Folsom City Council
June 23, 2026

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
3: Street D & Prarie City Rd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Queues Page 5
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 240 710 10 170 440
Future Volume (vph) 10 240 710 10 170 440
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 100 0 0 200
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 0.850 0.998
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 3532 0 1770 3539
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3532 0 1770 3539
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 261 2
Link Speed (mph) 30 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 415 281 280
Travel Time (s) 9.4 4.3 4.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 261 783 0 185 478
Turn Type Prot Perm NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8
Detector Phase 8 8 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 22.5 22.5 23.5 14.0 37.5
Total Split (%) 37.5% 37.5% 39.2% 23.3% 62.5%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None Max None Max
Act Effct Green (s) 7.1 7.1 19.7 8.9 33.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.40 0.18 0.67
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.58 0.55 0.58 0.20
Control Delay (s/veh) 17.8 8.8 13.9 27.4 3.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 17.8 8.8 13.9 27.4 3.6

LOS B A B C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 9.2 13.9 10.3
Approach LOS A B B
Queue Length 50th (ft) 3 0 83 46 17
Queue Length 95th (ft) 13 48 154 #120 46
Internal Link Dist (ft) 335 201 200

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
3: Street D & Prarie City Rd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Queues Page 6
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 200
Base Capacity (vph) 648 745 1412 342 2377
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.35 0.55 0.54 0.20
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 49.2
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.58
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 11.7 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 3: Street D & Prarie City Rd

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
3: Street D & Prarie City Rd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 7
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 240 710 10 170 440
Future Volume (veh/h) 10 240 710 10 170 440
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 261 772 11 185 478
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 360 320 1472 21 234 2228
Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.41 0.41 0.13 0.63
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 3680 51 1781 3647
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 261 382 401 185 478
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1777 1861 1781 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 8.3 8.5 8.5 5.3 3.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 8.3 8.5 8.5 5.3 3.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 360 320 729 764 234 2228
V/C Ratio(X) 0.03 0.82 0.52 0.52 0.79 0.21
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 609 542 729 764 322 2228
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.9 20.1 11.7 11.7 22.2 4.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 5.1 2.7 2.6 8.9 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 3.2 3.0 3.1 2.5 0.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 16.9 25.1 14.3 14.2 31.1 4.4
LnGrp LOS B C B B C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 272 783 663
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.8 14.3 11.9
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.4 26.1 37.5 15.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.5 19.0 33.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.3 10.5 5.1 10.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.8 3.0 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 15.0
HCM 7th LOS B

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
4: Street F & Alder Creek Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th TWSC Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 200 10 20 170 40 10 10 50 60 10 110 Future Vol, veh/h 50 200 10 20 170 40 10 10 50 60 10 110 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 150 - - 150 - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 54 217 11 22 185 43 11 11 54 65 11 120
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 228 0 0 228 0 0 473 603 114 473 587 114 Stage 1 - - - - - - 332 332 - 250 250 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 141 272 - 223 337 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1337 - - 1337 - - 474 411 917 474 420 917 Stage 1 - - - - - - 656 643 - 732 699 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 847 683 - 759 640 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1337 - - 1337 - - 379 388 917 410 397 917 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 379 388 - 410 397 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 629 617 - 720 687 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 713 672 - 673 614 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 1.5 0.67 11.2 13.51

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 656 1337 - - 1337 - - 617
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.116 0.041 - - 0.016 - - 0.317
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 11.2 7.8 - - 7.7 - - 13.5
HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0.1 - - 0 - - 1.4

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
5: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Street E Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th TWSC Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 10 10 20 10 40 10 230 20 10 150 10 Future Vol, veh/h 20 10 10 20 10 40 10 230 20 10 150 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 150 - - 150 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 22 11 11 22 11 43 11 250 22 11 163 11
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 467 484 168 473 478 261 174 0 0 272 0 0 Stage 1 190 190 - 283 283 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 277 293 - 190 196 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 506 483 876 502 486 778 1403 - - 1292 - - Stage 1 812 743 - 724 677 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 729 670 - 812 739 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 459 475 876 476 478 778 1403 - - 1292 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 459 475 - 476 478 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 805 737 - 719 672 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 672 665 - 783 733 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.46 11.71 0.29 0.46

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1403 - - 526 612 1292 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - - 0.083 0.124 0.008 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 - - 12.5 11.7 7.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.3 0.4 0 - -

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Queues Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 20 60 10 10 50 90 30 10 310 60 30 270 Future Volume (vph) 20 60 10 10 50 90 30 10 310 60 30 270 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 400 0 200 132 200
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.978 0.962 0.976 0.985
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1822 0 0 1770 1792 0 1770 1818 0 1770 1835 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1822 0 0 1863 1792 0 1770 1818 0 1770 1835 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 11 26 15 9
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 290 615 346 357
Travel Time (s) 4.9 10.5 5.9 6.1
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 76 0 0 65 131 0 11 402 0 33 326 Turn Type Prot NA custom Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 3
Detector Phase 7 4 3 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 9.5 22.5 10.4 10.4 23.4 9.5 22.6 9.5 22.6 Total Split (%) 14.6% 34.6% 16.0% 16.0% 36.0% 14.6% 34.8% 14.6% 34.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None Min None Min
Act Effct Green (s) 5.6 8.0 6.5 11.8 5.6 20.3 5.6 21.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.19 0.16 0.28 0.13 0.49 0.13 0.52 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.21 0.22 0.25 0.05 0.45 0.14 0.34
Control Delay (s/veh) 24.0 18.1 23.4 13.4 23.5 15.3 24.2 12.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 24.0 18.1 23.4 13.4 23.5 15.3 24.2 12.0

LOS C B C B C B C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 19.4 16.7 15.5 13.1
Approach LOS B B B B
Queue Length 50th (ft) 5 13 13 13 2 69 7 54
Queue Length 95th (ft) 26 50 53 72 17 #216 33 162
Internal Link Dist (ft) 210 535 266 277

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Queues Page 2
Lane Group SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 30
Future Volume (vph) 30
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0
Storage Lanes 0
Taper Length (ft)
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 0
Right Turn on Red Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
Link Speed (mph)
Link Distance (ft)
Travel Time (s)
Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
Minimum Split (s)
Total Split (s)
Total Split (%)
Yellow Time (s)
All-Red Time (s)
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay (s/veh)
Queue Delay
Total Delay (s/veh)
LOS
Approach Delay (s/veh)
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Queues Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 400 200 200
Base Capacity (vph) 236 880 293 916 236 1002 236 1071
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.22 0.14 0.05 0.40 0.14 0.30 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 65
Actuated Cycle Length: 41.7
Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.45
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 15.3 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Queues Page 4
Lane Group SBR
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 60 10 10 50 90 30 10 310 60 30 270 Future Volume (veh/h) 20 60 10 10 50 90 30 10 310 60 30 270 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 22 65 11 54 98 33 11 337 65 33 293 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 49 191 32 103 204 69 26 449 87 69 527
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.29 0.29 0.04 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1559 264 1781 1339 451 1781 1524 294 1781 1651 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 22 0 76 54 0 131 11 0 402 33 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1823 1781 0 1789 1781 0 1817 1781 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 0.0 1.4 1.1 0.0 2.5 0.2 0.0 7.4 0.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 0.0 1.4 1.1 0.0 2.5 0.2 0.0 7.4 0.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.16 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 49 0 223 103 0 273 26 0 536 69 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.00 0.34 0.53 0.00 0.48 0.43 0.00 0.75 0.48 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 241 0 887 284 0 914 241 0 889 241 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.7 0.0 14.9 16.9 0.0 14.3 18.1 0.0 11.8 17.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.4 0.0 0.9 4.1 0.0 1.3 10.8 0.0 2.1 5.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 2.3 0.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 24.1 0.0 15.8 21.1 0.0 15.6 28.9 0.0 14.0 22.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS C B C B C B C
Approach Vol, veh/h 98 185 413 359
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.6 17.2 14.4 12.3
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.9 15.4 6.6 9.0 5.0 16.3 5.5 10.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 18.1 5.9 18.0 5.0 18.1 5.0 18.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 9.4 3.1 3.4 2.2 7.4 2.5 4.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 14.5
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 6
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 30
Future Volume (veh/h) 30
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 33
Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 59
Arrive On Green 0.32
Sat Flow, veh/h 186
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 326
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1837
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.4
Prop In Lane 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 586
V/C Ratio(X) 0.56
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 899
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 11.3
LnGrp LOS B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
2: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Street D Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th AWSC Page 7
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh12.2
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 40 180 0 40 30 210 150 0 50 220 20 Future Vol, veh/h 10 40 180 0 40 30 210 150 0 50 220 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 11 43 196 0 43 33 228 163 0 54 239 22
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh11.9 10 12.5 12.7

HCM LOS B A B B
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 4% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 17% 57% 0% 92%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 78% 43% 0% 8%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 210 150 230 70 50 240
LT Vol 210 0 10 0 50 0
Through Vol 0 150 40 40 0 220
RT Vol 0 0 180 30 0 20
Lane Flow Rate 228 163 250 76 54 261
Geometry Grp 5 5 2 2 5 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.409 0.269 0.38 0.128 0.099 0.435
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.45 5.942 5.469 6.057 6.567 6
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 557 603 655 588 545 600
Service Time 4.198 3.69 3.523 4.129 4.318 3.75
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.409 0.27 0.382 0.129 0.099 0.435
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 13.6 10.9 11.9 10 10 13.3
HCM Lane LOS B B B A A B
HCM 95th-tile Q 2 1.1 1.8 0.4 0.3 2.2

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
3: Street D & Prarie City Rd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Queues Page 8
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 220 580 10 220 600
Future Volume (vph) 10 220 580 10 220 600
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 100 0 0 200
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 0.850 0.997
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 3529 0 1770 3539
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3529 0 1770 3539
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 239 3
Link Speed (mph) 30 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 415 281 280
Travel Time (s) 9.4 4.3 4.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 239 641 0 239 652
Turn Type Prot Perm NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8
Detector Phase 8 8 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 22.5 22.5 23.5 14.0 37.5
Total Split (%) 37.5% 37.5% 39.2% 23.3% 62.5%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None Max None Max
Act Effct Green (s) 7.0 7.0 19.1 9.5 33.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.39 0.19 0.67
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.56 0.47 0.70 0.27
Control Delay (s/veh) 17.9 8.8 12.9 33.6 3.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 17.9 8.8 12.9 33.6 3.9

LOS B A B C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 9.2 12.9 11.8
Approach LOS A B B
Queue Length 50th (ft) 3 0 64 62 25
Queue Length 95th (ft) 13 46 121 #168 62
Internal Link Dist (ft) 335 201 200

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
3: Street D & Prarie City Rd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Queues Page 9
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 200
Base Capacity (vph) 649 732 1374 343 2383
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.33 0.47 0.70 0.27
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 49.1
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.70
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 11.9 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 3: Street D & Prarie City Rd

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
3: Street D & Prarie City Rd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 10
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 220 580 10 220 600
Future Volume (veh/h) 10 220 580 10 220 600
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 239 630 11 239 652
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 334 298 1384 24 292 2268
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.39 0.39 0.16 0.64
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 3667 62 1781 3647
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 239 313 328 239 652
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1777 1859 1781 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 7.5 6.8 6.8 6.7 4.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 7.5 6.8 6.8 6.7 4.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 334 298 688 720 292 2268
V/C Ratio(X) 0.03 0.80 0.46 0.46 0.82 0.29
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 620 552 688 720 327 2268
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.2 20.1 11.8 11.8 20.9 4.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 5.0 2.2 2.1 13.7 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 2.9 2.4 2.5 3.4 0.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 17.2 25.1 13.9 13.9 34.6 4.5
LnGrp LOS B C B B C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 250 641 891
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.8 13.9 12.6
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 24.5 37.5 14.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.5 19.0 33.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.7 8.8 6.2 9.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.5 4.2 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 14.8
HCM 7th LOS B

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
4: Street F & Alder Creek Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th TWSC Page 11
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 100 200 20 50 180 70 10 10 30 50 10 70 Future Vol, veh/h 100 200 20 50 180 70 10 10 30 50 10 70 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 150 - - 150 - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 109 217 22 54 196 76 11 11 33 54 11 76
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 272 0 0 239 0 0 658 826 120 674 799 136 Stage 1 - - - - - - 446 446 - 342 342 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 212 380 - 332 457 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1289 - - 1325 - - 350 306 909 340 317 888 Stage 1 - - - - - - 561 573 - 646 636 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 770 612 - 656 566 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1289 - - 1325 - - 271 268 909 278 278 888 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 271 268 - 278 278 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 514 524 - 620 610 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 664 587 - 567 518 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 2.52 1.31 13.73 16.96

HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 467 1289 - - 1325 - - 441
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.116 0.084 - - 0.041 - - 0.32
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 13.7 8.1 - - 7.8 - - 17
HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0.3 - - 0.1 - - 1.4

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
5: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Street E Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th TWSC Page 12
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 10 10 20 10 30 10 150 20 40 260 20 Future Vol, veh/h 10 10 10 20 10 30 10 150 20 40 260 20 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 150 - - 150 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 11 11 11 22 11 33 11 163 22 43 283 22
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 571 587 293 571 587 174 304 0 0 185 0 0 Stage 1 380 380 - 196 196 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 190 207 - 375 391 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 432 422 746 432 422 870 1256 - - 1390 - - Stage 1 642 614 - 806 739 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 812 731 - 646 607 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 389 405 746 398 405 870 1256 - - 1390 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 389 405 - 398 405 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 622 594 - 799 732 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 763 725 - 605 588 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v13.23 12.45 0.44 0.96

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1256 - - 470 548 1390 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - - 0.069 0.119 0.031 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.9 - - 13.2 12.4 7.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 0.4 0.1 - -

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek
Traffic, Access, and Circulation Study
Attachment C
Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Memorandum

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

March 2025
Copyright © Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION

TOLL BROTHERS AT ALDER CREEK

FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

Toll Brothers, Inc.
110 Woodmere Rd., Suite 120
Folsom, CA 95630
Prepared by:

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION
FOR

TOLL BROTHERS AT ALDER CREEK
Prepared for:

Toll Brothers, Inc.
110 Woodmere Rd., Suite 120
Folsom, CA 95630
Prepared by:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
555 Capitol Mall
Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
916-858-5800
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.  March 2025

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

Intersection Control Evaluation
Toll Brothers at Alder Creek in Folsom, CA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of conducting an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) is to provide a holistic decision‐making process and framework to evaluate intersection control alternatives using a performance-based approach to engineering and investment decisions. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 1 , an
Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) is a data-driven, performance-based framework and approach used to objectively screen alternatives and identify an optimal geometric and control solution for an intersection.

This document will provide:
• An objective assessment and evaluation of traffic control options • A data driven engineering analysis of intersection Operations and Safety • A qualitative analysis of location benefits and restrictions • A benefit-cost comparison of intersection control alternatives

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The City of Folsom (“City”) has developed and adopted “Roundabout First” policy language2. As part of this policy, the City is also developing roundabout design standards intended to inform the infrastructure buildout of key areas within the City, including developing areas of the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan3 . As such,
the City requests the analysis of concept level, feasible intersection control alternatives using Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) format. The purpose of this evaluation is to provide an objective analysis that allows the Client and the City to make a traffic control investment decision based on an operations strategy for the design life of the intersection. Overall, the purpose of the Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Intersection Control Evaluation is to:
• Provide consistent documentation that improves transparency of transportation investment decisions
• Implementation of safer, more balanced, and cost-effective solutions • Emphasize the use of objective performance measures for consistent comparisons • Assess the benefit-cost of making intersection control improvements at high priority intersections • Prioritize intersection improvements based on calculated benefit-cost ratio

1 Intersection Control Evaluation, United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, February 2025. 2 Roundabout Feasibility Study Findings, Folsom City Council Meeting, February 25, 2025. 3 Section 7 Circulation, Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan, City of Folsom, April 2024.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

ICE STUDY METHODOLOGIES
The following is a summary of the ICE study methodologies used in this report, consistent with Caltrans guidelines. Four key quantitative performance measures were used to determine the benefits of proposed improvements:

Delay Reduction Benefit: The delay reduction benefit is a measure of the societal cost associated with the number of person-hours of delay at the study intersection during the study period.

Components used to calculate the delay reduction benefit include peak hour delay, average vehicle occupancy (AVO), and the value of travel time savings (VTTS).

Safety Benefit: The safety benefit is a measure of the societal cost associated with the predicted number and severity of crashes that may occur based on intersection control type, intersection configuration, physical setting, and volume of traffic.

Operations and Maintenance Costs: The operations and maintenance (O&M) cost is a measure of the added annual cost to operate and maintain the proposed intersection control alternative.

These costs include annual power consumption for lighting, signal power consumption, traffic signal timing, equipment replacement, pavement management, and landscape maintenance amongst others.

Initial Capital Costs: The initial capital cost is a measure of the added cost to construct the proposed improvements. A range of estimated order of magnitude costs was developed for the proposed improvements based on engineering judgement.

A Benefit-Cost (B/C) ratio was developed using the quantitative performance measures described above.

The B/C ratio measures the expected return on investment when a traditionally controlled intersection (stop-controlled and/or traffic signal) is compared relative to a proposed roundabout controlled intersection. If only one alternative has a positive B/C, it will be the preferred alternative. If no proposed alternatives generate a B/C greater than one, then the existing control will be the preferred alternative.

Level two screening compares the two proposed alternatives. The alternative with the greatest benefit compared to the cost will be the preferred alternative.

In addition to the key performance measures mentioned above, consideration is also given to qualitative measures. Some of these measures include presence and width of sidewalks, presence and class of bike lanes, and required right-of-way acquisition. For each scenario, existing site constraints have been considered to determine feasible improvements that will provide operational and safety benefits.

STUDY INTERSECTION OVERVIEW
Intersection Control Alternative Summary
Three (3) intersections were evaluated in this Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Study Report which are identified in Table 1. To assess the benefit-cost relationship of different intersection controls, two alternative controls were evaluated at each intersection. The legend (right) displays the symbols used throughout this report to represent the proposed control types. Table 1 provides a summary of the alternatives evaluated and the resulting recommendations for each intersection.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

Table 1: Intersection Control Alternative Summary

INTERSECTION OPERATIONS METHODOLOGY
Existing traffic operations were analyzed for the study intersections’ AM and PM peak hour conditions.

Turning movement counts (TMCs), peak hour factors, and heavy vehicle percentages obtained during data collection were utilized in analyzing each intersection. For intersections, level of service (LOS) is determined based on the seconds of control delay per vehicle. The City of Folsom’s target intersection LOS is LOS D4 .

Table 2 summarizes the LOS criteria for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Roundabout delay and LOS follow the standards for unsignalized intersections.

Table 2: LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersection Average
Control
Delay per Vehicle (sec)
Unsignalized Intersection Average
Control
Delay per Vehicle (sec)
LOS
≤ 10 ≤ 10 A
> 10 and ≤ 20 > 10 and ≤ 15 B
> 20 and ≤ 35 > 15 and ≤ 25 C
> 35 and ≤ 55 > 25 and ≤ 35 D
> 55 and ≤ 80 > 35 and ≤ 50 E
> 80 or if V/C ≥ 1.0 > 50 or if V/C ≥ 1.0 F
Note: For approach-based and intersection-wide assessments, LOS is defined solely by control delay.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition

4 Chapter 3, Folsom General Plan 2035, City of Folsom, August 27, 2024.

Intersection Control Alternative Summary
Intersection
Evaluated
Alternatives Recommendation
Option A Option B
INT 1 Oak Avenue Pkwy and Mangini
Pkwy
INT 2 Oak Avenue Pkwy and Street D
INT 3 Prairie City Rd and Street D

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
Pedestrian safety is significantly enhanced by several key factors.

Lower traffic speeds reduce the likelihood and severity of collisions. When vehicles travel at slower speeds, drivers have more time to react to unexpected events, and any collisions that do occur are less likely to result in severe injuries or fatalities. For instance, a pedestrian hit by a vehicle traveling at 20 mph has approximately 90% chance of survival, compared to less than 20% at 40 mph5 .

Fewer vehicle-pedestrian conflict points also contribute to enhanced safety. Each crosswalk at an intersection has several potential conflict points where pedestrians and vehicles intersect. Vehicles traveling through the intersection and turning left or right create conflict points with pedestrians crossing the street. Right turns are particularly hazardous because drivers must look in the opposite direction for oncoming traffic and may miss seeing pedestrians. Intersections like roundabouts reduce the number of lanes and eliminate separate turning movements, thus reducing the number of conflict points compared to traditional intersections and subsequently reducing the chances of collisions.

The single lane roundabout provides the fewest number of pedestrian conflict points (2 times less than the multi-lane roundabout and 4 times less than the AWSC or signal) for the considered alternatives.

Shorter crossing distances minimize the time pedestrians are exposed to traffic, reducing the risk of collisions. Features like curb extensions and pedestrian islands help shorten crossing distances, making it safer and easier for pedestrians to cross streets. For the roundabout alternatives, pedestrians only need to cross 1-2 lanes at a time, with a refuge island in the middle. This reduces the crossing distance and minimizes the crossing time. The all-way stop, HAWK, and signal alternatives maintain larger crossing distances spanning multiple lanes and a median.

The single lane roundabout provides the shortest crossing time (less than half of 2-lane roundabout and nearly 7 times less than HAWK or signal) for the considered alternatives.

Table 3 below summarizes the crossing time, number of conflict points, and vehicle speeds at the crosswalk for each of the intersection control alternatives.

Table 3: Pedestrian Safety Assessment
Alternative Average Crossing
Time (s)
Number of Conflict
Points
Estimated Vehicle Speed at
Crosswalk (mph)
Single Lane Roundabout 36 8 23
All-way Stop (4 Lane) 150 - 240 32 5
Multi Lane Roundabout 72 16 27
Traffic Signal (2 Lane) 144 - 156 32 30 - 45
Traffic Signal (4 Lane) 156 - 252 32 30 - 45
5 Chapter 5. Risk Factors Other than Exposure, Synthesis of Methods for Estimating Pedestrian and Bicyclist Exposure to Risk at Areawide Levels and on Specific Transportation Facilities, United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, January 2017.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

INTERSECTION 1 – OAK AVENUE PARKWAY AND MANGINI PARKWAY Intersection Control Alternatives
The current existing intersection only consists of the south and east legs. The evaluation assumes the build out of the north and west legs and transitions from divided two-lane road segments along Oak Avenue Parkway and Mangini Parkway.

The two intersection control types analyzed include:

1. Traffic Signal

2. Single-lane Roundabout
Figure 1 presents the concept lane configuration and geometry of the traffic signal alternative. Figure 2 presents the concept lane configuration and geometry of the roundabout alternative.

The concept layouts are also included in Appendix A.

Figure 1: Intersection 1 Traffic Signal Alternative Concept

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

Figure 2: Intersection 1 Roundabout Alternative Concept

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

Qualitative Assessment
Table 4 summarizes qualitative factors that were considered in the design of each alternative.

Table 4: Intersection 1 Qualitative Analysis
Operations Summary
Table 5 summarizes the traffic operations at Intersection 1. The Synchro® and SIDRA® reports for the analysis can be found in Appendix B and Appendix C.

Table 5: Intersection 1 Operations Summary
Control Type Year Period Delay LOS Queue v/c Length (ft) Approach Signal
2025
AM 16.2 B 120 SB PM 15.6 B 103 SB 2045
AM 14.7 B 184 SB PM 14.4 B 205 NB Roundabout
2025
AM 3.9 A 25 SB 0.175
PM 4.2 A 25 WB 0.203
2045
AM 5.8 A 50 SB 0.337
PM 6.1 A 55 NB 0.350
Traffic Signal Roundabout Control
Feasibility Feasibility
Urban Environment Focus N/A N/A
Design for Pedestrians
Design for Bicyclists
Slow Traffic Speeds to Benefit Local Businesses N/A N/A Minimize ROW Acquisition to Limit Initial Costs
Minimize Left-Turn Movements to Improve Safety
Feasible
Not Feasible
Qualitative Assessment
INT 1
Oak Avenue Parkway and Mangini Parkway

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

Performance Measure Summary
Four performance measures were evaluated at each intersection for signal and roundabout control. Table 6 below summarizes the performance measures considered for Intersection 1.

Table 6: Intersection 1 Performance Measure Summary
Performance Measure Preferred
Alt. Visual Representation
Benefits
Safety
Safety measures the societal cost
associated with the predicted number
and severity and collisions. Overall
societal costs are based on Caltrans
Vehicle Operation Cost Parameters.

Injury and Fatality crashes are on
average 700-1,000 times more
expensive than Property Damage Only
accidents. Further details can be found in
Appendix D.

Delay
Delay measures the societal cost
associated with the number of personhours delayed in traffic. Overall societal costs are based on Caltrans Vehicle
Operation Cost Parameters.

Costs
Operations and Maintenance
O&M measures the common annualized
costs associated with operating and
maintaining the intersection.

Initial Capital Cost
Measures the Initial Capital Costs (ICC)
needed to plan, design, obtain project
approvals, acquire right-of-way, and
construct the intersection control. This
graph (right) depicts the estimated range
of Initial capital costs for the signal and
roundabout alternatives.

$835
$1,957
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500
Safety Cost (Thousands)
Signal Roundabout
$346
$987
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200
Delay Cost (Thousands)
Signal Roundabout
$18,889
143,242
$- $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000
Life Cycle Discounted Costs
Signal Roundabout
$2,000
$2,000
$3,000
$3,000
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000
Initial Capital Cost Ranges ($ Thousand)

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

Intersection Life Cycle Cost Calculations
Table 7 summarizes the net present value of each of the four different performance measures as well as the lifecycle benefit-cost ratio when comparing the roundabout to the signal.

Table 7: Intersection 1 B/C Analysis of Alternatives

PERFORMANCE MEASURE LIFE CYCLE COST (NET PRESENT VALUE) Safety
Signal Roundabout
Annual Cost of Collisions $127,143 $54,401
Discounted Life Cycle Cost of Collisions $1,956,639 $835,379 Delay
Signal Roundabout
Annual Quantity (hours) 2306 825
Annual Cost $46,989 $16,454
Total Discounted Life Cycle Cost $986,768 $345,527
Operations and Maintenance
Signal Roundabout
Annual O&M Costs $9,100 $1,200
Discounted Life Cycle O&M Costs $143,242 $18,889
Discounted Pavement Rehab Costs $0 $0
Total O&M Costs $143,242 $18,889
Initial Capital
Signal Roundabout
High Approximation $3,000,000 $3,000,000
Low Approximation $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Average $2,500,000 $2,500,000

LIFE CYCLE BENEFIT COST RATIO
Total Benefits ( B )
Added Benefits Compared to Signal Signal Roundabout
Safety $- $1,121,261
Delay $- $641,241
Total Benefits $- $1,762,501
Total Costs ( C )
Added Cost Compared to Signal Signal Roundabout
O&M $- $(124,353)
Initial Capital $- $-
Total Costs $0 $(124,353)
B/C Ratio Compared to Signal N/A -14.17
The preferred control based on the B/C analysis is the roundabout. The B/C ratio is negative as the roundabout alternative has both more benefits and less cost when compared to the signal.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

Table 8 below summarizes the B/C ratio calculations for comparing the roundabout to the signal alternative.

Table 8: Alternative Traffic Control Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations The high B/C target is calculated assuming the high-end of the traffic signal initial capital costs and the lowend of the roundabout initial capital costs.

The low B/C target is calculated assuming the low-end of the traffic signal initial capital costs and the highend of the roundabout initial capital costs.

B/C Analysis Summary at Intersection 1
The table above summarizes the B/C analysis for Oak Avenue Parkway and Mangini Parkway. The initial capital cost (ICC) ranges for the roundabout and signal options are represented by the grey box area. The black diagonal line represents a neutral B/C ratio of 1.0. If a pair of roundabout and signal ICC costs (x and y values) are above the black diagonal line, then the B/C ratio is greater than 1.0 and the roundabout option has the greater return on investment (ROI). If a pair of roundabout and signal ICC costs is below the black diagonal line, then the B/C ratio is less than 1.0 and the signal has the greater ROI. The roundabout budget is depicted with the circle symbol and represents how much can be spent on the roundabout ICC to achieve a neutral B/C equal to 1.0.

B/C
( A ) ( B ) ( C ) = ( B - A ) ( D ) ( E ) ( F ) = ( C + D ) ( G ) = ( E / F ) High $ 3,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ (1,000,000) $ (1,124,353) Roundabout Preferred Low $ 2,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 875,647 2.01
Breakeven $ 2,500,000 $ 4,386,854 $ 1,886,854 $ 1,762,501 1.00 Signal Roundabout Added Cost
Added O&M Cost for
Roundabout Total Costs
Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations for Signal (A) vs Roundabout (B) Initial Capital Cost Project Constants
B/C Target
$ (124,353) $ 1,762,501
Total Benefits
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$- $2,000 $4,000 $6,000
Proposed Traffic Signal Cost
(Thousands)
Proposed Roundabout Cost (Thousands)

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

INTERSECTION 2 – OAK AVENUE PARKWAY AND STREET D
Intersection Control Alternatives
Oak Avenue Parkway and Street D is planned to be constructed with the construction of the Toll Brothers at Alder Creek property. The evaluation assumes transitions from divided two-lane road segments along Oak Avenue Parkway and Street D.

The three intersection control types analyzed include:

1. All-Way Stop Control

2. Single-lane Roundabout

Figure 3 presents the concept lane configuration and geometry of the AWSC alternative. Figure 4 presents the concept lane configuration and geometry of the roundabout alternative.

The concept layouts are also included in Appendix A.

Figure 3: Intersection 2 Traffic Signal Alternative Concept

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

Figure 4: Intersection 2 Roundabout Alternative Concept

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

Qualitative Assessment
Table 9 summarizes qualitative factors that were considered in the design of each alternative.

Table 9: Intersection 2 Qualitative Assessment
Operations Summary
Table 10 summarizes the traffic operations at Intersection 2. The Synchro® and SIDRA® reports for the analysis can be found in Appendix B and Appendix C.

Table 10: Intersection 2 Operations Summary
Control Type Year Period Delay LOS Queue v/c Length (ft) Approach AWSC
2025
AM 8.4 A 20 NB PM 8.5 A 25 EB 2045
AM 11.5 B 45 NB PM 12.2 B 55 SB Roundabout
2025
AM 3.6 A 15 NB 0.112
PM 3.9 A 20 NB 0.153
2045
AM 5.6 A 55 NB 0.344
PM 6.1 A 50 NB 0.325
AWSC Control Traffic Signal Roundabout Control
Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility
Urban Environment Focus N/A N/A N/A
Design for Pedestrians
Design for Bicyclists
Slow Traffic Speeds to Benefit Local Businesses N/A N/A N/A Minimize ROW Acquisition to Limit Initial Costs
Minimize Left-Turn Movements to Improve Safety
Feasible
Not Feasible
Qualitative Assessment
INT 2
Oak Avenue Parkway and Street D

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

Performance Measure Summary
Four performance measures were evaluated at each intersection for signal and roundabout control. Table 11 below summarizes the performance measures considered in this study.

Table 31: Intersection 2 Performance Measure Summary
Performance Measure Preferred
Alt. Visual Representation
Benefits
Safety
Safety measures the societal cost
associated with the predicted number
and severity and collisions. Overall
societal costs are based on Caltrans
Vehicle Operation Cost Parameters.

Injury and Fatality crashes are on
average 700-1,000 times more
expensive than Property Damage Only
accidents. Further details can be found
in Appendix D.

Delay
Delay measures the societal cost
associated with the number of personhours delayed in traffic. Overall societal costs are based on Caltrans Vehicle
Operation Cost Parameters.

Costs
Operations and Maintenance
O&M measures the common annualized
costs associated with operating and
maintaining the intersection.

Initial Capital Cost
Measures the Initial Capital Costs (ICC)
needed to plan, design, obtain project
approvals, acquire right-of-way, and
construct the intersection control. This
graph (right) depicts the estimated
range of Initial capital costs for the
signal and roundabout alternatives.

$849
$812
$790 $800 $810 $820 $830 $840 $850 $860
Safety Cost (Millions)
AWSC Roundabout
$309
$641
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700
Delay Cost (Millions)
AWSC Roundabout
$18,889
$9,445
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000
Life Cycle Discounted Costs
AWSC Roundabout
$2,000
$2,000
$3,000
$3,000
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000
Initial Capital Cost Ranges ($ Thousand)
AWSC Roundabout

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

Intersection Life Cycle Cost Calculations
Table 12 summarizes the net present value of each of the four different performance measures as well as the lifecycle benefit-cost ratio when comparing the roundabout to the AWSC.

Table 4: Intersection 2 B/C Analysis of Alternatives

PERFORMANCE MEASURE LIFE CYCLE COST (NET PRESENT VALUE) Safety
AWSC Roundabout
Annual Cost of Collisions $53,682 $56,159
Discounted Life Cycle Cost of Collisions $811,848 $848,573 Delay
AWSC Roundabout
Annual Quantity (hours) 1542 745
Annual Cost $30,568 $14,701
Total Discounted Life Cycle Cost $641,938 $308,731
Operations and Maintenance
AWSC Roundabout
Annual O&M Costs $600 $1,200
Discounted Life Cycle O&M Costs $9,445 $18,889
Discounted Pavement Rehab Costs $0 $0
Total O&M Costs $9,445 $18,889
Initial Capital
AWSC Roundabout
High Approximation $3,000,000 $3,000,000
Low Approximation $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Average $2,500,000 $2,500,000

LIFE CYCLE BENEFIT-COST RATIO
Total Benefits ( B )
Added Benefits Compared to AWSC AWSC Roundabout
Safety $0 -$36,725
Delay $0 $333,207
Total Benefits $0 $296,482
Total Costs ( C )
Added Cost Compared to Existing Conditions AWSC Roundabout O&M $0 $9,445
Initial Capital $0 $0
Total Costs $0 $9,445
B/C Ratio Compared to Existing Conditions N/A 31.39
The preferred control based on the B/C analysis is the roundabout.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

Table 13 below summarizes the B/C ratio calculations for comparing the roundabout to the AWSC alternative.

Table 5: Alternative Traffic Control Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations The high B/C target is calculated assuming the high-end of the traffic signal initial capital costs and the lowend of the roundabout initial capital costs.

The low B/C target is calculated assuming the low-end of the traffic signal initial capital costs and the highend of the roundabout initial capital costs.

B/C Analysis Summary at Intersection 2
The table above summarizes the B/C analysis for Oak Avenue Parkway and Mangini Parkway. The initial capital cost (ICC) ranges for the roundabout and AWSC options are represented by the grey box area. The black diagonal line represents a neutral B/C ratio of 1.0. If a pair of roundabout and signal ICC costs (x and y values) are above the black diagonal line, then the B/C ratio is greater than 1.0 and the roundabout option has the greater return on investment (ROI). If a pair of roundabout and signal ICC costs is below the black diagonal line, then the B/C ratio is less than 1.0 and the signal has the greater ROI. The roundabout budget is depicted with the circle symbol and represents how much can be spent on the roundabout ICC to achieve a neutral B/C equal to 1.0.

B/C
( A ) ( B ) ( C ) = ( B - A ) ( D ) ( E ) ( F ) = ( C + D ) ( G ) = ( E / F ) High $ 3,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ (1,000,000) $ (990,555) Roundabout Preferred Low $ 2,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,009,445 0.29 Breakeven $ 2,500,000 $ 2,787,038 $ 287,038 $ 296,482 1.00 AWSC Roundabout Added Cost
Added O&M Cost for
Roundabout Total Costs
Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations for AWSC (A) vs Roundabout (B) Initial Capital Cost Project Constants
B/C Target
$ 9,445 $ 296,482
Total Benefits

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

INTERSECTION 3 – PRAIRIE CITY ROAD AND STREET D
Intersection Control Alternatives
Prairie City Road and Street D is planned to be constructed with the construction of the Toll Brothers at Alder Creek property. The evaluation assumes transitions from divided two-lane road segments along Street D and divided four-lane road segments along Prairie City Road.

The two intersection control types analyzed include:

1. Traffic Signal

2. Multi-lane Roundabout
Figure 5 presents the concept lane configuration and geometry of the traffic signal alternative. Figure 6 presents the concept lane configuration and geometry of the roundabout alternative.

The concept layouts are also included in Appendix A.

Figure 6: Intersection 3 Traffic Signal Alternative Concept

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

Figure 7: Intersection 3 Roundabout Alternative Concept

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

Qualitative Assessment
Table 14 summarizes qualitative factors that were considered in the design of each alternative.

Table 14: Intersection 3 Qualitative Assessment

Operations Summary
Table 15 summarizes the traffic operations at Intersection 2. The Synchro® and SIDRA® reports for the analysis can be found in Appendix B and Appendix C.

Table 6: Intersection 3 Operations Summary
Control Type Year Period Delay LOS Queue v/c Length (ft) Approach Signal
2025
AM 10.8 B 130 NB PM 11.3 B 190 SB 2045
AM 11.6 B 156 SB PM 12.6 B 160 SB Roundabout
2025
AM 6.1 A 55 WB 0.427
PM 6.0 A 50 SB 0.344
2045
AM 6.1 A 50 WB 0.391
PM 5.7 A 50 SB 0.323
Traffic Signal Roundabout Control
Feasibility Feasibility
Urban Environment Focus N/A N/A
Design for Pedestrians
Design for Bicyclists
Slow Traffic Speeds to Benefit Local Businesses N/A N/A Minimize ROW Acquisition to Limit Initial Costs
Minimize Left-Turn Movements to Improve Safety
Feasible
Not Feasible
Qualitative Assessment
INT 3
Prairie City Road and Street D

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

Performance Measure Summary
Four performance measures were evaluated at each intersection for signal and roundabout control. Table 16 below summarizes the performance measures considered in this study.

Table 7: Intersection 3 Performance Measure Summary
Performance Measure Preferred
Alt. Visual Representation
Benefits
Safety
Safety measures the societal cost
associated with the predicted number
and severity and collisions. Overall
societal costs are based on Caltrans
Vehicle Operation Cost Parameters.

Injury and Fatality crashes are on
average 700-1,000 times more
expensive than Property Damage Only
accidents. Further details can be found
in Appendix D.

Delay
Delay measures the societal cost
associated with the number of personhours delayed in traffic. Overall societal costs are based on Caltrans Vehicle
Operation Cost Parameters.

Costs
Operations and Maintenance
O&M measures the common annualized
costs associated with operating and
maintaining the intersection.

Initial Capital Cost
Measures the Initial Capital Costs (ICC)
needed to plan, design, obtain project
approvals, acquire right-of-way, and
construct the intersection control. This
graph (right) depicts the estimated
range of Initial capital costs for the
signal and roundabout alternatives.

$2,014,370
$5,001,095
$- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000
Safety Cost (Millions)
Signal Roundabout
$921,612
$1,776,057
$- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000
Delay Cost (Millions)
Signal Roundabout
$18,889
143,242
$- $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000
Life Cycle Discounted Costs
Signal Roundabout
$4,000
$4,000
$6,000
$6,000
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000
Initial Capital Cost Ranges ($ Thousand)

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

Intersection Life Cycle Cost Calculations
Table 17 summarizes the net present value of each of the four different performance measures as well as the lifecycle benefit-cost ratio when comparing the roundabout to the AWSC.

Table 8: Intersection 3 B/C Analysis of Alternatives

PERFORMANCE MEASURE LIFE CYCLE COST (NET PRESENT VALUE) Safety
Signal Roundabout
Annual Cost of Collisions $317,849 $128,068
Discounted Life Cycle Cost of Collisions $5,001,095 $2,014,370 Delay
Signal Roundabout
Annual Quantity (hours) 4032 2079
Annual Cost $84,574 $43,886
Total Discounted Life Cycle Cost $1,776,057 $921,612
Operations and Maintenance
Signal Roundabout
Annual O&M Costs $9,100 $1,200
Discounted Life Cycle O&M Costs $143,242 $18,889
Discounted Pavement Rehab Costs $0 $0
Total O&M Costs $143,242 $18,889
Initial Capital
Signal Roundabout
High Approximation $6,000,000 $6,000,000
Low Approximation $4,000,000 $4,000,000

LIFE CYCLE BENEFIT COST RATIO
Total Benefits ( B )
Added Benefits Compared to Signal Signal Roundabout
Safety $- $2,986,726
Delay $- $ 854,444
Total Benefits $- $3,841,170
Total Costs ( C )
Added Cost Compared to Signal Signal Roundabout
O&M $ - $ (124,353)
Initial Capital $ - $ -
Total Costs $ - ($124,353)
B/C Ratio Compared to Signal N/A -30.89
The preferred control based on the B/C analysis is the roundabout. The B/C ratio is negative as the roundabout alternative has both more benefits and less cost when compared to the signal.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

Table 18 below summarizes the B/C ratio calculations for comparing the roundabout to the signal alternative.

Table 9: Alternative Traffic Control Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations The high B/C target is calculated assuming the high-end of the traffic signal initial capital costs and the lowend of the roundabout initial capital costs.

The low B/C target is calculated assuming the low-end of the traffic signal initial capital costs and the highend of the roundabout initial capital costs.

B/C Analysis Summary at Intersection 3
The table above summarizes the B/C analysis for Oak Avenue Parkway and Street D. The initial capital cost (ICC) ranges for the roundabout and signal options are represented by the grey box area. The black diagonal line represents a neutral B/C ratio of 1.0. If a pair of roundabout and signal ICC costs (x and y values) are above the black diagonal line, then the B/C ratio is greater than 1.0 and the roundabout option has the greater return on investment (ROI). If a pair of roundabout and signal ICC costs is below the black diagonal line, then the B/C ratio is less than 1.0 and the signal has the greater ROI. The roundabout budget is depicted with the circle symbol and represents how much can be spent on the roundabout ICC to achieve a neutral B/C equal to 1.0.

B/C
( A ) ( B ) ( C ) = ( B - A ) ( D ) ( E ) ( F ) = ( C + D ) ( G ) = ( E / F ) High $ 6,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ (2,000,000) $ (2,018,889) Roundabout Preferred Low $ 4,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 1,981,111 1.48 Breakeven $ 5,000,000 $ 7,954,871 $ 2,954,871 $ 2,935,982 1.00 Signal Roundabout Added Cost
Added O&M Cost for
Roundabout Total Costs
Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations for Signal (A) vs Roundabout (B) Initial Capital Cost Project Constants
B/C Target
$ (18,889) $ 2,935,982
Total Benefits

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek

CONCLUSIONS
Table 19 summarizes the findings and observations of the ICE Study that was conducted at the three (3) intersections for Toll Brothers at Alder Creek.

Table 10: Summary of ICE Study Intersection Findings and Observations Intersection 1: Oak Avenue Parkway and Mangini Parkway
• The roundabout alternative has a negative B/C ratio which represents a savings in safety, delay and operations/maintenance when compared to the signal. • As seen in the benefit-cost ratio calculations and visualized in the graph, the roundabout is preferred for all cases within the estimated initial capital cost ranges. • The roundabout alternative provides an approximate $1.9M benefit over the traffic signal alternative.
• The roundabout is the preferred alternative.

Intersection 2: Oak Avenue Parkway and Street D
• The AWSC and roundabout alternative have comparable B/C ratios using the range of initial capital costs, indicating that both alternatives are viable. • If Intersection 1 and Intersection 3 are roundabout controlled, a roundabout should be implemented at Intersection 2 to create consistent control types along Oak Avenue Parkway and Street D.
• The single lane roundabout provides greater benefits to pedestrian safety when compared to the AWSC. The roundabout lowers vehicle speeds at the crosswalk, reduced the pedestrian length of crossing, and minimized the number of conflict points. • The roundabout and AWSC alternatives provide similar benefits; however, per the City of Folsom's policy language, a roundabout is the preferred alternative.

Intersection 3: Prairie City Road and Street D
• The roundabout alternative has a negative B/C ratio which represents a savings in safety, delay and operations/maintenance when compared to the signal. • As seen in the benefit-cost ratio calculations and visualized in the graph, the roundabout is preferred for all cases within the estimated initial capital cost ranges. • The roundabout alternative provides an approximate $4.0M benefit over the traffic signal alternative.
• The roundabout is the preferred alternative.

Appendices
Appendix A – Intersection Control Concept Layouts
Appendix B – Side-Street Stop and Signal Synchro® Operational Analysis Appendix C – Roundabout SIDRA® Operational Analysis
Appendix D – HSM Predictive Method Safety Analysis and IHSDM KABCO Values

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek
Appendix A
Intersection Control Concept Layouts

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

K:\SAC_TPTO\Folsom Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Traffic\08 CADD\Exhibits\Exhibits.dwg Path: MANGINI PKWY AT OAK AVENUE PKWY CONCEPTS CONCEPT LAYOUT OF PROPOSED SIGNAL NORTH MANGINI PARKWAY

OAK AVENUE PARKWAY

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

K:\SAC_TPTO\Folsom Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Traffic\08 CADD\Exhibits\Exhibits.dwg Path: MANGINI PKWY AT OAK AVENUE PKWY CONCEPTS CONCEPT LAYOUT OF PROPOSED ROUNDABOUT NORTH MANGINI PARKWAY

OAK AVENUE PARKWAY

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

OAK AVENUE PARKWAY

STREET D
Path: K:\SAC_TPTO\Folsom Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Traffic\08 CADD\Exhibits\Exhibits.dwg STREET D AT OAK AVENUE PKWY CONCEPTS CONCEPT LAYOUT OF PROPOSED ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL NORTH

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

OAK AVENUE PARKWAY

STREET D
Path: K:\SAC_TPTO\Folsom Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Traffic\08 CADD\Exhibits\Exhibits.dwg STREET D AT OAK AVENUE PKWY CONCEPTS CONCEPT LAYOUT OF PROPOSED ROUNDABOUT NORTH

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

STREET D PRAIRIE CITY RD
Path: K:\SAC_TPTO\Folsom Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Traffic\08 CADD\Exhibits\Exhibits.dwg PRAIRIE CITY RD AT STREET D CONCEPTS CONCEPT LAYOUT OF PROPOSED SIGNAL NORTH

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

STREET D PRAIRIE CITY RD
Path: K:\SAC_TPTO\Folsom Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Traffic\08 CADD\Exhibits\Exhibits.dwg PRAIRIE CITY RD AT STREET D CONCEPTS CONCEPT LAYOUT OF PROPOSED ROUNDABOUT NORTH

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek
Appendix B
Side-Street Stop and Signal Synchro® Operational Analysis

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 4 29 14 37 10 69 5 21 18 145 60 1
Future Volume (vph) 4 29 14 37 10 69 5 21 18 145 60 1
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 400 0 200 132 200 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.952 0.869 0.930 0.998
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1773 0 1770 1619 0 1770 1732 0 1770 1859 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1773 0 1770 1619 0 1770 1732 0 1770 1859 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 15 75 20 1
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 290 615 346 357
Travel Time (s) 4.9 10.5 5.9 6.1
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 4 47 0 40 86 0 5 43 0 158 66 0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.6 22.6 9.5 23.4 9.5 23.4
Total Split (%) 14.6% 34.6% 14.8% 34.8% 14.6% 36.0% 14.6% 36.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None Min None Min
Act Effct Green (s) 5.5 6.8 5.7 6.7 5.5 9.5 5.5 22.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.23 0.19 0.22 0.18 0.31 0.18 0.74 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.21 0.02 0.08 0.49 0.05
Control Delay (s/veh) 15.0 10.3 14.6 6.7 14.8 9.2 23.9 8.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 15.0 10.3 14.6 6.7 14.8 9.2 23.9 8.3

LOS B B B A B A C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 10.7 9.2 9.8 19.3
Approach LOS B A A B
Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 2 2 1 1 1 11 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 27 30 29 8 24 #120 38
Internal Link Dist (ft) 210 535 266 277

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 400 200 200
Base Capacity (vph) 324 1177 331 1101 324 1224 324 1458 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.04 0.12 0.08 0.02 0.04 0.49 0.05 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 65
Actuated Cycle Length: 30.2
Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.49
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 14.5 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 4 29 14 37 10 69 5 21 18 145 60 1 Future Volume (veh/h) 4 29 14 37 10 69 5 21 18 145 60 1 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 4 32 15 40 11 75 5 23 20 158 65 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 10 133 62 83 31 214 12 145 126 211 494 8
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1204 564 1781 207 1410 1781 923 803 1781 1837 28 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 4 0 47 40 0 86 5 0 43 158 0 66
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1769 1781 0 1617 1781 0 1726 1781 0 1865 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.7 2.7 0.0 0.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.7 2.7 0.0 0.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.02
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 10 0 195 83 0 245 12 0 272 211 0 502 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.00 0.24 0.48 0.00 0.35 0.41 0.00 0.16 0.75 0.00 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 281 0 1003 286 0 922 281 0 1027 281 0 1110 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.7 0.0 12.9 14.8 0.0 12.1 15.7 0.0 11.6 13.5 0.0 8.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 25.5 0.0 0.6 4.2 0.0 0.9 21.0 0.0 0.3 7.5 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 41.2 0.0 13.5 19.0 0.0 12.9 36.7 0.0 11.8 21.1 0.0 8.9 LnGrp LOS D B B B D B C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 51 126 48 224
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.7 14.8 14.4 17.5
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.3 9.5 6.0 8.0 4.7 13.0 4.7 9.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 18.9 5.1 18.0 5.0 18.9 5.0 18.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.1 2.9 2.1 3.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 16.2
HCM 7th LOS B

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
2: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Street D Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 16 65 62 45 0 109 2 22 0 4 2
Future Volume (vph) 1 16 65 62 45 0 109 2 22 0 4 2
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 200 0 200 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.892 0.862 0.950
Flt Protected 0.999 0.972 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1660 0 0 1811 0 1770 1606 0 1863 1770 0 Flt Permitted 0.999 0.972 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1660 0 0 1811 0 1770 1606 0 1863 1770 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 391 404 398 448
Travel Time (s) 8.9 9.2 6.8 7.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 89 0 0 116 0 118 26 0 0 6 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
2: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Street D Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th AWSC Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.4
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 16 65 62 45 0 109 2 22 0 4 2
Future Vol, veh/h 1 16 65 62 45 0 109 2 22 0 4 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 1 17 71 67 49 0 118 2 24 0 4 2
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.5 8.3 9 7.7

HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 1% 58% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 8% 20% 42% 100% 67%
Vol Right, % 0% 92% 79% 0% 0% 33%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 109 24 82 107 0 6
LT Vol 109 0 1 62 0 0
Through Vol 0 2 16 45 0 4
RT Vol 0 22 65 0 0 2
Lane Flow Rate 118 26 89 116 0 7
Geometry Grp 5 5 2 2 5 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.181 0.032 0.099 0.147 0 0.009
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.496 4.35 3.998 4.546 5.139 4.904 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 654 824 898 791 0 730
Service Time 3.217 2.071 2.013 2.56 2.865 2.631
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.18 0.032 0.099 0.147 0 0.01
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 9.4 7.2 7.5 8.3 7.9 7.7
HCM Lane LOS A A A A N A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.5 0 0

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
3: Street D & Prarie City Rd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 7
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 41 233 706 14 82 430
Future Volume (vph) 41 233 706 14 82 430
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 100 0 0 200
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 0.850 0.997
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 3529 0 1770 3539
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3529 0 1770 3539
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 253 4
Link Speed (mph) 30 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 415 281 280
Travel Time (s) 9.4 4.3 4.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 45 253 782 0 89 467
Turn Type Prot Perm NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8
Detector Phase 8 8 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.9 9.6 32.5
Total Split (%) 40.9% 40.9% 41.6% 17.5% 59.1%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None Min None Min
Act Effct Green (s) 7.2 7.2 17.8 5.3 23.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.45 0.13 0.58
v/c Ratio 0.14 0.51 0.49 0.38 0.23
Control Delay (s/veh) 15.8 7.0 10.5 23.5 4.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 15.8 7.0 10.5 23.5 4.4

LOS B A B C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 8.3 10.5 7.5
Approach LOS A B A
Queue Length 50th (ft) 9 0 70 19 18
Queue Length 95th (ft) 30 44 130 #65 44
Internal Link Dist (ft) 335 201 200

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
3: Street D & Prarie City Rd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 8
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 200
Base Capacity (vph) 832 878 1788 235 2588
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.05 0.29 0.44 0.38 0.18
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 55
Actuated Cycle Length: 39.5
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.51
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 9.0 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 3: Street D & Prarie City Rd

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
3: Street D & Prarie City Rd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 41 233 706 14 82 430
Future Volume (veh/h) 41 233 706 14 82 430
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 45 253 767 15 89 467
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 381 339 1166 23 146 1900
Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.33 0.33 0.08 0.53
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 3658 70 1781 3647
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 45 253 382 400 89 467
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1777 1858 1781 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.7 5.3 6.6 6.6 1.7 2.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.7 5.3 6.6 6.6 1.7 2.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 381 339 581 608 146 1900
V/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.75 0.66 0.66 0.61 0.25
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 895 797 913 955 254 2779
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.4 13.2 10.3 10.3 15.9 4.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 3.3 1.3 1.2 4.1 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 1.8 1.7 1.8 0.7 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 11.5 16.4 11.6 11.6 19.9 4.5
LnGrp LOS B B B B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 298 782 556
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.7 11.6 7.0
Approach LOS B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.4 16.2 23.6 12.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.1 18.4 28.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.7 8.6 4.5 7.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.1 2.8 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 10.8
HCM 7th LOS B

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 19 10 1 28 33 169 17 66 27 114 36 Future Volume (vph) 2 19 10 1 28 33 169 17 66 27 114 36 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 400 0 200 132 200
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.948 0.875 0.957 0.986
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1766 0 0 1770 1630 0 1770 1783 0 1770 1837 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1766 0 0 1770 1630 0 1770 1783 0 1770 1837 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 11 184 29 4
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 290 615 346 357
Travel Time (s) 4.9 10.5 5.9 6.1
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 32 0 0 31 220 0 18 101 0 124 43 Turn Type Prot NA Prot Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase 7 4 3 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.6 9.6 22.6 9.5 23.4 9.5 23.4 Total Split (%) 14.6% 34.6% 14.8% 14.8% 34.8% 14.6% 36.0% 14.6% 36.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None Min None Min
Act Effct Green (s) 5.2 7.1 5.3 7.1 5.2 8.7 5.2 17.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.14 0.24 0.14 0.47 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.09 0.12 0.47 0.07 0.23 0.49 0.05
Control Delay (s/veh) 17.0 11.1 17.4 8.0 17.2 11.7 27.2 9.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 17.0 11.1 17.4 8.0 17.2 11.7 27.2 9.6

LOS B B B A B B C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 11.5 9.1 12.5 22.7
Approach LOS B A B C
Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 3 4 5 3 10 19 3
Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 21 27 51 19 49 #103 29
Internal Link Dist (ft) 210 535 266 277

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 2
Lane Group SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 4
Future Volume (vph) 4
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0
Storage Lanes 0
Taper Length (ft)
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 0
Right Turn on Red Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
Link Speed (mph)
Link Distance (ft)
Travel Time (s)
Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
Minimum Split (s)
Total Split (s)
Total Split (%)
Yellow Time (s)
All-Red Time (s)
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay (s/veh)
Queue Delay
Total Delay (s/veh)
LOS
Approach Delay (s/veh)
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 400 200 200
Base Capacity (vph) 251 910 256 928 251 972 251 1022
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.04 0.12 0.24 0.07 0.10 0.49 0.04 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 65
Actuated Cycle Length: 36.2
Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.49
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 13.9 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 4
Lane Group SBR
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 19 10 1 28 33 169 17 66 27 114 36 Future Volume (veh/h) 2 19 10 1 28 33 169 17 66 27 114 36 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2 21 11 30 36 184 18 72 29 124 39
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 5 190 99 65 53 269 41 192 77 183 386
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.20 0.20 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1156 605 1781 266 1360 1781 1268 511 1781 1668 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2 0 32 30 0 220 18 0 101 124 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1761 1781 0 1626 1781 0 1778 1781 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 4.1 0.3 0.0 1.7 2.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 4.1 0.3 0.0 1.7 2.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.84 1.00 0.29 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 5 0 289 65 0 321 41 0 269 183 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.00 0.11 0.46 0.00 0.68 0.44 0.00 0.37 0.68 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 270 0 960 275 0 891 270 0 1018 270 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.4 0.0 11.7 15.6 0.0 12.3 15.9 0.0 12.6 14.3 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 37.5 0.0 0.2 5.0 0.0 2.6 7.2 0.0 0.9 4.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 53.9 0.0 11.9 20.6 0.0 14.9 23.1 0.0 13.5 18.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B C B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 34 250 119 167
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.4 15.6 14.9 16.4
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.9 9.5 5.7 9.9 5.3 12.1 4.6 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 18.9 5.1 18.0 5.0 18.9 5.0 18.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 3.7 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.6 2.0 6.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 15.6
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 6
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 4
Future Volume (veh/h) 4
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 40
Arrive On Green 0.23
Sat Flow, veh/h 171
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 43
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1840
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6
Prop In Lane 0.09
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 425
V/C Ratio(X) 0.10
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1053
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 10.1
LnGrp LOS B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
2: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Street D Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 3 50 128 42 29 0 100 6 71 0 4 2
Future Volume (vph) 3 50 128 42 29 0 100 6 71 0 4 2
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 200 0 200 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.904 0.862 0.950
Flt Protected 0.999 0.971 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1682 0 0 1809 0 1770 1606 0 1863 1770 0 Flt Permitted 0.999 0.971 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1682 0 0 1809 0 1770 1606 0 1863 1770 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 391 404 398 448
Travel Time (s) 8.9 9.2 6.8 7.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 196 0 0 78 0 109 84 0 0 6 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
2: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Street D Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th AWSC Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.5
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 50 128 42 29 0 100 6 71 0 4 2
Future Vol, veh/h 3 50 128 42 29 0 100 6 71 0 4 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 3 54 139 46 32 0 109 7 77 0 4 2
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.3 8.3 8.7 7.9

HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 2% 59% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 8% 28% 41% 100% 67%
Vol Right, % 0% 92% 71% 0% 0% 33%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 100 77 181 71 0 6
LT Vol 100 0 3 42 0 0
Through Vol 0 6 50 29 0 4
RT Vol 0 71 128 0 0 2
Lane Flow Rate 109 84 197 77 0 7
Geometry Grp 5 5 2 2 5 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.17 0.104 0.224 0.102 0 0.009
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.64 4.489 4.104 4.756 5.341 5.106 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 637 798 877 755 0 700
Service Time 3.37 2.218 2.121 2.779 3.08 2.844
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.171 0.105 0.225 0.102 0 0.01
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 9.5 7.7 8.3 8.3 8.1 7.9
HCM Lane LOS A A A A N A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.3 0 0

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
3: Street D & Prarie City Rd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 10
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 27 155 574 46 262 595
Future Volume (vph) 27 155 574 46 262 595
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 100 0 0 200
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 0.850 0.989
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 3500 0 1770 3539
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3500 0 1770 3539
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 168 14
Link Speed (mph) 30 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 415 281 280
Travel Time (s) 9.4 4.3 4.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 29 168 674 0 285 647
Turn Type Prot Perm NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8
Detector Phase 8 8 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 15.0 37.5
Total Split (%) 37.5% 37.5% 37.5% 25.0% 62.5%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None Min None Min
Act Effct Green (s) 6.9 6.9 14.7 10.8 31.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.34 0.25 0.72
v/c Ratio 0.10 0.43 0.57 0.65 0.25
Control Delay (s/veh) 18.4 7.9 14.4 27.5 3.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 18.4 7.9 14.4 27.5 3.5

LOS B A B C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 9.4 14.4 10.9
Approach LOS A B B
Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 0 72 66 26
Queue Length 95th (ft) 25 39 126 #190 56
Internal Link Dist (ft) 335 201 200

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
3: Street D & Prarie City Rd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 11
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 200
Base Capacity (vph) 755 772 1503 441 2725
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.22 0.45 0.65 0.24
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 43.5
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 12.0 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 3: Street D & Prarie City Rd

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
3: Street D & Prarie City Rd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 12
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 27 155 574 46 262 595
Future Volume (veh/h) 27 155 574 46 262 595
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 29 168 624 50 285 647
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 259 231 965 77 358 2175
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.29 0.29 0.20 0.61
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 3426 267 1781 3647
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 29 168 332 342 285 647
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1777 1822 1781 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 3.8 6.1 6.1 5.6 3.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 3.8 6.1 6.1 5.6 3.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 259 231 515 528 358 2175
V/C Ratio(X) 0.11 0.73 0.65 0.65 0.80 0.30
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 864 769 862 884 504 3159
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.8 15.2 11.5 11.5 14.1 3.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 4.4 1.4 1.3 5.9 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 1.4 1.7 1.8 2.2 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 14.0 19.5 12.9 12.9 20.0 3.5
LnGrp LOS B B B B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 197 674 932
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.7 12.9 8.5
Approach LOS B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 15.2 27.2 9.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 18.0 33.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 8.1 5.2 5.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 2.7 4.2 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 11.3
HCM 7th LOS B

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 30 90 10 60 40 30 10 240 40 30 320 20 Future Volume (vph) 30 90 10 60 40 30 10 240 40 30 320 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 400 0 200 132 200 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.985 0.935 0.979 0.991
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1835 0 1770 1742 0 1770 1824 0 1770 1846 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1835 0 1770 1742 0 1770 1824 0 1770 1846 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 9 33 13 5
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 290 615 346 357
Travel Time (s) 4.9 10.5 5.9 6.1
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 109 0 65 76 0 11 304 0 33 370 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.6 22.6 9.5 23.4 9.5 23.4
Total Split (%) 14.6% 34.6% 14.8% 34.8% 14.6% 36.0% 14.6% 36.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None Min None Min
Act Effct Green (s) 5.8 8.5 5.9 10.2 5.8 23.4 5.8 24.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.21 0.15 0.26 0.15 0.59 0.15 0.63 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.27 0.25 0.16 0.04 0.28 0.13 0.32
Control Delay (s/veh) 23.5 18.1 24.1 12.2 23.0 12.6 23.5 11.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 23.5 18.1 24.1 12.2 23.0 12.6 23.5 11.4

LOS C B C B C B C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 19.4 17.7 13.0 12.4
Approach LOS B B B B
Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 19 13 5 2 49 7 64
Queue Length 95th (ft) 34 68 55 42 17 146 34 184
Internal Link Dist (ft) 210 535 266 277
Cumulative

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 400 200 200
Base Capacity (vph) 256 960 261 928 256 1103 256 1154
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.11 0.25 0.08 0.04 0.28 0.13 0.32 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 65
Actuated Cycle Length: 39.8
Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.32
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 14.3 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy
Cumulative

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 30 90 10 60 40 30 10 240 40 30 320 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 30 90 10 60 40 30 10 240 40 30 320 20 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 33 98 11 65 43 33 11 261 43 33 348 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 70 207 23 119 150 115 26 399 66 70 487 31
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.26 0.26 0.04 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1652 185 1781 982 753 1781 1566 258 1781 1741 110 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 0 109 65 0 76 11 0 304 33 0 370 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1837 1781 0 1735 1781 0 1824 1781 0 1851 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 0.0 1.9 1.2 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.0 5.2 0.6 0.0 6.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6 0.0 1.9 1.2 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.0 5.2 0.6 0.0 6.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.06
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 70 0 231 119 0 266 26 0 465 70 0 518 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.00 0.47 0.55 0.00 0.29 0.43 0.00 0.65 0.47 0.00 0.71 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 254 0 943 259 0 895 254 0 983 254 0 997 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.5 0.0 14.3 15.8 0.0 13.1 17.1 0.0 11.7 16.5 0.0 11.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.9 0.0 1.5 3.8 0.0 0.6 10.7 0.0 1.6 4.9 0.0 1.9 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.3 0.0 2.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 21.4 0.0 15.8 19.7 0.0 13.7 27.9 0.0 13.2 21.4 0.0 13.2 LnGrp LOS C B B B C B C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 142 141 315 403
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.1 16.5 13.7 13.9
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.9 13.4 6.8 8.9 5.0 14.3 5.9 9.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 18.9 5.1 18.0 5.0 18.9 5.0 18.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 7.2 3.2 3.9 2.2 8.3 2.6 3.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 14.7
HCM 7th LOS B
Cumulative

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
2: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Street D Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 30 30 150 0 50 50 200 190 0 20 160 10 Future Volume (vph) 30 30 150 0 50 50 200 190 0 20 160 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 200 0 200 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.904 0.932 0.991
Flt Protected 0.993 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1672 0 0 1736 0 1770 1863 0 1770 1846 0 Flt Permitted 0.993 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1672 0 0 1736 0 1770 1863 0 1770 1846 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 391 404 398 448
Travel Time (s) 8.9 9.2 6.8 7.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 229 0 0 108 0 217 207 0 22 185 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Cumulative

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
2: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Street D Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th AWSC Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.5
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 30 150 0 50 50 200 190 0 20 160 10 Future Vol, veh/h 30 30 150 0 50 50 200 190 0 20 160 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 33 33 163 0 54 54 217 207 0 22 174 11
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 11.2 10 12.2 11.3

HCM LOS B A B B
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 14% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 14% 50% 0% 94%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 71% 50% 0% 6%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 200 190 210 100 20 170
LT Vol 200 0 30 0 20 0
Through Vol 0 190 30 50 0 160
RT Vol 0 0 150 50 0 10
Lane Flow Rate 217 207 228 109 22 185
Geometry Grp 5 5 2 2 5 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.381 0.333 0.341 0.173 0.04 0.311
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.306 5.799 5.381 5.718 6.611 6.062 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 572 620 667 625 541 593
Service Time 4.042 3.535 3.427 3.772 4.356 3.806
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.379 0.334 0.342 0.174 0.041 0.312
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 12.9 11.4 11.2 10 9.6 11.5
HCM Lane LOS B B B A A B
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.8 1.5 1.5 0.6 0.1 1.3
Cumulative

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
3: Street D & Prarie City Rd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 7
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 240 710 10 170 440
Future Volume (vph) 10 240 710 10 170 440
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 100 0 0 200
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 0.850 0.998
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 3532 0 1770 3539
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3532 0 1770 3539
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 261 2
Link Speed (mph) 30 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 415 281 280
Travel Time (s) 9.4 4.3 4.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 261 783 0 185 478
Turn Type Prot Perm NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8
Detector Phase 8 8 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 15.0 37.5
Total Split (%) 37.5% 37.5% 37.5% 25.0% 62.5%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None Min None Min
Act Effct Green (s) 7.1 7.1 17.4 9.3 28.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.39 0.21 0.63
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.55 0.57 0.51 0.21
Control Delay (s/veh) 17.6 8.2 14.4 22.9 3.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 17.6 8.2 14.4 22.9 3.8

LOS B A B C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 8.6 14.4 9.2
Approach LOS A B A
Queue Length 50th (ft) 3 0 85 43 17
Queue Length 95th (ft) 13 48 160 105 46
Internal Link Dist (ft) 335 201 200
Cumulative

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
3: Street D & Prarie City Rd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 8
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 200
Base Capacity (vph) 734 809 1471 428 2685
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.32 0.53 0.43 0.18
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 44.7
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.57
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 11.4 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: Street D & Prarie City Rd
Cumulative

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
3: Street D & Prarie City Rd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 240 710 10 170 440
Future Volume (veh/h) 10 240 710 10 170 440
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 261 772 11 185 478
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 376 335 1119 16 241 1994
Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.31 0.31 0.14 0.56
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 3680 51 1781 3647
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 261 382 401 185 478
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1777 1861 1781 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 6.1 7.5 7.5 4.0 2.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 6.1 7.5 7.5 4.0 2.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 376 335 554 580 241 1994
V/C Ratio(X) 0.03 0.78 0.69 0.69 0.77 0.24
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 812 723 810 849 474 2970
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.4 14.7 11.9 11.9 16.5 4.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 4.0 1.5 1.5 5.1 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 1.6 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 12.4 18.7 13.5 13.4 21.6 4.5
LnGrp LOS B B B B C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 272 783 663
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.4 13.4 9.2
Approach LOS B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.8 16.8 26.6 12.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 18.0 33.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 9.5 4.7 8.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 2.9 3.0 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 12.6
HCM 7th LOS B
Cumulative

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 20 60 10 10 50 90 30 10 310 60 30 270 Future Volume (vph) 20 60 10 10 50 90 30 10 310 60 30 270 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 400 0 200 132 200
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.978 0.962 0.976 0.985
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1822 0 0 1770 1792 0 1770 1818 0 1770 1835 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1822 0 0 1770 1792 0 1770 1818 0 1770 1835 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 11 26 15 9
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 290 615 346 357
Travel Time (s) 4.9 10.5 5.9 6.1
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 76 0 0 65 131 0 11 402 0 33 326 Turn Type Prot NA Prot Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase 7 4 3 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.6 9.6 22.6 9.5 23.4 9.5 23.4 Total Split (%) 14.6% 34.6% 14.8% 14.8% 34.8% 14.6% 36.0% 14.6% 36.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None Min None Min
Act Effct Green (s) 5.8 8.2 5.9 11.8 5.8 24.4 5.8 25.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.20 0.15 0.29 0.14 0.60 0.14 0.64 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.20 0.25 0.24 0.04 0.37 0.13 0.28
Control Delay (s/veh) 24.0 17.5 24.7 13.4 23.6 13.2 24.0 10.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 24.0 17.5 24.7 13.4 23.6 13.2 24.0 10.6

LOS C B C B C B C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 19.0 17.1 13.5 11.9
Approach LOS B B B B
Queue Length 50th (ft) 4 12 13 13 2 67 7 52
Queue Length 95th (ft) 26 49 55 73 17 #205 34 162
Internal Link Dist (ft) 210 535 266 277

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 2
Lane Group SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 30
Future Volume (vph) 30
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0
Storage Lanes 0
Taper Length (ft)
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 0
Right Turn on Red Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
Link Speed (mph)
Link Distance (ft)
Travel Time (s)
Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
Minimum Split (s)
Total Split (s)
Total Split (%)
Yellow Time (s)
All-Red Time (s)
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay (s/veh)
Queue Delay
Total Delay (s/veh)
LOS
Approach Delay (s/veh)
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 400 200 200
Base Capacity (vph) 253 946 258 942 253 1095 253 1166
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.08 0.25 0.14 0.04 0.37 0.13 0.28 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 65
Actuated Cycle Length: 40.5
Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.37
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 14.1 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 4
Lane Group SBR
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 60 10 10 50 90 30 10 310 60 30 270 Future Volume (veh/h) 20 60 10 10 50 90 30 10 310 60 30 270 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 22 65 11 54 98 33 11 337 65 33 293 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 49 190 32 102 204 69 26 452 87 69 530
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.30 0.30 0.04 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1559 264 1781 1339 451 1781 1524 294 1781 1651 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 22 0 76 54 0 131 11 0 402 33 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1823 1781 0 1789 1781 0 1817 1781 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 0.0 1.4 1.1 0.0 2.5 0.2 0.0 7.4 0.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 0.0 1.4 1.1 0.0 2.5 0.2 0.0 7.4 0.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.16 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 49 0 222 102 0 272 26 0 539 69 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.00 0.34 0.53 0.00 0.48 0.43 0.00 0.75 0.48 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 240 0 885 245 0 873 240 0 926 240 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.8 0.0 14.9 17.0 0.0 14.4 18.1 0.0 11.8 17.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.4 0.0 0.9 4.1 0.0 1.3 10.8 0.0 2.1 5.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 2.3 0.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 24.2 0.0 15.8 21.1 0.0 15.7 29.0 0.0 13.9 22.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS C B C B C B C
Approach Vol, veh/h 98 185 413 359
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.7 17.3 14.3 12.3
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.9 15.5 6.6 9.0 5.0 16.4 5.5 10.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 18.9 5.1 18.0 5.0 18.9 5.0 18.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 9.4 3.1 3.4 2.2 7.4 2.5 4.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 14.4
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 6
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 30
Future Volume (veh/h) 30
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 33
Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 60
Arrive On Green 0.32
Sat Flow, veh/h 186
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 326
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1837
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.4
Prop In Lane 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 589
V/C Ratio(X) 0.55
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 936
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 11.2
LnGrp LOS B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
2: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Street D Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 40 180 0 40 30 210 150 0 50 220 20 Future Volume (vph) 10 40 180 0 40 30 210 150 0 50 220 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 200 0 200 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.894 0.941 0.987
Flt Protected 0.998 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1662 0 0 1753 0 1770 1863 0 1770 1839 0 Flt Permitted 0.998 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1662 0 0 1753 0 1770 1863 0 1770 1839 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 391 404 398 448
Travel Time (s) 8.9 9.2 6.8 7.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 250 0 0 76 0 228 163 0 54 261 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
2: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Street D Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th AWSC Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.2
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 40 180 0 40 30 210 150 0 50 220 20 Future Vol, veh/h 10 40 180 0 40 30 210 150 0 50 220 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 11 43 196 0 43 33 228 163 0 54 239 22
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 11.9 10 12.5 12.7

HCM LOS B A B B
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 4% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 17% 57% 0% 92%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 78% 43% 0% 8%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 210 150 230 70 50 240
LT Vol 210 0 10 0 50 0
Through Vol 0 150 40 40 0 220
RT Vol 0 0 180 30 0 20
Lane Flow Rate 228 163 250 76 54 261
Geometry Grp 5 5 2 2 5 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.409 0.269 0.38 0.128 0.099 0.435
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.45 5.942 5.469 6.057 6.567 6
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 557 603 655 588 545 600
Service Time 4.198 3.69 3.523 4.129 4.318 3.75
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.409 0.27 0.382 0.129 0.099 0.435
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 13.6 10.9 11.9 10 10 13.3
HCM Lane LOS B B B A A B
HCM 95th-tile Q 2 1.1 1.8 0.4 0.3 2.2

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
3: Street D & Prarie City Rd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 10
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 220 580 10 220 600
Future Volume (vph) 10 220 580 10 220 600
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 100 0 0 200
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 0.850 0.997
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 3529 0 1770 3539
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3529 0 1770 3539
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 239 3
Link Speed (mph) 30 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 415 281 280
Travel Time (s) 9.4 4.3 4.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 239 641 0 239 652
Turn Type Prot Perm NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8
Detector Phase 8 8 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 15.0 37.5
Total Split (%) 37.5% 37.5% 37.5% 25.0% 62.5%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None Min None Min
Act Effct Green (s) 7.0 7.0 13.3 10.0 28.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.30 0.23 0.63
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.53 0.60 0.59 0.29
Control Delay (s/veh) 17.1 8.1 15.9 25.2 4.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 17.1 8.1 15.9 25.2 4.2

LOS B A B C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 8.5 15.9 9.8
Approach LOS A B A
Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 0 67 52 25
Queue Length 95th (ft) 13 46 125 #156 62
Internal Link Dist (ft) 335 201 200

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
3: Street D & Prarie City Rd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Page 11
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 200
Base Capacity (vph) 735 797 1468 429 2696
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.30 0.44 0.56 0.24
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 44.1
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.60
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 11.8 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 3: Street D & Prarie City Rd

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Cumulative plus Project
3: Street D & Prarie City Rd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 12
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 220 580 10 220 600
Future Volume (veh/h) 10 220 580 10 220 600
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 239 630 11 239 652
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 349 311 983 17 306 2011
Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.57
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 3667 62 1781 3647
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 239 313 328 239 652
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1777 1859 1781 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 5.4 5.9 5.9 4.9 3.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 5.4 5.9 5.9 4.9 3.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 349 311 489 511 306 2011
V/C Ratio(X) 0.03 0.77 0.64 0.64 0.78 0.32
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 848 754 846 885 495 3101
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.3 14.4 12.1 12.1 15.0 4.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 4.0 1.4 1.3 4.3 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.8 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 12.3 18.4 13.5 13.4 19.3 4.5
LnGrp LOS B B B B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 250 641 891
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.1 13.4 8.4
Approach LOS B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 14.9 25.9 11.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 18.0 33.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.9 7.9 5.7 7.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 2.5 4.3 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 11.6
HCM 7th LOS B

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek
Appendix C
Roundabout SIDRA® Operational Analysis

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 2 [Int 2_Alt00_2025_AM (Site Folder: Opening Year 2025)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.1.200 New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
Turn Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Eff.

Stop
Rate
Aver.

No. of
Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: Oak Avenue Parkway NB
3 L2 All MCs 5 2.0 5 2.0 0.043 3.6 LOS A 0.2 4.5 0.33 0.19 0.33 33.4 8 T1 All MCs 23 2.0 23 2.0 0.043 3.6 LOS A 0.2 4.5 0.33 0.19 0.33 34.1 18 R2 All MCs 20 2.0 20 2.0 0.043 3.6 LOS A 0.2 4.5 0.33 0.19 0.33 33.8 Approach 48 2.0 48 2.0 0.043 3.6 LOS A 0.2 4.5 0.33 0.19 0.33 33.9 East: Mangini Parkway WB
1 L2 All MCs 40 2.0 40 2.0 0.096 3.4 LOS A 0.4 10.4 0.12 0.03 0.12 33.0 6 T1 All MCs 11 2.0 11 2.0 0.096 3.4 LOS A 0.4 10.4 0.12 0.03 0.12 33.6 16 R2 All MCs 75 2.0 75 2.0 0.096 3.4 LOS A 0.4 10.4 0.12 0.03 0.12 33.3 Approach 126 2.0 126 2.0 0.096 3.4 LOS A 0.4 10.4 0.12 0.03 0.12 33.2 North: Oak Avenue Parkway SB
7 L2 All MCs 158 2.0 158 2.0 0.175 4.2 LOS A 0.9 21.7 0.19 0.07 0.19 31.8 4 T1 All MCs 65 2.0 65 2.0 0.175 4.2 LOS A 0.9 21.7 0.19 0.07 0.19 32.4 14 R2 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.175 4.2 LOS A 0.9 21.7 0.19 0.07 0.19 32.1 Approach 224 2.0 224 2.0 0.175 4.2 LOS A 0.9 21.7 0.19 0.07 0.19 32.0 West: Mangini Parkway EB
5 L2 All MCs 4 2.0 4 2.0 0.050 3.9 LOS A 0.2 5.2 0.39 0.25 0.39 33.3 2 T1 All MCs 32 2.0 32 2.0 0.050 3.9 LOS A 0.2 5.2 0.39 0.25 0.39 34.0 12 R2 All MCs 15 2.0 15 2.0 0.050 3.9 LOS A 0.2 5.2 0.39 0.25 0.39 33.7 Approach 51 2.0 51 2.0 0.050 3.9 LOS A 0.2 5.2 0.39 0.25 0.39 33.8 All Vehicles 449 2.0 449 2.0 0.175 3.9 LOS A 0.9 21.7 0.21 0.09 0.21 32.7 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2022 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC | Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise Level 2 | Processed: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 9:50:13 AM
Project: K:\SAC_TPTO\Folsom Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Traffic\03 Analysis Files\Sidra\Toll Brothers.sip9

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 2 [Int 2_Alt00_2025_PM (Site Folder: Opening Year 2025)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.1.200 New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
Turn Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Eff.

Stop
Rate
Aver.

No. of
Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: Oak Avenue Parkway NB
3 L2 All MCs 18 2.0 18 2.0 0.103 4.0 LOS A 0.5 11.6 0.30 0.16 0.30 33.1 8 T1 All MCs 72 2.0 72 2.0 0.103 4.0 LOS A 0.5 11.6 0.30 0.16 0.30 33.8 18 R2 All MCs 29 2.0 29 2.0 0.103 4.0 LOS A 0.5 11.6 0.30 0.16 0.30 33.5 Approach 120 2.0 120 2.0 0.103 4.0 LOS A 0.5 11.6 0.30 0.16 0.30 33.6 East: Mangini Parkway WB
1u U All MCs 1 3.0 1 3.0 0.203 4.7 LOS A 0.9 24.0 0.24 0.11 0.24 32.8 1 L2 All MCs 30 2.0 30 2.0 0.203 4.6 LOS A 0.9 24.0 0.24 0.11 0.24 32.8 6 T1 All MCs 36 2.0 36 2.0 0.203 4.6 LOS A 0.9 24.0 0.24 0.11 0.24 33.5 16 R2 All MCs 184 2.0 184 2.0 0.203 4.6 LOS A 0.9 24.0 0.24 0.11 0.24 33.2 Approach 251 2.0 251 2.0 0.203 4.6 LOS A 0.9 24.0 0.24 0.11 0.24 33.2 North: Oak Avenue Parkway SB
7 L2 All MCs 124 2.0 124 2.0 0.135 4.0 LOS A 0.6 15.7 0.23 0.10 0.23 31.8 4 T1 All MCs 39 2.0 39 2.0 0.135 4.0 LOS A 0.6 15.7 0.23 0.10 0.23 32.4 14 R2 All MCs 4 2.0 4 2.0 0.135 4.0 LOS A 0.6 15.7 0.23 0.10 0.23 32.1 Approach 167 2.0 167 2.0 0.135 4.0 LOS A 0.6 15.7 0.23 0.10 0.23 31.9 West: Mangini Parkway EB
5 L2 All MCs 2 2.0 2 2.0 0.031 3.5 LOS A 0.1 3.2 0.33 0.18 0.33 33.6 2 T1 All MCs 21 2.0 21 2.0 0.031 3.5 LOS A 0.1 3.2 0.33 0.18 0.33 34.2 12 R2 All MCs 11 2.0 11 2.0 0.031 3.5 LOS A 0.1 3.2 0.33 0.18 0.33 33.9 Approach 34 2.0 34 2.0 0.031 3.5 LOS A 0.1 3.2 0.33 0.18 0.33 34.1 All Vehicles 572 2.0 572 2.0 0.203 4.2 LOS A 0.9 24.0 0.26 0.12 0.26 33.0 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2022 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC | Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise Level 2 | Processed: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 9:50:13 AM
Project: K:\SAC_TPTO\Folsom Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Traffic\03 Analysis Files\Sidra\Toll Brothers.sip9

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 4 [Int 4_Alt00_2025_AM (Site Folder: Opening Year 2025)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.1.200 New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
Turn Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Eff.

Stop
Rate
Aver.

No. of
Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: Oak Avenue Parkway NB
3 L2 All MCs 118 2.0 118 2.0 0.112 3.4 LOS A 0.5 13.1 0.10 0.02 0.10 31.7 8 T1 All MCs 2 2.0 2 2.0 0.112 3.4 LOS A 0.5 13.1 0.10 0.02 0.10 32.3 18 R2 All MCs 24 23.0 24 23.0 0.112 4.6 LOS A 0.5 13.1 0.10 0.02 0.10 31.6 Approach 145 5.5 145 5.5 0.112 3.6 LOS A 0.5 13.1 0.10 0.02 0.10 31.7 East: Street D WB
1 L2 All MCs 67 1.0 67 1.0 0.098 3.8 LOS A 0.4 11.0 0.27 0.13 0.27 32.3 6 T1 All MCs 49 1.0 49 1.0 0.098 3.8 LOS A 0.4 11.0 0.27 0.13 0.27 32.9 16 R2 All MCs 1 1.0 1 1.0 0.098 3.8 LOS A 0.4 11.0 0.27 0.13 0.27 32.6 Approach 117 1.0 117 1.0 0.098 3.8 LOS A 0.4 11.0 0.27 0.13 0.27 32.5 North: Oak Avenue Parkway SB
7 L2 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.007 3.5 LOS A 0.0 0.7 0.35 0.18 0.35 33.4 4 T1 All MCs 4 2.0 4 2.0 0.007 3.5 LOS A 0.0 0.7 0.35 0.18 0.35 34.1 14 R2 All MCs 2 2.0 2 2.0 0.007 3.5 LOS A 0.0 0.7 0.35 0.18 0.35 33.8 Approach 8 2.0 8 2.0 0.007 3.5 LOS A 0.0 0.7 0.35 0.18 0.35 33.9 West: Street D EB
5 L2 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.071 3.4 LOS A 0.3 7.9 0.20 0.08 0.20 33.7 2 T1 All MCs 17 2.0 17 2.0 0.071 3.4 LOS A 0.3 7.9 0.20 0.08 0.20 34.4 12 R2 All MCs 71 2.0 71 2.0 0.071 3.4 LOS A 0.3 7.9 0.20 0.08 0.20 34.1 Approach 89 2.0 89 2.0 0.071 3.4 LOS A 0.3 7.9 0.20 0.08 0.20 34.1 All Vehicles 359 3.1 359 3.1 0.112 3.6 LOS A 0.5 13.1 0.18 0.07 0.18 32.6 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2022 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC | Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise Level 2 | Processed: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 9:50:14 AM
Project: K:\SAC_TPTO\Folsom Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Traffic\03 Analysis Files\Sidra\Toll Brothers.sip9

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 4 [Int 4_Alt00_2025_PM (Site Folder: Opening Year 2025)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.1.200 New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
Turn Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Eff.

Stop
Rate
Aver.

No. of
Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: Oak Avenue Parkway NB
3 L2 All MCs 109 2.0 109 2.0 0.151 4.0 LOS A 0.7 18.3 0.19 0.07 0.19 32.1 8 T1 All MCs 7 2.0 7 2.0 0.151 4.0 LOS A 0.7 18.3 0.19 0.07 0.19 32.8 18 R2 All MCs 77 2.0 77 2.0 0.151 4.0 LOS A 0.7 18.3 0.19 0.07 0.19 32.5 Approach 192 2.0 192 2.0 0.151 4.0 LOS A 0.7 18.3 0.19 0.07 0.19 32.3 East: Street D WB
1 L2 All MCs 46 1.0 46 1.0 0.065 3.5 LOS A 0.3 7.1 0.26 0.12 0.26 32.4 6 T1 All MCs 32 1.0 32 1.0 0.065 3.5 LOS A 0.3 7.1 0.26 0.12 0.26 33.0 16 R2 All MCs 1 1.0 1 1.0 0.065 3.5 LOS A 0.3 7.1 0.26 0.12 0.26 32.7 Approach 78 1.0 78 1.0 0.065 3.5 LOS A 0.3 7.1 0.26 0.12 0.26 32.6 North: Oak Avenue Parkway SB
7 L2 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.007 3.3 LOS A 0.0 0.7 0.31 0.14 0.31 33.5 4 T1 All MCs 4 2.0 4 2.0 0.007 3.3 LOS A 0.0 0.7 0.31 0.14 0.31 34.2 14 R2 All MCs 2 2.0 2 2.0 0.007 3.3 LOS A 0.0 0.7 0.31 0.14 0.31 33.9 Approach 8 2.0 8 2.0 0.007 3.3 LOS A 0.0 0.7 0.31 0.14 0.31 34.0 West: Street D EB
5 L2 All MCs 3 2.0 3 2.0 0.153 4.0 LOS A 0.7 18.6 0.18 0.06 0.18 33.4 2 T1 All MCs 54 2.0 54 2.0 0.153 4.0 LOS A 0.7 18.6 0.18 0.06 0.18 34.1 12 R2 All MCs 139 2.0 139 2.0 0.153 4.0 LOS A 0.7 18.6 0.18 0.06 0.18 33.8 Approach 197 2.0 197 2.0 0.153 4.0 LOS A 0.7 18.6 0.18 0.06 0.18 33.9 All Vehicles 475 1.8 475 1.8 0.153 3.9 LOS A 0.7 18.6 0.20 0.08 0.20 33.0 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2022 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC | Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise Level 2 | Processed: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 10:35:16 AM
Project: K:\SAC_TPTO\Folsom Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Traffic\03 Analysis Files\Sidra\Toll Brothers.sip9

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 5 [Int 5_Alt01_2025_AM (Site Folder: Opening Year 2025)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.1.200 New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
Turn Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Eff.

Stop
Rate
Aver.

No. of
Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: Prairie City Road NB
8 T1 All MCs 767 2.0 767 2.0 0.306 5.5 LOS A 1.6 40.4 0.26 0.11 0.26 33.7 18 R2 All MCs 15 2.0 15 2.0 0.306 5.5 LOS A 1.6 40.4 0.26 0.11 0.26 33.4 Approach 783 2.0 783 2.0 0.306 5.5 LOS A 1.6 40.4 0.26 0.11 0.26 33.7 East: Street D WB
1 L2 All MCs 45 2.0 45 2.0 0.427 11.0 LOS B 2.1 53.9 0.68 0.70 0.91 30.2 16 R2 All MCs 253 2.0 253 2.0 0.427 11.0 LOS B 2.1 53.9 0.68 0.70 0.91 30.5 Approach 298 2.0 298 2.0 0.427 11.0 LOS B 2.1 53.9 0.68 0.70 0.91 30.4 North: Prairie City Road SB
7 L2 All MCs 89 2.0 89 2.0 0.208 4.3 LOS A 1.0 24.9 0.16 0.05 0.16 32.8 4 T1 All MCs 467 2.0 467 2.0 0.208 4.3 LOS A 1.0 24.9 0.16 0.05 0.16 34.0 Approach 557 2.0 557 2.0 0.208 4.3 LOS A 1.0 24.9 0.16 0.05 0.16 33.8 All Vehicles 1637 2.0 1637 2.0 0.427 6.1 LOS A 2.1 53.9 0.30 0.20 0.35 33.1 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2022 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC | Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise Level 2 | Processed: Thursday, March 27, 2025 8:24:58 AM Project: K:\SAC_TPTO\Folsom Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Traffic\03 Analysis Files\Sidra\Toll Brothers.sip9

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 5 [Int 5_Alt01_2025_PM (Site Folder: Opening Year 2025)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.1.200 New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
Turn Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Eff.

Stop
Rate
Aver.

No. of
Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: Prairie City Road NB
8 T1 All MCs 624 2.0 624 2.0 0.317 6.5 LOS A 1.5 38.8 0.47 0.31 0.47 33.2 18 R2 All MCs 50 2.0 50 2.0 0.317 6.5 LOS A 1.5 38.8 0.47 0.31 0.47 32.9 Approach 674 2.0 674 2.0 0.317 6.5 LOS A 1.5 38.8 0.47 0.31 0.47 33.2 East: Street D WB
1 L2 All MCs 29 2.0 29 2.0 0.249 7.2 LOS A 1.0 24.2 0.57 0.49 0.57 31.8 16 R2 All MCs 168 2.0 168 2.0 0.249 7.2 LOS A 1.0 24.2 0.57 0.49 0.57 32.1 Approach 198 2.0 198 2.0 0.249 7.2 LOS A 1.0 24.2 0.57 0.49 0.57 32.1 North: Prairie City Road SB
7 L2 All MCs 285 2.0 285 2.0 0.344 5.4 LOS A 1.9 49.4 0.15 0.04 0.15 31.6 4 T1 All MCs 647 2.0 647 2.0 0.344 5.4 LOS A 1.9 49.4 0.15 0.04 0.15 33.3 Approach 932 2.0 932 2.0 0.344 5.4 LOS A 1.9 49.4 0.15 0.04 0.15 32.8 All Vehicles 1803 2.0 1803 2.0 0.344 6.0 LOS A 1.9 49.4 0.31 0.19 0.31 32.9 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2022 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC | Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise Level 2 | Processed: Thursday, March 27, 2025 8:25:55 AM Project: K:\SAC_TPTO\Folsom Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Traffic\03 Analysis Files\Sidra\Toll Brothers.sip9

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 2 [Int 2_Alt00_2045_AM (Site Folder: Design Year 2045)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.1.200 New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
Turn Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Eff.

Stop
Rate
Aver.

No. of
Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: Oak Avenue Parkway NB
3 L2 All MCs 11 2.0 11 2.0 0.277 5.7 LOS A 1.4 36.7 0.38 0.20 0.38 32.6 8 T1 All MCs 261 2.0 261 2.0 0.277 5.7 LOS A 1.4 36.7 0.38 0.20 0.38 33.2 18 R2 All MCs 43 2.0 43 2.0 0.277 5.7 LOS A 1.4 36.7 0.38 0.20 0.38 32.9 Approach 315 2.0 315 2.0 0.277 5.7 LOS A 1.4 36.7 0.38 0.20 0.38 33.2 East: Mangini Parkway WB
1 L2 All MCs 65 2.0 65 2.0 0.141 4.8 LOS A 0.6 14.9 0.43 0.29 0.43 32.0 6 T1 All MCs 43 2.0 43 2.0 0.141 4.8 LOS A 0.6 14.9 0.43 0.29 0.43 32.6 16 R2 All MCs 33 2.0 33 2.0 0.141 4.8 LOS A 0.6 14.9 0.43 0.29 0.43 32.3 Approach 141 2.0 141 2.0 0.141 4.8 LOS A 0.6 14.9 0.43 0.29 0.43 32.3 North: Oak Avenue Parkway SB
7 L2 All MCs 33 2.0 33 2.0 0.337 6.1 LOS A 1.9 48.9 0.35 0.17 0.35 32.3 4 T1 All MCs 348 2.0 348 2.0 0.337 6.1 LOS A 1.9 48.9 0.35 0.17 0.35 32.9 14 R2 All MCs 22 2.0 22 2.0 0.337 6.1 LOS A 1.9 48.9 0.35 0.17 0.35 32.6 Approach 402 2.0 402 2.0 0.337 6.1 LOS A 1.9 48.9 0.35 0.17 0.35 32.9 West: Mangini Parkway EB
5 L2 All MCs 33 2.0 33 2.0 0.167 5.9 LOS A 0.7 18.1 0.54 0.41 0.54 32.0 2 T1 All MCs 98 2.0 98 2.0 0.167 5.9 LOS A 0.7 18.1 0.54 0.41 0.54 32.7 12 R2 All MCs 11 2.0 11 2.0 0.167 5.9 LOS A 0.7 18.1 0.54 0.41 0.54 32.4 Approach 141 2.0 141 2.0 0.167 5.9 LOS A 0.7 18.1 0.54 0.41 0.54 32.5 All Vehicles 1000 2.0 1000 2.0 0.337 5.8 LOS A 1.9 48.9 0.39 0.23 0.39 32.8 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2022 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC | Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise Level 2 | Processed: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 10:34:01 AM
Project: K:\SAC_TPTO\Folsom Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Traffic\03 Analysis Files\Sidra\Toll Brothers.sip9

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 2 [Int 2_Alt00_2045_PM (Site Folder: Design Year 2045)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.1.200 New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
Turn Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Eff.

Stop
Rate
Aver.

No. of
Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: Oak Avenue Parkway NB
3 L2 All MCs 11 2.0 11 2.0 0.350 6.3 LOS A 2.0 51.6 0.37 0.18 0.37 32.3 8 T1 All MCs 337 2.0 337 2.0 0.350 6.3 LOS A 2.0 51.6 0.37 0.18 0.37 32.9 18 R2 All MCs 65 2.0 65 2.0 0.350 6.3 LOS A 2.0 51.6 0.37 0.18 0.37 32.7 Approach 413 2.0 413 2.0 0.350 6.3 LOS A 2.0 51.6 0.37 0.18 0.37 32.9 East: Mangini Parkway WB
1u U All MCs 11 2.0 11 2.0 0.207 5.8 LOS A 0.9 22.7 0.49 0.35 0.49 31.8 1 L2 All MCs 54 2.0 54 2.0 0.207 5.8 LOS A 0.9 22.7 0.49 0.35 0.49 31.8 6 T1 All MCs 98 2.0 98 2.0 0.207 5.8 LOS A 0.9 22.7 0.49 0.35 0.49 32.4 16 R2 All MCs 33 2.0 33 2.0 0.207 5.8 LOS A 0.9 22.7 0.49 0.35 0.49 32.2 Approach 196 2.0 196 2.0 0.207 5.8 LOS A 0.9 22.7 0.49 0.35 0.49 32.2 North: Oak Avenue Parkway SB
7 L2 All MCs 33 2.0 33 2.0 0.318 6.2 LOS A 1.7 43.8 0.41 0.22 0.41 32.2 4 T1 All MCs 293 2.0 293 2.0 0.318 6.2 LOS A 1.7 43.8 0.41 0.22 0.41 32.9 14 R2 All MCs 33 2.0 33 2.0 0.318 6.2 LOS A 1.7 43.8 0.41 0.22 0.41 32.6 Approach 359 2.0 359 2.0 0.318 6.2 LOS A 1.7 43.8 0.41 0.22 0.41 32.8 West: Mangini Parkway EB
5 L2 All MCs 22 2.0 22 2.0 0.109 5.1 LOS A 0.5 11.5 0.49 0.36 0.49 32.5 2 T1 All MCs 65 2.0 65 2.0 0.109 5.1 LOS A 0.5 11.5 0.49 0.36 0.49 33.1 12 R2 All MCs 11 2.0 11 2.0 0.109 5.1 LOS A 0.5 11.5 0.49 0.36 0.49 32.8 Approach 98 2.0 98 2.0 0.109 5.1 LOS A 0.5 11.5 0.49 0.36 0.49 32.9 All Vehicles 1065 2.0 1065 2.0 0.350 6.1 LOS A 2.0 51.6 0.42 0.24 0.42 32.7 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2022 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC | Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise Level 2 | Processed: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 10:34:02 AM
Project: K:\SAC_TPTO\Folsom Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Traffic\03 Analysis Files\Sidra\Toll Brothers.sip9

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 4 [Int 4_Alt00_2045_AM (Site Folder: Design Year 2045)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.1.200 New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
Turn Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Eff.

Stop
Rate
Aver.

No. of
Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: Oak Avenue Parkway NB
3 L2 All MCs 217 2.0 217 2.0 0.344 6.0 LOS A 2.0 51.8 0.30 0.13 0.30 31.4 8 T1 All MCs 207 2.0 207 2.0 0.344 6.0 LOS A 2.0 51.8 0.30 0.13 0.30 32.0 18 R2 All MCs 1 23.0 1 23.0 0.344 7.7 LOS A 2.0 51.8 0.30 0.13 0.30 31.2 Approach 425 2.1 425 2.1 0.344 6.0 LOS A 2.0 51.8 0.30 0.13 0.30 31.7 East: Street D WB
1 L2 All MCs 1 1.0 1 1.0 0.130 5.5 LOS A 0.5 13.7 0.53 0.41 0.53 32.7 6 T1 All MCs 54 1.0 54 1.0 0.130 5.5 LOS A 0.5 13.7 0.53 0.41 0.53 33.4 16 R2 All MCs 54 1.0 54 1.0 0.130 5.5 LOS A 0.5 13.7 0.53 0.41 0.53 33.1 Approach 110 1.0 110 1.0 0.130 5.5 LOS A 0.5 13.7 0.53 0.41 0.53 33.2 North: Oak Avenue Parkway SB
7 L2 All MCs 22 2.0 22 2.0 0.203 5.4 LOS A 0.9 24.0 0.45 0.29 0.45 32.6 4 T1 All MCs 174 2.0 174 2.0 0.203 5.4 LOS A 0.9 24.0 0.45 0.29 0.45 33.2 14 R2 All MCs 11 2.0 11 2.0 0.203 5.4 LOS A 0.9 24.0 0.45 0.29 0.45 32.9 Approach 207 2.0 207 2.0 0.203 5.4 LOS A 0.9 24.0 0.45 0.29 0.45 33.1 West: Street D EB
5 L2 All MCs 33 2.0 33 2.0 0.208 5.1 LOS A 1.0 25.3 0.39 0.22 0.39 32.5 2 T1 All MCs 33 2.0 33 2.0 0.208 5.1 LOS A 1.0 25.3 0.39 0.22 0.39 33.2 12 R2 All MCs 163 2.0 163 2.0 0.208 5.1 LOS A 1.0 25.3 0.39 0.22 0.39 32.9 Approach 228 2.0 228 2.0 0.208 5.1 LOS A 1.0 25.3 0.39 0.22 0.39 32.9 All Vehicles 970 1.9 970 1.9 0.344 5.6 LOS A 2.0 51.8 0.38 0.22 0.38 32.4 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2022 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC | Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise Level 2 | Processed: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 10:34:02 AM
Project: K:\SAC_TPTO\Folsom Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Traffic\03 Analysis Files\Sidra\Toll Brothers.sip9

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 5 [Int 5_Alt01_2045_AM (Site Folder: Design Year 2045)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.1.200 New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
Turn Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Eff.

Stop
Rate
Aver.

No. of
Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: Prairie City Road NB
8 T1 All MCs 772 2.0 772 2.0 0.335 6.2 LOS A 1.7 43.7 0.39 0.22 0.39 33.4 18 R2 All MCs 11 2.0 11 2.0 0.335 6.2 LOS A 1.7 43.7 0.39 0.22 0.39 33.0 Approach 783 2.0 783 2.0 0.335 6.2 LOS A 1.7 43.7 0.39 0.22 0.39 33.3 East: Street D WB
1 L2 All MCs 11 2.0 11 2.0 0.391 10.4 LOS B 1.8 45.9 0.66 0.67 0.84 30.6 16 R2 All MCs 261 2.0 261 2.0 0.391 10.4 LOS B 1.8 45.9 0.66 0.67 0.84 31.0 Approach 272 2.0 272 2.0 0.391 10.4 LOS B 1.8 45.9 0.66 0.67 0.84 31.0 North: Prairie City Road SB
7 L2 All MCs 185 2.0 185 2.0 0.240 4.2 LOS A 1.2 30.3 0.07 0.01 0.07 32.3 4 T1 All MCs 478 2.0 478 2.0 0.240 4.2 LOS A 1.2 30.3 0.07 0.01 0.07 33.9 Approach 663 2.0 663 2.0 0.240 4.2 LOS A 1.2 30.3 0.07 0.01 0.07 33.5 All Vehicles 1717 2.0 1717 2.0 0.391 6.1 LOS A 1.8 45.9 0.31 0.21 0.34 33.0 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2022 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC | Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise Level 2 | Processed: Thursday, March 27, 2025 8:32:50 AM Project: K:\SAC_TPTO\Folsom Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Traffic\03 Analysis Files\Sidra\Toll Brothers.sip9

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 5 [Int 5_Alt01_2045_PM (Site Folder: Design Year 2045)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.1.200 New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
Turn Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Eff.

Stop
Rate
Aver.

No. of
Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: Prairie City Road NB
8 T1 All MCs 630 2.0 630 2.0 0.289 6.0 LOS A 1.4 35.0 0.42 0.26 0.42 33.5 18 R2 All MCs 11 2.0 11 2.0 0.289 6.0 LOS A 1.4 35.0 0.42 0.26 0.42 33.2 Approach 641 2.0 641 2.0 0.289 6.0 LOS A 1.4 35.0 0.42 0.26 0.42 33.5 East: Street D WB
1 L2 All MCs 11 2.0 11 2.0 0.317 8.2 LOS A 1.3 32.2 0.60 0.52 0.60 31.6 16 R2 All MCs 239 2.0 239 2.0 0.317 8.2 LOS A 1.3 32.2 0.60 0.52 0.60 32.0 Approach 250 2.0 250 2.0 0.317 8.2 LOS A 1.3 32.2 0.60 0.52 0.60 31.9 North: Prairie City Road SB
7 L2 All MCs 239 2.0 239 2.0 0.323 4.7 LOS A 1.8 45.6 0.08 0.01 0.08 32.1 4 T1 All MCs 652 2.0 652 2.0 0.323 4.7 LOS A 1.8 45.6 0.08 0.01 0.08 33.6 Approach 891 2.0 891 2.0 0.323 4.7 LOS A 1.8 45.6 0.08 0.01 0.08 33.2 All Vehicles 1783 2.0 1783 2.0 0.323 5.7 LOS A 1.8 45.6 0.28 0.17 0.28 33.1 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2022 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC | Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise Level 2 | Processed: Thursday, March 27, 2025 8:33:23 AM Project: K:\SAC_TPTO\Folsom Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Traffic\03 Analysis Files\Sidra\Toll Brothers.sip9

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

ICE – Toll Brothers at Alder Creek
Appendix D
HSM Predictive Method Safety Analysis and IHSDM KABCO Values

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Total K A B C O

0.77% 1.80% 8.89% 24.45% 64.08%

0.0045 0.0105 0.0516 0.1420 0.3721
KABC PDO 0.54% 1.26% 6.25% 17.17% 74.77%

0.276 0.459 0.0017 0.0039 0.0194 0.0533 0.2321

0.88% 2.05% 10.13% 27.86% 59.07%

0.0044 0.0103 0.0508 0.1397 0.2961
KABC PDO 0.38% 0.88% 4.34% 11.92% 82.49%

0.390 1.030 0.0018 0.0041 0.0201 0.0554 0.3832

0.81% 1.89% 9.35% 25.71% 62.24%

0.0071 0.0166 0.0818 0.2249 0.5445
KABC PDO 0.57% 1.33% 6.57% 18.05% 73.48%

0.276 0.464 0.0027 0.0062 0.0307 0.0844 0.3436

0.80% 1.86% 9.20% 25.29% 62.85%

0.0066 0.0154 0.0761 0.2093 0.5203
KABC PDO 0.60% 1.39% 6.87% 18.88% 122.93%

0.390 1.049 0.0028 0.0065 0.0319 0.0877 0.5711
Total K A B C O

0.76% 1.78% 8.78% 24.15% 64.52%

0.0039 0.0090 0.0447 0.1229 0.3284
KABC PDO 0.47% 1.09% 5.41% 14.87% 65.81%

0.276 0.457 0.0015 0.0034 0.0168 0.0461 0.2043

0.76% 1.77% 8.74% 24.03% 64.70%

0.0041 0.0095 0.0471 0.1295 0.3488
KABC PDO 0.33% 0.76% 3.75% 10.32% 72.49%

0.390 1.025 0.0015 0.0035 0.0174 0.0479 0.3368

0.83% 1.92% 9.48% 26.06% 61.71%

0.0083 0.0193 0.0955 0.2625 0.6217
KABC PDO 0.67% 1.55% 7.66% 21.08% 84.19%

0.276 0.466 0.0031 0.0073 0.0358 0.0985 0.3937

0.73% 1.69% 8.37% 23.01% 66.19%

0.0093 0.0217 0.1072 0.2948 0.8480
KABC PDO 0.70% 1.62% 8.02% 22.04% 141.10%

0.390 1.054 0.0032 0.0075 0.0372 0.1024 0.6555
Total K A B C O

0.77% 1.80% 8.87% 24.39% 64.16%

0.0137 0.0318 0.1573 0.4325 1.1376
KABC PDO 1.15% 2.67% 13.21% 36.31% 269.37%

0.288 1.100 0.0053 0.0124 0.0613 0.1687 1.2513

0.77% 1.80% 8.90% 24.46% 64.07%

0.0138 0.0321 0.1585 0.4359 1.1416
KABC PDO 1.16% 2.69% 13.31% 36.59% 270.61%

0.288 1.101 0.0054 0.0125 0.0618 0.1700 1.2571
Mangini Pkwy at Oak Ave Pkwy CMF
2025
SSSC 0.58 - -
AWSC 0.31
Signal 0.50
Roundabout 0.46
-
-
Oak Ave Pkwy at St D CMF
- -
AWSC 0.47
Signal 0.83
2045
SSSC 0.87
Roundabout 0.70
2025
SSSC 0.51 - -
AWSC 0.27
Signal 0.54 -
Roundabout 0.41
2045
SSSC 1.01 -
Roundabout 0.81
-
AWSC 0.54
Signal 1.28 -
Prairie City Rd at St D CMF
2025
Signal 1.77 -
Roundabout 1.50
Signal 1.78 -
Roundabout 1.51
2045

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
March 21, 2025

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Disclaimer
The Interactive Highway Design Model (IHSDM) software is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use thereof. This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers' names may appear in this software and documentation only because they are considered essential to the objective of the software.

Limited Warranty and Limitations of Remedies
This software product is provided "as-is," without warranty of any kind-either expressed or implied (but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose). The FHWA do not warrant that the functions contained in the software will meet the end-user's requirements or that the operation of the software will be uninterrupted and error-free.

Under no circumstances will the FHWA be liable to the end-user for any damages or claimed lost profits, lost savings, or other incidental or consequential damages rising out of the use or inability to use the software (even if these organizations have been advised of the possibility of such damages), or for any claim by any other party.

Notice
The use of the IHSDM software is being done strictly on a voluntary basis. In exchange for provision of IHSDM, the user agrees that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation and any other agency of the Federal Government shall not be responsible for any errors, damage or other liability that may result from any and all use of the software, including installation and testing of the software. The user further agrees to hold the FHWA and the Federal Government harmless from any resulting liability. The user agrees that this hold harmless provision shall flow to any person to whom or any entity to which the user provides the IHSDM software. It is the user's full responsibility to inform any person to whom or any entity to which it provides the IHSDM software of this hold harmless provision.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Table of Contents
Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 List of Tables
Table Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4ST) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table Predicted 4ST Crash Type Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 List of Tables Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
iv Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Report Overview
Report Generated: Mar 21, 2025 1:03 PM
Report Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (sscpm2, Jul 23, 2021 4:16 PM) Evaluation Date: Fri Mar 21 10:15:57 PDT 2025
IHSDM Version: v17.0.0 (Sep 22, 2021)
Site Set Crash Prediction Module: v|ModuleInfo.moduleVersion| (|ModuleInfo.moduleDate|) User Name: kendra.lolland
Organization Name:

Phone:

E-Mail:

Project Title: Folsom Toll_Oak ave and Mangini Pkwy
Project Comment: Created Tue Mar 18 11:18:47 PDT 2025
Project Unit System: U.S. Customary
Site Set: SSSC
Site Set Comment: Created Thu Mar 20 14:08:06 PDT 2025
Site Set Version: v1
Evaluation Title: Mangini Pkwy_Oak Ave Pkwy_SSSC_2025
Evaluation Comment: Created Fri Mar 21 10:12:46 PDT 2025 Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. Customary
Calibration: HSM Configuration
Crash Distribution: HSM Configuration
Model/CMF: HSM Configuration
First Year of Analysis: 2025
Last Year of Analysis: 2025
Empirical-Bayes Analysis: None
Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT COMPARING RESULTS FROM HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL FIRST EDITION (2010) MODELS TO RESULTS FROM NEW MODELS DEVELOPED UNDER NCHRP PROJECTS 17-70, 17-58, AND 17-68
Since the publication of the Highway Safety Manual - First Edition (HSM-1), in 2010 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), multiple research efforts have been undertaken through the National Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Report Overview
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 1

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to develop safety performance models for road segment and intersection facility types that were not initially reflected in the HSM-1, in order to expand the breadth and depth of the HSM in the future.

The IHSDM Crash Prediction Module (CPM) is intended as a faithful implementation of HSM Part C predictive methods. As NCHRP projects to develop new predictive methods for the HSM are completed, FHWA works to incorporate the new methods into IHSDM, sometimes in advance of publication in the HSM. The following new crash predictive methods have been accepted by NCHRP project panels and incorporated into IHSDM, while pending AASHTO's approval for incorporation into a future edition of the HSM:
- Roundabouts: completed in 2018 under NCHRP Project 17-70, the new methods will provide improved outcomes for the safety analysis of roundabouts.
- 6+ lane and one-way urban/suburban arterials (including models for segments and intersections): completed under NCHRP Project 17-58.
- Intersection crash prediction methods for some intersection configurations and traffic control types not currently addressed in the HSM (e.g., all-way stop; rural 3-leg signalized; 3-leg stop-controlled where the major leg turns; urban 5-leg signalized; urban high-speed intersections): completed in 2021 under NCHRP Project 17-68.

However, in the absence of local calibration factors (see HSM-1 Part C, Appendix A for guidance on calibration of the predictive models), it is neither appropriate nor advisable to directly compare the results from new models (from NCHRP Projects 17-58, 17-68, and 17-70) to results from HSM-1 models, as the models were not calibrated to the same base state data sets, and consequently can produce unexpected results. If local calibration factors are available and applied to both new models and HSM1 models, then it may be appropriate to directly compare the results.[Note: Work being performed under NCHRP Project 17-72 (Update of Crash Modification Factors for the Highway Safety Manual) is expected to re-calibrate many of the old (HSM-1) and new (e.g., NCHRP 17-70) models to data from a single (or small number of) states, that would allow results from all models to be directly compared.]
The models produced for NCHRP Project 17-70 have independent value in terms of informing the design of a roundabout and assessing the effects of different design characteristics on the expected safety performance of a roundabout.

The HSM-1 interim method previously included in IHSDM for evaluating roundabouts on urban/suburban arterials (i.e., evaluating an existing intersection and then applying a Crash Modification Factor for replacing the existing intersection with a roundabout) has been deactivated in IHSDM, to minimize any confusion with the new roundabout methodology.

Report Overview Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Section Types
Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation
Site Type
Type: 4ST
Calibration Factor: 1
Table 1. Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites Site
No. Type Highway Site Description MajorAADT
Minor
AADT
Number of
Approaches
with Left-Turn
Lanes
Number of
Approaches
with RightTurn Lanes
Presence of
Lighting
1 4ST2x2le5 Mangini Pkwy at Oak Ave Pkwy 2025: 3920 2025: 3910 2 0 yes Table 2. Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site
Site
No.

Typ
e
Highway Site Description
Total
Predicted
Crashes for
Evaluation
Period
Predicted
Total
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr
)
Predicted
FI Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr
)
Predicted
PDO
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr
)
Predicted
Intersection
Travel Crash
Rate
(crashes/millio
n veh)
Intersection
Crash Rate
(crashes/yr)
1 4ST Mangini Pkwy at Oak Ave Pkwy 0.581 0.5807 0.2086 0.3721 0.20 0.5807 Total Total 0.581 0.5807 0.2086 0.3721 0.20 0.5807
Table 3. Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4ST)
Year Total Crashes FI Crashes Percent FI (%) PDO Crashes Percent PDO (%)
2025 0.58 0.21 35.925 0.37 64.075
Total 0.58 0.21 35.925 0.37 64.075
Average 0.58 0.21 35.925 0.37 64.075
Note: Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 3

06/23/2026 Item No.18.
distribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Table 4. Predicted 4ST Crash Type Distribution
Element Type Crash Type
Fatal and Injury Property Damage
Only Total
Crashes Crashes
(%) Crashes Crashes(%) Crashes Crashes(%)
Intersection Collision with Animal 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.3 0.00 0.3 Intersection Collision with Bicycle 0.01 1.7 0.00 0.0 0.01 1.7 Intersection Collision with Fixed Object 0.02 3.3 0.06 10.0 0.08 13.3 Intersection Non-Collision 0.01 0.9 0.00 0.6 0.01 1.5
Intersection Collision with Other Object 0.00 0.4 0.01 0.8 0.01 1.3 Intersection Other Single-vehicle Collision 0.00 0.2 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.3 Intersection Collision with Parked Vehicle 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Intersection Collision with Pedestrian 0.01 2.1 0.00 0.0 0.01 2.1 Intersection Total Intersection Single Vehicle Crashes 0.05 8.7 0.07 11.8 0.12 20.6 Intersection Angle Collision 0.07 12.0 0.10 17.5 0.17 29.5 Intersection Head-on Collision 0.01 1.1 0.01 1.6 0.02 2.7 Intersection Other Multi-vehicle Collision 0.01 1.6 0.07 11.3 0.07 13.0 Intersection Rear-end Collision 0.05 9.2 0.11 19.5 0.17 28.7 Intersection Sideswipe 0.02 3.3 0.01 2.3 0.03 5.6
Intersection Total Intersection Multiple Vehicle Crashes 0.16 27.2 0.30 52.2 0.46 79.5 Intersection Total Intersection Crashes 0.21 35.9 0.37 64.1 0.58 100.0 Total Crashes 0.21 35.9 0.37 64.1 0.58 100.0
Note: Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Section Types Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
4 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
March 21, 2025

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Disclaimer
The Interactive Highway Design Model (IHSDM) software is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use thereof. This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers' names may appear in this software and documentation only because they are considered essential to the objective of the software.

Limited Warranty and Limitations of Remedies
This software product is provided "as-is," without warranty of any kind-either expressed or implied (but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose). The FHWA do not warrant that the functions contained in the software will meet the end-user's requirements or that the operation of the software will be uninterrupted and error-free.

Under no circumstances will the FHWA be liable to the end-user for any damages or claimed lost profits, lost savings, or other incidental or consequential damages rising out of the use or inability to use the software (even if these organizations have been advised of the possibility of such damages), or for any claim by any other party.

Notice
The use of the IHSDM software is being done strictly on a voluntary basis. In exchange for provision of IHSDM, the user agrees that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation and any other agency of the Federal Government shall not be responsible for any errors, damage or other liability that may result from any and all use of the software, including installation and testing of the software. The user further agrees to hold the FHWA and the Federal Government harmless from any resulting liability. The user agrees that this hold harmless provision shall flow to any person to whom or any entity to which the user provides the IHSDM software. It is the user's full responsibility to inform any person to whom or any entity to which it provides the IHSDM software of this hold harmless provision.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Table of Contents
Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 List of Tables
Table Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4ST) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table Predicted 4ST Crash Type Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 List of Tables Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
iv Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Report Overview
Report Generated: Mar 21, 2025 1:04 PM
Report Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (sscpm2, Jul 23, 2021 4:16 PM) Evaluation Date: Fri Mar 21 12:46:36 PDT 2025
IHSDM Version: v17.0.0 (Sep 22, 2021)
Site Set Crash Prediction Module: v|ModuleInfo.moduleVersion| (|ModuleInfo.moduleDate|) User Name: kendra.lolland
Organization Name:

Phone:

E-Mail:

Project Title: Folsom Toll_Oak ave and Mangini Pkwy
Project Comment: Created Tue Mar 18 11:18:47 PDT 2025
Project Unit System: U.S. Customary
Site Set: SSSC
Site Set Comment: Created Thu Mar 20 14:08:06 PDT 2025
Site Set Version: v1
Evaluation Title: Mangini Pkwy_Oak Ave Pkwy_SSSC_2045
Evaluation Comment: Created Fri Mar 21 12:44:50 PDT 2025 Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. Customary
Calibration: HSM Configuration
Crash Distribution: HSM Configuration
Model/CMF: HSM Configuration
First Year of Analysis: 2045
Last Year of Analysis: 2045
Empirical-Bayes Analysis: None
Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT COMPARING RESULTS FROM HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL FIRST EDITION (2010) MODELS TO RESULTS FROM NEW MODELS DEVELOPED UNDER NCHRP PROJECTS 17-70, 17-58, AND 17-68
Since the publication of the Highway Safety Manual - First Edition (HSM-1), in 2010 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), multiple research efforts have been undertaken through the National Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Report Overview
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 1

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to develop safety performance models for road segment and intersection facility types that were not initially reflected in the HSM-1, in order to expand the breadth and depth of the HSM in the future.

The IHSDM Crash Prediction Module (CPM) is intended as a faithful implementation of HSM Part C predictive methods. As NCHRP projects to develop new predictive methods for the HSM are completed, FHWA works to incorporate the new methods into IHSDM, sometimes in advance of publication in the HSM. The following new crash predictive methods have been accepted by NCHRP project panels and incorporated into IHSDM, while pending AASHTO's approval for incorporation into a future edition of the HSM:
- Roundabouts: completed in 2018 under NCHRP Project 17-70, the new methods will provide improved outcomes for the safety analysis of roundabouts.
- 6+ lane and one-way urban/suburban arterials (including models for segments and intersections): completed under NCHRP Project 17-58.
- Intersection crash prediction methods for some intersection configurations and traffic control types not currently addressed in the HSM (e.g., all-way stop; rural 3-leg signalized; 3-leg stop-controlled where the major leg turns; urban 5-leg signalized; urban high-speed intersections): completed in 2021 under NCHRP Project 17-68.

However, in the absence of local calibration factors (see HSM-1 Part C, Appendix A for guidance on calibration of the predictive models), it is neither appropriate nor advisable to directly compare the results from new models (from NCHRP Projects 17-58, 17-68, and 17-70) to results from HSM-1 models, as the models were not calibrated to the same base state data sets, and consequently can produce unexpected results. If local calibration factors are available and applied to both new models and HSM1 models, then it may be appropriate to directly compare the results.[Note: Work being performed under NCHRP Project 17-72 (Update of Crash Modification Factors for the Highway Safety Manual) is expected to re-calibrate many of the old (HSM-1) and new (e.g., NCHRP 17-70) models to data from a single (or small number of) states, that would allow results from all models to be directly compared.]
The models produced for NCHRP Project 17-70 have independent value in terms of informing the design of a roundabout and assessing the effects of different design characteristics on the expected safety performance of a roundabout.

The HSM-1 interim method previously included in IHSDM for evaluating roundabouts on urban/suburban arterials (i.e., evaluating an existing intersection and then applying a Crash Modification Factor for replacing the existing intersection with a roundabout) has been deactivated in IHSDM, to minimize any confusion with the new roundabout methodology.

Report Overview Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Section Types
Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation
Site Type
Type: 4ST
Calibration Factor: 1
Table 1. Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites Site
No. Type Highway Site Description MajorAADT
Minor
AADT
Number of
Approaches
with Left-Turn
Lanes
Number of
Approaches
with RightTurn Lanes
Presence of
Lighting
1 4ST2x2le5 Mangini Pkwy at Oak Ave Pkwy 2045: 7100 2045: 3400 2 0 yes Table 2. Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site
Site
No.

Typ
e
Highway Site Description
Total
Predicted
Crashes for
Evaluation
Period
Predicted
Total
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr
)
Predicted
FI Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr
)
Predicted
PDO
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr
)
Predicted
Intersection
Travel Crash
Rate
(crashes/millio
n veh)
Intersection
Crash Rate
(crashes/yr)
1 4ST Mangini Pkwy at Oak Ave Pkwy 0.875 0.8748 0.3304 0.5445 0.23 0.8748 Total Total 0.875 0.8748 0.3304 0.5445 0.23 0.8748
Table 3. Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4ST)
Year Total Crashes FI Crashes Percent FI (%) PDO Crashes Percent PDO (%)
2045 0.88 0.33 37.765 0.54 62.235
Total 0.88 0.33 37.765 0.54 62.235
Average 0.88 0.33 37.765 0.54 62.235
Note: Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 3

06/23/2026 Item No.18.
distribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Table 4. Predicted 4ST Crash Type Distribution
Element Type Crash Type
Fatal and Injury Property Damage
Only Total
Crashes Crashes
(%) Crashes Crashes(%) Crashes Crashes(%)
Intersection Collision with Animal 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.2 0.00 0.2 Intersection Collision with Bicycle 0.01 1.7 0.00 0.0 0.01 1.7 Intersection Collision with Fixed Object 0.02 2.6 0.07 8.0 0.09 10.6 Intersection Non-Collision 0.01 0.7 0.00 0.5 0.01 1.2
Intersection Collision with Other Object 0.00 0.3 0.01 0.7 0.01 1.0 Intersection Other Single-vehicle Collision 0.00 0.2 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.3 Intersection Collision with Parked Vehicle 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Intersection Collision with Pedestrian 0.02 2.1 0.00 0.0 0.02 2.1 Intersection Total Intersection Single Vehicle Crashes 0.07 7.7 0.08 9.4 0.15 17.1 Intersection Angle Collision 0.12 13.2 0.15 17.7 0.27 30.9 Intersection Head-on Collision 0.01 1.2 0.01 1.6 0.03 2.8 Intersection Other Multi-vehicle Collision 0.02 1.8 0.10 11.5 0.12 13.3 Intersection Rear-end Collision 0.09 10.2 0.17 19.8 0.26 29.9 Intersection Sideswipe 0.03 3.6 0.02 2.3 0.05 6.0
Intersection Total Intersection Multiple Vehicle Crashes 0.26 30.0 0.46 52.8 0.72 82.9 Intersection Total Intersection Crashes 0.33 37.8 0.54 62.2 0.88 100.0 Total Crashes 0.33 37.8 0.54 62.2 0.88 100.0
Note: Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Section Types Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
4 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
March 20, 2025

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Disclaimer
The Interactive Highway Design Model (IHSDM) software is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use thereof. This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers' names may appear in this software and documentation only because they are considered essential to the objective of the software.

Limited Warranty and Limitations of Remedies
This software product is provided "as-is," without warranty of any kind-either expressed or implied (but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose). The FHWA do not warrant that the functions contained in the software will meet the end-user's requirements or that the operation of the software will be uninterrupted and error-free.

Under no circumstances will the FHWA be liable to the end-user for any damages or claimed lost profits, lost savings, or other incidental or consequential damages rising out of the use or inability to use the software (even if these organizations have been advised of the possibility of such damages), or for any claim by any other party.

Notice
The use of the IHSDM software is being done strictly on a voluntary basis. In exchange for provision of IHSDM, the user agrees that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation and any other agency of the Federal Government shall not be responsible for any errors, damage or other liability that may result from any and all use of the software, including installation and testing of the software. The user further agrees to hold the FHWA and the Federal Government harmless from any resulting liability. The user agrees that this hold harmless provision shall flow to any person to whom or any entity to which the user provides the IHSDM software. It is the user's full responsibility to inform any person to whom or any entity to which it provides the IHSDM software of this hold harmless provision.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Table of Contents
Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 List of Tables
Table Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table Predicted 4SG Crash Type Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 List of Tables Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
iv Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Report Overview
Report Generated: Mar 20, 2025 3:22 PM
Report Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (sscpm2, Jul 23, 2021 4:16 PM) Evaluation Date: Thu Mar 20 15:21:57 PDT 2025
IHSDM Version: v17.0.0 (Sep 22, 2021)
Site Set Crash Prediction Module: v|ModuleInfo.moduleVersion| (|ModuleInfo.moduleDate|) User Name: kendra.lolland
Organization Name:

Phone:

E-Mail:

Project Title: Folsom Toll_Oak ave and Mangini Pkwy
Project Comment: Created Tue Mar 18 11:18:47 PDT 2025
Project Unit System: U.S. Customary
Site Set: Signal
Site Set Comment: Created Wed Mar 19 11:01:58 PDT 2025
Site Set Version: v1
Evaluation Title: Mangini Pkwy_Oak Ave_Signal_2025
Evaluation Comment: Created Thu Mar 20 15:21:37 PDT 2025 Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. Customary
Calibration: HSM Configuration
Crash Distribution: HSM Configuration
Model/CMF: HSM Configuration
First Year of Analysis: 2025
Last Year of Analysis: 2025
Empirical-Bayes Analysis: None
Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT COMPARING RESULTS FROM HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL FIRST EDITION (2010) MODELS TO RESULTS FROM NEW MODELS DEVELOPED UNDER NCHRP PROJECTS 17-70, 17-58, AND 17-68
Since the publication of the Highway Safety Manual - First Edition (HSM-1), in 2010 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), multiple research efforts have been undertaken through the National Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Report Overview
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 1

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to develop safety performance models for road segment and intersection facility types that were not initially reflected in the HSM-1, in order to expand the breadth and depth of the HSM in the future.

The IHSDM Crash Prediction Module (CPM) is intended as a faithful implementation of HSM Part C predictive methods. As NCHRP projects to develop new predictive methods for the HSM are completed, FHWA works to incorporate the new methods into IHSDM, sometimes in advance of publication in the HSM. The following new crash predictive methods have been accepted by NCHRP project panels and incorporated into IHSDM, while pending AASHTO's approval for incorporation into a future edition of the HSM:
- Roundabouts: completed in 2018 under NCHRP Project 17-70, the new methods will provide improved outcomes for the safety analysis of roundabouts.
- 6+ lane and one-way urban/suburban arterials (including models for segments and intersections): completed under NCHRP Project 17-58.
- Intersection crash prediction methods for some intersection configurations and traffic control types not currently addressed in the HSM (e.g., all-way stop; rural 3-leg signalized; 3-leg stop-controlled where the major leg turns; urban 5-leg signalized; urban high-speed intersections): completed in 2021 under NCHRP Project 17-68.

However, in the absence of local calibration factors (see HSM-1 Part C, Appendix A for guidance on calibration of the predictive models), it is neither appropriate nor advisable to directly compare the results from new models (from NCHRP Projects 17-58, 17-68, and 17-70) to results from HSM-1 models, as the models were not calibrated to the same base state data sets, and consequently can produce unexpected results. If local calibration factors are available and applied to both new models and HSM1 models, then it may be appropriate to directly compare the results.[Note: Work being performed under NCHRP Project 17-72 (Update of Crash Modification Factors for the Highway Safety Manual) is expected to re-calibrate many of the old (HSM-1) and new (e.g., NCHRP 17-70) models to data from a single (or small number of) states, that would allow results from all models to be directly compared.]
The models produced for NCHRP Project 17-70 have independent value in terms of informing the design of a roundabout and assessing the effects of different design characteristics on the expected safety performance of a roundabout.

The HSM-1 interim method previously included in IHSDM for evaluating roundabouts on urban/suburban arterials (i.e., evaluating an existing intersection and then applying a Crash Modification Factor for replacing the existing intersection with a roundabout) has been deactivated in IHSDM, to minimize any confusion with the new roundabout methodology.

Report Overview Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Section Types
Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation
Site Type
Type: 4SG
Calibration Factor: 1
Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 3

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Table 1. Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites Site
No. Type Highway Site Description Major AADT Minor AADT Number of
Approaches
with LeftTurn Lanes
Number of
Approaches
with RightTurn Lanes
Presence
of
Lighting
Number of
Approaches
with
Permissive
Left-Turn
Phasing
Number of
Approaches
with
Permissive/Pr
otected or
Protected/Per
missive LeftTurn Phasing
Number of
Approaches
with
Protected
Left-Turn
Phasing
Number of
Approaches
on which
Right Turn
on Red is
Prohibited
Presence
of RedLight
Cameras
Pedestrian
Volumes
Crossing all
Intersection
Legs
(crossings/day)
Max. Number
of Lanes
Crossed by
Pedestrians
Number of Bus
Stops within
1000 ft of
Intersection
Number of
Schools within
1000 ft of
Intersection
Number of Alcohol
Sales
Establishments
within 1000 ft of
Intersection
1 4SG2x2le5 Mangini Pkwy at Oak Ave Pkwy 2025: 3920 2025: 3910 4 0 yes 0 0 4 0 no 700 4 0 2 0 Table 2. Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site
Site
No. Type Highway Site Description
Total Predicted
Crashes for
Evaluation Period
Predicted Total
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted FI
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted PDO
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted Intersection
Travel Crash Rate
(crashes/million veh)
Intersection Crash
Rate (crashes/yr)
1 4SG Mangini Pkwy at Oak Ave Pkwy 0.501 0.5013 0.2052 0.2961 0.18 0.5013 Total Total 0.501 0.5013 0.2052 0.2961 0.18 0.5013
Table 3. Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG)
Year Total Crashes FI Crashes Percent FI (%) PDO Crashes Percent PDO (%) 2025 0.50 0.20 40.934 0.30 59.066
Total 0.50 0.20 40.934 0.30 59.066Average 0.50 0.20 40.934 0.30 59.066 Note: Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derived Section Types Crash Prediction Evaluation Report4 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.
independently.

Table 4. Predicted 4SG Crash Type Distribution
Element Type Crash Type
Fatal and Injury Property Damage
Only Total
Crashes Crashes
(%) Crashes Crashes(%) Crashes Crashes(%)
Intersection Collision with Animal 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Intersection Collision with Bicycle 0.01 1.2 0.00 0.0 0.01 1.2 Intersection Collision with Fixed Object 0.01 2.5 0.02 4.8 0.04 7.3 Intersection Non-Collision 0.00 0.5 0.00 0.2 0.00 0.7
Intersection Collision with Other Object 0.00 0.2 0.00 0.4 0.00 0.6 Intersection Other Single-vehicle Collision 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.3 Intersection Collision with Parked Vehicle 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Intersection Collision with Pedestrian 0.08 15.8 0.00 0.0 0.08 15.8 Intersection Total Intersection Single Vehicle Crashes 0.10 20.5 0.03 5.5 0.13 26.0 Intersection Angle Collision 0.04 7.1 0.07 13.1 0.10 20.2 Intersection Head-on Collision 0.01 1.0 0.01 1.6 0.01 2.6 Intersection Other Multi-vehicle Collision 0.01 1.1 0.06 11.3 0.06 12.4 Intersection Rear-end Collision 0.05 9.2 0.13 25.9 0.18 35.1 Intersection Sideswipe 0.01 2.0 0.01 1.7 0.02 3.7
Intersection Total Intersection Multiple Vehicle Crashes 0.10 20.5 0.27 53.6 0.37 74.0 Intersection Total Intersection Crashes 0.20 40.9 0.30 59.1 0.50 100.0 Total Crashes 0.20 40.9 0.30 59.1 0.50 100.0
Note: Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 5

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
March 20, 2025

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Disclaimer
The Interactive Highway Design Model (IHSDM) software is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use thereof. This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers' names may appear in this software and documentation only because they are considered essential to the objective of the software.

Limited Warranty and Limitations of Remedies
This software product is provided "as-is," without warranty of any kind-either expressed or implied (but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose). The FHWA do not warrant that the functions contained in the software will meet the end-user's requirements or that the operation of the software will be uninterrupted and error-free.

Under no circumstances will the FHWA be liable to the end-user for any damages or claimed lost profits, lost savings, or other incidental or consequential damages rising out of the use or inability to use the software (even if these organizations have been advised of the possibility of such damages), or for any claim by any other party.

Notice
The use of the IHSDM software is being done strictly on a voluntary basis. In exchange for provision of IHSDM, the user agrees that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation and any other agency of the Federal Government shall not be responsible for any errors, damage or other liability that may result from any and all use of the software, including installation and testing of the software. The user further agrees to hold the FHWA and the Federal Government harmless from any resulting liability. The user agrees that this hold harmless provision shall flow to any person to whom or any entity to which the user provides the IHSDM software. It is the user's full responsibility to inform any person to whom or any entity to which it provides the IHSDM software of this hold harmless provision.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Table of Contents
Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 List of Tables
Table Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table Predicted 4SG Crash Type Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 List of Tables Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
iv Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Report Overview
Report Generated: Mar 20, 2025 3:22 PM
Report Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (sscpm2, Jul 23, 2021 4:16 PM) Evaluation Date: Thu Mar 20 15:07:27 PDT 2025
IHSDM Version: v17.0.0 (Sep 22, 2021)
Site Set Crash Prediction Module: v|ModuleInfo.moduleVersion| (|ModuleInfo.moduleDate|) User Name: kendra.lolland
Organization Name:

Phone:

E-Mail:

Project Title: Folsom Toll_Oak ave and Mangini Pkwy
Project Comment: Created Tue Mar 18 11:18:47 PDT 2025
Project Unit System: U.S. Customary
Site Set: Signal
Site Set Comment: Created Wed Mar 19 11:01:58 PDT 2025
Site Set Version: v1
Evaluation Title: Mangini Pkwy_Oak Ave_Signal_2045
Evaluation Comment: Created Thu Mar 20 15:07:09 PDT 2025 Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. Customary
Calibration: HSM Configuration
Crash Distribution: HSM Configuration
Model/CMF: HSM Configuration
First Year of Analysis: 2045
Last Year of Analysis: 2045
Empirical-Bayes Analysis: None
Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT COMPARING RESULTS FROM HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL FIRST EDITION (2010) MODELS TO RESULTS FROM NEW MODELS DEVELOPED UNDER NCHRP PROJECTS 17-70, 17-58, AND 17-68
Since the publication of the Highway Safety Manual - First Edition (HSM-1), in 2010 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), multiple research efforts have been undertaken through the National Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Report Overview
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 1

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to develop safety performance models for road segment and intersection facility types that were not initially reflected in the HSM-1, in order to expand the breadth and depth of the HSM in the future.

The IHSDM Crash Prediction Module (CPM) is intended as a faithful implementation of HSM Part C predictive methods. As NCHRP projects to develop new predictive methods for the HSM are completed, FHWA works to incorporate the new methods into IHSDM, sometimes in advance of publication in the HSM. The following new crash predictive methods have been accepted by NCHRP project panels and incorporated into IHSDM, while pending AASHTO's approval for incorporation into a future edition of the HSM:
- Roundabouts: completed in 2018 under NCHRP Project 17-70, the new methods will provide improved outcomes for the safety analysis of roundabouts.
- 6+ lane and one-way urban/suburban arterials (including models for segments and intersections): completed under NCHRP Project 17-58.
- Intersection crash prediction methods for some intersection configurations and traffic control types not currently addressed in the HSM (e.g., all-way stop; rural 3-leg signalized; 3-leg stop-controlled where the major leg turns; urban 5-leg signalized; urban high-speed intersections): completed in 2021 under NCHRP Project 17-68.

However, in the absence of local calibration factors (see HSM-1 Part C, Appendix A for guidance on calibration of the predictive models), it is neither appropriate nor advisable to directly compare the results from new models (from NCHRP Projects 17-58, 17-68, and 17-70) to results from HSM-1 models, as the models were not calibrated to the same base state data sets, and consequently can produce unexpected results. If local calibration factors are available and applied to both new models and HSM1 models, then it may be appropriate to directly compare the results.[Note: Work being performed under NCHRP Project 17-72 (Update of Crash Modification Factors for the Highway Safety Manual) is expected to re-calibrate many of the old (HSM-1) and new (e.g., NCHRP 17-70) models to data from a single (or small number of) states, that would allow results from all models to be directly compared.]
The models produced for NCHRP Project 17-70 have independent value in terms of informing the design of a roundabout and assessing the effects of different design characteristics on the expected safety performance of a roundabout.

The HSM-1 interim method previously included in IHSDM for evaluating roundabouts on urban/suburban arterials (i.e., evaluating an existing intersection and then applying a Crash Modification Factor for replacing the existing intersection with a roundabout) has been deactivated in IHSDM, to minimize any confusion with the new roundabout methodology.

Report Overview Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Section Types
Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation
Site Type
Type: 4SG
Calibration Factor: 1
Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 3

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Table 1. Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites Site
No. Type Highway Site Description Major AADT Minor AADT Number of
Approaches
with LeftTurn Lanes
Number of
Approaches
with RightTurn Lanes
Presence
of
Lighting
Number of
Approaches
with
Permissive
Left-Turn
Phasing
Number of
Approaches
with
Permissive/Pr
otected or
Protected/Per
missive LeftTurn Phasing
Number of
Approaches
with
Protected
Left-Turn
Phasing
Number of
Approaches
on which
Right Turn
on Red is
Prohibited
Presence
of RedLight
Cameras
Pedestrian
Volumes
Crossing all
Intersection
Legs
(crossings/day)
Max. Number
of Lanes
Crossed by
Pedestrians
Number of Bus
Stops within
1000 ft of
Intersection
Number of
Schools within
1000 ft of
Intersection
Number of Alcohol
Sales
Establishments
within 1000 ft of
Intersection
1 4SG2x2le5 Mangini Pkwy at Oak Ave Pkwy 2045: 7100 2045: 3400 4 0 yes 0 0 4 0 no 700 4 0 2 0 Table 2. Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site
Site
No. Type Highway Site Description
Total Predicted
Crashes for
Evaluation Period
Predicted Total
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted FI
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted PDO
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted Intersection
Travel Crash Rate
(crashes/million veh)
Intersection Crash
Rate (crashes/yr)
1 4SG Mangini Pkwy at Oak Ave Pkwy 0.828 0.8278 0.3075 0.5203 0.22 0.8278 Total Total 0.828 0.8278 0.3075 0.5203 0.22 0.8278
Table 3. Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG)
Year Total Crashes FI Crashes Percent FI (%) PDO Crashes Percent PDO (%) 2045 0.83 0.31 37.148 0.52 62.852
Total 0.83 0.31 37.148 0.52 62.852Average 0.83 0.31 37.148 0.52 62.852 Note: Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derived Section Types Crash Prediction Evaluation Report4 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.
independently.

Table 4. Predicted 4SG Crash Type Distribution
Element Type Crash Type
Fatal and Injury Property Damage
Only Total
Crashes Crashes
(%) Crashes Crashes(%) Crashes Crashes(%)
Intersection Collision with Animal 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Intersection Collision with Bicycle 0.01 1.3 0.00 0.0 0.01 1.3 Intersection Collision with Fixed Object 0.02 1.9 0.04 4.5 0.05 6.5 Intersection Non-Collision 0.00 0.4 0.00 0.2 0.01 0.5
Intersection Collision with Other Object 0.00 0.2 0.00 0.4 0.01 0.6 Intersection Other Single-vehicle Collision 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.2 Intersection Collision with Parked Vehicle 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Intersection Collision with Pedestrian 0.07 8.9 0.00 0.0 0.07 8.9 Intersection Total Intersection Single Vehicle Crashes 0.11 12.8 0.04 5.2 0.15 18.0 Intersection Angle Collision 0.07 8.4 0.12 14.1 0.19 22.5 Intersection Head-on Collision 0.01 1.2 0.01 1.7 0.02 2.9 Intersection Other Multi-vehicle Collision 0.01 1.3 0.10 12.2 0.11 13.5 Intersection Rear-end Collision 0.09 10.9 0.23 27.9 0.32 38.8 Intersection Sideswipe 0.02 2.4 0.01 1.8 0.04 4.3
Intersection Total Intersection Multiple Vehicle Crashes 0.20 24.3 0.48 57.7 0.68 82.0 Intersection Total Intersection Crashes 0.31 37.1 0.52 62.9 0.83 100.0 Total Crashes 0.31 37.1 0.52 62.9 0.83 100.0
Note: Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 5

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
March 21, 2025

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Disclaimer
The Interactive Highway Design Model (IHSDM) software is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use thereof. This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers' names may appear in this software and documentation only because they are considered essential to the objective of the software.

Limited Warranty and Limitations of Remedies
This software product is provided "as-is," without warranty of any kind-either expressed or implied (but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose). The FHWA do not warrant that the functions contained in the software will meet the end-user's requirements or that the operation of the software will be uninterrupted and error-free.

Under no circumstances will the FHWA be liable to the end-user for any damages or claimed lost profits, lost savings, or other incidental or consequential damages rising out of the use or inability to use the software (even if these organizations have been advised of the possibility of such damages), or for any claim by any other party.

Notice
The use of the IHSDM software is being done strictly on a voluntary basis. In exchange for provision of IHSDM, the user agrees that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation and any other agency of the Federal Government shall not be responsible for any errors, damage or other liability that may result from any and all use of the software, including installation and testing of the software. The user further agrees to hold the FHWA and the Federal Government harmless from any resulting liability. The user agrees that this hold harmless provision shall flow to any person to whom or any entity to which the user provides the IHSDM software. It is the user's full responsibility to inform any person to whom or any entity to which it provides the IHSDM software of this hold harmless provision.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Table of Contents
Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 List of Tables
Table Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4ST) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table Predicted 4ST Crash Type Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 List of Tables Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
iv Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Report Overview
Report Generated: Mar 21, 2025 1:39 PM
Report Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (sscpm2, Jul 23, 2021 4:16 PM) Evaluation Date: Fri Mar 21 13:32:24 PDT 2025
IHSDM Version: v17.0.0 (Sep 22, 2021)
Site Set Crash Prediction Module: v|ModuleInfo.moduleVersion| (|ModuleInfo.moduleDate|) User Name: kendra.lolland
Organization Name:

Phone:

E-Mail:

Project Title: Folsom Toll_Oak Ave and Street D
Project Comment: Created Tue Mar 18 11:18:23 PDT 2025
Project Unit System: U.S. Customary
Site Set: SSSC
Site Set Comment: Created Fri Mar 21 13:27:13 PDT 2025
Site Set Version: v1
Evaluation Title: Oak Ave Pkwy_D St_SSSC_2025
Evaluation Comment: Created Fri Mar 21 13:30:42 PDT 2025 Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. Customary
Calibration: HSM Configuration
Crash Distribution: HSM Configuration
Model/CMF: HSM Configuration
First Year of Analysis: 2025
Last Year of Analysis: 2025
Empirical-Bayes Analysis: None
Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT COMPARING RESULTS FROM HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL FIRST EDITION (2010) MODELS TO RESULTS FROM NEW MODELS DEVELOPED UNDER NCHRP PROJECTS 17-70, 17-58, AND 17-68
Since the publication of the Highway Safety Manual - First Edition (HSM-1), in 2010 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), multiple research efforts have been undertaken through the National Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Report Overview
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 1

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to develop safety performance models for road segment and intersection facility types that were not initially reflected in the HSM-1, in order to expand the breadth and depth of the HSM in the future.

The IHSDM Crash Prediction Module (CPM) is intended as a faithful implementation of HSM Part C predictive methods. As NCHRP projects to develop new predictive methods for the HSM are completed, FHWA works to incorporate the new methods into IHSDM, sometimes in advance of publication in the HSM. The following new crash predictive methods have been accepted by NCHRP project panels and incorporated into IHSDM, while pending AASHTO's approval for incorporation into a future edition of the HSM:
- Roundabouts: completed in 2018 under NCHRP Project 17-70, the new methods will provide improved outcomes for the safety analysis of roundabouts.
- 6+ lane and one-way urban/suburban arterials (including models for segments and intersections): completed under NCHRP Project 17-58.
- Intersection crash prediction methods for some intersection configurations and traffic control types not currently addressed in the HSM (e.g., all-way stop; rural 3-leg signalized; 3-leg stop-controlled where the major leg turns; urban 5-leg signalized; urban high-speed intersections): completed in 2021 under NCHRP Project 17-68.

However, in the absence of local calibration factors (see HSM-1 Part C, Appendix A for guidance on calibration of the predictive models), it is neither appropriate nor advisable to directly compare the results from new models (from NCHRP Projects 17-58, 17-68, and 17-70) to results from HSM-1 models, as the models were not calibrated to the same base state data sets, and consequently can produce unexpected results. If local calibration factors are available and applied to both new models and HSM1 models, then it may be appropriate to directly compare the results.[Note: Work being performed under NCHRP Project 17-72 (Update of Crash Modification Factors for the Highway Safety Manual) is expected to re-calibrate many of the old (HSM-1) and new (e.g., NCHRP 17-70) models to data from a single (or small number of) states, that would allow results from all models to be directly compared.]
The models produced for NCHRP Project 17-70 have independent value in terms of informing the design of a roundabout and assessing the effects of different design characteristics on the expected safety performance of a roundabout.

The HSM-1 interim method previously included in IHSDM for evaluating roundabouts on urban/suburban arterials (i.e., evaluating an existing intersection and then applying a Crash Modification Factor for replacing the existing intersection with a roundabout) has been deactivated in IHSDM, to minimize any confusion with the new roundabout methodology.

Report Overview Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Section Types
Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation
Site Type
Type: 4ST
Calibration Factor: 1
Table 1. Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites Site
No. Type Highway Site Description MajorAADT
Minor
AADT
Number of
Approaches
with Left-Turn
Lanes
Number of
Approaches
with RightTurn Lanes
Presence of
Lighting
1 4ST2x2le5 Oak Ave Pkwy at D St 2025: 3510 2025: 3120 2 0 yes Table 2. Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site
Site
No.

Typ
e
Highway Site
Description
Total
Predicted
Crashes for
Evaluation
Period
Predicted
Total
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted
FI Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted
PDO Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted
Intersection
Travel Crash
Rate
(crashes/million
veh)
Intersection
Crash Rate
(crashes/yr)
1 4ST Oak Ave Pkwy at D St 0.509 0.5089 0.1806 0.3284 0.21 0.5089 Total Total 0.509 0.5089 0.1806 0.3284 0.21 0.5089
Table 3. Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4ST)
Year Total Crashes FI Crashes Percent FI (%) PDO Crashes Percent PDO (%)
2025 0.51 0.18 35.478 0.33 64.522
Total 0.51 0.18 35.478 0.33 64.522
Average 0.51 0.18 35.478 0.33 64.522
Note: Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 3

06/23/2026 Item No.18.
distribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Table 4. Predicted 4ST Crash Type Distribution
Element Type Crash Type
Fatal and Injury Property Damage
Only Total
Crashes Crashes
(%) Crashes Crashes(%) Crashes Crashes(%)
Intersection Collision with Animal 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.3 0.00 0.3 Intersection Collision with Bicycle 0.01 1.7 0.00 0.0 0.01 1.7 Intersection Collision with Fixed Object 0.02 3.6 0.05 10.6 0.07 14.3 Intersection Non-Collision 0.01 1.0 0.00 0.6 0.01 1.6
Intersection Collision with Other Object 0.00 0.5 0.00 0.9 0.01 1.4 Intersection Other Single-vehicle Collision 0.00 0.3 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.4 Intersection Collision with Parked Vehicle 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Intersection Collision with Pedestrian 0.01 2.1 0.00 0.0 0.01 2.1 Intersection Total Intersection Single Vehicle Crashes 0.05 9.2 0.06 12.5 0.11 21.7 Intersection Angle Collision 0.06 11.6 0.09 17.4 0.15 29.0 Intersection Head-on Collision 0.01 1.1 0.01 1.6 0.01 2.6 Intersection Other Multi-vehicle Collision 0.01 1.6 0.06 11.3 0.07 12.9 Intersection Rear-end Collision 0.04 8.9 0.10 19.4 0.14 28.3 Intersection Sideswipe 0.02 3.2 0.01 2.3 0.03 5.5
Intersection Total Intersection Multiple Vehicle Crashes 0.13 26.3 0.27 52.0 0.40 78.3 Intersection Total Intersection Crashes 0.18 35.5 0.33 64.5 0.51 100.0 Total Crashes 0.18 35.5 0.33 64.5 0.51 100.0
Note: Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Section Types Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
4 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
March 21, 2025

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Disclaimer
The Interactive Highway Design Model (IHSDM) software is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use thereof. This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers' names may appear in this software and documentation only because they are considered essential to the objective of the software.

Limited Warranty and Limitations of Remedies
This software product is provided "as-is," without warranty of any kind-either expressed or implied (but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose). The FHWA do not warrant that the functions contained in the software will meet the end-user's requirements or that the operation of the software will be uninterrupted and error-free.

Under no circumstances will the FHWA be liable to the end-user for any damages or claimed lost profits, lost savings, or other incidental or consequential damages rising out of the use or inability to use the software (even if these organizations have been advised of the possibility of such damages), or for any claim by any other party.

Notice
The use of the IHSDM software is being done strictly on a voluntary basis. In exchange for provision of IHSDM, the user agrees that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation and any other agency of the Federal Government shall not be responsible for any errors, damage or other liability that may result from any and all use of the software, including installation and testing of the software. The user further agrees to hold the FHWA and the Federal Government harmless from any resulting liability. The user agrees that this hold harmless provision shall flow to any person to whom or any entity to which the user provides the IHSDM software. It is the user's full responsibility to inform any person to whom or any entity to which it provides the IHSDM software of this hold harmless provision.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Table of Contents
Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 List of Tables
Table Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4ST) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table Predicted 4ST Crash Type Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 List of Tables Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
iv Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Report Overview
Report Generated: Mar 21, 2025 1:40 PM
Report Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (sscpm2, Jul 23, 2021 4:16 PM) Evaluation Date: Fri Mar 21 13:36:33 PDT 2025
IHSDM Version: v17.0.0 (Sep 22, 2021)
Site Set Crash Prediction Module: v|ModuleInfo.moduleVersion| (|ModuleInfo.moduleDate|) User Name: kendra.lolland
Organization Name:

Phone:

E-Mail:

Project Title: Folsom Toll_Oak Ave and Street D
Project Comment: Created Tue Mar 18 11:18:23 PDT 2025
Project Unit System: U.S. Customary
Site Set: SSSC
Site Set Comment: Created Fri Mar 21 13:27:13 PDT 2025
Site Set Version: v1
Evaluation Title: Oak Ave Pkwy_D St_SSSC_2045
Evaluation Comment: Created Fri Mar 21 13:34:55 PDT 2025 Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. Customary
Calibration: HSM Configuration
Crash Distribution: HSM Configuration
Model/CMF: HSM Configuration
First Year of Analysis: 2045
Last Year of Analysis: 2045
Empirical-Bayes Analysis: None
Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT COMPARING RESULTS FROM HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL FIRST EDITION (2010) MODELS TO RESULTS FROM NEW MODELS DEVELOPED UNDER NCHRP PROJECTS 17-70, 17-58, AND 17-68
Since the publication of the Highway Safety Manual - First Edition (HSM-1), in 2010 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), multiple research efforts have been undertaken through the National Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Report Overview
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 1

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to develop safety performance models for road segment and intersection facility types that were not initially reflected in the HSM-1, in order to expand the breadth and depth of the HSM in the future.

The IHSDM Crash Prediction Module (CPM) is intended as a faithful implementation of HSM Part C predictive methods. As NCHRP projects to develop new predictive methods for the HSM are completed, FHWA works to incorporate the new methods into IHSDM, sometimes in advance of publication in the HSM. The following new crash predictive methods have been accepted by NCHRP project panels and incorporated into IHSDM, while pending AASHTO's approval for incorporation into a future edition of the HSM:
- Roundabouts: completed in 2018 under NCHRP Project 17-70, the new methods will provide improved outcomes for the safety analysis of roundabouts.
- 6+ lane and one-way urban/suburban arterials (including models for segments and intersections): completed under NCHRP Project 17-58.
- Intersection crash prediction methods for some intersection configurations and traffic control types not currently addressed in the HSM (e.g., all-way stop; rural 3-leg signalized; 3-leg stop-controlled where the major leg turns; urban 5-leg signalized; urban high-speed intersections): completed in 2021 under NCHRP Project 17-68.

However, in the absence of local calibration factors (see HSM-1 Part C, Appendix A for guidance on calibration of the predictive models), it is neither appropriate nor advisable to directly compare the results from new models (from NCHRP Projects 17-58, 17-68, and 17-70) to results from HSM-1 models, as the models were not calibrated to the same base state data sets, and consequently can produce unexpected results. If local calibration factors are available and applied to both new models and HSM1 models, then it may be appropriate to directly compare the results.[Note: Work being performed under NCHRP Project 17-72 (Update of Crash Modification Factors for the Highway Safety Manual) is expected to re-calibrate many of the old (HSM-1) and new (e.g., NCHRP 17-70) models to data from a single (or small number of) states, that would allow results from all models to be directly compared.]
The models produced for NCHRP Project 17-70 have independent value in terms of informing the design of a roundabout and assessing the effects of different design characteristics on the expected safety performance of a roundabout.

The HSM-1 interim method previously included in IHSDM for evaluating roundabouts on urban/suburban arterials (i.e., evaluating an existing intersection and then applying a Crash Modification Factor for replacing the existing intersection with a roundabout) has been deactivated in IHSDM, to minimize any confusion with the new roundabout methodology.

Report Overview Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Section Types
Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation
Site Type
Type: 4ST
Calibration Factor: 1
Table 1. Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites Site
No. Type Highway Site Description MajorAADT
Minor
AADT
Number of
Approaches
with Left-Turn
Lanes
Number of
Approaches
with RightTurn Lanes
Presence of
Lighting
1 4ST2x2le5 Oak Ave Pkwy at D St 2045: 7600 2045: 5000 2 0 yes Table 2. Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site
Site
No.

Typ
e
Highway Site
Description
Total
Predicted
Crashes for
Evaluation
Period
Predicted
Total
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted
FI Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted
PDO Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted
Intersection
Travel Crash
Rate
(crashes/million
veh)
Intersection
Crash Rate
(crashes/yr)
1 4ST Oak Ave Pkwy at D St 1.007 1.0074 0.3857 0.6217 0.22 1.0074 Total Total 1.007 1.0074 0.3857 0.6217 0.22 1.0074
Table 3. Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4ST)
Year Total Crashes FI Crashes Percent FI (%) PDO Crashes Percent PDO (%)
2045 1.01 0.39 38.285 0.62 61.715
Total 1.01 0.39 38.285 0.62 61.715
Average 1.01 0.39 38.285 0.62 61.715
Note: Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 3

06/23/2026 Item No.18.
distribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Table 4. Predicted 4ST Crash Type Distribution
Element Type Crash Type
Fatal and Injury Property Damage
Only Total
Crashes Crashes
(%) Crashes Crashes(%) Crashes Crashes(%)
Intersection Collision with Animal 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.2 0.00 0.2 Intersection Collision with Bicycle 0.02 1.7 0.00 0.0 0.02 1.7 Intersection Collision with Fixed Object 0.02 2.4 0.08 7.5 0.10 9.9 Intersection Non-Collision 0.01 0.6 0.00 0.4 0.01 1.1
Intersection Collision with Other Object 0.00 0.3 0.01 0.6 0.01 0.9 Intersection Other Single-vehicle Collision 0.00 0.2 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.2 Intersection Collision with Parked Vehicle 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Intersection Collision with Pedestrian 0.02 2.1 0.00 0.0 0.02 2.1 Intersection Total Intersection Single Vehicle Crashes 0.07 7.3 0.09 8.9 0.16 16.2 Intersection Angle Collision 0.14 13.6 0.18 17.7 0.32 31.3 Intersection Head-on Collision 0.01 1.3 0.02 1.6 0.03 2.9 Intersection Other Multi-vehicle Collision 0.02 1.9 0.12 11.5 0.13 13.3 Intersection Rear-end Collision 0.10 10.5 0.20 19.8 0.30 30.2 Intersection Sideswipe 0.04 3.7 0.02 2.3 0.06 6.1
Intersection Total Intersection Multiple Vehicle Crashes 0.31 31.0 0.53 52.8 0.84 83.8 Intersection Total Intersection Crashes 0.39 38.3 0.62 61.7 1.01 100.0 Total Crashes 0.39 38.3 0.62 61.7 1.01 100.0
Note: Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Section Types Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
4 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
March 21, 2025

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Disclaimer
The Interactive Highway Design Model (IHSDM) software is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use thereof. This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers' names may appear in this software and documentation only because they are considered essential to the objective of the software.

Limited Warranty and Limitations of Remedies
This software product is provided "as-is," without warranty of any kind-either expressed or implied (but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose). The FHWA do not warrant that the functions contained in the software will meet the end-user's requirements or that the operation of the software will be uninterrupted and error-free.

Under no circumstances will the FHWA be liable to the end-user for any damages or claimed lost profits, lost savings, or other incidental or consequential damages rising out of the use or inability to use the software (even if these organizations have been advised of the possibility of such damages), or for any claim by any other party.

Notice
The use of the IHSDM software is being done strictly on a voluntary basis. In exchange for provision of IHSDM, the user agrees that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation and any other agency of the Federal Government shall not be responsible for any errors, damage or other liability that may result from any and all use of the software, including installation and testing of the software. The user further agrees to hold the FHWA and the Federal Government harmless from any resulting liability. The user agrees that this hold harmless provision shall flow to any person to whom or any entity to which the user provides the IHSDM software. It is the user's full responsibility to inform any person to whom or any entity to which it provides the IHSDM software of this hold harmless provision.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Table of Contents
Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 List of Tables
Table Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table Predicted 4SG Crash Type Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 List of Tables Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
iv Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Report Overview
Report Generated: Mar 21, 2025 1:56 PM
Report Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (sscpm2, Jul 23, 2021 4:16 PM) Evaluation Date: Fri Mar 21 13:51:50 PDT 2025
IHSDM Version: v17.0.0 (Sep 22, 2021)
Site Set Crash Prediction Module: v|ModuleInfo.moduleVersion| (|ModuleInfo.moduleDate|) User Name: kendra.lolland
Organization Name:

Phone:

E-Mail:

Project Title: Folsom Toll_Oak Ave and Street D
Project Comment: Created Tue Mar 18 11:18:23 PDT 2025
Project Unit System: U.S. Customary
Site Set: Signal
Site Set Comment: Created Wed Mar 19 10:26:21 PDT 2025
Site Set Version: v1
Evaluation Title: Oak Ave Pkwy_St D_SSSC_2025
Evaluation Comment: Created Fri Mar 21 13:49:43 PDT 2025 Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. Customary
Calibration: HSM Configuration
Crash Distribution: HSM Configuration
Model/CMF: HSM Configuration
First Year of Analysis: 2025
Last Year of Analysis: 2025
Empirical-Bayes Analysis: None
Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT COMPARING RESULTS FROM HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL FIRST EDITION (2010) MODELS TO RESULTS FROM NEW MODELS DEVELOPED UNDER NCHRP PROJECTS 17-70, 17-58, AND 17-68
Since the publication of the Highway Safety Manual - First Edition (HSM-1), in 2010 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), multiple research efforts have been undertaken through the National Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Report Overview
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 1

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to develop safety performance models for road segment and intersection facility types that were not initially reflected in the HSM-1, in order to expand the breadth and depth of the HSM in the future.

The IHSDM Crash Prediction Module (CPM) is intended as a faithful implementation of HSM Part C predictive methods. As NCHRP projects to develop new predictive methods for the HSM are completed, FHWA works to incorporate the new methods into IHSDM, sometimes in advance of publication in the HSM. The following new crash predictive methods have been accepted by NCHRP project panels and incorporated into IHSDM, while pending AASHTO's approval for incorporation into a future edition of the HSM:
- Roundabouts: completed in 2018 under NCHRP Project 17-70, the new methods will provide improved outcomes for the safety analysis of roundabouts.
- 6+ lane and one-way urban/suburban arterials (including models for segments and intersections): completed under NCHRP Project 17-58.
- Intersection crash prediction methods for some intersection configurations and traffic control types not currently addressed in the HSM (e.g., all-way stop; rural 3-leg signalized; 3-leg stop-controlled where the major leg turns; urban 5-leg signalized; urban high-speed intersections): completed in 2021 under NCHRP Project 17-68.

However, in the absence of local calibration factors (see HSM-1 Part C, Appendix A for guidance on calibration of the predictive models), it is neither appropriate nor advisable to directly compare the results from new models (from NCHRP Projects 17-58, 17-68, and 17-70) to results from HSM-1 models, as the models were not calibrated to the same base state data sets, and consequently can produce unexpected results. If local calibration factors are available and applied to both new models and HSM1 models, then it may be appropriate to directly compare the results.[Note: Work being performed under NCHRP Project 17-72 (Update of Crash Modification Factors for the Highway Safety Manual) is expected to re-calibrate many of the old (HSM-1) and new (e.g., NCHRP 17-70) models to data from a single (or small number of) states, that would allow results from all models to be directly compared.]
The models produced for NCHRP Project 17-70 have independent value in terms of informing the design of a roundabout and assessing the effects of different design characteristics on the expected safety performance of a roundabout.

The HSM-1 interim method previously included in IHSDM for evaluating roundabouts on urban/suburban arterials (i.e., evaluating an existing intersection and then applying a Crash Modification Factor for replacing the existing intersection with a roundabout) has been deactivated in IHSDM, to minimize any confusion with the new roundabout methodology.

Report Overview Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Section Types
Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation
Site Type
Type: 4SG
Calibration Factor: 1
Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 3

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Table 1. Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites Site
No. Type Highway Site Description Major AADT Minor AADT Number of
Approaches
with LeftTurn Lanes
Number of
Approaches
with RightTurn Lanes
Presence
of Lighting
Number of
Approaches
with
Permissive
Left-Turn
Phasing
Number of
Approaches
with
Permissive/Pr
otected or
Protected/Per
missive LeftTurn Phasing
Number of
Approaches
with
Protected
Left-Turn
Phasing
Number of
Approaches
on which
Right Turn
on Red is
Prohibited
Presence
of RedLight
Cameras
Pedestrian
Volumes
Crossing all
Intersection Legs
(crossings/day)
Max. Number
of Lanes
Crossed by
Pedestrians
Number of Bus
Stops within
1000 ft of
Intersection
Number of
Schools within
1000 ft of
Intersection
Number of Alcohol
Sales
Establishments
within 1000 ft of
Intersection
1 4SG2x2le5 Oak Ave Pkwy at D St 2025: 3510 2025: 3120 2 0 yes 0 0 2 0 no 240 3 0 1 0 Table 2. Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site
Site
No. Type Highway Site Description
Total Predicted
Crashes for
Evaluation Period
Predicted Total
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted FI
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted PDO
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted Intersection
Travel Crash Rate
(crashes/million veh)
Intersection Crash
Rate (crashes/yr)
1 4SG Oak Ave Pkwy at D St 0.539 0.5391 0.1903 0.3488 0.22 0.5391 Total Total 0.539 0.5391 0.1903 0.3488 0.22 0.5391
Table 3. Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG)
Year Total Crashes FI Crashes Percent FI (%) PDO Crashes Percent PDO (%) 2025 0.54 0.19 35.299 0.35 64.701
Total 0.54 0.19 35.299 0.35 64.701Average 0.54 0.19 35.299 0.35 64.701 Note: Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derivedSection Types Crash Prediction Evaluation Report4 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.
independently.

Table 4. Predicted 4SG Crash Type Distribution
Element Type Crash Type
Fatal and Injury Property Damage
Only Total
Crashes Crashes
(%) Crashes Crashes(%) Crashes Crashes(%)
Intersection Collision with Animal 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Intersection Collision with Bicycle 0.01 1.4 0.00 0.0 0.01 1.4 Intersection Collision with Fixed Object 0.02 2.9 0.03 5.3 0.04 8.3 Intersection Non-Collision 0.00 0.6 0.00 0.2 0.00 0.8
Intersection Collision with Other Object 0.00 0.3 0.00 0.4 0.00 0.7 Intersection Other Single-vehicle Collision 0.00 0.2 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.3 Intersection Collision with Parked Vehicle 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Intersection Collision with Pedestrian 0.04 7.9 0.00 0.0 0.04 7.9 Intersection Total Intersection Single Vehicle Crashes 0.07 13.2 0.03 6.1 0.10 19.3 Intersection Angle Collision 0.04 7.7 0.08 14.3 0.12 22.0 Intersection Head-on Collision 0.01 1.1 0.01 1.8 0.01 2.8 Intersection Other Multi-vehicle Collision 0.01 1.2 0.07 12.4 0.07 13.6 Intersection Rear-end Collision 0.05 9.9 0.15 28.3 0.21 38.2 Intersection Sideswipe 0.01 2.2 0.01 1.9 0.02 4.1
Intersection Total Intersection Multiple Vehicle Crashes 0.12 22.1 0.32 58.6 0.43 80.7 Intersection Total Intersection Crashes 0.19 35.3 0.35 64.7 0.54 100.0 Total Crashes 0.19 35.3 0.35 64.7 0.54 100.0
Note: Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 5

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
March 21, 2025

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Disclaimer
The Interactive Highway Design Model (IHSDM) software is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use thereof. This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers' names may appear in this software and documentation only because they are considered essential to the objective of the software.

Limited Warranty and Limitations of Remedies
This software product is provided "as-is," without warranty of any kind-either expressed or implied (but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose). The FHWA do not warrant that the functions contained in the software will meet the end-user's requirements or that the operation of the software will be uninterrupted and error-free.

Under no circumstances will the FHWA be liable to the end-user for any damages or claimed lost profits, lost savings, or other incidental or consequential damages rising out of the use or inability to use the software (even if these organizations have been advised of the possibility of such damages), or for any claim by any other party.

Notice
The use of the IHSDM software is being done strictly on a voluntary basis. In exchange for provision of IHSDM, the user agrees that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation and any other agency of the Federal Government shall not be responsible for any errors, damage or other liability that may result from any and all use of the software, including installation and testing of the software. The user further agrees to hold the FHWA and the Federal Government harmless from any resulting liability. The user agrees that this hold harmless provision shall flow to any person to whom or any entity to which the user provides the IHSDM software. It is the user's full responsibility to inform any person to whom or any entity to which it provides the IHSDM software of this hold harmless provision.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Table of Contents
Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 List of Tables
Table Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table Predicted 4SG Crash Type Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 List of Tables Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
iv Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Report Overview
Report Generated: Mar 21, 2025 2:04 PM
Report Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (sscpm2, Jul 23, 2021 4:16 PM) Evaluation Date: Fri Mar 21 13:55:24 PDT 2025
IHSDM Version: v17.0.0 (Sep 22, 2021)
Site Set Crash Prediction Module: v|ModuleInfo.moduleVersion| (|ModuleInfo.moduleDate|) User Name: kendra.lolland
Organization Name:

Phone:

E-Mail:

Project Title: Folsom Toll_Oak Ave and Street D
Project Comment: Created Tue Mar 18 11:18:23 PDT 2025
Project Unit System: U.S. Customary
Site Set: Signal
Site Set Comment: Created Wed Mar 19 10:26:21 PDT 2025
Site Set Version: v1
Evaluation Title: Oak Ave Pkwy_St D_SSSC_2045
Evaluation Comment: Created Fri Mar 21 13:53:53 PDT 2025 Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. Customary
Calibration: HSM Configuration
Crash Distribution: HSM Configuration
Model/CMF: HSM Configuration
First Year of Analysis: 2045
Last Year of Analysis: 2045
Empirical-Bayes Analysis: None
Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT COMPARING RESULTS FROM HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL FIRST EDITION (2010) MODELS TO RESULTS FROM NEW MODELS DEVELOPED UNDER NCHRP PROJECTS 17-70, 17-58, AND 17-68
Since the publication of the Highway Safety Manual - First Edition (HSM-1), in 2010 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), multiple research efforts have been undertaken through the National Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Report Overview
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 1

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to develop safety performance models for road segment and intersection facility types that were not initially reflected in the HSM-1, in order to expand the breadth and depth of the HSM in the future.

The IHSDM Crash Prediction Module (CPM) is intended as a faithful implementation of HSM Part C predictive methods. As NCHRP projects to develop new predictive methods for the HSM are completed, FHWA works to incorporate the new methods into IHSDM, sometimes in advance of publication in the HSM. The following new crash predictive methods have been accepted by NCHRP project panels and incorporated into IHSDM, while pending AASHTO's approval for incorporation into a future edition of the HSM:
- Roundabouts: completed in 2018 under NCHRP Project 17-70, the new methods will provide improved outcomes for the safety analysis of roundabouts.
- 6+ lane and one-way urban/suburban arterials (including models for segments and intersections): completed under NCHRP Project 17-58.
- Intersection crash prediction methods for some intersection configurations and traffic control types not currently addressed in the HSM (e.g., all-way stop; rural 3-leg signalized; 3-leg stop-controlled where the major leg turns; urban 5-leg signalized; urban high-speed intersections): completed in 2021 under NCHRP Project 17-68.

However, in the absence of local calibration factors (see HSM-1 Part C, Appendix A for guidance on calibration of the predictive models), it is neither appropriate nor advisable to directly compare the results from new models (from NCHRP Projects 17-58, 17-68, and 17-70) to results from HSM-1 models, as the models were not calibrated to the same base state data sets, and consequently can produce unexpected results. If local calibration factors are available and applied to both new models and HSM1 models, then it may be appropriate to directly compare the results.[Note: Work being performed under NCHRP Project 17-72 (Update of Crash Modification Factors for the Highway Safety Manual) is expected to re-calibrate many of the old (HSM-1) and new (e.g., NCHRP 17-70) models to data from a single (or small number of) states, that would allow results from all models to be directly compared.]
The models produced for NCHRP Project 17-70 have independent value in terms of informing the design of a roundabout and assessing the effects of different design characteristics on the expected safety performance of a roundabout.

The HSM-1 interim method previously included in IHSDM for evaluating roundabouts on urban/suburban arterials (i.e., evaluating an existing intersection and then applying a Crash Modification Factor for replacing the existing intersection with a roundabout) has been deactivated in IHSDM, to minimize any confusion with the new roundabout methodology.

Report Overview Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Section Types
Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation
Site Type
Type: 4SG
Calibration Factor: 1
Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 3

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Table 1. Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites Site
No. Type Highway Site Description Major AADT Minor AADT Number of
Approaches
with LeftTurn Lanes
Number of
Approaches
with RightTurn Lanes
Presence
of Lighting
Number of
Approaches
with
Permissive
Left-Turn
Phasing
Number of
Approaches
with
Permissive/Pr
otected or
Protected/Per
missive LeftTurn Phasing
Number of
Approaches
with
Protected
Left-Turn
Phasing
Number of
Approaches
on which
Right Turn
on Red is
Prohibited
Presence
of RedLight
Cameras
Pedestrian
Volumes
Crossing all
Intersection Legs
(crossings/day)
Max. Number
of Lanes
Crossed by
Pedestrians
Number of Bus
Stops within
1000 ft of
Intersection
Number of
Schools within
1000 ft of
Intersection
Number of Alcohol
Sales
Establishments
within 1000 ft of
Intersection
1 4SG2x2le5 Oak Ave Pkwy at D St 2045: 7600 2045: 5000 2 0 yes 0 0 2 0 no 240 3 0 1 0 Table 2. Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site
Site
No. Type Highway Site Description
Total Predicted
Crashes for
Evaluation Period
Predicted Total
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted FI
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted PDO
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted Intersection
Travel Crash Rate
(crashes/million veh)
Intersection Crash
Rate (crashes/yr)
1 4SG Oak Ave Pkwy at D St 1.281 1.2811 0.4331 0.8480 0.28 1.2811 Total Total 1.281 1.2811 0.4331 0.8480 0.28 1.2811
Table 3. Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG)
Year Total Crashes FI Crashes Percent FI (%) PDO Crashes Percent PDO (%) 2045 1.28 0.43 33.803 0.85 66.197
Total 1.28 0.43 33.803 0.85 66.197Average 1.28 0.43 33.803 0.85 66.197 Note: Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derivedSection Types Crash Prediction Evaluation Report4 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.
independently.

Table 4. Predicted 4SG Crash Type Distribution
Element Type Crash Type
Fatal and Injury Property Damage
Only Total
Crashes Crashes
(%) Crashes Crashes(%) Crashes Crashes(%)
Intersection Collision with Animal 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Intersection Collision with Bicycle 0.02 1.4 0.00 0.0 0.02 1.4 Intersection Collision with Fixed Object 0.03 2.0 0.06 4.7 0.09 6.7 Intersection Non-Collision 0.01 0.4 0.00 0.2 0.01 0.6
Intersection Collision with Other Object 0.00 0.2 0.01 0.4 0.01 0.6 Intersection Other Single-vehicle Collision 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.2 Intersection Collision with Parked Vehicle 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Intersection Collision with Pedestrian 0.05 4.0 0.00 0.0 0.05 4.0 Intersection Total Intersection Single Vehicle Crashes 0.10 8.1 0.07 5.4 0.17 13.5 Intersection Angle Collision 0.11 8.9 0.19 14.8 0.30 23.7 Intersection Head-on Collision 0.02 1.3 0.02 1.8 0.04 3.1 Intersection Other Multi-vehicle Collision 0.02 1.4 0.16 12.8 0.18 14.2 Intersection Rear-end Collision 0.15 11.6 0.38 29.4 0.52 40.9 Intersection Sideswipe 0.03 2.5 0.03 1.9 0.06 4.5
Intersection Total Intersection Multiple Vehicle Crashes 0.33 25.7 0.78 60.8 1.11 86.5 Intersection Total Intersection Crashes 0.43 33.8 0.85 66.2 1.28 100.0 Total Crashes 0.43 33.8 0.85 66.2 1.28 100.0
Note: Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 5

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
March 24, 2025

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Disclaimer
The Interactive Highway Design Model (IHSDM) software is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use thereof. This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers' names may appear in this software and documentation only because they are considered essential to the objective of the software.

Limited Warranty and Limitations of Remedies
This software product is provided "as-is," without warranty of any kind-either expressed or implied (but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose). The FHWA do not warrant that the functions contained in the software will meet the end-user's requirements or that the operation of the software will be uninterrupted and error-free.

Under no circumstances will the FHWA be liable to the end-user for any damages or claimed lost profits, lost savings, or other incidental or consequential damages rising out of the use or inability to use the software (even if these organizations have been advised of the possibility of such damages), or for any claim by any other party.

Notice
The use of the IHSDM software is being done strictly on a voluntary basis. In exchange for provision of IHSDM, the user agrees that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation and any other agency of the Federal Government shall not be responsible for any errors, damage or other liability that may result from any and all use of the software, including installation and testing of the software. The user further agrees to hold the FHWA and the Federal Government harmless from any resulting liability. The user agrees that this hold harmless provision shall flow to any person to whom or any entity to which the user provides the IHSDM software. It is the user's full responsibility to inform any person to whom or any entity to which it provides the IHSDM software of this hold harmless provision.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Table of Contents
Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 List of Tables
Table Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (3SG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table Predicted 3SG Crash Type Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 List of Tables Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
iv Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Report Overview
Report Generated: Mar 24, 2025 7:53 AM
Report Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (sscpm2, Jul 23, 2021 4:16 PM) Evaluation Date: Mon Mar 24 07:47:49 PDT 2025
IHSDM Version: v17.0.0 (Sep 22, 2021)
Site Set Crash Prediction Module: v|ModuleInfo.moduleVersion| (|ModuleInfo.moduleDate|) User Name: kendra.lolland
Organization Name:

Phone:

E-Mail:

Project Title: Folsom Toll_Praire City and Street D
Project Comment: Created Tue Mar 18 11:17:34 PDT 2025
Project Unit System: U.S. Customary
Site Set: Signal
Site Set Comment: Created Tue Mar 18 11:22:16 PDT 2025
Site Set Version: v1
Evaluation Title: Prairie City Rd_St D_Signal_2025
Evaluation Comment: Created Mon Mar 24 07:47:31 PDT 2025 Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. Customary
Calibration: HSM Configuration
Crash Distribution: HSM Configuration
Model/CMF: HSM Configuration
First Year of Analysis: 2025
Last Year of Analysis: 2025
Empirical-Bayes Analysis: None
Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT COMPARING RESULTS FROM HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL FIRST EDITION (2010) MODELS TO RESULTS FROM NEW MODELS DEVELOPED UNDER NCHRP PROJECTS 17-70, 17-58, AND 17-68
Since the publication of the Highway Safety Manual - First Edition (HSM-1), in 2010 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), multiple research efforts have been undertaken through the National Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Report Overview
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 1

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to develop safety performance models for road segment and intersection facility types that were not initially reflected in the HSM-1, in order to expand the breadth and depth of the HSM in the future.

The IHSDM Crash Prediction Module (CPM) is intended as a faithful implementation of HSM Part C predictive methods. As NCHRP projects to develop new predictive methods for the HSM are completed, FHWA works to incorporate the new methods into IHSDM, sometimes in advance of publication in the HSM. The following new crash predictive methods have been accepted by NCHRP project panels and incorporated into IHSDM, while pending AASHTO's approval for incorporation into a future edition of the HSM:
- Roundabouts: completed in 2018 under NCHRP Project 17-70, the new methods will provide improved outcomes for the safety analysis of roundabouts.
- 6+ lane and one-way urban/suburban arterials (including models for segments and intersections): completed under NCHRP Project 17-58.
- Intersection crash prediction methods for some intersection configurations and traffic control types not currently addressed in the HSM (e.g., all-way stop; rural 3-leg signalized; 3-leg stop-controlled where the major leg turns; urban 5-leg signalized; urban high-speed intersections): completed in 2021 under NCHRP Project 17-68.

However, in the absence of local calibration factors (see HSM-1 Part C, Appendix A for guidance on calibration of the predictive models), it is neither appropriate nor advisable to directly compare the results from new models (from NCHRP Projects 17-58, 17-68, and 17-70) to results from HSM-1 models, as the models were not calibrated to the same base state data sets, and consequently can produce unexpected results. If local calibration factors are available and applied to both new models and HSM1 models, then it may be appropriate to directly compare the results.[Note: Work being performed under NCHRP Project 17-72 (Update of Crash Modification Factors for the Highway Safety Manual) is expected to re-calibrate many of the old (HSM-1) and new (e.g., NCHRP 17-70) models to data from a single (or small number of) states, that would allow results from all models to be directly compared.]
The models produced for NCHRP Project 17-70 have independent value in terms of informing the design of a roundabout and assessing the effects of different design characteristics on the expected safety performance of a roundabout.

The HSM-1 interim method previously included in IHSDM for evaluating roundabouts on urban/suburban arterials (i.e., evaluating an existing intersection and then applying a Crash Modification Factor for replacing the existing intersection with a roundabout) has been deactivated in IHSDM, to minimize any confusion with the new roundabout methodology.

Report Overview Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Section Types
Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation
Site Type
Type: 3SG
Calibration Factor: 1
Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 3

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Table 1. Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites Site
No. Type Highway Site Description Major AADT Minor AADT Number of
Approaches
with LeftTurn Lanes
Number of
Approaches
with RightTurn Lanes
Presence
of
Lighting
Number of
Approaches
with
Permissive
Left-Turn
Phasing
Number of
Approaches
with
Permissive/Pr
otected or
Protected/Per
missive LeftTurn Phasing
Number of
Approaches
with
Protected
Left-Turn
Phasing
Number of
Approaches
on which
Right Turn
on Red is
Prohibited
Presence
of RedLight
Cameras
Pedestrian
Volumes
Crossing all
Intersection
Legs
(crossings/day)
Max. Number
of Lanes
Crossed by
Pedestrians
Number of Bus
Stops within
1000 ft of
Intersection
Number of
Schools within
1000 ft of
Intersection
Number of Alcohol
Sales
Establishments
within 1000 ft of
Intersection
1 3SG2x2le5 Prairie City Rd at St D 2025: 15860 2025: 4900 2 1 yes 0 0 1 0 no 20 5 0 0 0 Table 2. Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site
Site
No. Type Highway Site Description
Total Predicted
Crashes for
Evaluation Period
Predicted Total
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted FI
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted PDO
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted Intersection
Travel Crash Rate
(crashes/million veh)
Intersection Crash
Rate (crashes/yr)
1 3SG Prairie City Rd at St D 1.773 1.7730 0.6354 1.1376 0.27 1.7730 Total Total 1.773 1.7730 0.6354 1.1376 0.27 1.7730
Table 3. Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (3SG)
Year Total Crashes FI Crashes Percent FI (%) PDO Crashes Percent PDO (%) 2025 1.77 0.64 35.840 1.14 64.160
Total 1.77 0.64 35.840 1.14 64.160Average 1.77 0.64 35.840 1.14 64.160 Note: Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derivedSection Types Crash Prediction Evaluation Report4 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.
independently.

Table 4. Predicted 3SG Crash Type Distribution
Element Type Crash Type
Fatal and Injury Property Damage
Only Total
Crashes Crashes
(%) Crashes Crashes(%) Crashes Crashes(%)
Intersection Collision with Animal 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Intersection Collision with Bicycle 0.02 1.1 0.00 0.0 0.02 1.1 Intersection Collision with Fixed Object 0.03 1.6 0.09 5.3 0.12 6.9 Intersection Non-Collision 0.01 0.5 0.00 0.1 0.01 0.6
Intersection Collision with Other Object 0.00 0.2 0.01 0.4 0.01 0.6 Intersection Other Single-vehicle Collision 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.2 Intersection Collision with Parked Vehicle 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Intersection Collision with Pedestrian 0.01 0.5 0.00 0.0 0.01 0.5 Intersection Total Intersection Single Vehicle Crashes 0.07 4.0 0.10 5.9 0.18 10.0 Intersection Angle Collision 0.16 8.9 0.21 11.9 0.37 20.8 Intersection Head-on Collision 0.02 1.2 0.02 1.2 0.04 2.4 Intersection Other Multi-vehicle Collision 0.03 1.8 0.20 11.5 0.24 13.3 Intersection Rear-end Collision 0.31 17.5 0.56 31.8 0.87 49.2 Intersection Sideswipe 0.04 2.4 0.03 1.9 0.08 4.3
Intersection Total Intersection Multiple Vehicle Crashes 0.56 31.8 1.03 58.2 1.60 90.0 Intersection Total Intersection Crashes 0.64 35.8 1.14 64.2 1.77 100.0 Total Crashes 0.64 35.8 1.14 64.2 1.77 100.0
Note: Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 5

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
March 24, 2025

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Disclaimer
The Interactive Highway Design Model (IHSDM) software is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use thereof. This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers' names may appear in this software and documentation only because they are considered essential to the objective of the software.

Limited Warranty and Limitations of Remedies
This software product is provided "as-is," without warranty of any kind-either expressed or implied (but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose). The FHWA do not warrant that the functions contained in the software will meet the end-user's requirements or that the operation of the software will be uninterrupted and error-free.

Under no circumstances will the FHWA be liable to the end-user for any damages or claimed lost profits, lost savings, or other incidental or consequential damages rising out of the use or inability to use the software (even if these organizations have been advised of the possibility of such damages), or for any claim by any other party.

Notice
The use of the IHSDM software is being done strictly on a voluntary basis. In exchange for provision of IHSDM, the user agrees that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation and any other agency of the Federal Government shall not be responsible for any errors, damage or other liability that may result from any and all use of the software, including installation and testing of the software. The user further agrees to hold the FHWA and the Federal Government harmless from any resulting liability. The user agrees that this hold harmless provision shall flow to any person to whom or any entity to which the user provides the IHSDM software. It is the user's full responsibility to inform any person to whom or any entity to which it provides the IHSDM software of this hold harmless provision.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Table of Contents
Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 List of Tables
Table Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (3SG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table Predicted 3SG Crash Type Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 List of Tables Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
iv Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Report Overview
Report Generated: Mar 24, 2025 7:54 AM
Report Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (sscpm2, Jul 23, 2021 4:16 PM) Evaluation Date: Mon Mar 24 07:52:13 PDT 2025
IHSDM Version: v17.0.0 (Sep 22, 2021)
Site Set Crash Prediction Module: v|ModuleInfo.moduleVersion| (|ModuleInfo.moduleDate|) User Name: kendra.lolland
Organization Name:

Phone:

E-Mail:

Project Title: Folsom Toll_Praire City and Street D
Project Comment: Created Tue Mar 18 11:17:34 PDT 2025
Project Unit System: U.S. Customary
Site Set: Signal
Site Set Comment: Created Tue Mar 18 11:22:16 PDT 2025
Site Set Version: v1
Evaluation Title: Prairie City Rd_St D_Signal_2045
Evaluation Comment: Created Mon Mar 24 07:51:53 PDT 2025 Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. Customary
Calibration: HSM Configuration
Crash Distribution: HSM Configuration
Model/CMF: HSM Configuration
First Year of Analysis: 2045
Last Year of Analysis: 2045
Empirical-Bayes Analysis: None
Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT COMPARING RESULTS FROM HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL FIRST EDITION (2010) MODELS TO RESULTS FROM NEW MODELS DEVELOPED UNDER NCHRP PROJECTS 17-70, 17-58, AND 17-68
Since the publication of the Highway Safety Manual - First Edition (HSM-1), in 2010 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), multiple research efforts have been undertaken through the National Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Report Overview
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 1

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to develop safety performance models for road segment and intersection facility types that were not initially reflected in the HSM-1, in order to expand the breadth and depth of the HSM in the future.

The IHSDM Crash Prediction Module (CPM) is intended as a faithful implementation of HSM Part C predictive methods. As NCHRP projects to develop new predictive methods for the HSM are completed, FHWA works to incorporate the new methods into IHSDM, sometimes in advance of publication in the HSM. The following new crash predictive methods have been accepted by NCHRP project panels and incorporated into IHSDM, while pending AASHTO's approval for incorporation into a future edition of the HSM:
- Roundabouts: completed in 2018 under NCHRP Project 17-70, the new methods will provide improved outcomes for the safety analysis of roundabouts.
- 6+ lane and one-way urban/suburban arterials (including models for segments and intersections): completed under NCHRP Project 17-58.
- Intersection crash prediction methods for some intersection configurations and traffic control types not currently addressed in the HSM (e.g., all-way stop; rural 3-leg signalized; 3-leg stop-controlled where the major leg turns; urban 5-leg signalized; urban high-speed intersections): completed in 2021 under NCHRP Project 17-68.

However, in the absence of local calibration factors (see HSM-1 Part C, Appendix A for guidance on calibration of the predictive models), it is neither appropriate nor advisable to directly compare the results from new models (from NCHRP Projects 17-58, 17-68, and 17-70) to results from HSM-1 models, as the models were not calibrated to the same base state data sets, and consequently can produce unexpected results. If local calibration factors are available and applied to both new models and HSM1 models, then it may be appropriate to directly compare the results.[Note: Work being performed under NCHRP Project 17-72 (Update of Crash Modification Factors for the Highway Safety Manual) is expected to re-calibrate many of the old (HSM-1) and new (e.g., NCHRP 17-70) models to data from a single (or small number of) states, that would allow results from all models to be directly compared.]
The models produced for NCHRP Project 17-70 have independent value in terms of informing the design of a roundabout and assessing the effects of different design characteristics on the expected safety performance of a roundabout.

The HSM-1 interim method previously included in IHSDM for evaluating roundabouts on urban/suburban arterials (i.e., evaluating an existing intersection and then applying a Crash Modification Factor for replacing the existing intersection with a roundabout) has been deactivated in IHSDM, to minimize any confusion with the new roundabout methodology.

Report Overview Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Section Types
Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation
Site Type
Type: 3SG
Calibration Factor: 1
Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 3

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Table 1. Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites Site
No. Type Highway Site Description Major AADT Minor AADT Number of
Approaches
with LeftTurn Lanes
Number of
Approaches
with RightTurn Lanes
Presence
of
Lighting
Number of
Approaches
with
Permissive
Left-Turn
Phasing
Number of
Approaches
with
Permissive/Pr
otected or
Protected/Per
missive LeftTurn Phasing
Number of
Approaches
with
Protected
Left-Turn
Phasing
Number of
Approaches
on which
Right Turn
on Red is
Prohibited
Presence
of RedLight
Cameras
Pedestrian
Volumes
Crossing all
Intersection
Legs
(crossings/day)
Max. Number
of Lanes
Crossed by
Pedestrians
Number of Bus
Stops within
1000 ft of
Intersection
Number of
Schools within
1000 ft of
Intersection
Number of Alcohol
Sales
Establishments
within 1000 ft of
Intersection
1 3SG2x2le5 Prairie City Rd at St D 2045: 16200 2045: 4600 2 1 yes 0 0 1 0 no 20 5 0 0 0 Table 2. Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site
Site
No. Type Highway Site Description
Total Predicted
Crashes for
Evaluation Period
Predicted Total
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted FI
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted PDO
Crash
Frequency
(crashes/yr)
Predicted Intersection
Travel Crash Rate
(crashes/million veh)
Intersection Crash
Rate (crashes/yr)
1 3SG Prairie City Rd at St D 1.782 1.7819 0.6403 1.1416 0.26 1.7819 Total Total 1.782 1.7819 0.6403 1.1416 0.26 1.7819
Table 3. Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (3SG)
Year Total Crashes FI Crashes Percent FI (%) PDO Crashes Percent PDO (%) 2045 1.78 0.64 35.934 1.14 64.066
Total 1.78 0.64 35.934 1.14 64.066Average 1.78 0.64 35.934 1.14 64.066 Note: Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derivedSection Types Crash Prediction Evaluation Report4 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

06/23/2026 Item No.18.
independently.

Table 4. Predicted 3SG Crash Type Distribution
Element Type Crash Type
Fatal and Injury Property Damage
Only Total
Crashes Crashes
(%) Crashes Crashes(%) Crashes Crashes(%)
Intersection Collision with Animal 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Intersection Collision with Bicycle 0.02 1.1 0.00 0.0 0.02 1.1 Intersection Collision with Fixed Object 0.03 1.6 0.09 5.2 0.12 6.8 Intersection Non-Collision 0.01 0.5 0.00 0.1 0.01 0.6
Intersection Collision with Other Object 0.00 0.2 0.01 0.4 0.01 0.6 Intersection Other Single-vehicle Collision 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.2 Intersection Collision with Parked Vehicle 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Intersection Collision with Pedestrian 0.01 0.5 0.00 0.0 0.01 0.5 Intersection Total Intersection Single Vehicle Crashes 0.07 4.0 0.10 5.8 0.17 9.8 Intersection Angle Collision 0.16 9.0 0.21 11.9 0.37 20.8 Intersection Head-on Collision 0.02 1.2 0.02 1.2 0.04 2.4 Intersection Other Multi-vehicle Collision 0.03 1.8 0.20 11.5 0.24 13.4 Intersection Rear-end Collision 0.31 17.6 0.57 31.8 0.88 49.4 Intersection Sideswipe 0.04 2.4 0.03 1.9 0.08 4.3
Intersection Total Intersection Multiple Vehicle Crashes 0.57 32.0 1.04 58.2 1.61 90.2 Intersection Total Intersection Crashes 0.64 35.9 1.14 64.1 1.78 100.0 Total Crashes 0.64 35.9 1.14 64.1 1.78 100.0
Note: Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 5