9:00 a.m. and reflects conditions during the home to work or school commute, while the p.m. peak hour occurs between 4:00 and 6 :00 p.m. and typically reflects the highest level of congestion during the homeward bound commute. • Intersection Levels of Service Under current operating conditions, all intersections are operating acceptably. at LOS D or better. Conditions with the proposed changes to phasing were also evaluated, as discussed below. C opies of the Level of Service calculations are provided in Appendix A. Intersection Evaluations Field observations were made .... at each of the study intersections and included an assessment of sight lines, equipment placement and configurations, signal operation during peak hours and driver behavior. Typically the observations were conducted during the p.m. peak hour with the exception of locations that are near schools where the peak occurs during the afternoon dismissal times. P resented in the following pages are the individual assessments of each of the 26 'intersections evaluated as part of this project. Included in the assessments are recommendations to retain the protective - permissive phasing, replace with protective only phasing or replace with permissive only phasing. Operating conditions with the recommended change in phasing was also evaluated and compared to current operation. Protective- Permissive Left-Turn Signal Evaluation for the City of Petaluma August 30, 2011 Page 8 w-trans t. :: Stony. Point Road /Industrial, Avenue /Petaluma Boulevard North Existing Conditions: 'Petaluma, ,Boulevard North has ' protective left-turn phasing. Stony Point Road and � Indust Avenue have PPLT phasing. There are two�� x �` protective- permissive indications for left turns, a five- section "Doghouse" mounted on the end of'the signal e mast arm and a five - section stacked head top- �� e,- + - - kit� LL, mounted on a I B pole. r ~^-�� " ,� + ' Field Observations: Stony Point Road and Industrial�t Avenue intersect other than 90 degrees. al u Of the two North eets at an les t ; the „angle t of Industrial Avenue is more acute. This restricts the Lines of sight in both directions to a less than a �, ” „ , desirable level. , p y rn� xra . - , • Recommendations: It is recommended that the PPLT phasing on Stony Point Road and. Industrial Avenue be replaced with protective left -turn phasing because of misalignment of these streets and limited sight lines. g S n Operational Analysis: This intersection currently � � �„ operates at LOS C during both the aim and 'p.m. peak°,, hours with 28.6 and 29.2 seconds of delay - art d' respectively. Operation with the conversion to PPLT =. c a . for Stony Point Road - Industrial Avenue will remain at LOS C. There will be a slight improvement in performance during the a.m. peak hour with '26`7«+ :1;4 seconds of delay and, a slight increase in delay to. 30.4 s econds during the p.m. peak hour. Protective Left-Tum • LEGEND" , Protective - Permissive Left -Tum S ' Permissive Left -Tum • • • • • Protective- Permissive Left -Turn Signal Evaluation for the City of Petaluma August 30, 2011 Page 9 w -trap • • McDowell Boulevard /East Madison Street Existing Conditions: McDowell Boulevard and East Madison Street both have protective- permissive left- + - turn phasing. McDowell Boulevard has a single left - turn lane, a through lane and ;a shared through-right ��. � _ �,' g I -- I� ' s turn lane for both the northbound and southbound approaches. East Madison Street has ,a left -turn and a shared through /right -turn lanes in both directions , ' �� b There are two protective - permissive indications for s �� the left- turns, a five - section "Doghouse mounted on s" a i` the end of the signal mast arm and a five- section stacked head top - mounted on a 1B pole. There are two stacked five - section heads mounted on 1B poles x' as there are no mast arm mounted indications for the East Madison Street approaches. i - Field Observations: A review of collisions at this °' s ' " g `'a�� intersection showed that the number of collisions � 1e 3 C involving left- turning vehicles on McDowell. Boulevard North and East Madison Street are below the FPoF _ threshold that indicates a ,concentration of left-turn crashes. , .,. ' " f Ea Maadison Based upon an assessment of the potential conflicting 6 ,°, ^ � movements during both the morning and evenin q tr �'` g g evening � � � ��i � peak hours using 2005 traffic volumes data it appears `�,.� that the East Madison Street - approaches should be �y swt t d .1 operated as permissive only There are too few '44" t, ® „„ r , i potential conflicts to, justify protective- permissive<a >��, operation or protective only operation. t a .T , 971 st - r (f 2+ � �,� fpt q 3 t P, F Recommendations: It is recommended, therefore, that = � ,.� '"' °� s the PPLT phasing on East Madison 'Street be replaced t ;,x s, <1 A t " with permissive only phasing, but, the PPLT phasing should be retained on McDowell Boulevard North. Protective Left-Tum It is also recommended that a mast arm signal pole be installed on the northwesterly corner facing East LEGEND Protective-Permissive teft -Tum. outside Street as the current motor st's normal 20-degree locations are �f Permissive Left -Tum egree cone of vision. Operational Analysis: This intersection currently operates at LOS B during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with an average of 110 and 16.7 '.seconds of delay respectively. There will be no change in the level of service with the conversion to permissive left -turn phasing on East Madison Street. There will be a slight decrease in .performance during both peak hours as average delay will increase to 12.2 seconds during the a.m. peak hour and 17.7 seconds during the p.m. 'peak hour. • Protective- Permissive Left -Turn .Signal Evaluation for the City of Petaluma August 30, 2011 Page 10 w -trans ' . ' • Maria Drive /East Washington. Street Existing Conditions East Washington Street has 1 ;l'�'l i t a, . rotective- ermissive left -turn phasing w hile Maria i {s3 "' P P P g s j4i,t L ,fit Drive has permissive only There are two protective 1.1,,Nt,;,.40 s permissive indications for both the eastbound and :MA: _ , ;', 3 4r'' a Y ! westbound left- turns, a five section "Doghouse' ° . i'�,,,,, ti "� � "`1i i 0. ., +1 -. . . mounted on the end of the signal mast arm and a five`��4� f F g i section stacked head top-mounted on a 1B Ole. . S �, 9�t "` i� Field Observations: The posted s eed limit on East ft- t , Washington Street is, 35 'mph. For the purposes of , ` , � N • • � : : q !ry � a s . � i m � this review 5 mph over the posted. limit was used as ,,, , ` ::;,,,,,,?,,,,,,,:'°;:.,:,;,,,,:, the design'speed to determine desired sight .distance. � u .,, 4 ""` ... ::." z . 4 .;wt a pil es ' Sight lines exceed 320 feet so the sight distance �' ' criterion is met. � ""�'� � „ �� ' � This intersection has a higher than expected collision .. ” R ° fi . °�-�� , � ` i � experience involving left- turning vehicles on the 4 eastbound and westbound approaches. ,1 -�, s s , .r `* ` .' t., s Sao ,,'' a 7 ! � Recommendations: It, is recommended that the PPL d i EastxWart i t g s "; phasing on East Washington Street be replaced w a $ . ° , ^ e protectiv left -turn phasing because of the number of 9 '' 4' ' y • . 't, ' ' left -'turn related collisions: 7 tE ; Operational Analysis: This intersection currently y ' , � �e � � � . LQ } , a . � F s � � y X r � � y � ' x tt operates at LOS B during both the`a;m. and p.m. peak r , � hours with 10.7 and 14.0 seconds of delay ' -,:;17/i,,,:;. ;� . ' ` ' : respectively, and will remain' at. LOS' B with the ; }` , .., recommended change in phasing. Average delay will ' �� °�� increase during the a.m. peak hour to 12.4 seconds; no change in delay is projected during the p.m. peak hour. Protective Left -Tum LEGEND Protective - Permissive Left-Tum Permissive Left -Tum • • Protective- Permissive Left -Turn. Signal Evaluation for the City of Petaluma =, August 30, 2011 Page 1 I w - trans • • McDowell Boulevard, South/Maria Drive Existing Conditions: McDowell Boulevard South and i Maria Drive both have protective - permissive left -turn ��, hasin McDowell Boulevard South has a sin f }! turn lane, a through lane and a shared ` through /righle lett , r turn lane on both approaches. Maria Drive has a left aT 4 turn lane and a shared :through /righti -turn lane in both �'� ' �� 's ' ° �� directions. There are two protective- permiive r. indications for the left- turns, a five - sectio s r 1 ;y , 7 — -. ,., "Doghouse" mounted on the end of the signal mast�a; R �� "�� d arm and alive- section stacked head top- mounte o n -1'7',:',,:‘,'` '`' '' *-y ,2,::„:0;,,,,,,,',,, 1. a I B pole. There are two stacked five- section heads , "� �- ' . ° mounted on 1B poles for the: Maria'Drive' approaches 't ' • w + � ' � where there are no mast arm mounted indications: ''= ; : •, '' y .', u y, , , „7 Field Observations: The posted 'speed' limit on East Washington Street is 35 mph: ,Sigh's lines.exceed.320 ,�p � feet, so are adequate for a design speed of 40 mph. A ..4,,,,,,--1t4 ` 7,4,': l K - i k review of collisions at this intersection showed that r` , a j� ? ' t ! the number of collisions involving. left-turning vehicles , r� * 4, t . ' " � 5 ; on McDowell Boulevard South and Maria D rive are ,, '' below the threshold that indicates a concentration of� �� * 1` f s left -turn crashes.�{' , fir • Recommendations: It is recommended that the PPLT . ' � � 4 � ,� : 0 i. u . r � v be retained on McDowell Boulevard South h � � � �� „� � � ,�, l N phasing ;"'i e � `" mm"v % 3 :, r' n ., A � � � � tee' ential conflictin ��rN" [ � movements during both t approache n should be °, , k Based upon an assessment of operated as permissive only. There . are too few a f � t - • _„ : „ potential conflicts to justify protective- permissive #� �� V`_ 3 operation or protective only operatio It is g g A recommended, therefore, that the PPLT phasing the # , r replaced with permissive only phasing. , r � .= r�, M ®, Operational Analysis: This intersection curren � � • �� 7 r F 4 operates at LOS C dur both the a m and p m. peak �� - ` hours with 26 0 and 20:7 seconds of delay "�o • respectively: There will be a slight increase m average c ,:''',3:1„,...1. C, t. delay during the a.m. peak hour to 34.1 seconds and „ ° , ^. a i ' , ^� 4 ' 21.5 seconds during the p:m. peak hour, b ut ", a operation will remain at LOS C. �' ,' © t , a� t" ty a "`, , - Protective Left-Tum • LEGEND y Protective-Pe rmissive Left-Tum - Permissive Left -Tum Protective - Permissive Left -Turn Signal Evaluation for the City of Petaluma , , August 30, 2011 Page 12 w -t • • • ' McDowell Boulevard: South /McGregor Avenue Existing Conditions: Both McDowell ;Boulevard South and MacGregor Avenue have protective - permissive left -turn phasing. McDowell Boulevard South has a ' ,,,,, .,..,,,., ,,o,„, ,,,, A • single left -turn lane, a through lane and a shared, through/right-turn lane on each approach. McGregor • . < "- Avenue has a left -turn lane and a shared �• ` ,, through /right-turn lane in both directions. There are pig , _ , 1 � x fi two protective - permissive indications for the left ' „, „ . err LL . • turns, a five- section ``Do house" mounted' on the end s of the signal mast arm and afive- section stacked hea �" �" top-mounted on a l B pole. There are two stacked a w five-section G e Ahead Avenue a m ounted on I B oles for both -° � r1 2 �� p w McGregor approaches as there are no mast „, ', .. arm mounted indications. s $ i Field Observations: The posted speed limit on East r ti . Washington Street is 35 mph . Based on a ° 40..m ph { ' �� design speed, sight lines of 'at least 320 feet are �� ',a��i,.,� n° needed, and this criterion is met. A review of t , ti . ,i ,j �'"' °„ -� "' ' �° YE� TIO U I� ▪ � � 1, ��N YA�P�� , +i l� � M� of collisions collisions this in intersection left-turning that the number �� t g Vehicles on �a " � a x ` .w McDowell Boulevard South "and McGregor Avenue " tAb ," ` ��' are below the threshold that indicates a - f ',.)..,,,,,A,.,,,,,..' - a - t� 1 M °.� "a; ' sa concentration of left -turn crashes. �;r ,, , � -� x --a x u + ar lea ", ,. ti Recommendations: It is recommended that the PPLT ';`` �"" 4 , u " ' � '� `4.', � r ` a phasing be retained on McDowell w R t r , ; �b � M � ° r ,,, . p g Boulevard South � �E:� - ISM r 2 •' ' i 6 Based upon an assessment of the potential conflicting K x , r �;?. movements during both the morning and evening � t+� p ��' peak hours, it is recommended that the, McGregor at �• Avenue approaches be converted from P. phasing ,; - i� „ , t� ;, � to permissive only: There are too few potential 4 '� M i� a conflicts to justify protective - permissive operation or ; x 4 � , � r �� .k. �ew ] P 4,w i , �CC.�t'E:l�f protective only operation. ,� ,* Operational Analysis: This .intersection currently t ti + "` operates at LOS C Burin boththe a.m. a nd m. peak ,,, �' t° `!�,i3; ,, -. hours with an avers a of 31 . and 30 seconds of ea * $ ' ® delay 'respectively. The level of service. with the l*, mr� ' i conversion to permissive left -turn phasing on 1 ; �; �x� u '' McGregor Avenue will remain " at LOS C, with a � r , � - � -„ r i` '4,f, . t t r i reduction in delay during -the to 25.5, a.m. peak hour " ;, seconds and a slight increase in delay to 29.6 seconds . during the p.m. peak hour. Protective Left-Tum LEGEND ProtectivePerrnissiva -Tum Permissive Left -Tum Protective- Permissive Left -Turn Signal Evaluation for the City of Petaluma August 30, 20 I Page 13 w- trans ° • McDowell.. Boulevard, South /Caulfield Lane , . • Existing Conditions: McDowell Boulevard 'South. has , g , x a recently been reconfigured as part of the Road Diet - ., ,L project. It has a single left -turn lane, a through lane - ,,,i:� , .a q �� ,. „ pp approach. .- - and a right-turn lane on each a , roach. There are , ;th „� ��, � I � two rotective- permissive indications for the left fa4 "¢ 1 IA turns; a five - section `�Doghouse" mounted oh the end � � � � ;"�1 , t r ,r g `' of the signal mast arm and a five- section stacked head VA , ,,,, ° t�,∎.) , �” ; „ `� ,,: " top - mounted on a 1 B pole. '.- , "` � ` ` � � ti � � r � w w 3 7 = . � n Field Observations: Caulfield Lane is split- phase Si t ; t lines from the l -turn lanes on McDowell Boulevard .4 t ea , , , ,, � . ^a ' a ,„ N So uth exceed the distance needed for the 5.5- second e f &, �q � criterion. A review of collision's at this intersection r ° ' ' " "` ` � � , showed that the number of collisions involving left , turning vehicles on McDowell Boulevard South is � r. d ' below the threshold that indicates a concentration of - ` , � t ' left -.turn crashes. The number of•:collisions involving ^ ....7 �,, M r , , northbound- southbound left -turns has dropped since ° '� .< a, , the road diet project reduced the number of through fiF, 3 lanes on McDowell Boulevard. , C u e!d L ane . a .. p ^Erase a s WtJes t w • Recommendations: It is recommended that the PPLT ,� • . „:14:r, & - r � , „ t phasing be retained on McDowell Boulevard. South; 1 �@.. � * 5 7 1 ` ” no changes are therefo re recommended. t ' , , t { '. 1 Operational Analysis: This intersection will continue to , ,k , , , " 4 4 operate at LOS D during both the a.m. and p.m. pea k ; P o hours with 54.3 • and 45:2 seconds of delay i ° � respectively. ' Protective left-Tum LEGEND �i Protective-Permissive left -Tum Permissive Left -Turn • • • • Protective- Permissive Left -Turn Signal: Evaluation for the City of Petaluma August 30, 201 I Page 14 vv- trans Lakeville Street/East Washington Street • • • Existing Conditions East Washington Street has �; , , ,, , , R protective- permissive .Ieft -turn. phasing while Lakeville `� �„� . ,, ' „� , Street is split- phased. There are r p two protective-, � �� "� k permissive indications for both the eastbound and .:.� „a westbound left- turns, a five - section "Doghouse mounted on the end of the signal mast arm and a fi +7 i —� section stacked head side - mounted. " :_ v � \ 2r M : r Field Observations: The posted speed limit on East �� ,` " t " H f ?„m i t Wash Street is ��30 mph. Sigh't'Iines exceed 285 ; �- � � : ""^ feet so the 5.5- second sight distance criterion is 'metr $ y r �� for a desi n s eed of 40 m h. ' "," g P P t° o- '!4 n�,t :1 B 4 ' ^ Sr' -rite^ e , fi t ", This intersection is unique as the Northwest Pacific ;_ Protective - tracks sp left turn phasing can complicate pass through wx t� �,`µ motorist decision making when railroad pre-emption , " , «u „ is initiated and track clearance intervals commence. b' "g � q;� �?" ,, , Exist Washmgtbn i. _ 7 ,r, This intersection has ;a higher than expected collision �, " k � u � " experience involving left- turnip vehicles, on the ' i , ' eastbound and westbound approaches. � � �� , r Recommendations: It is. recommended that East t t'4," t,1-. - , . „ , „ ,r Washington Street be converted from PPLT to ,w, & °� protective only left -turn phasing. �� ` � fi . 1 .1;A. « Operational Analysis: This 'intersection Currently w �m �r � � operates at LOS C during the �a_m:° peak hour and a tt t"` ' ; ' .`c -t �' LOS D during p peak hour with average delays of : � °�� 32.0 and 39.0 seconds respectively. The level of : °� ° e ► a4 i = ! " ,, . ; ; service with the conversion to protective left -tur • phasing on East Wash Street will remain: at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour and LOS D during the thotectiveLettTum p.m. peak hour. 'There will be a slight increase in delay, going to .34 .3 seconds on average during the LEGEND � �te�tn,e Pe m,isaive Left-Tum a.m. peak hour and 42.4 seconds during the p.m. pea p ,;,e yen -Tum hour. • • August -Permissive Left- Turn;Signal Evaluation for the City of Petaluma 201 I Page 15 w- trans • • ■ levard North/. Bou %M agnolia Avenue • Existing Conditions: P etaluma, Boulevard North Chas "" re protective- perrnissive' left turn phasing, as do the " �� " " a ^ ". y g Pa ran Street and Ma nolia Avenue approaches w ti" �,., There are two protective-permissive indications for <, �" all four left- turns, afive- section "Doghouse "'mounted ^," t , ® � � `• on the end of the signal mast arm. and a five- section +t" „ g y on a 1 B pole Both stacked head top mounted Ma nolia Avenue and Pa ran Street have dedicated & ' e ar " n --N.' '�, , ,,t , , ., right -turn lanes with overlap p hasing : p Field Observations: Petaluma Boulevard North has a ._ te a straight horizontal alignment while Magno Avenue �� , , , „. 1, " • and Payran Street have curves within 500 ; feet of the„ .''j " a t ' , ^ ., , e � n „ e "' , intersection. Bo Ma Avenu and Pa y ran a Street transition from ,a single lane to a left-turn lane, � u " � , ,� Takin the n right -turn lane at the intersection � � � Taking tare and the flaring of the lanes into r " account adds a level of uncertainty when anticipating r e� the intentions of approaching motorsts,li " " { � fi s f� � ,; g expected collision '�k ° � ° x r-,, ' e !' i it y This intersection has a higher, than ex experience involving left- turning vehicles: . �� ` pon the high number of '' ° Recommendations: Based u collisions involving left - turning vehicles together with ,i ° , `� A � q 4.—.', � " the alignment and flared lane conditions on, Magnolia Vi f 4 a , . Avenue and Payra Street ' it is recommended that r `' °� A the PPLT phasing be replaced with protect only left -turn phasing on all four intersection approaches. W a �' °, ' '' _ sa P ,_ it r. Operational Ana lysis: This "intersection currently "ir ;� �' DWI N operates at LO C during the a:m.� and p.m. peak �ti �� f ,, . « hours with an average„ of 293. and 31 seconds of r, 6` r Z , �� : delay respectively. The level ,of service with the µms ,' s, = "° n .. y � R � ' ' W e s t Payre ` 5t , conversion to protective left turn phasing _ will agrtolt ,.',Ave ; ' ^ ' � � - r decrease to LOS D during the a.m. an p .m. peak �° & � " P Y Y g seconds i ti 3 � .� s t hours with delays of 44 I seconds and 44 5 LO ectivel Althou h the service level decreases. to `� f S D ie remains within the acceptable standards set , b the City. � ; w Protective Left -Tam • LEGEND ...I?' Pro tectve Permissive Left-Tam Perm issive Left -Tum Protective Permissive Leff Turn Signal Evaluation for the City of Petalum ; August 30, 201 1 " Page 16 Vv-trans ; -� Payran Street/East'Washington Street Existing Conditions: East Was hington Street has ? r protective - permissive. left turn phasing while Payran : � m:} ��`•,r�`: P o u nd arid - , „ , S vott treet is split-phased. There are roteetiv °,� permissive indications for both the eastb westbound left- turns, a five- section "Doghouse' �' . M r mounted on the end of the signal mast arm and a five section stacked head to mounted on a 1 B pole. Field Observations: The P osted speed limit on- East * .� g P Sight P, o n � � ��r � pr ' 3 �`dt wft _ Washington Street is 30 mph. .lines exceed 285 . ' Si feet, so the 5.5- second sight: dlstance criterion is met ' 1 , / t " ' , � z for a design speed of 35 mph., A review of collisions , 1/4„,:„Ti at this intersection showed that the number of o • � �r 4, ,' collisions involving left- turning vehicles on East Washington Street is above the threshold that indicates a concentration of left -turn crashes. 'k Recommendations: It is recommended that the PPLT phasing be replaced with protective only phasing at this location. 4 Operational Analysis: This intersection currently m ; xa EastWashington treet operates at LOS D during both the a.m. and P.m. t� peak hours with averages of 36.3 and 38.5 seconds of 4 4 k delay respectively. With the recommende � -� ' conversion the intersection will continue to operate LOS D with'39.4 and 42.1 seconds of delay during p• peak i ;, ®y am the a.m. and m. eak hours. � � w" x ��a ' k� Sri 3 t rc � II et �§• ^ vv�� U rA�ry, 65 u .,,��b, ��pp �r��y•yp� YY t�. f @µ ai.r. ,,y,y jp f�. v..w' .dl '"$.,NR4 14�y .. Protective Left-Tum LEGE ND? Protective - Permissive Loft -Tum Permissive Left -Tum Protective-Permissive Signal Evaluation for the City of'Petaluma w August 30, 2011 Page 17 vv -trans `'' • • • f Ellis Street /East Washingt n Street Exis o dit Sslve eft t Washi Washington Street 'has' ' K, R, " , ;' • t y ala r , , + w n P P P g while Ellis ti, s� r Street-Fair Grounds Grounds is permissive only. The ^ ,, + ,, ri, rotective- ermtssive indications for { „,,,i,,,,,,,„ eastbound and westbound 'left - turns include a, five_ .t.',,14,,,,,,,,',4:44, ri, o +�� section "Doghouse” mounted on t he end of the signal . y,,; ®; �' � ,_.ii„,,,,,,:.,,:,,,,; ` mast arm • and a five- section stacked: head top ti �� .., r�d`�►: mounted on a I B pole. ; ry Field Observations: Based on a design speed of 35 m h * g P P so � , ., .mo :, which is 5 mph above the posted speed limit, tile `' available sight lines which exceed crteri285 feet are '' ti "' IG' ��+ n �; adequate to meet the sight distance ion. t': ., ,6 "% - .,.� ., . A review of collisions at this intersection showed that jiQ� key ?: the number of collisions involvin be left - turn vehicles ? „ on East Washington Street is low e `threshold �� that indicates a concentration of left -turn crashes ,ti - , 1* i • This intersection does �� collision pattern to' the adjachave a bower but similar ent intersection of East � ,, � Washington Street/Payran Street.' � , � � � � a st - ashtn� to 8free Recommendations: It is recommended that the PPLT k�� xxRV :y�� phasing n replaced with protective only ;phasing at 0 1 w " w . v v ary; .v this location to be con with the other } d 6 F S v ,r. � ^ � 1 intersections along the corridor. E ast Washington Street �;i�t . � � � 4 ; �a Imo, _ p >, Operational Analysis: This intersection currently Via :: `, , x. -. � ' operates at LOS B during both. the a.m. and p:m. peak hours with an average of 18.9 and 15.4 seconds of delay respectively. W the recommended °� Protective Left-Tum conversion the intersection will continue operate L EG END Protective- Permtsslve Left-Tum at LOS C with an average of 23.0 'seconds to of delay during the a.m. peak hour and !LOS B with 19.5 Permissive Lett -Tum seconds of delay during the p.m. peak hour. August Protectiv ugu t v e - r ist i Left -Turn Signal Evaluation for the City of Petaluma Page 1 w trans • I " • , McDowell Boulevar ,North /L`yncli .Greek Way. . I I g Conditions: ssive left- turn Boulevard North has Existing Condit►ons McDowe protective- perm" phasing while Lynch �': Creek has permissive left -turn, phasing. There are ' '' ' ` ° ' °t ' two protective- indications for both the ® i:," ,4 " , northbound and southbound left - turns a ”five-section ti's` Z i , „ ` i a o . ', �� ' ro � ,:,t ;' r R ' „ -�� Doghouse mounted on the en of 't he signal mast 3 �, arm and alive- section stacked head top- mounted . on �� r t t ` 4 0 r „ a I B pole. R ;- = `� . - af , 4.a ,. , -� • Field Observations: The posted. speed limit on * *��:. ro rr. w� McDowell Boulevard is 40 mph.tothe. north an d � d " a� �* 1 � ° �# ° �� f � ; � i''''',„,;# �^ r a `'mss , } - . ' m $ ., �, . 30mph to the south. Using a' desi speed 5 mph , :, r, , , i ., �� . , higher than the posted speed ,limits, sight lines of 360 r ;. ,a w aw c � „ , � ,, . . feet and 280 feet are needed, , and available; so the • a a y p a'vW �n� sight distance criteria are met. M , ' A review of collisions at this intersection showed that f s � _ �y � : � the number of collisions involvin left- turnip vehi cles " g , g h Peta V Ly . chCi ,t l amtu . ", ; on McDowell Boulevard North is be the _� 5 Ho sp it a l s threshold that indicates a concentration' o left-turn n � � crashes. �'� '>t°', °` . � � �. � x � � � �, i3 ., " 6 ,,„ , Recommendations: Because the southbound approach ::1; �� speeds on McDowell Boulevard North exceed the 45 r' i an ' mph threshold, it is recommended that the PPLT � i ' . ,. ' o - '' phasing be replaced with protective only left-turn i . � a '' „ „. � , ^ ° s r s � v phasing for McDowell Boulevard North. � ag , f. Operational Analysi This peak intersection current ” �� operates at LO A during both the a and p.m. hours with averages o 7.7 a nd 9.2 seconds of delay respectively. The level of se rvic e • w it the conversion h' Pmtect�e Left-rim to protected p hasing for McDowell Boulevard Nor LEGEND Pro tective Permissive Left -Tum will result in LOS B operation and 12.2 seconds of delay on average during the a.m. peak hour, but LOS Permissive Left -Turn A will be retained during the p.m. peak hour with 9.3 seconds of delay. i Ili Protective Permissive Left Turn; Signal Evaluation fo the City of Petaluma August 30, 201 I Page. 19 w trans `r . , North Webster StreetLBodega Avenue Existing Conditions: Bodega Avenue has protective- I " r a permissive left -turn phasing while North ot en � � „ ' , p� yr :0 a ” 'r p i �� dr e . .rte 'l � � ��° x � a �' � y Street is permissive only. The protective - permissive tI( `p� °, a 1? indications on Bodega Avenue are four- section Bi r : � � �' Modal (Green /Yellow "Arrow) heads. 'i iy 1 Dge i:45� ��l �' "? ;!' 16.4.P4. % 'NN Sa, Field Observations: This intersection is adjacent, to ' A ' � ; � `k Valley Vista Elementary School an peak tr affic occurs during pick -up and drop -off times. ' 4,*:„ k ? Sight lines exceed 280 'feet, so the sight distance , 0; , � , s ' ° � . 4 � "' criterion is met for the design spe ed,of 35 " mph. �ai� u t 4"m 4 A review of collisions at this intersection showed that the number of collisions involving left= turning vehicles 'r z�ig N • '.t on Bodega Avenue is below the threshold that, ,' " + . t x, • indicates a concentration of left turn'crashes. . 4t' ''' ff' 4 h l G , p ,s -" 4 ;� �� t� �. � °, ,: i g ., �,�,." c�. 7 + v '}} , ,mv R Recommendations: m It this to a mended that the PP .741 11,5 p t, ,, dt phasing Lion. t , 4 �� , ; .� r v � = Bo dega Ave Op erational Analysis: This intersection 'will continue to i „, "' � , 4,0 7 operate at LOS C during the a :m. peak hour with 33.7 ' ' . . 4--, "' 'o., � ;' seconds of delay on average and LOS during the ° ° �r "��.� p.m. peak hour with 10.4 seconds o d elay. o � ��'" t � „1 � '�` " i -# -r,4" k pi � f y ` i t ppukwt 3 r# ��}' 1b' • a, O ,, " fi _ * ; • • Protective Left-Tum LEGEND Protect ve Permissive Left -Tum PermissNeLeft -TUT Protective Permissive Left= T.urn Signal Evaluation for the City of Petaluma August 30, 2011 Page 20 w tran i McDowell 'Boulevard North /Community Center Existin Condition S: s: McDowell Boulevard' North as ; ' � `- �'�'"' well as Community'w Center have protective .„ i I �� , v � „ „�° permissive left turn phasing:'. The northbound and �' ` IF i�� s „ p � a A .. �7 � southbound left turns each have a five section Doghouse mounted . on the end of, the signal mast �" G ,' j � 4�' ` stacked h mounted atop a a'"'�, a., fi • w i,' n'* 1 ` arm and afive- sections . . � , � �r I � = �i l i� i _ .� 1 B pole. The indications for the Community Center �; ":� �i " �'E4' i and Shopping center access are four - section Bi -Modal ` °" � "...-,,--°:',.- �' } (Green/ Yellow Arrow) heads: ��"� �� r Field Observations: The Posted speed °limit on ^ a A a McDowell Boulevard . is 30 mph but for li d e s ig n " � . : , :, � ' ", ' "+ ;°' l':-'..,,1.1,11:4,:`,,,, : • speed of 35 mph the required sight distance is 280 r '' - .. ..N, ",,, �� s r ; ; , - r$ feet. Sight lines exceed 280 feet so "the sight distance Ate , .; ° � z ti criterion is met `.;_v:. � ; y e w . e . A review of collisions at this intersection showed that :f , ,, ti the number of collisions involving left- turning vehicles �� « �� , otn McDowell Boulevard North. and t he'Com ' Q ' � � Y Co munttyCntr; mun t Center driveway are below the threshold that r d indicates a concentration of left-t eft -turn' crashes. ^?x ed that the . PPLT �, i s o r h , e .. ecommendations: It is recommended R �� phasing on McDowell Boulevard be retained. �� r � 4 � '' � � a 1 Based upon an assessment of the potential conflicting � � r m i 4, movements during both the morning and evening � ` ' � � � ' ' . peak hours, the Community Center -Plaza North t;' k ,li ,, � ° " 4 ,: 1 `' ' ` Shopping Center approaches should be operated as ri e y � poermionly sect ee- permissive w on or ' Potential .conflicts justify i p p operati protective only operation. It .: is recommended,. „,,,1" Protective Left-Turn therefore, that the PPLT pl asing'the. replaced with LEGEND Protective-Permissive Left -Tum permissive only phasing for Community Center -Plaza North Shopping Center. Permissive Lee -Tum • g' rn. and LOS C during. the m. n e ersion to PPLT operation for the Community Center w ak' hours This is intersection and 20.4 seconds of delay a respective A " urin p �d the a. p, p y ly: The level of service with the. ov ,to permissive operati. e i Operational will remain i p' LOS BI during the peak hour: There�wil1 b e _a LOS light Ab dur change ng the in • a.m. peak hour and will improve to c performance during the a.m. peak hour with 2.6 seconds of delay and 1 seconds during the p.m. peak hour. . • • Protective - Permissive Left -Turn Signal Evaluation for the City of Petaluma August 30, 2011 Page 21 w -trans ' i • McDowell Boulevard North /Rainier Avenue n Existi Conditions:, ' Existing ns.� McDowell �� Boulevar'd� North has -�� '' '' � protective-permissive g PP phasing, � � r r � � ' ' e e t -tu _ . ., �� a� � ' in � while Rainier Avenue has onl ` a single a left-turn so operates .as if `Di ; ' �' There the end five-section endof the sgnal "Doghouse" mist arms y r ° I � '" s = a , '� }rt and five- section stacked heads. mounted on a 113 poles ��, r i for both the northbound and southbound left turns. �4 Field Observations The Posted speed, limit on � 4° � „ 44 McDowell Boulevard North is 40 mph, and .sight lines 6 � � r .� I • exceed the 360 feet needed for a 4'5 -mph design P g I y 4 1 u . m ” - z Sara speed. ' � 1 * Jn. vehicles on McDowell' Boulevard North s f un The number of collisions involving w rth .was found to , %% � ��' � � � *a ;� • be below the threshold that indicates a'concentration i Irt11.a of left -turn crashes.Rg h a t 13 ` Recommendations: Because the southbouncl approach 14,1„/.4'„ ,s speeds on McDowell Boulevard North exceed the 45 ' w Retie A mph threshold it is recommended. a that' the PPLT �� A ' " � _ "} phasing be replaced with protective, only left -turn { , ° � e � , 6 i ' ' , <6 ° phasing. ra +fin Itto Operational ,Analysis: This intersection currently _ t a ; operates at LOS A during the a.m. peak hour and I LOS B during the p.m. peak hour with 9.i and I0.0 :� `_ seconds of delay on average respectively With-the �, ` I recommended change to rotective;, turn phasing .. -. T on McDowell Boulevard North, LOS ,B' operation is a 7 e / °'aw expected during both peaks with average delays of 10.0 and I I.8 seconds respectively: Protective Left-Tum • LEGEND Protective- Permissive Left-Tum Permissive Left - Tum • • Protective-Permissive August Left -Turn Signal Evaluation for the City of Petaluma w-trans 1 ' 30, Page 22 • , r Petaluma Boulevard North /Sycamore Lane Existing Conditions: Both Petalu "ina Boulevard :North 3 -,` and Sycamore Lane have protective - permissive left a �� i �A w- r turn phasing, while Shasta Avenue has permissive only phasing. There are two protective - permissive j/}r — 1 indications for the left - turns, including a five - section 7 c ; to p � ,� f " "Doghouse" mounted on the end,of the signal mast " arm and a five - section stacked head top - mounted on k s�` a I pole. ",. ' �� Field Observations: The number of collisions involving t left-turning vehicles on Petaluma Boulevard North is „ k „ m r t below the threshold that indicates a concentration of " "° °t � l 4' �° 1 W .•� left -turn crashes. - �,� . a ,. n. 44� ,*wa° 1 "�...��.: , ,7.. Shasta Avenue and Sycamore Lane intersect at Petaluma Boulevard North at angles less than 90 4 ., degrees. Of the two streets the angle of Sycamore „ , „ Lane is more acute. This restricts the,lines of sight in �i '; both directions to a less than .desirable level. • The a : ' °t „ g along North from both z � " .te sight lines clop Petaluma Bou levard side streets exceed the desired'. amount to provide 5.5- second sight lines. Recommendations: It is recommended that the PPLT " ” 4'4 le ° phasing on Sycamore Lane and permissive phasing on ° '�� `4 lu' Shasta Avenue be replaced with split - phase "t a � ��_ ��" ' " operation, while the PPLT on Petaluma Boulevard North should be retained. = u,� 'elk Lip Operational Analysis :. This ;intersection currently a a u k - ' w 4 hours with 8.6 and 7.6 seconds of average delay V i� K� �a' operates at LOS A during both „! �M the a.m. p.m peak respectively. With the conversion to split phasing the �', ` ; 1 � + o °^ r � r� intersection will continue to operate;. at LOS A during ■? , ».a r k ,r the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with 9.4 and 7.8 , f ' seconds of delay during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours 4: respectively. k • Ai r � ,a tQ - v Protective Left-Turn t LEGEND Protective - Permissive Left-Turn 44 s iN a 1 r'0t 7 v Permissive Left -Tum � : wa ` ' ' u P ogustv -P r ise 1 ive Left-Turn :Signal, Evaluation for the City of Petaluma ft Page 23 w trans, • 'McDowell Boulevard North /Redwood "Way ' Existing Cond All d or `` • ' , t 4 ' p ., { I II IN ',approaches to the intersection at McDowell Boulevard th /Redwood Way have "", R '' re ,� + .',' � protective-permissive left -turn phasing controlled by a , ". � � � ` �, I '' ° f . ,, ., 4 � �� ,, " g , - , ndofthe ,, I • _, ° ° , _ , � � a i : . g head top e signal arm and a five -osect n., tacked' , . N 4,..r x ,,a k k ,R,, x �, j mounted on a I B pole. � _� � � , s� � J �,�.9,11R,14' 'h4,; Field Observations: Sight lines exceed 360 feet, which ```" . -� i g . R r . t meets the sight distance criterion based on a posted , ,, ' t i Ill' � a , , l , o . 1 r . - tr, speed limit of 40 the mph McDowell Boulevard 4 North . : 1 '!T f � � and a design _ e PP generally 04 � R v roaches enerall exceed 4 approaches mph. • ��m � ,,-:- - �� "`� ��' � ��' �� ` ,4c�w. There were an insufficient number . of collisions ficient . _ involving left - turning vehicles indicate a col ,Boulevard' j - 1 N and Redwood Way to ° of left-turn crashes. ",„ ` - - b . The Redwood Way approach does. not meet the ti f.„1,-, " , - ° 4 ., irM; 9 E I S , minimum volume of left -turn and o ostn traffic to u'' ' ".�, 4'' ` ' ' " � justify protective - permissive or . protective only 7, n w , „ -3, ., , phasing. , m . tt�a, <s 5`'I' T) 4 h i t ° ,, '.', N Recommendations. It is recommended that all PPLT ,. l ; .:^ ' " ,- 'i 4 71 0: " phasing be removed at this location. The PPLT on ' ,, ,4 , k the McDowell Boulevard approaches should be '' , 4 " F ' , , , 4 " i ,1 ?w A 4, �` ', il replaced with protective .phasing,. while the Redwood ,4‘-' _P . ; = ' , �� , � -,� , , Way approaches should have permissive only phasing. � � � '' l e r ; Operational Analysis: This', intersect currently N'v �.� � { � �� t:�i operates at LOS B during both the'a.m. p.m. peak : « ; r ' 7 ! , hours with.avera es of 14.0 ands 13.2. seconds of delay ' respectively. The levels of service with the < ' , ! ' - ' G s 'ti *¢ -,0 ., .. conversion will be unchanged, though average delay i» u` � t � � " � ' d wood W y will increase slightly during the morning peak hour to " '° : _ .3i A . " n ?C7 : r ,q 1 7.3 seconds and decrease slightly to , 1 1.8 seconds "' a i' a, = ,.' during the p.m. peak hour. 6 � t t ,c „. w��; ; � -d � cb' a f ,, U , I � -, A � { I , A a' 6 ;, ' � � L � � 1 g SP�fs' 1 + <�. U n t • $ 1 '44 WAd l lk �� s N, as `� l8 ts9 - , r "'le if � � r e e ta ' , ? ,. ^ , ,rte : ,,. -° - A r ,. ., i— Protective Left -Tum ' LEGEND • , ? Protective - Permissive Left-Tum • Permissive Left -Tum Protective- Permissive Left -Turn Signal Evaluation for the City of Petaluma - August 30, 201 I Page 24 w -tra Petaluma Boulevard South /I Street Existing Conditions: Petaluma Boulevard South at 1 . • Street is a "Tee" intersection . with protective- d permissive phasing in the .northbound direction on Petaluma Boulevard South indicated by a five- section "' "Doghouse" the signal mast y Do house" mounted on the end of 3 s � imh arm and afive- section stacked head top-mounted ..�" - mounted on a ? i I' � '4 a z . B pole. r <; Sight lines alon Petaluma Boulevard Field Observations: Si ^ g i g - -..�. South are adequate to provide; more than the 280,feet 3 i 9 v tr f � kaaa " ` 'u� a needed to meet the 5.5- second criterion. , „ , There were an insufficient number of collisions y involving left- turning vehicles , on Petaluma Boulevard South to indicate a concentration of left-turn crashes ti ` , ` �, 4 ; i : '7 5 Vtetier' Recommendations: It is recommended that the PPLT f t phasing be retained at this location: , + , y Operational Analysis: This intersection will continue to k 4 i operate at LOS A. during both the a:m_ and p.m. peak f '° hours with averages of 7 "6 and 6 "9 seconds of delay , r pe, r.}q respectively. • • f F , `^• r �,„ ¢w a l �ra,,�' ++ ' ,�'g , n e • ; # � a e:r a, + ". - • Protective Left -Tum LEGEND Protective - Permissive Left-Tum ' PermissiveLeft -Tum • Protective - Permissive "Left -Turn Signal Evaluation for.the City of Petaluma August 30, 2011 Page 25 w- trans Petaluma Boulevard Sou � tai" n`.View.Avenue w • Existing Condit Petaluma, Boulevard South at Mountain View Avenue is .a "Tee" intersection with' t th /Moun protective - permissive phasing in the northbound� direction on Petaluma Boulevard South. The - indication mounted on the end g Doghouse � ,r - y� -----":„7:—,,,,.-';',:- ' a� northbound left -turn has a ,five sec �� nd of the: signal -mast arm r tx , �` � and afive- section stacked head mounted atop a I B Ili .o p u�'- i x - pole. ' � ` ` Y Field Observations: Sight lines alonga Boulevard °, � • �'" i�4 � a 9w 4 ! ■ ' , 1 : : ' �� ■ 280 ( + feet t needed to 9 meet the 5S secon terion the � �I , � o `� k i�a a ui� ui, , mn� ". NPR " � �.�d u A review of collisions at this intersection' s that the number of collisions involving le turning vehicles ° b P + , ti „ ' on Petaluma Boulevard South is be the, threshold .0. � s t w A A 't i e ° a ,ro• . ,rr R " that indicates a concentration of left -turn crashes.' "° v a °� a t' ..,,,,:7 PP '° Recommendat It is recommended that the PPLT ,;� g phasing be retained at this location. ount$tR ieV „. M ' * i ° r r a operational Analysis: This intersection will continue to pa` „ � � Y operate at LOS B during the a.m. peak hour and LO , g � s '4 1 t ‘ . ... , - , - ,.. 4,44 . ,. A ,.,_ +1` n � g p. peak with .10.3 and 'S.9 A during the m. eak hour wit : " - seconds of average delay respectivel �g`� ��* �o� � a ,+fi r 1---,.1,, n� r-14:—. � n N � ��' � € `. �� - , �� i a. Protective Left -Tum LEGEND Protectiv Permissive Left -Tum Permissive Le -Tum Protective- Permissive Left Tu rn Sig Eval uation for the City of Petaluma August 3 2011 I Page 26 w -trans ' Frates Road /Calle Ranchero Existing Conditions: Frates ,Road has protective "' permissive left turn phasing.while Calle Ranchero has p _` permissive only phasing. There are two protective u, z , , _ k" permissive i ndications f bo th the northbound and t, southbound left turns, a five section "Doghouse' P , � � a ` of .. � , ' mounted on the end�of the si nal mast arm and aofive • mounted on;a l B section stacked head' . pole. Field Observations: Based on the posted speed limit of ^ , `' � -a' "° " rt 40 mph on F ra t es R and a design sped of 45 mph. ~ y° y s , . t ""` ? ,_' ,' ` >,, ; sight lines of 360 feet are needed. Field p � „,y� measurements indicate that the sight 'distance is adequate to meet this criterion. g ' ` „,:, .' " t 4, > " w a re ', w,..r t = . a ,' ' A review of collisions at this Intersect showed that ;', ,,,>.41 , , 4� .A the number of collisions involving left= turning vehicles ...--,d41..,........ �n� m� , � , a , r ,a P +� II. on Frates Road is below the threshold that indicates a ' ,, ar. a ti , : � =; { ; ,` i .1'''''c' ' concentration of left -turn crashes. a5 44:—..,..!T;',•%1 d3a Ur ,,s Recommendations: It is recommended • ,that the PPLT ` x t t m „0 i ";m phasing be retained on Frates Road. o f g � ., 4 r r3 ,� t.. , w � x ` '° � � ,+r Operational Analysis: This intersection will continue to i ,t. r - ` ; 1" g r L .� ` V,3',-3- operate at LOS B during both the a.m. and p:m. peak hours with averages of 18:0 and 19.4 seconds of dela,." �� I°' , - Frate respectively. �` 0%.131 1 ' • Protective Left -Tum LEGEND ProtectvePermissiveLettTum V” Permissive Left -Tum • • v. Protective- Permissive Left -Turn Signal Evaluation for the City of Petaluma -t, August 30, 2011 Page 27 vv-trans r I I 1. I - 1 .� • • Sonoma Mountain: Parkway - Ely Boulevard /East Washington Street:. ' Existing Conditions . > Sonoma - 'Mountain Parkway -Ely" - l:'° 'r " "I'^' ' Boulevard has protective -permissive left turn phasing „, ;.„ ,,.1 t S ri •. a45 a p ` while East Washington "Street has protective only ' M1 i ” F $ S k 4, ` phasing. A five- section "Doghouse" mounted on the :> p : "" >; • "` " , Tn „,` ,# end of the signal mast arm arid a five - section stacked 1," ', a ''' I '' rl ' f '1r head top mounted on a l B pole provide indications , , r ^ ft '' ' for each approach. ' ` ' 4 4 i 4:I' Field Observations.. The posted speed limit on Sonoma '' . a 1; distance requirements Ely Boulevard`is 35 mph. Bight 9 , °Y -14 ,,,ii,'.. , , M ountain' Parkway and r .' were based on 40 mph, and i' ° � �i actual sight lines exceed the .320 feet recommended is ,; 4 i ' '_`.. for this speed. , •k, .: ' .?: • .-44d. •°, fe A review of collisions at this, intersection showed that > „', :' e F � e ` ` ' „ ' , u„, the number of collisions involving left - turning vehicles i JJ 1a�� p ”" `� J .' d� h k 5i Y ,�+ on Sonoma Mountain Parkway -Ely Boulevard is above '° i '4s >~ x ," , r; ' s a `e `' i ; the threshold that indicates a concentration of left a, 'fir;., 4 w ° c ' ' L, ° " turn crashes. $ � ' �� * 4.00:: tn a . 5 , v Recommendations: It is recommended that the PPLT > - : +'". " " -„ - > - .;' • phasing be replaced with protective only ,phasing on i1 e1» t e ; > r ' � k i f Sonoma. Mountain Parkway -Ely Boulevard at East Y s� 4. ;° Washington Street. East as 1;.! ngto y8t 4 ° �i .` ,;' b a ' Operational Analysis: This ' intersection c urrently , �` .<�, a., l $ , ,o 00 Wry ,k„ operates eak hours t av es during of 42.7 an a.ni. and p.m. p, ; Y „', x 1- " ' peak i g d, 40.1 seconds of 4„,, ! " li „„„�(0 yy .,, f o� g Q i ! "° d � delay respectively. With, the recommende ,, operate µ, e k + i 4 b • r • ` .'' 'S c S conversion the intersection will continue `"p inue to o � " at LOS D with 49.2 and 49.8 seconds of delay during ,' * r ; 5 c ' ° ,g ,"! " "A`; 4,614 the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. . ' Protective Left-Tum LEGEND Protective- Permissive Left-Tum • • S' Permissive Left -Tum • Protective- Permissive Left -Turn Signal 'Evaluation for the City of. Petaluma August 30, 20I I Page 28 vv--trans, r � . ' . . .. - . • , • • �. . . . ' . • � ' ` ^. Sonoma Mountain Parkway/Rainier Avenue , ^ � � ' , . . �- Existing Conditions: Both ' + m �` - and Rainier Avenue have .^ . of the signal mast ,and cked »ea�s top mounted /u poles. Field Observations: The posted speed 1| it o So m oun t a i n parkway is 40 mph while posted at 35 mph. Sight lines exceed ' tf , 1,320 and 36 f needed for 45 and 40 mph `al .sPee s �p�� oox��/��u�� _ A review ofcoUisibnuattb�'interoect�n bovvedth�t the numbers of co ' involving. .left-turnmg vehicles on 3onomu [�ountanParkvv�y und Ruin��'�� '� i, ' ~ Avenue are �b�� the ��h N ��'��i�e u / concentration�of|e�'torncrushex. � The ma Mou y . . Avenue exceed the The pproaches do not ---'-- minimum ---- turn and opposing traffic to justify permissive phasing. It ix recommended that.. PPLT phasing be replaced on all approaches at tb� locat on. • /ne Sonoma Mountain Parkway ^ ~'`~^�° to r ~~^~`` � Avenue approaches should "=^""g=" "' kiti,„:„:t...,,,,47,-,-,„r•.0.avitor,,,,,e,,, i :,,,,,: .,,,,,,,,,, . :7447ir. , e ,, it i ,; ; si, ' ,. ; only • Operational Analysis: This inte operutesatLC)3Bd�hogbochtheao�.aod p��'peak h ours with 12.9 and N[8 af 'ded conversion the intersection will cononn�'oo�pmpate�a� LOS B *?t� ' 12.4 and 12.6 seconds c�� de|ayduhngthe a.m. an ` p.m. peak hours. 1°1 ,i,' ,,,' -r !:, . 4 4$ ;#4 4, ' ' � �� • -- �k prov°x*°L°ft-r"m . . , � LEGEND ^�^ Left-Turn .�, �—_-�----- �"n ~�� p°""m�"�w�"rn �� Protective nfS�no £va�ot�n the (�ityof.petu|uma' '�� August 30, 2011 • � Page 29 m-trans . ' ' ` ^ , . ^ ' ^. • • Bantam Way /Bodega Avenue. • • Existing Conditions: Bodega Avenue has protective- ermissive left -turn phasing while Bantam Way has p save only. The pro permissive �"' ' �, r- indications on Bodega Avenue are four- section four-se ction d " �' x ° Modal (Green/Yellow Arrow) heads. 1 f ,q• � � W e , � _ n�n iH 1 ' IY # i 4 DJ � P F t � h � �� Field Observations: This intersection is adjacent to i€iil m F Petaluma Junior High School and peak traffic occurs during pick -up and drop- off Sight lines exceed " : ° <'` ud�� 280 feet, so are adequate for a desi n speed of 40 ti mph (the posted speed limit is 35 mph).k • A review of collisions at this intersection showed that �_ • the number of collisions' involving left - turning vehicles on Bodega Avenue is below they threshold that `� 4 11'4 '� tea indicates a' concentration of left -turn crashes. Recommendations: It is recommended, that the PPLT _. phasing be retained at this location: Operational Y erational Anal sis: This intersection will continue to ` " •�'" " Bodega Ave operate at LOS C during both ,pe hours with 29.5 and 24.2 seconds of delay during the a.m. and p.m. � " peak hours respectively. r ° ,.. • Protective Left-Tum LEGEND a Protective-Permissive Left-Tum • Permissive Left -Tum • Protective- Permissive Left- Turn , Signal'Evaluation for the City of Petaluma August 30, 201 1 Page 30 w-trans • . , . . . • ■ 1 '''::! . :,. 7 ,,,''' . ..-:.,'....„1--,L,;.,„ d N°rtli/S6LithP° intBoulevard N . - ' " .' - -, , ', .-', d North and'.. --- ° ' " --,-ft., , . ' McDowell Boulevard protective ' 7 '',F2i. •■ '''',C-A'rt ... ' ' = ' ' ' - ': '-r.'14r0C.:.'1'TA-4, 79 4 left :f. _k- ,..,„,, TitA"•:,'-',„.4*,-, ions:ivlciD °1 ' ' - .. ''',- „.., '..-',. „,.a,,-% , ° .' . i Existing Condit Southpoint Boulevard Each O. t ,e e" , : [.- g.. fiv t and a five ig arm a . 1 permissive left -turn phasing o h the end turns_ has two indications mast , 0 m__ punted on a I B pole- ,,, ,.:„ ,...,;.'",-...:',/"' s d, N has a - '- straight horizonta ' , ked head t p Field observations: MI caplig°nN:vmeelinxBowulehilaerto . the west' Southpoi 500 a . ri f s e i e ti t On o s from a single lane of into --; - the l anes at . , inte a rSd°u'htallsP9ciuritrve13s? :-71-reittvhhfaeird t7hientelarnsees to re eo and the flarin? of the when anticipating ----7";,,- ,, .., ,, - -' - '''-- ...- Taking the curvature ''''' (- '' „' ,,. .„... • transitions Cti°n. account adds facuhrlinC motorists _ ,,,,„,.. , • 4,1141k- a level approaching collision experience -' .‘, t ..,:i,,,;,,,,,,,:t ,;:•!,,,,.,,:47.,,,,,,tii,iI the intentions northbound and approaches. .,, ,, i '4'4'414 l''411•';•17:. ' has a high' ' ',„t1,.' T nte vehicles on the 1 conflicting southbound turning and evening r ' f th ' ' -- „ a pproaches Based upon adnuarisnsgessbnloth the assessment Boulevar pp ,_. ,, re move t h e Southpoint i There a .,.. --...-_:., - ,..,.-', -_,,,,.;;,,,-Ci„a_ii„,,--kr.k.,,,_ ,,, , ■ 2: -,. . , _. , , ,, „ ,.,,, ”, operated as permissive justify ,protective- ','. peak hours should be oP . only orseration- too or pro , - ' ,1■ 4 ° .0,44:iir,4„1,''r.;ks,,,`: --.. „ f pote „ --:-.44-14..1.1if',: permissive t i o ve onl 1- operation ,,i r the P i that. T PL :cIetdis reco rnm, en'-':v-e,,,, 0n-iyleft-turkri, il.fib.-14,,,,„,,VA.t..i.„;!z;,,.it...;,,,..1. ..„.„.'.,-„4-1727-.,'„,„,„7,„;,!„-..,,,,,p,,,,,,,i?;,.,,,f4i?.::44,,,,*k2,..,,ti . . Recom mendations : NAfith' Pr°tec -I North . 1 Boulevar p h i Sin g mebnedatrieonp t sl he 9w_ MCD 1 .., ,' ,-77,',.,,;1'-z,--'41::.--,v.?''.',:-.11,:...e. p a i p l i a p s r i o n :che .ePitiBaicoseu'daleisvw°airtrdhe.;;Tip::;: : -°nIY ' ,-. -----1 operates on Pe(mis s PhasIng °n ' 1:*S14',''" li''4-..1::' ' phasing be `'. currently -1;:. ..;. I ' ' -. - `';„ .. '.. : ,F-7tr.„--:-,.--'''..:Wc.11.7.—,__,...-"•-r., the Southpoint i This intersection during _.,,,.,,...,,,..,,,,;c;t4-----,-,:,...„,,,,,,•, ,,,,t,:th_.,,i ,,,,,,,,":;?..21.,::L ,:;,..„:„.*-41,144,,,.....,4_ 8 seconds of delay resPecti Operatio ;','''''-''.f:',.Aiktii,lf",.'firt3;,,:,,e.;-L-,'" --- . -,. , ',:i,ti,;:ii,-,,,;.-.:-r-1-::•'4„4;'-'; '''.''':.'1!, m. peak hours . n`aalt LAOnaSi}''Bs.-:cluring. iIlif'3'!:,.*7 With the recommended . ' LO ended T LOS B the. p. ve .. ur vv s with ill operate at ap ' iYnhours ter sectiNioitnh w11.2 seconds of of ayera seconds ..-. c i phasing the during both peak ink peak and -"' delay 'during the peak hour. during the pm Pea tive LefiTum - ik PP° tec Le - Turn permissive Le LEGNID ' Pr°t - ...,,,, -, i . , w_trans of Petaluma ective'-Perinissive Left-Tum Tur ri'l signal Eall.,' aiion for tphaegeC3itlY Protective-Perm August 30, 10 II i . issive Left- , , .. , ' Redwood Way/Old'Redwood Highway, . ' • .. Existing Conditions: Old 0 Redwood :. Highway has M 1^ „( „ protective- permissive left turn phasing, as does Redwood u . ,. , ��I Way. All approaches have the five - section ,Doghouse p 1 w indication mounted on the end lof. the signal mast arms, Syr � ' "' "" 1 ° ”` �1i17 , r ' d : ,I �r ; 7r r rP and a five- section stacked head mounted, on a 1 B pole d" �Z fi � .,i - ' � " ,�, a rdl' " � ' � � ik ti p 1 J 1' .. 1, fi t t5 li " , " i ,,, i. � it i —$L .. � I v �p1,00 4 x 4 °Y ii , 4 H .P. M o Field Obseivations Given,,,�the posted .speed .limit on ` ._ - . " Highway of 40m hand, design speed iof�" * s Old ph, the Nd g minimum "night - ,distance needed ,is 360 - °"" 13 - _ : 4 „ feet. Sight lines exceed', 360 feet "so the sight distance : , sw '� , ",,* .„ ` criterion is met, however, the 4 mphi approach ... - - . speeds exceed the threshold for P phasing. - ” -" , ; Th numbers of collisions involving left- turning vehicles on Old Redwood Highway and 'Redwood r � i� ti � ` , A" " ' , "i , G " f, , Way are below the threshold _ ' . ' ^ i , ^� :$ � that indicates a „ r � �� I, � � r <� ''s concentration of left -turn crashes'. , g N, ' `j ; A k' ' - ' 1 . 474 4" z � r . Asa` J +r ' ".1 : ' 1 4 It was observed that a high percentage of motorists, z,, r"+ "" �x the left -turn. lane in the. eastbound direction _. I- i' t ` r,.` � -�a , " - It, . , . e � �:x� � � �� Y-� +r r} �a 5:- c I . sn I� it 6 shopping a t center. on the northeasterly' co to the . ,- ■ made Y P Y corner of m � McDowell Boulevard North /Ofd Redwood Highway .T '2-'4, P that' : 1left-turns onto _,. . n . , " :,� Mc n Dowel Boulevard v North and Old Redwood Highway. "'J J a - - - w .:. . i G , of potential � , F " , � - � ,,- J , Based upon an assessment of °the o � � � � • � ", movements during both the morning and evening peak hours, the Redwood Way ''approaches should be y am 77 ",.. 7 :7: ; ; . - r im ti i ' ~ 4 .t , I. � I If a'Y°iz 'WI � �' }" .'' � ,,;.�., #' °i �'" } }r " �, wi „� operated as permissive only. There are ,too few � potential � �, 4 i g " t conflicts to justify protective - permissive operation or ' �' w 5,� ,., ,��. 2 ,'1, protective only operation. . " '1 1 :';,-,'.1, : , , r r ' that the PPLT , , ;,� �� , yu ",F only left-turn " be Recommendations: with th p o ote t protective y rn . t 3 , '� x : t p ; 3 g Redwood Highway approaches. It Elm , . K � ,„ hasin on the Old Red , is also recommended that the PPLT phasing be -¢ ' ' ' ° .�. 1„,:,) ,, I replaced with permissive only phasing on the i ` `, " , Redwood "Wey y Redwood, Way approaches. ,: i ` '.. ° .,t :4 .' ( r, w y ,,,rj Operational Analysis: This intersection currently 4 , ,fir > . .; operates at LOS A during' the a:m peak hour with 7.9 6 �' . '" '" "� ` � ,i _ seco of delay on average and LOS - B during the f .,; , ,. • ' , � s ` q +" = i, p.m. peak hour with I of delay. With the c.,.1;4' 1 „ ,, _U ^°�,,, • i° proposed change in phasing there will be no change ' to levels of service, though delay will change, to 8.4 seconds during the a.m. peak hour 'ands 1 1.1 seconds .11` Protective Left -Tum during the p:m. peak hours LEGEND Protective - Permissive Left-Tum Pertnissive'Left -Tum Protective- Permissive Left-Turn Signal -Evaltation' the City of Petal "uma w -trans August 30, .20 I F �� ' Page 32 , . o McDowell Boulevard N orth. , Extensi , Extension/Old Redwood Highway , Existing Conditions O ld R Highway has `� ' protective-permissive left turn phasing' in the $te - L -- ` ' f northbound direction with indications consisting of a 1 five- section "Doghouse" .`mounted one the end of the i ' m 'r� + ' " � � _ ' signal mast arm and a five - section: stacked head i, ; • ' mounted on a I B' pole. r ^ "_ •,� ; °' r Ar7 I' HMI ■ tom" • Field Observations : The posted s limit on OId ,; , , n . # -°n Redwood Highway is 45 'mph: The 45- mph ;,approach4 fi 4 -0 ° . , - - xi > `- speeds exceed the threshold for PPLT, 'phasing, ` -„, though the number of collisions involving left turning : 4 rtr -- yy, vehicles on Old Redwood Hi hwa, is below th'e � ' �� ' t ' d 3 � .. � gy m � 1ra1'n `.....-4=". threshold that indicates a concentration of left - turn : _ , ,� =iet _,. 'r .._,. . crashes. ,—r. Recommendations: ng be P e laced is. with recommended ,that, the PPL I - 4. , tom ; �~ � ,� + 1 -' �' , � � � � � � � P only phasing on , ,. ,,T5 �,,, protective " t * +Y s. c - 3 &� . , E I.i # Y + - r . ° 4 F'S Old Redwood Highway. -k • K H ---4,-,---, Operational Analysis: This intersection currently . 1 ; W r , operates at, LOS A during the aim peak hour with 5.4 MCDOWell BIVd NIExt; ° ', ° ��` � f seconds of delay on ',average, and LOS B during the ,` �. '. "'' "` fl) i:r' A',,r . k' ,4 t y i; Pu' i4 x . p.m. peak hour with 16.3 seconds of delay. The k m 'f � / x ' '' 1 to `operate at LOS during 5-', , ,t ,,.4 �'P , ,, � , intersection is expected t QQ, e, 4` t 1 f - both the a.m. and p.rn peak hours verage ; with the delays o :. �4. "" w , F- e ; "1 , �, + A t ' 1 �i� 4,. recommended phasing change, with d 37 seconds durin a ,f F� ¢ ', i f , O .,,, r, a 8.0 seconds an. sons g the .m. peak '� `, ' w f "' yet 1 O hours respectively. .A' } z , r? 4r '� 1 ,� '-f-.2,,l' ,, , + m1 , � a*P`-;'$ \^d 2 4f' n I t mar.. ',. ' '74 k H � � 'Sl i f mi' .. tF; -3.!: 'a k.c { i 111 t v ''� "41: 1 : ,„ 'i 4 ,. + j .ice s.t ; -s e ., �tl' ,vi j rr 4 ' k �� d .. ''� h* ' + t ,- E , � Protective Left-Tum LEGEND , ,oO Protective- Permissive Left -Tum Permissive Left -Tum ■ t k Petaluma �° August ,30, 2011 ' Left-Turn S i nal Evalua g City w -grans g Lion fo r the Gt of .Petal g Pa a 33' • • Payran Street/Caulfield Lane �� Exis Conditions Caulfield Lane has °'protective : permissive phasing while Payran, Street has permissive, � ; only: The protective - permissive indications include a five - section "Dog_ house " - mounted on e the ," � �' I i g signal mast °arrri� and a five - sects'' n stac p b.gym . ked head nd atop a m 2 r a q 4I ',Oct 1 ,car, �' �'T °�'�n lr kl+� r��i " � _ k'3v � 6 v �� a 4 1 i �� °� w riz '� on 'd speeds 5 mph ed I "NI,k , ,,, $ , wi " n" v� v � Field observations: Sight 1 over the Posted were bas i l , a "' " g ins requirements ents p speed limit, ati� l yr ' or 40 and 35 mph forthe :northbound and �� r —� southbound approaches,,respectivefy. Available sight = ��u� ��`�_g °�+ '� �re' ° . ■ distance exceeds 360 feet to the south and: 280: feet : "s� �� °;'' ' , sight criteri . met: � _ m r * +r , art ,. :; , r fi,r to the north, so the si ht dist ance on • There were an insufficient number of collisions k , � , � ` , k a : _'` involving left - turning vehicles 'on' Caulfield` Lane .to v ~ t,�� n �.,. a ran, . �, indicate a concentration of left -turn :crashes. •2'- ��E � � �, �,. � r w �y . , err . Street and Payran Street is less tha tween , Lakeville .3.; S „� _ ,. be The segment. of Caulfield Lane n 200 feet Iong s : y The short distance and lane changes by eastbound [ l;' i3 A..w 4 » motorists can make it difficult for 'motorists in the ' a� Via $ " westbound left -turn lane to 'anticipate the nt +s� a, r� ° " PP g � �s � t '" `�' La ud - • : a roachin vehicle's movement IM t � � � � � � y r �� 1 � x 4 x Recommendations: It is reco t hat t he. PPLT� , « phly o C Lane be ' replaced with protective ,� ° r� > "��4„ inters current r r - � i . ' � , �,, both' operational AnCltySls: This ti •. r a.. = Ft " ,P- ` � r c R .,. 4 .• w 9�ti�,ii "t op a averages OS d ur i ng the a m and pe • of 17 0 and 18 4`isecond delay of respectively. There will .be a slight ,change; in Protective Left-Tum LOS C operation and 2 phasing 0 6 s seconds of L EGE ND Protective-Permissive Left -Tum performance with the recommends delay during the am. peak hour and 22.3 seconds during they P.m. peak• hour: ',S. Permissive Left -Turn • • Pr otective Perm►ssive Left Turn Signal Evaluation for the'City'of Petaluma ,.' • r�an5 4 Y_ . ' Page 34 Au g ust 30, 201 1, ^r l Summary Summarized in Table 3 are the, recommendations for each of the study intersections. Of the N26; intersections studied it is recommended that that protective - permissive left-turn phasing be retained at six. Replacement of the protective- permissive left -turn phasing with protective only phasing is recommended for eleven intersections. The recommendation for four intersections is to retain the protective- permissive left - turn ' phasing on the major approaches while replacing the protective- permissive left-turn phasing with permissive only phasing on the'cninor street approaches. Additionally, at four intersections the recommendation is to replace' the protective- permissive left -turn phasing on the major approaches with., protective only phasing together with replacing the protective - permissive left -turn phasing with permissive only phasing on the minor street approaches. Finally, for one intersection it is recommended that the protective - permissive left-turn phasing on the major approach be retained while replacing the protective - permissive left -turn phasing with split- phasing on the minor street approaches. The level of service and delay during the a.m., and p.m. peak hours, for each of the 26 study intersections is summarized in Table 4. As 'can be seen in Table 4, little change would be •experienced at most of the study intersections due to the proposed changes in phasing. However, Petaluma Boulevard North/ Magnolia Avenue -West Payr-an. Street, is projected to drop .from ,LOS' C to LOS D during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the removal of the protective - permissive left -turn phasing. Level of Service D is considered acceptable and no additional enhancements are proposed. An improvement in overall perfo,rmance;'at several intersections was noted. This is generally minor and is the result of removal of,protective- left -turn phasing that is not necessary and actually increases overall average delay. • • • Protective- Permissive Left -Turn Signal Evaluation for the City of Petaluma August 30,-2011 . Page 35 w-trans Summar „of'Evaluation Recommended ' Action • • , Study. Intersection North' /S'outh East /West • . • o c td � 0 c ., i v U N . cc' C LA ,. - _ U' V1 E • /O L E E C ',17 0 L - E E C ,, v � 8'''Z' p O .O L t N ='i N L L �"� V 4 O p. i b0 - c1 0 d: 'V O 4. b0 +' N . 0 0 O v� v, O v : > ; Ce < O i Ln; in O : , V 1 > C2 Q ' 1. Stony,Pt- Industrial /Petalu'ma Blvd I ✓ ✓ Prot - - - • 3 McDowell Btvd /E Madison St. : .. Retain ✓ ✓ Perm 4. Maria Dr /E Washington St ✓ Prot' ' - - - - - ' 5. McDowell Blvd S /Maria Dr Retain ✓ ✓ P ' 6. McDowell Blvd S /McGregor Ave Retain ✓ ✓ Perm 7: • McDowell Blvd S /Caulfield •Ln Retain - - - - - - - 10. Lakeville SUE Washington St - ✓ ✓ Prot 12. Petaluma Blvd N /Magnolia Ave "✓ I. 1 ! Prot ✓ ✓ Prot 19. Payran Washington.St - ✓ Prot ' 20. Ellis SUE Washington •St 1 • ✓ , Pr ot 21. McDowell Blvd N /Lynch Creek ✓ ,` ' ' . Prot ^I - - 22. N Webster SUBodega Ave - - Retain 24. McDowell /Community Ctr ,A Retain ✓ ✓ Perm • • 26. McDowell Blvd N /Ranier Ave ✓ Prot - - - - -, 30.' Petaluma BIvd ,N /Sycamore LW', . . i • I Retain ; ' Split ;. 31. McDowell BIvd N /Redwood ' , ✓ ; 1 1 1 f Prot ✓ ✓ Perm • 33. Petaluma Blvd S/I St i 1 i 11 Retain - - 34. Petaluma BIvd S /Mountain View : .'+; Retain - - - - - • 39. Frates Rd /Calle Ranchero 1 ` ' , 1 Retain - - - - 44. Sonoma Mtn Pkwy /Washington -✓ 1 , 1 P 46 Sonoma Mtn Pkwy /RainierAve 1 . ,:l • 1. I „ 11 Fr - ✓ ✓ Perm • 55. Bantam Wy /BodegaAve - Retain 57 McDowell Blvd N /South omt Prot ✓ ' ✓ Perm 72. Redwood Wy. /Old Redwood II., ✓ Prot - ✓ ✓ Perm 73. McDowell /Old. Redwood Hwy ✓ Prot . 78. Payran St/Caulfield Ln a 1 ✓ Prot Notes: Turn Criteria Perm Reply a with Permi a Left Turn' .Spl t 1 Ve _Replace with Split -phas ng With Protective Left- P rotective- Permissive Le ft- Turn, Sig nal. Evaluation for the , City ° P etaIum'a " � , • August 30,'20'1; L ;Page .36 w Grans ; • Table 4' Summary of Peak Hour, Intersection Le vel of Service.Calculations, „ Study Intersection ` Withi PPLT With PPLT AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak 'PM Peak Delay ' LOS , Delay . 'LOS Delay LOS Delay ''LOS 1. Stony Pt- Industrial /Petaluma Blvd, N 28.6 C 29.2 • C 28.7 C 30.4 C 3. McDowell Blvd /E Madison St 12.0 .B • 16.7 B 12.2 B 17.7 B 4. Maria Dr /E Washington. St 10:7 B 14.0 B. 12.4 B 14.0 B 5. McDowell BIvdS/Maria Dr- 26.0 C 20.7 C . 34.1 C : 21.5 C 6. McDowell Blvd S/McGregor Ave 31.2 C 30 • C 25.5 C 29:6 C 7. McDowell Blvd S /Caulfield Ln 54.3 D 45.2 D - - - - 10. Lakeville St/E Washington St 32.0 C. 390 I D 34.3 C 42.4 D 12. Petaluma Blvd N /Magnolia Ave ' 29.9 C 31.2 "C' 44.1 D 44.5 D 19. Payran St/E Washington St 36.3 D • 38:5 D 39.4 D 42.1 D 20. Ellis St/E Washington St 18.9 B 15.4 B: 23.0 C 19.5 B 21. McDowell Blvd N /Lynch Creek Way 7.7 A 9.2 A " 12.2 B 9.3 A 22. N Webster St/Bodega Ave . 33.7 C .r0.4' . B, ° - - - 24. McDowell Blvd N /Community Ctr 1.8. A 20.4 C 2.6 A 15.9 B 26. McDowell Blvd NJ/Rainier Ave 9.1 A 10.0 B. 10.0 B 11.8 B 30. Petaluma Blvd .N /Sycamore'Ln 8.6 A 7.6 A - 9.4 A 7.8 A 31. McDowell Blvd N /R'edwood Way 14.0 . B 13.2 • B. 17.3 B 11.8 B 33. Petaluma Blvd S/1 St 7.6 A 6.9 A - - - - 34 Petaluma Blvd S /Mtn View Ave 10.3 B 5.9: A - - - - 39. Frates Rd /CaIIe Ranchero ' 18.4 ,B 1.5.9 'B' - - - - 44. Sonoma Mtn Pkwy /E °Washington 42.7 D „ 40.1 D 49 :2 D 49.8 D 46. Sonoma Mtn Pkwy /Rainier Ave, 12.9 B ,14.0 B; 12 :4 B 12.6 B 55. Bantam Wy /Bodega Ave 29.5 C 24.2 C - . - - 57. 'McDowell Blv d N /Southpoint..Blvd 13.4 B , 8.7 , :. A 11.2 B 16.0 B 72. Redwood Wy /Old Redwood Hwy 7.9' 'A 14.5 B' 8.4 A 11.1- B 73. McDowell 'Blvd N /Old Redwood ' Hwy 5:4 A 6.3 B 8.0 : A 3.7 A 78. Payran St/Caulfield Ln 17 :0 B': 18.4 B` ' 20.6 C 22.3 C Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per `vehicle LOS = ; Level of Service;, PPLT = Protective /Permissive Left -turn phasing 1 • Protective- Permissive Left -Turn Signal Ev for the City'of Petaluma w August 80,'201 . Page `37 w -tran • .. , P 2 ' . , . I . • 4 p 4 p 1 P 1 a q . , Conclusions and ReCOnimendations.' . . . k . Conclusions . . • Continued use of protective-permissive left-turn operation is appropriate at some of the study intersections. . • Protective-permissive left-turn operation is not , appropriate at some of the study intersections , 1 because of collision experience, vehicle Speeds, sight distance „limitations and/or proximity to railroad crossings. , . . „ • • Protective-permissive, left-turn operation is not appropriate at some of the study intersections , because too few left-turnin&and through vehicles to 'justify'its use:, • Where changes in left-turn operatibns are recommerided,'interseCtions will continue to operate at LOS D or • better during peak hours. . , . Recommendations „ • k Summarized in Table 3 areAhe recommendations. for each of the :study intersections. Of the 26 • intersections stUdied, it recommendedthat the prcitective,:permissive left-turn phasing be retained at nine. At eight intersections, it is ,recommended that the protective permissive left-turn phasing be replaced with protective only phasing: The recomMendatiOn lfs to retain' the 'prOtective-permissive left- , turn phasing on the major , approaches, while replacing thelprotective7permissive left-turn phasing with permissive only phasing on the minor street approaches at four :intersections; and the recommendation is to replace the protective-permissive left-turn phasing on the 'major approaches with protective only phasing together with replatiiig the protective-permissive left-turn phasing With permissive only phasing on the minor street 'approaches at ;another four intefiectionS. Finally, for one intersection the , . recommendation is to retain the protectiVe-permissive left-turn phasing on the major approach while, replacing the protective-permissive left-turn. phasing with split phasing on the minor street approach. It is recommended that the City consider using the newly , authorized 'Flashing Yellow Arrow" protective-permissiVe, left-turn, indicatiori„ Where PPLT ,phasing is to be retained. This new style traffic .. , signal is being installed throughout United' States to control left turns and improve ,safety at intersections where protective permissive phasing is used. New -four-Settibri signal heads arrovvs will replace the traditional five-section signal' heads that had a combination of circular lights and arrows. The new signal heads with arrows provide ,a More 'direct less confusing, message. , The benefits, of the flashing yellow left are: . . . . , . . • They are safer: A decade:long .national study by the Federal. Highway Administration found that drivers had fewer crashes with theflashingyellow arrow. • They are more efficient: The new signal provides More options for Controlling' traffic based on variable traffic volumes since' the timirig sequence can be Made to vary throughout the day. During critical, traffic conditions the new four-section signal can be programmed to be protective only while durihgnon<rititalftimes• it, can be operated in protective permissive Mode. , . • Reminder to all drivers: the flashing yellow arrow reminds drivers that they are to yield to oncoming traffie and to Otoceecl:thro the intersection with cauticin. • Increase Pedestrian safety:- The new signal ,eXtingUishes the flashing yellow 'arrow and advances to a . , red arrow when al. conflicting pedestrian is crossing, The signal reverts back to the flashing yellow arrow en :wh' the pedestrian interval ;is complete and thereare no other conflicting movements. • ProtectivePermissiveLeft-TUrn. SigndbEvaluation for. the CitY of Pet , ' N 'i•, .:•' . • ' August 30, 20] 1 , I Page 38• • . , w-trans . . • Study Participants and References 11 Study Participants . Whitlock Principal in Charge: . Dalene J , ;PE, 'PTOE Traffic Engineer: Allan Tilton, PE Technician /Graphics: Deborah J. Mizell Editing /Formatting: Angela McCoy References Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation. Research Board, 2000 Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), California Highway Patrol, :2005 -201.0 City of Petaluma : General Plan 2025, City of Petaluma, 2008 PET9I9 oQ�OF /044 , TR001 Exp.9 30/12' ,, ...r Ilailrl s ' OF Proiective= Permissive Left -Turn Signal Evaluation for the City of Petaluma • w, , August 30, 201 1 Page 39 w -trans