Agenda packet — Hanford City Council, September 16, 2025 (part 7 of 9)

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: SR 198 WB Ramps & 12th Avenue 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 1
Movement WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR NEL NER
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 719 79 1190 0 0 799 444 0 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 71 719 79 1190 0 0 799 444 0 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 77 782 86 1293 0 0 868 483
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3
Cap, veh/h 525 935 111 2076 0 0 1654 738
Arrive On Green 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3145 1767 3618 0 0 3618 1572
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 77 782 86 1293 0 0 868 483
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1572 1767 1763 0 0 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 18.4 3.8 18.8 0.0 0.0 13.7 18.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 18.4 3.8 18.8 0.0 0.0 13.7 18.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 525 935 111 2076 0 0 1654 738
V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.84 0.78 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.65
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 772 1374 213 2076 0 0 1654 738
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.4 26.0 36.5 10.5 0.0 0.0 14.8 16.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 3.1 11.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.2 4.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 6.6 1.9 6.2 0.0 0.0 5.1 6.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.5 29.0 47.4 12.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 20.6 LnGrp LOS C C D B A A B C
Approach Vol, veh/h 859 1379 1351
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.3 14.2 17.6
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 51.0 9.5 41.5 28.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.5 9.5 32.5 34.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.8 5.8 20.6 20.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 10.4 0.0 5.9 3.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Page 979 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: 12th Avenue & SR 198 EB Off Ramps 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 594 0 25 0 0 0 0 674 189 0 501 366 Future Volume (veh/h) 594 0 25 0 0 0 0 674 189 0 501 366 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 0 1856 0 1856 1856 0 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 646 0 27 0 733 0 0 545 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 0 3 0 3 3 0 3 3
Cap, veh/h 820 0 376 0 2231 0 2231
Arrive On Green 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 0 1572 0 3618 1572 0 3618 1572
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 646 0 27 0 733 0 0 545 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 0 1572 0 1763 1572 0 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 820 0 376 0 2231 0 2231
V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.24
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1780 0 816 0 2231 0 2231
HCM Platoon Ratio 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 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.1 0.0 20.7 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.8 0.0 20.8 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A C A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 673 733 A 545 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.6 6.4 5.9
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 49.0 21.3 49.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 44.5 36.5 44.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.8 14.4 6.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.4 2.4 3.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Page 980 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Campus Drive & Lacey Boulevard 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 31 603 40 73 603 66 26 73 76 68 100 19 Future Volume (veh/h) 31 603 40 73 603 66 26 73 76 68 100 19 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 34 655 43 79 655 72 28 79 83 74 109 21 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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 60 863 385 102 946 422 52 308 323 144 785 665 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.24 0.24 0.06 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.37 0.37 0.08 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3526 1572 1767 3526 1572 1767 828 870 1767 1856 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 34 655 43 79 655 72 28 0 162 74 109 21 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1572 1767 1763 1572 1767 0 1699 1767 1856 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 12.7 1.6 3.2 12.3 1.9 1.1 0.0 4.9 3.0 2.6 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 12.7 1.6 3.2 12.3 1.9 1.1 0.0 4.9 3.0 2.6 0.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 863 385 102 946 422 52 0 631 144 785 665 V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.76 0.11 0.78 0.69 0.17 0.53 0.00 0.26 0.51 0.14 0.03 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 156 1223 546 233 1377 614 137 0 631 228 785 665 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.0 25.7 21.6 34.2 24.2 10.7 35.2 0.0 16.1 32.4 13.0 12.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.1 1.8 0.1 11.8 0.9 0.2 8.2 0.0 1.0 2.8 0.4 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 0.7 5.2 0.6 1.7 4.9 0.9 0.6 0.0 1.9 1.3 1.1 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.0 27.5 21.7 46.0 25.1 10.9 43.4 0.0 17.0 35.2 13.4 12.5 LnGrp LOS D C C D C B D A B D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 732 806 190 204
Approach Delay, s/veh 27.9 25.9 20.9 21.2
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.5 31.8 8.7 22.5 6.7 35.6 7.0 24.2 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 9.5 27.3 9.7 25.5 5.7 31.1 6.5 28.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 6.9 5.2 14.7 3.1 4.6 3.4 14.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.9 0.1 3.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.7
HCM 6th LOS C

Page 981 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: 11th Avenue & Lacey Boulevard 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 128 258 170 65 314 65 400 669 77 94 725 203 Future Volume (veh/h) 128 258 170 65 314 65 400 669 77 94 725 203 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 139 280 185 71 341 71 435 727 84 102 788 221 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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 221 639 285 93 492 101 529 1416 164 131 1285 573 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.44 0.44 0.07 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 3526 1572 1767 2911 599 3428 3184 368 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 139 280 185 71 205 207 435 402 409 102 788 221 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1763 1572 1767 1763 1748 1714 1763 1789 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 5.1 5.2 2.9 7.9 8.1 8.9 11.9 12.0 4.1 13.3 7.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 5.1 5.2 2.9 7.9 8.1 8.9 11.9 12.0 4.1 13.3 7.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 221 639 285 93 298 296 529 784 796 131 1285 573 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.44 0.65 0.77 0.69 0.70 0.82 0.51 0.51 0.78 0.61 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 236 1290 575 156 679 673 589 784 796 207 1285 573 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.2 26.5 12.0 34.0 28.4 28.5 29.8 14.5 14.5 33.1 18.9 17.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.7 0.5 2.5 12.4 2.8 3.0 8.4 2.4 2.4 9.6 2.2 2.0 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 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 2.1 2.9 1.5 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.7 4.8 2.0 5.3 2.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.9 26.9 14.5 46.4 31.2 31.5 38.2 16.9 16.9 42.7 21.1 19.0 LnGrp LOS D C B D C C D B B D C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 604 483 1246 1111
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.7 33.6 24.3 22.7
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.9 36.8 8.3 17.7 15.7 31.0 9.2 16.8 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 8.5 30.5 6.4 26.6 12.5 26.5 5.0 28.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.1 14.0 4.9 7.2 10.9 15.3 4.9 10.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.6 0.0 2.2 0.3 4.6 0.0 2.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.3
HCM 6th LOS C

Page 982 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
8: 11th Avenue & 7th Street 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 57 138 102 113 141 74 238 668 152 110 451 99 Future Volume (veh/h) 57 138 102 113 141 74 238 668 152 110 451 99 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 62 150 111 123 153 80 259 726 165 120 490 108 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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 171 247 171 155 370 184 303 1571 701 153 1272 567 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.45 0.45 0.09 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 1990 1380 1767 2280 1134 1767 3526 1572 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 62 132 129 123 116 117 259 726 165 120 490 108 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1763 1607 1767 1763 1651 1767 1763 1572 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 5.0 5.4 4.8 4.2 4.5 10.0 10.1 2.8 4.7 7.3 3.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 5.0 5.4 4.8 4.2 4.5 10.0 10.1 2.8 4.7 7.3 3.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 171 219 199 155 286 268 303 1571 701 153 1272 567 V/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.60 0.65 0.79 0.41 0.44 0.85 0.46 0.24 0.78 0.39 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 243 651 594 176 701 657 341 1571 701 233 1272 567 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.4 29.2 29.4 31.5 26.5 26.6 28.3 13.6 4.5 31.5 16.7 15.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 2.6 3.5 19.3 0.9 1.1 17.2 1.0 0.8 9.2 0.9 0.7 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 0.5 2.2 2.2 2.8 1.8 1.8 5.4 3.8 1.6 2.3 2.8 1.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.6 31.8 32.9 50.7 27.4 27.7 45.5 14.6 5.3 40.7 17.6 16.2 LnGrp LOS C C C D C C D B A D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 323 356 1150 718
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.6 35.6 20.2 21.2
Approach LOS C D C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.6 35.9 10.7 13.2 16.6 29.9 8.0 15.9 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 9.3 29.7 7.0 26.0 13.6 25.4 5.0 28.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.7 12.1 6.8 7.4 12.0 9.3 3.2 6.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.1 0.0 1.3 0.1 3.2 0.0 1.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.2
HCM 6th LOS C

Page 983 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
10: 11th Avenue & 5th Street 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 32 0 11 6 0 8 40 1387 36 2 778 73 Future Volume (veh/h) 32 0 11 6 0 8 40 1387 36 2 778 73 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 35 0 12 7 0 9 43 1508 39 2 846 79
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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 191 0 83 110 8 45 74 2566 66 5 2438 1087
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.73 0.73 0.00 0.69 0.69 Sat Flow, veh/h 1395 0 1572 523 145 859 1767 3511 91 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 35 0 12 16 0 0 43 756 791 2 846 79 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1395 0 1572 1526 0 0 1767 1763 1839 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 12.8 12.8 0.1 6.2 1.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.5 12.8 12.8 0.1 6.2 1.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.44 0.56 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 191 0 83 163 0 0 74 1288 1344 5 2438 1087 V/C Ratio(X) 0.18 0.00 0.14 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.41 0.35 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 693 0 649 698 0 0 187 1288 1344 143 2438 1087 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.0 0.0 28.6 28.6 0.0 0.0 29.7 4.0 4.0 31.5 4.0 3.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 7.0 2.0 1.9 48.3 0.4 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 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 3.2 3.3 0.1 1.5 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.4 0.0 29.3 28.9 0.0 0.0 36.7 6.0 5.9 79.7 4.3 3.3 LnGrp LOS C A C C A A D A A E A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 47 16 1590 927
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.4 28.9 6.8 4.4
Approach LOS C C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 50.7 7.8 7.1 48.2 7.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.1 45.3 26.1 6.7 43.7 26.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 14.8 3.4 3.5 8.2 2.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 14.6 0.1 0.0 7.4 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.5
HCM 6th LOS A

Page 984 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: 11th Avenue & SR 198 WB On Ramp/4th Street 11/02/2020 Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 182 25 337 80 1138 0 0 589 252 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 182 25 337 80 1138 0 0 589 252 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 198 27 366 87 1237 0 0 640 274
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3
Cap, veh/h 475 499 422 113 2175 0 0 1748 780
Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1856 1572 1767 3618 0 0 3618 1572
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 198 27 366 87 1237 0 0 640 274
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1856 1572 1767 1763 0 0 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.3 0.8 17.4 3.8 16.3 0.0 0.0 8.8 8.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.3 0.8 17.4 3.8 16.3 0.0 0.0 8.8 8.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 475 499 422 113 2175 0 0 1748 780 V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.05 0.87 0.77 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 730 767 650 258 2175 0 0 1748 780 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.7 21.3 27.4 36.2 8.9 0.0 0.0 12.2 12.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 7.7 10.7 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 0.3 6.8 1.9 5.6 0.0 0.0 3.2 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.3 21.4 35.1 46.9 10.0 0.0 0.0 12.8 13.3 LnGrp LOS C C D D A A A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 591 1324 914
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.9 12.4 13.0
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 53.0 9.5 43.5 25.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 48.5 11.5 32.5 32.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.3 5.8 10.8 19.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 11.4 0.1 5.3 1.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.4
HCM 6th LOS B

Page 985 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
12: 11th Avenue & SR 198 EB Off Ramp/3rd Street 11/02/2020 Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 373 216 131 0 0 0 0 849 207 127 649 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 373 216 131 0 0 0 0 849 207 127 649 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 0 1856 1856 1856 1856 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 405 235 142 0 923 225 138 705 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 0
Cap, veh/h 445 258 615 0 1247 556 171 1775 0
Arrive On Green 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.50 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1138 660 1572 0 3618 1572 1767 3618 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 640 0 142 0 923 225 138 705 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1799 0 1572 0 1763 1572 1767 1763 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 28.7 0.0 5.2 0.0 19.5 9.2 6.5 10.6 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 28.7 0.0 5.2 0.0 19.5 9.2 6.5 10.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.63 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 703 0 615 0 1247 556 171 1775 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.74 0.40 0.81 0.40 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 804 0 703 0 1247 556 212 1775 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.5 0.0 17.4 0.0 24.1 20.8 37.7 13.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 4.0 2.2 16.8 0.7 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 13.3 0.0 1.7 0.0 8.1 3.5 3.6 4.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.8 0.0 17.6 0.0 28.1 22.9 54.5 13.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A B A C C D B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 782 1148 843
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.1 27.1 20.5
Approach LOS C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.7 34.7 37.8 47.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.2 28.2 38.1 42.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.5 21.5 30.7 12.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.6 2.7 5.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.0
HCM 6th LOS C

Page 986 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th AWSC
5: Campus Dr/Campus Drive & 7th Street 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.1
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 127 181 25 28 223 48 34 87 22 34 46 51 Future Vol, veh/h 127 181 25 28 223 48 34 87 22 34 46 51 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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 138 197 27 30 242 52 37 95 24 37 50 55
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 2 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 2
HCM Control Delay 11.7 13.5 11.2 10.8

HCM LOS B B B B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 24% 100% 0% 100% 0% 26%
Vol Thru, % 61% 0% 88% 0% 82% 35%
Vol Right, % 15% 0% 12% 0% 18% 39%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 143 127 206 28 271 131
LT Vol 34 127 0 28 0 34
Through Vol 87 0 181 0 223 46
RT Vol 22 0 25 0 48 51
Lane Flow Rate 155 138 224 30 295 142
Geometry Grp 2 7 7 7 7 2
Degree of Util (X) 0.26 0.247 0.363 0.055 0.479 0.234
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.014 6.43 5.837 6.489 5.856 5.913 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 595 558 616 551 616 605
Service Time 4.074 4.178 3.584 4.237 3.604 3.976
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.261 0.247 0.364 0.054 0.479 0.235
HCM Control Delay 11.2 11.3 11.9 9.6 13.9 10.8
HCM Lane LOS B B B A B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 1 1 1.7 0.2 2.6 0.9

Page 987 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th TWSC
1: 12th Avenue & Glendale Avenue 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 66.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 255 0 0 152 0 2631 45 56 2735 249 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 255 0 0 152 0 2631 45 56 2735 249 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 - - 0 - - 0 - - - 125 - -
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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 0 0 277 0 0 165 0 2860 49 61 2973 271
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 1622 - - 1455 - 0 0 2909 0 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 7.16 - - 7.16 - - - 5.36 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.93 - - 3.93 - - - 3.13 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 ~ 78 0 0 ~ 101 0 - - ~ 42 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - - - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - ~ 78 - - ~ 101 - - - ~ 42 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s$ 1261.2 $ 399.8 0 8.3

HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) - - 78 101 ~ 42 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 3.554 1.636 1.449 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) - -$ 1261.2$ 399.8$ 448.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS - - F F F - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 28.5 12.8 6.1 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon

Page 988 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th TWSC
6: Campus Dr & 6th Street 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 12 0 0 6 107 0 2 0 94 2 22
Future Vol, veh/h 19 12 0 0 6 107 0 2 0 94 2 22
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 - - - - - - - - - - - -
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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 21 13 0 0 7 116 0 2 0 102 2 24
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 282 220 14 227 232 2 26 0 0 2 0 0
Stage 1 218 218 - 2 2 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 64 2 - 225 230 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 - - 4.13 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 2.227 - - 2.227 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 668 677 1063 726 666 1079 1582 - - 1614 - - Stage 1 782 721 - 1018 892 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 944 892 - 775 712 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 562 634 1063 680 623 1079 1582 - - 1614 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 562 634 - 680 623 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 782 675 - 1018 892 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 836 892 - 711 666 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11.5 8.9 0 5.9

HCM LOS B A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1582 - - 588 1039 1614 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.057 0.118 0.063 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 11.5 8.9 7.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B A A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 0.4 0.2 - -

Page 989 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th TWSC
9: 11th Avenue & 6th Street 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 105 0 0 249 152 1580 162 165 1679 12 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 105 0 0 249 152 1580 162 165 1679 12 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 - - 0 - - 0 75 - - 125 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 0 0 108 0 0 257 157 1629 167 170 1731 12
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 872 - - 898 1743 0 0 1796 0 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.96 - - 6.96 4.16 - - 4.16 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.33 - - 3.33 2.23 - - 2.23 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 292 0 0 280 352 - - 336 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 292 - - 280 352 - - 336 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 24.4 74.3 1.9 2.3

HCM LOS C F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 352 - - 292 280 336 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.445 - - 0.371 0.917 0.506 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 23.2 - - 24.4 74.3 26.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS C - - C F D - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.2 - - 1.6 8.5 2.7 - -

Page 990 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: SR 198 WB Ramps & 12th Avenue 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 1
Movement WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR NEL NER
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 221 835 71 1847 0 0 1983 1016 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 221 835 71 1847 0 0 1983 1016 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 240 908 77 2008 0 0 2155 1104
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3
Cap, veh/h 434 773 81 2394 0 0 2101 937
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3145 1767 3618 0 0 3618 1572
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 240 908 77 2008 0 0 2155 1104
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1572 1767 1763 0 0 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.2 29.5 5.2 50.9 0.0 0.0 71.5 71.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.2 29.5 5.2 50.9 0.0 0.0 71.5 71.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 434 773 81 2394 0 0 2101 937
V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 1.17 0.95 0.84 0.00 0.00 1.03 1.18
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 434 773 81 2394 0 0 2101 937
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.5 45.3 57.1 14.3 0.0 0.0 24.2 24.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 91.9 83.2 3.7 0.0 0.0 26.5 91.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.2 20.9 4.2 18.4 0.0 0.0 34.1 47.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.0 137.1 140.3 18.1 0.0 0.0 50.8 115.6 LnGrp LOS D F F B A A F F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1148 2085 3259
Approach Delay, s/veh 117.0 22.6 72.8
Approach LOS F C E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 86.0 10.0 76.0 34.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 81.5 5.5 71.5 29.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 52.9 7.2 73.5 31.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 19.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 64.5
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Page 991 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: 12th Avenue & SR 198 EB Off Ramps 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 883 0 76 0 0 0 0 1020 221 0 1362 856 Future Volume (veh/h) 883 0 76 0 0 0 0 1020 221 0 1362 856 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 0 1856 0 1856 1856 0 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 949 0 82 0 1097 0 0 1465 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 0 3 0 3 3 0 3 3
Cap, veh/h 1089 0 499 0 2029 0 2029
Arrive On Green 0.32 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 0 1572 0 3618 1572 0 3618 1572
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 949 0 82 0 1097 0 0 1465 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 0 1572 0 1763 1572 0 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 22.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 16.2 0.0 0.0 25.4 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 22.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 16.2 0.0 0.0 25.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1089 0 499 0 2029 0 2029
V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.72
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1322 0 607 0 2029 0 2029
HCM Platoon Ratio 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 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.1 0.0 20.7 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.8 0.0 20.9 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A C A B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1031 1097 A 1465 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.9 12.1 15.2
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 53.0 31.3 53.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 48.5 32.5 48.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.2 24.0 27.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.8 2.8 11.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Page 992 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Campus Drive & Lacey Boulevard 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 46 1144 51 80 1268 66 56 105 182 155 133 53 Future Volume (veh/h) 46 1144 51 80 1268 66 56 105 182 155 133 53 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 50 1243 55 87 1378 72 61 114 198 168 145 58 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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 70 1277 570 102 1341 598 78 172 298 173 623 528 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.36 0.36 0.06 0.38 0.38 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3526 1572 1767 3526 1572 1767 608 1057 1767 1856 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 50 1243 55 87 1378 72 61 0 312 168 145 58 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1572 1767 1763 1572 1767 0 1665 1767 1856 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 31.3 2.1 4.4 34.2 1.8 3.1 0.0 14.9 8.5 5.1 2.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 31.3 2.1 4.4 34.2 1.8 3.1 0.0 14.9 8.5 5.1 2.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 70 1277 570 102 1341 598 78 0 470 173 623 528 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.97 0.10 0.85 1.03 0.12 0.78 0.00 0.66 0.97 0.23 0.11 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 98 1277 570 102 1341 598 173 0 470 173 623 528 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.7 28.3 19.0 42.0 27.9 8.4 42.6 0.0 28.5 40.5 21.5 20.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.4 19.1 0.1 46.1 31.9 0.1 15.1 0.0 7.2 60.1 0.9 0.4 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 1.3 15.7 0.7 3.2 19.3 0.9 1.7 0.0 6.7 6.5 2.3 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.1 47.3 19.0 88.1 59.8 8.5 57.6 0.0 35.7 100.6 22.4 21.0 LnGrp LOS E D B F F A E A D F C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1348 1537 373 371
Approach Delay, s/veh 46.5 59.0 39.3 57.6
Approach LOS D E D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.3 29.9 9.7 37.1 8.5 34.7 8.1 38.7 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 8.8 25.4 5.2 32.6 8.8 25.4 5.0 32.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.5 16.9 6.4 33.3 5.1 7.1 4.5 36.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.2
HCM 6th LOS D

Page 993 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: 11th Avenue & Lacey Boulevard 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 391 414 329 170 470 131 473 977 88 142 853 162 Future Volume (veh/h) 391 414 329 170 470 131 473 977 88 142 853 162 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 425 450 358 185 511 142 514 1062 96 154 927 176 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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 466 838 374 218 614 170 569 1159 105 183 1029 459 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.22 0.22 0.17 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 3526 1572 1767 2728 754 3428 3270 295 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 425 450 358 185 329 324 514 572 586 154 927 176 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1763 1572 1767 1763 1720 1714 1763 1802 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.1 11.1 14.8 10.2 17.7 17.9 14.6 30.8 30.9 8.5 25.1 8.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.1 11.1 14.8 10.2 17.7 17.9 14.6 30.8 30.9 8.5 25.1 8.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 466 838 374 218 396 387 569 625 639 183 1029 459 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.54 0.96 0.85 0.83 0.84 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.90 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 466 948 423 263 497 485 569 625 639 183 1029 459 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.3 33.1 16.4 42.7 36.7 36.8 40.6 30.7 30.7 43.7 33.8 28.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 22.2 0.5 31.4 19.5 9.3 10.1 17.7 20.4 20.2 27.9 12.4 2.4 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 6.5 4.7 8.3 5.5 8.4 8.4 7.4 16.0 16.4 5.1 12.1 3.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.5 33.6 47.8 62.1 46.0 46.8 58.3 51.1 50.9 71.6 46.2 30.5 LnGrp LOS E C D E D D E D D E D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1233 838 1672 1257
Approach Delay, s/veh 48.4 49.9 53.2 47.1
Approach LOS D D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.8 39.7 16.7 28.1 21.0 33.5 18.0 26.8 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 10.3 35.2 14.8 26.7 16.5 29.0 13.5 28.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.5 32.9 12.2 16.8 16.6 27.1 14.1 19.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.5 0.1 3.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 2.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.9
HCM 6th LOS D

Page 994 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
8: 11th Avenue & 7th Street 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 104 272 339 252 250 169 258 901 178 172 853 80 Future Volume (veh/h) 104 272 339 252 250 169 258 901 178 172 853 80 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 113 296 368 274 272 184 280 979 193 187 927 87 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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 169 417 372 281 706 463 284 1147 512 204 987 440 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.35 0.35 0.16 0.33 0.33 0.12 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 1763 1572 1767 2041 1337 1767 3526 1572 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 113 296 368 274 234 222 280 979 193 187 927 87 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1763 1572 1767 1763 1615 1767 1763 1572 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.6 17.0 25.7 17.0 11.0 11.5 17.4 28.5 6.7 11.5 28.3 4.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.6 17.0 25.7 17.0 11.0 11.5 17.4 28.5 6.7 11.5 28.3 4.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 169 417 372 281 610 559 284 1147 512 204 987 440 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.71 0.99 0.97 0.38 0.40 0.98 0.85 0.38 0.92 0.94 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 234 417 372 281 610 559 284 1147 512 204 987 440 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.4 38.5 41.9 46.0 27.1 27.3 46.0 34.6 11.8 48.1 38.7 30.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.5 5.6 43.9 46.5 0.4 0.5 49.0 8.1 2.1 40.5 17.3 1.0 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 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 7.8 14.2 11.1 4.7 4.5 11.4 13.2 2.6 7.3 14.2 1.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.9 44.1 85.8 92.5 27.5 27.7 95.0 42.8 13.9 88.6 55.9 31.2 LnGrp LOS E D F F C C F D B F E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 777 730 1452 1201
Approach Delay, s/veh 65.6 52.0 49.0 59.2
Approach LOS E D D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.2 40.3 22.0 30.5 22.2 35.3 9.9 42.6 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 12.7 35.8 17.5 26.0 17.7 30.8 7.5 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.5 30.5 19.0 27.7 19.4 30.3 5.6 13.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 3.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 55.6
HCM 6th LOS E

Page 995 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
10: 11th Avenue & 5th Street 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 213 0 66 15 0 15 249 1656 5 12 1566 189 Future Volume (veh/h) 213 0 66 15 0 15 249 1656 5 12 1566 189 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 220 0 68 15 0 15 257 1707 5 12 1614 195 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 337 0 274 159 19 117 291 2380 7 25 1798 802
Arrive On Green 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.16 0.66 0.66 0.01 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 1387 0 1572 565 109 673 1767 3606 11 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 220 0 68 30 0 0 257 834 878 12 1614 195 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1387 0 1572 1347 0 0 1767 1763 1854 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 27.3 27.3 0.6 37.0 6.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.8 0.0 3.3 3.4 0.0 0.0 12.7 27.3 27.3 0.6 37.0 6.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 337 0 274 295 0 0 291 1164 1224 25 1798 802 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.00 0.25 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.72 0.72 0.47 0.90 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 498 0 457 463 0 0 295 1164 1224 99 1798 802 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.4 0.0 31.8 31.0 0.0 0.0 36.5 9.8 9.8 43.7 19.8 12.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 25.4 3.8 3.6 12.9 7.5 0.7 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 4.7 0.0 1.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 7.4 10.0 10.5 0.4 15.7 2.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.6 0.0 32.3 31.2 0.0 0.0 61.9 13.6 13.4 56.6 27.3 13.0 LnGrp LOS D A C C A A E B B E C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 288 30 1969 1821
Approach Delay, s/veh 36.3 31.2 19.8 26.0
Approach LOS D C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.8 63.5 20.1 19.2 50.1 20.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 55.5 26.0 14.9 45.6 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 29.3 14.8 14.7 39.0 5.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 15.5 0.8 0.0 5.4 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.8
HCM 6th LOS C

Page 996 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: 11th Avenue & SR 198 WB On Ramp/4th Street 11/02/2020 Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 337 54 303 141 1595 0 0 1351 428 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 337 54 303 141 1595 0 0 1351 428 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 355 57 319 148 1679 0 0 1422 451
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3
Cap, veh/h 431 453 384 182 2265 0 0 1702 759
Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1856 1572 1767 3618 0 0 3618 1572
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 355 57 319 148 1679 0 0 1422 451
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1856 1572 1767 1763 0 0 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.1 1.9 15.3 6.5 25.8 0.0 0.0 27.7 16.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.1 1.9 15.3 6.5 25.8 0.0 0.0 27.7 16.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 431 453 384 182 2265 0 0 1702 759 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.13 0.83 0.81 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.59 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 668 701 594 191 2265 0 0 1702 759 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.4 23.4 28.5 34.8 9.7 0.0 0.0 17.8 14.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.9 0.1 5.9 21.9 2.2 0.0 0.0 5.0 3.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.4 0.8 5.9 3.8 8.7 0.0 0.0 11.1 6.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.2 23.5 34.3 56.7 11.9 0.0 0.0 22.8 18.3 LnGrp LOS C C C E B A A C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 731 1827 1873
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.0 15.5 21.7
Approach LOS C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 55.5 12.7 42.8 23.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 51.0 8.6 37.9 30.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 27.8 8.5 29.7 17.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 14.6 0.0 6.2 2.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.0
HCM 6th LOS C

Page 997 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
12: 11th Avenue & SR 198 EB Off Ramp/3rd Street 11/02/2020 Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 570 122 116 0 0 0 0 1167 314 436 1260 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 570 122 116 0 0 0 0 1167 314 436 1260 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 0 1856 1856 1856 1856 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 594 127 121 0 1216 327 454 1312 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 0
Cap, veh/h 514 110 550 0 1106 493 378 2003 0
Arrive On Green 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.21 0.57 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1468 314 1572 0 3618 1572 1767 3618 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 721 0 121 0 1216 327 454 1312 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1782 0 1572 0 1763 1572 1767 1763 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 38.5 0.0 6.0 0.0 34.5 19.8 23.5 28.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 38.5 0.0 6.0 0.0 34.5 19.8 23.5 28.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.82 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 624 0 550 0 1106 493 378 2003 0
V/C Ratio(X) 1.16 0.00 0.22 0.00 1.10 0.66 1.20 0.65 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 624 0 550 0 1106 493 378 2003 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.8 0.0 25.2 0.0 37.8 32.7 43.3 16.3 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 87.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 58.6 6.9 113.8 1.7 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 30.8 0.0 2.2 0.0 23.2 8.2 22.1 11.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 123.1 0.0 25.4 0.0 96.4 39.6 157.1 18.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS F A C A F D F B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 842 1543 1766
Approach Delay, s/veh 109.1 84.3 53.8
Approach LOS F F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.0 39.0 43.0 67.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.5 34.5 38.5 62.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 25.5 36.5 40.5 30.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 76.3
HCM 6th LOS E

Page 998 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th AWSC
5: Campus Dr/Campus Drive & 7th Street 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 92.9
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 108 410 40 14 521 62 59 73 6 136 45 135 Future Vol, veh/h 108 410 40 14 521 62 59 73 6 136 45 135 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 113 427 42 15 543 65 61 76 6 142 47 141
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 2 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 2
HCM Control Delay 58.9 175.5 18.1 29.5

HCM LOS F F C D

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 43% 100% 0% 100% 0% 43%
Vol Thru, % 53% 0% 91% 0% 89% 14%
Vol Right, % 4% 0% 9% 0% 11% 43%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 138 108 450 14 583 316
LT Vol 59 108 0 14 0 136
Through Vol 73 0 410 0 521 45
RT Vol 6 0 40 0 62 135
Lane Flow Rate 144 112 469 15 607 329
Geometry Grp 2 7 7 7 7 2
Degree of Util (X) 0.354 0.256 0.991 0.034 1.314 0.708
Departure Headway (Hd) 9.816 8.804 8.219 8.387 7.792 8.475 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 369 411 445 426 468 431
Service Time 7.816 6.504 5.919 6.148 5.553 6.475
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.39 0.273 1.054 0.035 1.297 0.763
HCM Control Delay 18.1 14.5 69.5 11.4 179.4 29.5
HCM Lane LOS C B F B F D
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.6 1 12.5 0.1 26.5 5.4

Page 999 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th TWSC
1: 12th Avenue & Glendale Avenue 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 111 0 0 118 0 1829 191 85 1182 155 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 111 0 0 118 0 1829 191 85 1182 155 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 - - 0 - - 0 - - - 125 - -
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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 0 0 121 0 0 128 0 1988 208 92 1285 168
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 727 - - 1098 - 0 0 2196 0 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 7.16 - - 7.16 - - - 5.36 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.93 - - 3.93 - - - 3.13 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 313 0 0 177 0 - - 98 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - - - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 313 - - 177 - - - 98 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 23.5 65.7 0 9.2

HCM LOS C F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) - - 313 177 98 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.385 0.725 0.943 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 23.5 65.7 154.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS - - C F F - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.8 4.5 5.5 - -

Page 1000 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th TWSC
6: Campus Dr & 6th Street 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 25 20 2 0 15 113 2 59 2 46 148 39
Future Vol, veh/h 25 20 2 0 15 113 2 59 2 46 148 39
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 - - - - - - - - - - - -
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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 27 22 2 0 16 123 2 64 2 50 161 42
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 421 352 182 363 372 65 203 0 0 66 0 0 Stage 1 282 282 - 69 69 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 139 70 - 294 303 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 - - 4.13 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 2.227 - - 2.227 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 541 571 858 591 557 996 1363 - - 1529 - - Stage 1 723 676 - 939 835 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 862 835 - 712 662 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 450 549 858 555 535 996 1363 - - 1529 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 450 549 - 555 535 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 722 651 - 937 833 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 739 833 - 661 638 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.1 9.7 0.2 1.5

HCM LOS B A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1363 - - 498 905 1529 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - 0.103 0.154 0.033 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - 13.1 9.7 7.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B A A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.3 0.5 0.1 - -

Page 1001 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th TWSC
9: 11th Avenue & 6th Street 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 80 0 0 80 153 1194 99 114 817 22 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 80 0 0 80 153 1194 99 114 817 22
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 - - 0 - - 0 75 - - 125 - -
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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 0 0 87 0 0 87 166 1298 108 124 888 24
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 456 - - 703 912 0 0 1406 0 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.96 - - 6.96 4.16 - - 4.16 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.33 - - 3.33 2.23 - - 2.23 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 549 0 0 378 737 - - 476 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 549 - - 378 737 - - 476 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.8 17.3 1.2 1.8

HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 737 - - 549 378 476 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.226 - - 0.158 0.23 0.26 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.3 - - 12.8 17.3 15.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - B C C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 - - 0.6 0.9 1 - -

Page 1002 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: SR 198 WB Ramps & 12th Avenue 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 1
Movement WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR NEL NER
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 742 79 1284 0 0 817 470 0 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 71 742 79 1284 0 0 817 470 0 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 77 807 86 1396 0 0 888 511
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3
Cap, veh/h 535 951 111 2067 0 0 1651 736
Arrive On Green 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3145 1767 3618 0 0 3618 1572
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 77 807 86 1396 0 0 888 511
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1572 1767 1763 0 0 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 19.5 3.9 22.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 20.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 19.5 3.9 22.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 20.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 535 951 111 2067 0 0 1651 736
V/C Ratio(X) 0.14 0.85 0.78 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.69
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 731 1301 185 2067 0 0 1651 736
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.6 26.5 37.4 11.5 0.0 0.0 15.3 17.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 4.0 11.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.3 5.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 7.1 1.9 7.4 0.0 0.0 5.4 7.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.7 30.5 48.5 13.3 0.0 0.0 16.6 22.3 LnGrp LOS C C D B A A B C
Approach Vol, veh/h 884 1482 1399
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.7 15.3 18.7
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 52.0 9.6 42.4 29.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 47.5 8.5 34.5 33.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 24.0 5.9 22.7 21.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 11.0 0.0 6.0 3.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Page 1003 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: 12th Avenue & SR 198 EB Off Ramps 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 664 0 25 0 0 0 0 697 189 0 510 375 Future Volume (veh/h) 664 0 25 0 0 0 0 697 189 0 510 375 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 0 1856 0 1856 1856 0 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 722 0 27 0 758 0 0 554 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 0 3 0 3 3 0 3 3
Cap, veh/h 905 0 415 0 2142 0 2142
Arrive On Green 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 0 1572 0 3618 1572 0 3618 1572
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 722 0 27 0 758 0 0 554 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 0 1572 0 1763 1572 0 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.7 0.0 0.9 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.7 0.0 0.9 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 905 0 415 0 2142 0 2142
V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.26
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1886 0 865 0 2142 0 2142
HCM Platoon Ratio 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 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.0 0.0 19.3 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.7 0.0 19.3 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A B A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 749 758 A 554 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.4 7.3 6.7
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 47.0 23.0 47.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 42.5 38.5 42.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.5 15.7 7.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.5 2.7 3.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Page 1004 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Campus Drive & Lacey Boulevard 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 31 603 87 119 603 66 44 73 93 68 100 19 Future Volume (veh/h) 31 603 87 119 603 66 44 73 93 68 100 19 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 34 655 95 129 655 72 48 79 101 74 109 21 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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 60 860 383 165 1069 477 75 252 322 138 697 590 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.30 0.30 0.04 0.34 0.34 0.08 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3526 1572 1767 3526 1572 1767 740 946 1767 1856 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 34 655 95 129 655 72 48 0 180 74 109 21 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1572 1767 1763 1572 1767 0 1685 1767 1856 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 12.7 3.6 5.2 11.7 1.8 2.0 0.0 5.8 3.0 2.9 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 12.7 3.6 5.2 11.7 1.8 2.0 0.0 5.8 3.0 2.9 0.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 860 383 165 1069 477 75 0 573 138 697 590 V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.76 0.25 0.78 0.61 0.15 0.64 0.00 0.31 0.54 0.16 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 144 1170 522 317 1516 676 163 0 573 226 697 590 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.0 25.8 22.4 32.6 21.9 9.5 34.6 0.0 17.9 32.6 15.2 14.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.1 2.0 0.3 7.9 0.6 0.1 8.7 0.0 1.4 3.2 0.5 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 0.7 5.2 1.3 2.5 4.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 2.4 1.4 1.2 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.0 27.8 22.7 40.4 22.5 9.6 43.3 0.0 19.3 35.9 15.7 14.6 LnGrp LOS D C C D C A D A B D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 784 856 228 204
Approach Delay, s/veh 27.9 24.1 24.4 22.9
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.2 29.5 11.4 22.4 7.6 32.1 7.0 26.8 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 9.4 25.0 13.2 24.4 6.8 27.6 6.0 31.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 7.8 7.2 14.7 4.0 4.9 3.4 13.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.9 0.1 3.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.5
HCM 6th LOS C

Page 1005 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: 11th Avenue & Lacey Boulevard 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 128 267 170 65 337 65 400 687 77 94 772 203 Future Volume (veh/h) 128 267 170 65 337 65 400 687 77 94 772 203 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 139 290 185 71 366 71 435 747 84 102 839 221 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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 220 665 296 92 521 100 527 1407 158 131 1271 567 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.19 0.19 0.05 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.44 0.44 0.07 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 3526 1572 1767 2950 567 3428 3195 359 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 139 290 185 71 217 220 435 412 419 102 839 221 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1763 1572 1767 1763 1754 1714 1763 1791 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 5.3 5.2 2.9 8.5 8.7 9.0 12.5 12.6 4.2 14.7 7.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 5.3 5.2 2.9 8.5 8.7 9.0 12.5 12.6 4.2 14.7 7.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 220 665 296 92 311 310 527 776 789 131 1271 567 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.44 0.62 0.77 0.70 0.71 0.82 0.53 0.53 0.78 0.66 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 233 1276 569 154 672 668 583 776 789 204 1271 567 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.5 26.4 11.9 34.4 28.4 28.5 30.1 15.0 15.0 33.4 19.7 17.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.0 0.5 2.2 12.7 2.8 3.0 8.7 2.6 2.6 9.6 2.7 2.0 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 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 2.2 2.9 1.5 3.6 3.7 4.2 5.0 5.1 2.1 5.9 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.6 26.8 14.1 47.1 31.2 31.5 38.8 17.6 17.6 43.0 22.4 19.5 LnGrp LOS D C B D C C D B B D C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 614 508 1266 1162
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.6 33.6 24.9 23.7
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.9 36.9 8.3 18.4 15.8 31.0 9.2 17.5 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 8.5 30.5 6.4 26.6 12.5 26.5 5.0 28.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.2 14.6 4.9 7.3 11.0 16.7 4.9 10.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.7 0.0 2.3 0.3 4.5 0.0 2.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.9
HCM 6th LOS C

Page 1006 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
8: 11th Avenue & 7th Street 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 57 146 102 113 164 74 238 685 152 110 498 99 Future Volume (veh/h) 57 146 102 113 164 74 238 685 152 110 498 99 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 62 159 111 123 178 80 259 745 165 120 541 108 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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 171 258 170 155 396 171 303 1565 698 153 1267 565 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.44 0.44 0.09 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 2038 1339 1767 2397 1035 1767 3526 1572 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 62 136 134 123 129 129 259 745 165 120 541 108 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1763 1614 1767 1763 1669 1767 1763 1572 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 5.2 5.6 4.8 4.7 4.9 10.1 10.5 2.8 4.7 8.2 3.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 5.2 5.6 4.8 4.7 4.9 10.1 10.5 2.8 4.7 8.2 3.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.62 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 171 224 205 155 291 275 303 1565 698 153 1267 565 V/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.61 0.65 0.79 0.44 0.47 0.86 0.48 0.24 0.78 0.43 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 242 648 594 175 698 661 340 1565 698 232 1267 565 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.5 29.2 29.4 31.6 26.6 26.7 28.4 13.9 4.6 31.6 17.1 15.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 2.7 3.5 19.4 1.1 1.2 17.4 1.0 0.8 9.4 1.1 0.8 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 0.5 2.2 2.2 2.9 2.0 2.0 5.5 3.9 1.6 2.3 3.2 1.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.8 31.9 32.9 51.0 27.6 27.9 45.9 14.9 5.4 41.0 18.2 16.3 LnGrp LOS C C C D C C D B A D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 332 381 1169 769
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.6 35.3 20.4 21.5
Approach LOS C D C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.6 35.9 10.7 13.5 16.6 29.9 8.0 16.2 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 9.3 29.7 7.0 26.0 13.6 25.4 5.0 28.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.7 12.5 6.8 7.6 12.1 10.2 3.2 6.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.2 0.0 1.4 0.1 3.4 0.0 1.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.4
HCM 6th LOS C

Page 1007 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
10: 11th Avenue & 5th Street 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 50 0 64 6 0 8 181 1387 36 2 778 119 Future Volume (veh/h) 50 0 64 6 0 8 181 1387 36 2 778 119 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 54 0 70 7 0 9 197 1508 39 2 846 129 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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 233 0 118 101 21 53 378 2497 64 5 1763 787
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.21 0.71 0.71 0.00 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 1395 0 1572 270 277 704 1767 3511 91 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 54 0 70 16 0 0 197 756 791 2 846 129 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1395 0 1572 1252 0 0 1767 1763 1839 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 13.9 13.9 0.1 10.1 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 0.0 2.8 2.8 0.0 0.0 6.3 13.9 13.9 0.1 10.1 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.44 0.56 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 233 0 118 175 0 0 378 1254 1308 5 1763 787 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.00 0.59 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.60 0.60 0.41 0.48 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 696 0 639 656 0 0 511 1254 1308 138 1763 787 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.2 0.0 28.6 27.6 0.0 0.0 22.3 4.7 4.7 31.8 10.5 8.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 4.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.2 2.1 48.3 0.9 0.4 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 0.8 0.0 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.6 3.7 3.9 0.1 3.6 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.7 0.0 33.3 27.9 0.0 0.0 23.4 6.8 6.8 80.1 11.5 9.2 LnGrp LOS C A C C A A C A A F B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 124 16 1744 977
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.3 27.9 8.7 11.3
Approach LOS C C A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 50.0 9.3 18.2 36.5 9.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 45.5 26.0 18.5 32.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 15.9 4.8 8.3 12.1 4.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 14.4 0.5 0.4 6.5 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.7
HCM 6th LOS B

Page 1008 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: 11th Avenue & SR 198 WB On Ramp/4th Street 11/02/2020 Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 182 25 454 80 1161 0 0 642 252 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 182 25 454 80 1161 0 0 642 252 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 198 27 493 87 1262 0 0 698 274
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3
Cap, veh/h 615 646 547 112 1904 0 0 1484 662
Arrive On Green 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.06 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1856 1572 1767 3618 0 0 3618 1572
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 198 27 493 87 1262 0 0 698 274
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1856 1572 1767 1763 0 0 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.6 0.8 24.0 3.9 20.6 0.0 0.0 11.5 9.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.6 0.8 24.0 3.9 20.6 0.0 0.0 11.5 9.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 615 646 547 112 1904 0 0 1484 662 V/C Ratio(X) 0.32 0.04 0.90 0.78 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.41 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 823 864 732 224 1904 0 0 1484 662 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.3 17.4 24.9 37.1 13.3 0.0 0.0 16.8 16.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 11.6 10.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.1 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 0.3 9.7 2.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 4.5 3.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.6 17.4 36.5 47.9 15.1 0.0 0.0 17.9 18.3 LnGrp LOS B B D D B A A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 718 1349 972
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.1 17.2 18.0
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 48.0 9.6 38.4 32.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 43.5 10.2 28.8 37.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.6 5.9 13.5 26.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.8 0.1 5.0 2.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.8
HCM 6th LOS C

Page 1009 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
12: 11th Avenue & SR 198 EB Off Ramp/3rd Street 11/02/2020 Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 373 216 131 0 0 0 0 872 207 171 658 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 373 216 131 0 0 0 0 872 207 171 658 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 0 1856 1856 1856 1856 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 405 235 142 0 948 225 186 715 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 0
Cap, veh/h 438 254 606 0 1180 526 221 1803 0
Arrive On Green 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.12 0.51 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1138 660 1572 0 3618 1572 1767 3618 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 640 0 142 0 948 225 186 715 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1799 0 1572 0 1763 1572 1767 1763 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 29.6 0.0 5.3 0.0 21.3 9.7 9.0 10.8 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 29.6 0.0 5.3 0.0 21.3 9.7 9.0 10.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.63 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 693 0 606 0 1180 526 221 1803 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.80 0.43 0.84 0.40 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 754 0 660 0 1180 526 234 1803 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.5 0.0 18.1 0.0 26.3 22.5 37.2 13.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 5.8 2.5 22.6 0.7 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 14.3 0.0 1.8 0.0 9.2 3.7 5.2 4.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.8 0.0 18.3 0.0 32.2 25.0 59.8 13.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A B A C C E B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 782 1173 901
Approach Delay, s/veh 37.5 30.8 23.2
Approach LOS D C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.4 33.6 38.0 49.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.5 28.5 36.5 44.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.0 23.3 31.6 12.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.0 2.0 5.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.2
HCM 6th LOS C

Page 1010 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th AWSC
5: Campus Dr/Campus Drive & 7th Street 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 15
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 127 181 48 51 223 48 43 122 30 34 140 51 Future Vol, veh/h 127 181 48 51 223 48 43 122 30 34 140 51 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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 138 197 52 55 242 52 47 133 33 37 152 55
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 2 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 2
HCM Control Delay 14.3 16.4 14.1 14.9

HCM LOS B C B B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 22% 100% 0% 100% 0% 15%
Vol Thru, % 63% 0% 79% 0% 82% 62%
Vol Right, % 15% 0% 21% 0% 18% 23%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 195 127 229 51 271 225
LT Vol 43 127 0 51 0 34
Through Vol 122 0 181 0 223 140
RT Vol 30 0 48 0 48 51
Lane Flow Rate 212 138 249 55 295 245
Geometry Grp 2 7 7 7 7 2
Degree of Util (X) 0.396 0.28 0.46 0.113 0.55 0.447
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.721 7.311 6.648 7.357 6.718 6.576 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 534 491 540 487 536 548
Service Time 4.773 5.06 4.397 5.106 4.466 4.625
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.397 0.281 0.461 0.113 0.55 0.447
HCM Control Delay 14.1 12.9 15 11 17.4 14.9
HCM Lane LOS B B B B C B
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.9 1.1 2.4 0.4 3.3 2.3

Page 1011 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th TWSC
1: 12th Avenue & Glendale Avenue 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 117.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 255 0 0 296 0 2631 110 69 2855 249 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 255 0 0 296 0 2631 110 69 2855 249 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 - - 0 - - 0 - - - 125 - -
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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 0 0 277 0 0 322 0 2860 120 75 3103 271
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 1687 - - 1490 - 0 0 2980 0 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 7.16 - - 7.16 - - - 5.36 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.93 - - 3.93 - - - 3.13 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 ~ 70 0 0 ~ 96 0 - - ~ 38 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - - - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - ~ 70 - - ~ 96 - - - ~ 38 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s$ 1453.8 $ 1151.6 0 14.8

HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) - - 70 96 ~ 38 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 3.96 3.351 1.974 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) - -$ 1453.8$ 1151.6$ 682.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS - - F F F - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 29.4 32 8.1 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon

Page 1012 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th TWSC
6: Campus Dr & 6th Street 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 12 0 0 6 107 0 146 0 94 79 22
Future Vol, veh/h 19 12 0 0 6 107 0 146 0 94 79 22
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 - - - - - - - - - - - -
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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 21 13 0 0 7 116 0 159 0 102 86 24
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 523 461 98 468 473 159 110 0 0 159 0 0 Stage 1 302 302 - 159 159 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 221 159 - 309 314 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 - - 4.13 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 2.227 - - 2.227 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 463 496 955 504 488 884 1474 - - 1414 - - Stage 1 705 662 - 841 764 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 779 764 - 699 654 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 374 458 955 464 450 884 1474 - - 1414 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 374 458 - 464 450 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 705 611 - 841 764 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 671 764 - 631 604 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14.7 10 0 3.7

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1474 - - 403 841 1414 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.084 0.146 0.072 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 14.7 10 7.7 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.3 0.5 0.2 - -

Page 1013 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th TWSC
9: 11th Avenue & 6th Street 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 105 0 0 249 152 1628 162 165 1705 12 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 105 0 0 249 152 1628 162 165 1705 12 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 - - 0 - - 0 75 - - 125 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 0 0 108 0 0 257 157 1678 167 170 1758 12
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 885 - - 923 1770 0 0 1845 0 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.96 - - 6.96 4.16 - - 4.16 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.33 - - 3.33 2.23 - - 2.23 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 286 0 0 270 344 - - 321 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 286 - - 270 344 - - 321 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 25.1 83.6 1.9 2.5

HCM LOS D F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 344 - - 286 270 321 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.456 - - 0.378 0.951 0.53 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 23.9 - - 25.1 83.6 28.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS C - - D F D - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.3 - - 1.7 9 2.9 - -

Page 1014 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: SR 198 WB Ramps & 12th Avenue 11/11/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 1
Movement WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR NEL NER
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 221 848 71 1899 0 0 2032 1088 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 221 848 71 1899 0 0 2032 1088 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 240 922 77 2064 0 0 2209 1183
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3
Cap, veh/h 434 773 81 2394 0 0 2101 937
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3145 1767 3618 0 0 3618 1572
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 240 922 77 2064 0 0 2209 1183
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1572 1767 1763 0 0 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.2 29.5 5.2 54.4 0.0 0.0 71.5 71.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.2 29.5 5.2 54.4 0.0 0.0 71.5 71.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 434 773 81 2394 0 0 2101 937
V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 1.19 0.95 0.86 0.00 0.00 1.05 1.26
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 434 773 81 2394 0 0 2101 937
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.5 45.3 57.1 14.9 0.0 0.0 24.2 24.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 99.2 83.2 4.4 0.0 0.0 34.9 126.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.2 21.7 4.2 19.8 0.0 0.0 36.5 56.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.0 144.5 140.3 19.3 0.0 0.0 59.1 151.0 LnGrp LOS D F F B A A F F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1162 2141 3392
Approach Delay, s/veh 123.1 23.6 91.2
Approach LOS F C F
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 86.0 10.0 76.0 34.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 81.5 5.5 71.5 29.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 56.4 7.2 73.5 31.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 75.1
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Page 1015 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: 12th Avenue & SR 198 EB Off Ramps 11/11/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 922 0 76 0 0 0 0 1033 221 0 1386 881 Future Volume (veh/h) 922 0 76 0 0 0 0 1033 221 0 1386 881 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 0 1856 0 1856 1856 0 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 991 0 82 0 1111 0 0 1490 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 0 3 0 3 3 0 3 3
Cap, veh/h 1122 0 515 0 2001 0 2001
Arrive On Green 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 0 1572 0 3618 1572 0 3618 1572
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 991 0 82 0 1111 0 0 1490 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 0 1572 0 1763 1572 0 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 23.4 0.0 3.2 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 23.4 0.0 3.2 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1122 0 515 0 2001 0 2001
V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.74
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1304 0 598 0 2001 0 2001
HCM Platoon Ratio 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 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.2 0.0 20.4 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.7 0.0 1.1 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.9 0.0 20.5 0.0 12.8 0.0 0.0 16.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A C A B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1073 1111 A 1490 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.9 12.8 16.4
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 53.0 32.5 53.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 48.5 32.5 48.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.0 25.4 29.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.9 2.6 10.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Page 1016 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Campus Drive & Lacey Boulevard 11/11/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 46 1144 77 106 1268 66 104 105 231 155 133 53 Future Volume (veh/h) 46 1144 77 106 1268 66 104 105 231 155 133 53 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 50 1243 84 115 1378 72 113 114 251 168 145 58 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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 69 1257 561 129 1375 613 134 144 316 171 555 470 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.36 0.36 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3526 1572 1767 3526 1572 1767 516 1135 1767 1856 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 50 1243 84 115 1378 72 113 0 365 168 145 58 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1572 1767 1763 1572 1767 0 1651 1767 1856 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 32.2 3.3 5.9 35.9 1.8 5.8 0.0 18.8 8.7 5.5 2.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 32.2 3.3 5.9 35.9 1.8 5.8 0.0 18.8 8.7 5.5 2.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 69 1257 561 129 1375 613 134 0 459 171 555 470 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.99 0.15 0.89 1.00 0.12 0.84 0.00 0.79 0.98 0.26 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 96 1257 561 129 1375 613 134 0 459 171 555 470 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.7 29.4 20.1 42.3 28.1 8.3 41.9 0.0 30.8 41.5 24.5 23.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.0 22.7 0.1 48.6 24.7 0.1 35.4 0.0 13.2 63.5 1.1 0.5 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 1.4 16.7 1.2 4.3 18.8 0.9 3.8 0.0 9.0 6.8 2.5 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.7 52.1 20.2 90.9 52.8 8.4 77.4 0.0 44.0 105.0 25.7 24.0 LnGrp LOS E D C F F A E A D F C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1377 1565 478 371
Approach Delay, s/veh 50.4 53.5 51.9 61.3
Approach LOS D D D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.4 30.1 11.2 37.3 11.5 32.0 8.1 40.4 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 8.9 25.6 6.7 32.8 7.0 27.5 5.0 34.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.7 20.8 7.9 34.2 7.8 7.5 4.6 37.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.9
HCM 6th LOS D

Page 1017 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: 11th Avenue & Lacey Boulevard 11/11/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 391 438 329 170 483 131 473 1025 88 142 879 162 Future Volume (veh/h) 391 438 329 170 483 131 473 1025 88 142 879 162 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 425 476 358 185 525 142 514 1114 96 154 955 176 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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 464 847 378 217 626 169 567 1159 100 182 1025 457 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 3526 1572 1767 2746 739 3428 3285 283 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 425 476 358 185 336 331 514 597 613 154 955 176 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1763 1572 1767 1763 1722 1714 1763 1805 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.2 11.8 14.8 10.2 18.1 18.3 14.7 33.1 33.2 8.5 26.3 8.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.2 11.8 14.8 10.2 18.1 18.3 14.7 33.1 33.2 8.5 26.3 8.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 464 847 378 217 402 393 567 622 637 182 1025 457 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.56 0.95 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.84 0.93 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 464 944 421 262 495 484 567 622 637 182 1025 457 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.6 33.3 16.4 42.8 36.7 36.8 40.9 31.6 31.6 43.9 34.4 28.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 22.9 0.6 29.3 19.7 10.0 10.7 18.3 27.6 27.4 28.6 15.8 2.4 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 6.5 5.0 8.1 5.6 8.7 8.7 7.5 18.2 18.6 5.1 13.1 3.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 65.4 33.9 45.7 62.5 46.7 47.5 59.1 59.1 59.1 72.6 50.2 30.7 LnGrp LOS E C D E D D E E E E D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1259 852 1724 1285
Approach Delay, s/veh 47.9 50.5 59.1 50.2
Approach LOS D D E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.8 39.7 16.8 28.5 21.0 33.5 18.0 27.2 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 10.3 35.2 14.8 26.7 16.5 29.0 13.5 28.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.5 35.2 12.2 16.8 16.7 28.3 14.2 20.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.7
HCM 6th LOS D

Page 1018 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
8: 11th Avenue & 7th Street 11/11/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 104 296 339 252 263 169 258 950 178 172 879 80 Future Volume (veh/h) 104 296 339 252 263 169 258 950 178 172 879 80 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 113 322 368 274 286 184 280 1033 193 187 955 87 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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 169 417 372 281 721 450 284 1147 512 204 987 440 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.35 0.35 0.16 0.33 0.33 0.12 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 1763 1572 1767 2082 1302 1767 3526 1572 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 113 322 368 274 241 229 280 1033 193 187 955 87 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1763 1572 1767 1763 1621 1767 1763 1572 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.6 18.8 25.7 17.0 11.4 11.8 17.4 30.8 6.7 11.5 29.4 4.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.6 18.8 25.7 17.0 11.4 11.8 17.4 30.8 6.7 11.5 29.4 4.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 169 417 372 281 610 561 284 1147 512 204 987 440 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.77 0.99 0.97 0.39 0.41 0.98 0.90 0.38 0.92 0.97 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 234 417 372 281 610 561 284 1147 512 204 987 440 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.4 39.2 41.9 46.0 27.2 27.4 46.0 35.4 11.8 48.1 39.1 30.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.5 8.7 43.9 46.5 0.4 0.5 49.0 11.3 2.1 40.5 21.8 1.0 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 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 9.0 14.2 11.1 4.9 4.7 11.4 14.6 2.6 7.3 15.3 1.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.9 48.0 85.8 92.5 27.7 27.9 95.0 46.7 13.9 88.6 60.9 31.2 LnGrp LOS E D F F C C F D B F E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 803 744 1506 1229
Approach Delay, s/veh 66.4 51.6 51.5 63.0
Approach LOS E D D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.2 40.3 22.0 30.5 22.2 35.3 9.9 42.6 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 12.7 35.8 17.5 26.0 17.7 30.8 7.5 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.5 32.8 19.0 27.7 19.4 31.4 5.6 13.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 57.6
HCM 6th LOS E

Page 1019 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
10: 11th Avenue & 5th Street 11/11/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 262 0 211 15 0 15 327 1656 5 12 1566 215 Future Volume (veh/h) 262 0 211 15 0 15 327 1656 5 12 1566 215 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 270 0 218 15 0 15 337 1707 5 12 1614 222 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 345 0 372 125 15 91 339 2261 7 25 1583 706
Arrive On Green 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.19 0.63 0.63 0.01 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow, veh/h 1387 0 1572 319 65 385 1767 3606 11 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 270 0 218 30 0 0 337 834 878 12 1614 222 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1387 0 1572 770 0 0 1767 1763 1854 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.3 0.0 13.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 20.9 36.9 36.9 0.7 49.4 10.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.1 0.0 13.5 13.8 0.0 0.0 20.9 36.9 36.9 0.7 49.4 10.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 345 0 372 231 0 0 339 1105 1162 25 1583 706 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.00 0.59 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.75 0.76 0.49 1.02 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 345 0 372 231 0 0 339 1105 1162 80 1583 706 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.7 0.0 37.2 33.3 0.0 0.0 44.4 14.5 14.5 53.8 30.3 19.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.2 0.0 2.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 47.2 4.8 4.6 14.1 27.6 1.2 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 8.3 0.0 5.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 13.5 15.0 15.7 0.4 26.1 3.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.9 0.0 39.6 33.5 0.0 0.0 91.6 19.3 19.1 67.9 57.9 20.6 LnGrp LOS D A D C A A F B B E F C
Approach Vol, veh/h 488 30 2049 1848
Approach Delay, s/veh 47.5 33.5 31.1 53.5
Approach LOS D C C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.0 73.5 30.5 25.6 53.9 30.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 65.5 26.0 21.1 49.4 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 38.9 27.1 22.9 51.4 15.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 15.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.3
HCM 6th LOS D

Page 1020 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: 11th Avenue & SR 198 WB On Ramp/4th Street 11/11/2020 Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 337 54 368 141 1608 0 0 1496 428 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 337 54 368 141 1608 0 0 1496 428 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 355 57 387 148 1693 0 0 1575 451
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3
Cap, veh/h 498 523 443 165 2153 0 0 1634 729
Arrive On Green 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1856 1572 1767 3618 0 0 3618 1572
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 355 57 387 148 1693 0 0 1575 451
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1856 1572 1767 1763 0 0 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.1 1.9 19.6 6.9 30.0 0.0 0.0 36.2 18.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.1 1.9 19.6 6.9 30.0 0.0 0.0 36.2 18.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 498 523 443 165 2153 0 0 1634 729 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.11 0.87 0.90 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 635 666 565 165 2153 0 0 1634 729 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.0 22.2 28.6 37.5 12.2 0.0 0.0 21.7 16.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.7 0.1 11.8 41.8 3.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 3.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.2 0.8 8.2 4.8 10.9 0.0 0.0 16.8 6.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.7 22.3 40.4 79.3 15.2 0.0 0.0 37.0 20.8 LnGrp LOS C C D E B A A D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 799 1841 2026
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.3 20.3 33.4
Approach LOS C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 55.5 12.3 43.2 28.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 51.0 7.8 38.7 30.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 32.0 8.9 38.2 21.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 12.8 0.0 0.5 1.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.4
HCM 6th LOS C

Page 1021 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
12: 11th Avenue & SR 198 EB Off Ramp/3rd Street 11/11/2020 Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 570 122 116 0 0 0 0 1180 314 556 1284 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 570 122 116 0 0 0 0 1180 314 556 1284 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 0 1856 1856 1856 1856 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 594 127 121 0 1229 327 579 1338 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 0
Cap, veh/h 496 106 531 0 1043 465 449 2071 0
Arrive On Green 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.59 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1468 314 1572 0 3618 1572 1767 3618 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 721 0 121 0 1229 327 579 1338 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1782 0 1572 0 1763 1572 1767 1763 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 40.5 0.0 6.6 0.0 35.5 22.2 30.5 30.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 40.5 0.0 6.6 0.0 35.5 22.2 30.5 30.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.82 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 601 0 531 0 1043 465 449 2071 0
V/C Ratio(X) 1.20 0.00 0.23 0.00 1.18 0.70 1.29 0.65 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 601 0 531 0 1043 465 449 2071 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.8 0.0 28.5 0.0 42.3 37.6 44.7 16.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 104.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 90.4 8.6 146.0 1.6 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 34.3 0.0 2.5 0.0 28.0 9.4 31.4 12.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 144.6 0.0 28.7 0.0 132.6 46.2 190.8 18.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS F A C A F D F B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 842 1556 1917
Approach Delay, s/veh 127.9 114.5 70.2
Approach LOS F F E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 35.0 40.0 45.0 75.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.5 35.5 40.5 70.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 32.5 37.5 42.5 32.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 97.4
HCM 6th LOS F

Page 1022 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th AWSC
5: Campus Dr/Campus Drive & 7th Street 11/02/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 146.9
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 108 410 53 27 521 62 83 169 30 136 97 135 Future Vol, veh/h 108 410 53 27 521 62 83 169 30 136 97 135 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 113 427 55 28 543 65 86 176 31 142 101 141
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 2 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 2
HCM Control Delay 123.6 263.1 44 69.1

HCM LOS F F E F

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 29% 100% 0% 100% 0% 37%
Vol Thru, % 60% 0% 89% 0% 89% 26%
Vol Right, % 11% 0% 11% 0% 11% 37%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 282 108 463 27 583 368
LT Vol 83 108 0 27 0 136
Through Vol 169 0 410 0 521 97
RT Vol 30 0 53 0 62 135
Lane Flow Rate 294 112 482 28 607 383
Geometry Grp 2 7 7 7 7 2
Degree of Util (X) 0.77 0.3 1.209 0.075 1.527 0.943
Departure Headway (Hd) 11.38 10.86 10.246 10.213 9.609 10.6 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 320 333 357 353 383 345
Service Time 9.38 8.56 7.946 7.913 7.309 8.6
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.919 0.336 1.35 0.079 1.585 1.11
HCM Control Delay 44 18.1 148.2 13.7 274.6 69.1
HCM Lane LOS E C F B F F
HCM 95th-tile Q 6 1.2 18 0.2 31.5 9.8

Page 1023 of 1290 ends

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT

WORKSHEETS

Page 1024 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Campus Dr/Campus Drive & 7th Street 11/11/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Mitigation Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 127 181 48 51 223 48 43 122 30 34 140 51 Future Volume (veh/h) 127 181 48 51 223 48 43 122 30 34 140 51 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 138 197 52 55 242 52 47 133 33 37 152 55 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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 192 429 113 106 377 81 189 276 61 161 268 88 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1415 373 1767 1480 318 245 1207 266 157 1172 387 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 138 0 249 55 0 294 213 0 0 244 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 0 1788 1767 0 1798 1718 0 0 1716 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 0.0 3.7 1.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 0.0 3.7 1.0 0.0 4.8 3.4 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.18 0.22 0.15 0.15 0.23
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 192 0 543 106 0 458 525 0 0 518 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.00 0.46 0.52 0.00 0.64 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 935 0 1973 508 0 1549 1636 0 0 1665 0 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 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.3 0.0 9.3 15.1 0.0 11.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.0 0.0 0.6 3.9 0.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 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 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 1.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.2 0.0 9.9 19.0 0.0 12.5 11.7 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A B A B B A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 387 349 213 244
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.2 13.5 11.7 12.1
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.1 6.5 14.5 12.1 8.1 12.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.5 9.5 36.5 30.5 17.5 28.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 3.0 5.7 6.1 4.5 6.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.3 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.3 1.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.8
HCM 6th LOS B

Page 1025 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Campus Dr/Campus Drive & 7th Street 11/11/2020
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 5:00 pm 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Mitigation Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 108 410 53 27 521 62 83 169 30 136 97 135 Future Volume (veh/h) 108 410 53 27 521 62 83 169 30 136 97 135 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 112 427 55 28 543 65 86 176 31 142 101 141 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 144 712 92 55 637 76 178 325 51 226 144 169
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.39 0.39 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1611 207 1767 1626 195 332 1052 164 475 466 546 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 112 0 482 28 0 608 293 0 0 384 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 0 1818 1767 0 1821 1548 0 0 1488 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.8 0.0 12.4 1.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.8 0.0 12.4 1.0 0.0 18.9 9.5 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.11 0.29 0.11 0.37 0.37
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 144 0 804 55 0 713 553 0 0 539 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.00 0.60 0.51 0.00 0.85 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 243 0 1093 166 0 1015 911 0 0 875 0 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 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.9 0.0 13.1 29.5 0.0 17.2 17.8 0.0 0.0 19.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.7 0.0 0.7 7.3 0.0 5.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 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 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 0.0 4.4 0.5 0.0 7.7 3.3 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.6 0.0 13.8 36.8 0.0 22.2 18.6 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A B D A C B A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 594 636 293 384
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.1 22.9 18.6 21.5
Approach LOS B C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.6 6.4 31.9 23.6 9.5 28.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.5 5.8 37.2 33.5 8.5 34.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.5 3.0 14.4 16.7 5.8 20.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.8 0.0 3.0 2.4 0.1 3.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.4
HCM 6th LOS C

Page 1026 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
12: 11th Avenue & SR 198 EB Off Ramp/3rd Street 11/11/2020 Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 09/08/2020 AM Peak Hour Mitigation Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 373 216 131 0 0 0 0 872 207 171 658 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 373 216 131 0 0 0 0 872 207 171 658 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 0 1856 1856 1856 1856 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 405 235 142 0 948 225 186 715 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 0
Cap, veh/h 874 276 167 0 1620 723 224 2254 0
Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.13 0.64 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 1083 655 0 3618 1572 1767 3618 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 405 0 377 0 948 225 186 715 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 0 1738 0 1763 1572 1767 1763 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.5 0.0 17.6 0.0 16.9 7.7 8.8 7.8 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.5 0.0 17.6 0.0 16.9 7.7 8.8 7.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.38 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 874 0 443 0 1620 723 224 2254 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.46 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.59 0.31 0.83 0.32 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1066 0 540 0 1620 723 321 2254 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.8 0.0 30.2 0.0 17.0 14.5 36.3 7.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 10.5 0.0 1.6 1.1 11.5 0.4 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.3 0.0 8.1 0.0 6.5 2.7 4.4 2.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.2 0.0 40.7 0.0 18.6 15.6 47.8 7.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A D A B B D A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 782 1173 901
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.7 18.0 15.7
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.3 43.7 26.2 59.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.5 34.5 26.5 54.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.8 18.9 19.6 9.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 6.4 2.1 5.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.6
HCM 6th LOS C

Page 1027 of 1290 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
12: 11th Avenue & SR 198 EB Off Ramp/3rd Street 11/11/2020 Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project 5:00 pm 09/08/2020 PM Peak Hour Mitigation Synchro 10 Report VRPA Technologies, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 570 122 116 0 0 0 0 1180 314 556 1284 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 570 122 116 0 0 0 0 1180 314 556 1284 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 0 1856 1856 1856 1856 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 594 127 121 0 1229 327 579 1338 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 0
Cap, veh/h 670 171 163 0 1254 559 591 2567 0
Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.33 0.73 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 874 832 0 3618 1572 1767 3618 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 594 0 248 0 1229 327 579 1338 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 0 1706 0 1763 1572 1767 1763 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.9 0.0 16.2 0.0 40.7 20.0 38.3 19.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.9 0.0 16.2 0.0 40.7 20.0 38.3 19.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.49 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 670 0 334 0 1254 559 591 2567 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.98 0.58 0.98 0.52 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 726 0 361 0 1254 559 591 2567 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.2 0.0 44.7 0.0 37.6 31.0 38.9 7.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.1 0.0 7.5 0.0 21.1 4.4 31.7 0.8 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.3 0.0 7.3 0.0 20.5 8.0 21.5 6.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.3 0.0 52.2 0.0 58.7 35.4 70.6 7.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A D A E D E A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 842 1556 1917
Approach Delay, s/veh 56.5 53.8 26.8
Approach LOS E D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 44.0 46.5 27.6 90.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 39.5 42.0 25.0 86.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 40.3 42.7 21.9 21.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 1.2 15.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.3
HCM 6th LOS D

Page 1028 of 1290 ends

APPENDIX D
Chapter 400 of Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual (HDM)

Page 1029 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-1
March 7, 2014
CHAPTER 400

INTERSECTIONS AT GRADE
Intersections are planned points of conflict where two
or more roadways join or cross. At-grade
intersections are among the most complicated
elements on the highway system, and control the
efficiency, capacity, and safety for motorized and
non-motorized users of the facility. The type and
operation of an intersection is important to the
adjacent property owners, motorists, bicyclists,
pedestrians, transit operators, the trucking industry,
and the local community.

There are two basic types of at grade intersections:
crossing and circular. It is not recommended that
intersections have more than four legs. Occasionally,
local development and land uses create the need for a
more complex intersection design. Such intersections
may require a specialized intersection design to
handle the specify traffic demands at that location. In addition to the guidance in this manual, see Traffic
Operations Policy Directive (TOPD) Number 13-02:

Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) for direction
and procedures on the evaluation, comparison and
selection of the intersection types and control
strategies identified in Index 401.5. Also refer to the Complete Streets Intersection Guide for further
information.

Topic 401 - Factors Affecting
Design
Index 401.1 - General
At-grade intersections must handle a variety of
conflicts among users, which includes truck, transit,
pedestrians, and bicycles. These recurring conflicts
play a major role in the preparation of design standards and guidelines. Arriving, departing, merging, turning, and crossing paths of moving pedestrians,
bicycles, truck, and vehicular traffic have to be
accommodated within a relatively small area. The
objective of designing an intersection is to effectively balance the convenience, ease, and comfort of the
users, as well as the human factors, with moving
traffic (automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, transit
vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, etc.).The safety and
mobility needs of motorist, bicyclist and pedestrians
as well as their movement patterns in intersections
must be analyzed early in the planning phase and then
followed through appropriately during the design
phase of all intersections on the State highway. It is
Departmental policy to develop integrated
multimodal projects in balance with community
goals, plans, and values.

The Complete Intersections: A Guide to
Reconstructing Intersections and Interchanges for
Bicyclists and Pedestrians contains a primer on the
factors to consider when designing intersections. It is published by the California Division of Traffic
Operations.
401.2 Human Factors
(1) The Driver. An appreciation of driver
performance is essential to proper highway
design and operation. The suitability of a design
rests as much on how safely and efficiently
drivers are able to use the highway as on any
other criterion.

Motorist’s perception and reaction time set the
standards for sight distance and length of
transitions. The driver’s ability to understand
and interpret the movements and crossing times
of the other vehicle drivers, bicyclists, and
pedestrians using the intersection is equally
important when making decisions and their
associated reactions. The designer needs to keep
in mind the user’s limitations and therefore
design intersections so that they meet user
expectation.
(2) The Bicyclist. Bicyclist experience, skills and
physical capabilities are factors in intersection
design. Intersections are to be designed to help
bicyclists understand how to traverse the
intersection. Chapter 1000 provides intersection
guidance for Class I and Class III bikeways that
intersect the State highway system. The
guidance in this chapter specifically relates to
bicyclists that operate within intersections on
the State highway system.
(3) The Pedestrian. Understanding how pedestrians
will use an intersection is critical because
pedestrian volumes, their age ranges, physical
ability, etc. all factor in to their startup time and
the time it takes them to cross an intersection
and thus, dictates how to design the intersection
to avoid potential conflicts with bicyclists and
motor vehicles. The guidance in this chapter
specifically relates to pedestrian travel within

Page 1030 of 1290 ends

400-2 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
March 7, 2014
intersections on the State highway system. See
Topic 105, Pedestrian Facilities, Design
Information Bulletin 82 - “Pedestrian
Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects,”
the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design,
and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, and the
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (California MUTCD) for additional
guidance.
401.3 Traffic Considerations
Good intersection design clearly indicates to
bicyclists and motorists how to traverse the
intersection (see Figure 403.6A). Designs that
encourage merging traffic to yield to through bicycle
and motor vehicle traffic are desirable.

The size, maneuverability, and other characteristics
of bicycles and motorized vehicles (automobiles,
trucks, transit vehicles, farm equipment, etc.) are all factors that influence the design of an intersection.

The differences in operating characteristics between
bicycles and motor vehicles should be considered
early in design.

Table 401.3 compares vehicle characteristics to
intersection design elements.

A design vehicle is a convenient means of
representing a particular segment of the vehicle
population. See Topic 404 for a further discussion of
the uses of design vehicles.

Transit vehicles and how their stops interrelate with
an intersection, pedestrian desired walking patterns
and potential transfers to other transit facilities are another critical factor to understand when designing
an intersection. Transit stops and their placement
needs to take into account the required maintenance
operations that will be needed and usually supplied
by the Transit Operator.
401.4 The Physical Environment
In highly developed urban areas, where right of way
is usually limited, the volume of vehicular traffic,
pedestrians, and bicyclists may be large, street
parking exists, and transit stops (for both buses and
light rail) are available. All interact in a variety of movements that contribute to and add to the
complexity of a State highway and can result in busy
intersections.

Industrial development may require special attention
to the movement of large trucks.

Rural areas where farming occurs may require
special attention for specialized farm equipment. In
addition, rural cities or town centers (rural main
streets) also require special attention.

Rural intersections in farm areas with low traffic
volumes may have special visibility problems or
require shadowing of left-turn vehicles from high
speed approach traffic.

Table 401.3
Vehicle Characteristics Intersection Design
Element Affected
Length Length of storage lane
Width Lane width
Height Clearance to overhead
signs and signals
Wheel base Corner radius and width
of turning lanes
Acceleration Tapers and length of
acceleration lane
Deceleration Tapers and length of
deceleration lane
There are many factors to be considered in the design
of intersections, with the goal to achieve a functional, safe and efficient intersection for all users of the
facility. The location and level of use by various
modes will have an impact on intersection design,
and therefore should be considered early in the design
process. In addition to current levels of use, it is
important to consider future travel patterns for
vehicles, including trucks; pedestrian and bicycle
demand and the future expansion of transit.
401.5 Intersection Type
Intersection types are characterized by their basic
geometric configuration, and the form of intersection
traffic control that is employed:

Page 1031 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-3
March 7, 2014
(1) Geometric Configurations
(a) Crossing-Type Intersections - “Tee” and 4-
legged intersections
(b) Circular Intersections –roundabouts, traffic
circles, rotaries; however, only roundabouts
are acceptable for State highways.
(c) Alternative Intersection Designs – various
effective geometric alternatives to traditional
designs that can reduce crashes and their
severity, improve operations, reduce
congestion and delay typically by reducing
or altering the number of conflict points;
these alternatives include geometric design
features such as intersections with displaced
left-turns or variations on U-turns.
(2) Intersection Control strategies, See California
MUTCD and Traffic Operations Policy Directive
(TOPD) Number 13-02, Intersection Control
Evaluation for procedures and guidance on how
to evaluate, compare and select from among the
following intersection control strategies:
(a) Two-Way Stop Controlled - for minor road
traffic
(b) All-Way Stop Control
(c) Signal Control
(d) Yield Control (Roundabout)
Historically, crossing-type intersections with signal
or “STOP”-control have been used on the State
highway system. However, other intersection types,
given the appropriate circumstances may enhance
intersection performance through fewer or less
severe crashes and improve operations by reducing
overall delay. Alternative intersection geometric
designs should be considered and evaluated early in
the project scoping, planning and decision-making
stages, as they may be more efficient, economical and
safer solutions than traditional designs. Alternative
intersection designs can effectively balance the
safety and mobility needs of the motor vehicle
drivers, transit riders, bicyclists and pedestrians using the intersection.
401.6 Transit
Transit use may range from periodic buses, handled
as part of the normal mix of vehicular traffic, to Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) or light rail facilities which can
have a large impact on other users of the intersection.

Consideration of these modes should be part of the
early planning and design of intersections.

Topic 402 - Operational Features
Affecting Design
402.1 Capacity
Adequate capacity to handle peak period traffic
demands is a basic goal of intersection design.
(1) Unsignalized Intersections. The “Highway
Capacity Manual”, provides methodology for
capacity analysis of unsignalized intersections
controlled by “STOP” or “YIELD” signs. The
assumption is made that major street traffic is
not affected by the minor street movement.

Unsignalized intersections generally become
candidates for signalization when traffic
backups begin to develop on the cross street or
when gaps in traffic are insufficient for drivers
to yield to crossing pedestrians. See the
California MUTCD, for signal warrants.

Changes to intersection controls must be
coordinated with District Traffic Branch.
(2) Signalized Intersections. See Topic 406 for
analysis of simple signalized intersections,
including ramps. The analysis of complex and
alternative intersections should be referred to
the District Traffic Branch; also see Traffic
Operations Policy Directive (TOPD) Number
13-02.
(3) Roundabout Intersections. See TOPD Number
13-02 for screening process and the Intersection
Control Evaluation(ICE) Process Informational
Guide for operational analysis methods and
tools.
402.2 Collisions
(1) General. Intersections have a higher potential
for conflict compared to other sections of the
highway because travel is interrupted, traffic
streams cross, and many types of turning
movements occur.

The type of traffic control affects the type of
collisions. Signalized intersections tend to have
more rear end and same-direction

Page 1032 of 1290 ends

400-4 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
July 1, 2015
sideswipes than intersections with “STOP”-
control on minor legs. Roundabouts experience
few angle or crossing collisions. Roundabouts
reduce the frequency and severity of collisions,
especially when compared to the performance
of signalized intersections in high speed
environments. Other alternative intersection
types are configurations to consider for
minimizing the number of conflict points.
(2) Undesirable Geometric Features.
• Inadequate approach sight distance.
• Inadequate corner sight distance.
• Steep grades.
• Five or more approaches.
• Presence of curves within
intersections(unless at roundabouts).
• Inappropriately large curb radii.
• Long pedestrian crossing distances.
• Intersection Angle <75 degrees (see Topic
403).
402.3 On-Street Parking
On-street parking generally decreases through-traffic
capacity, impedes traffic flow, and increases crash
potential. Where the primary service of the arterial is the movement of vehicles, it may be desirable to
prohibit on-street parking on State highways in urban
and suburban expressways and rural arterial sections.

However, within urban and suburban areas and in
rural communities located on State highways, onstreet parking should be considered in order to accommodate existing land uses. Where adequate
off-street parking facilities are not available, the
designer should consider on-street parking, so that
the proposed highway improvement will be
compatible with the land use. On-street parking as
well as off-street parking needs to comply with
DIB82. See AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets for additional
guidance related to on-street parking.
402.4 Consider All Users
Intersections should accommodate all users of the
facility, including vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians
and transit. Bicycles have all the rights and
responsibilities as motorist per the California
Vehicle Code, but should have separate consideration
of their needs, even separate facilities if volumes
warrant. Pedestrians should not be prohibited from
crossing one or more legs of an intersection, unless
no other safe alternative exists. Pedestrians can be
prohibited from crossing one or more legs of an
intersection if a reasonable alternate route exists and there is a demonstrated need to do so. All pedestrian
facilities shall be ADA compliant as outlined in DIB

82. Transit needs should be determined early in the
planning and design phase as their needs can have a
large impact on the performance of an intersection.

Transit stops in the vicinity of intersections should be evaluated for their effect on the safety and operation
of the intersection(s) under study. See Topic 108 for
additional information.
402.5 Speed-Change Areas
Speed-change areas for vehicles entering or leaving
main streams of traffic are beneficial to the safety and efficiency of an intersection. Entering traffic merges
most efficiently with through traffic when the
merging angle is less than 15 degrees and when speed
differentials are at a minimum.

Topic 403 - Principles of
Channelization
403.1 Preference to Major Movements
The provision of direct free-flowing high-standard
alignment to give preference to major movements is
good channelization practice. This may require some
degree of control of the minor movements such as
stopping, funneling, or even eliminating them. These
controlling measures should conform to natural paths
of movement and should be introduced gradually to
promote smooth and efficient operation.
403.2 Areas of Conflict
Large multilane undivided intersection areas are
undesirable. The hazards of conflicting movements
are magnified when motorists, bicyclists, and
pedestrians are unable to anticipate movements of
other users within these areas. Channelization
reduces areas of conflict by separating or regulating
traffic movements into definite paths of travel by the
use of pavement markings or traffic islands.

Page 1033 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-5
December 30, 2015
Multilane undivided intersections, even with
signalization, are more difficult for pedestrians to
cross. Providing pedestrian refuge islands enable
pedestrians to cross fewer lanes at a time.

See Index 403.7 for traffic island guidance when used
as pedestrian refuge. Curb extensions shorten
crossing distance and increase visibility. See Index
303.4 for curb extensions.
403.3 Angle of Intersection
A right angle (90°) intersection provides the most
favorable conditions for intersecting and turning
traffic movements. Specifically, a right angle
provides:
• The shortest crossing distance for motor
vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.
• Sight lines which optimize corner sight distance
and the ability of motorists to judge the relative
position and speed of approach traffic.
• Intersection geometry that can reduce vehicle
turning speeds so collisions are more easily
avoided and the severity of collisions are
minimized.
• Intersection geometry that sends a message to
turning bicyclists and motorists that they are
making a turning movement and should yield as
appropriate to through traffic on the roadway
they are leaving, to traffic on the receiving
roadway, and to pedestrians crossing the
intersection.

Minor deviations from right angles are generally
acceptable provided that the potentially detrimental
impact on visibility and turning movements for large
trucks (see Topic 404) can be mitigated. However,
large deviations from right angles may decrease
visibility, hamper certain turning operations, and will increase the size of the intersection and therefore
crossing distances for bicyclists and pedestrians, may
encourage high speed turns, and may reduce yielding
by turning traffic. When a right angle cannot be
provided due to physical constraints, the interior
angle should be designed as close to 90 degrees as is
practical, but should not be less than 75 degrees.

Mitigation should be considered for the affected
intersection design features. (See Figure 403.3A). A
75 degree angle does not unreasonably increase the
crossing distance or generally decrease visibility.

Class II bikeway crossings at railroads follow similar
guidance to Class I bikeway crossings at railroads,
see Index 1003.5(3), and Figure 403.3B.

A characteristic of skewed intersection angles is that
they result in larger intersections.

When existing intersection angles are less than
75 degrees, the following retrofit improvement
strategies should be considered:
• Realign the subordinate intersection legs if the
new alignment and intersection location(s) can
be designed without introducing new geometric
or operational deficiencies.
• Provide acceleration lanes for difficult turning
movements due to radius or limited visibility.
• Restrict problematic turning movements; e.g. for
minor road left turns with potentially limited
visibility.
• Provide refuge areas for pedestrians at very long
crossings.

For additional guidance on the above and other
improvement strategies, consult with the District
Design Liaison.

Particular attention should be given to skewed angles
on curved alignment with regards to sight distance
and visibility. Crossroads skewed to the left have
more restricted visibility for drivers of vans and
trucks than crossroads skewed to the right. In
addition, severely skewed intersection angles,
coupled with steep downgrades (generally over
4 percent) can increase the potential for high centered vehicles to overturn where the vehicle is on a
downgrade and must make a turn greater than
90 degrees onto a crossroad. These factors should be
considered in the design of skewed intersections.
403.4 Points of Conflict
Channelization separates and clearly defines points
of conflict within the intersection. Bicyclists,
pedestrians and motorists should be exposed to only
one conflict or confronted with one decision at a time.

Speed-change areas for diverging traffic should
provide adequate length clear of the through lanes to
permit vehicles to decelerate after leaving the
through lanes.

Page 1034 of 1290 ends

400-6 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
March 7, 2014
See AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets for additional guidance on
speed-change lanes.

Figure 403.3A
Angle of Intersection
(Minor Leg Skewed to the Right)
Figure 403.3.B
Class II Bikeway
Crossing Railroad
403.5 (Currently Not In Use)
403.6 Turning Traffic
A separate turning lane removes turning movements
from the intersection area. Abrupt changes in
alignment or sight distance should be avoided,
particularly where traffic turns into a separate turning lane from a high-standard through facility.

For wide medians, consider the use of offset left-turn
lanes at both signalized and unsignalized
intersections. Opposing left-turn lanes are offset or
shifted as far to the left as practical by reducing the width of separation immediately before the
intersection. Rather than aligning the left-turn lane
exactly parallel with and adjacent to the through lane, the offset left-turn lane is separated from the adjacent through lane. Offset left-turn lanes provide improved
visibility of opposing through traffic. For further
guidance on offset left-turn lanes, see AASHTO, A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets.
(1) Treatment of Intersections with Right-TurnOnly Lanes. Most motor vehicle/bicycle collisions occur at intersections. For this
reason, intersection design should be
accomplished in a manner that will minimize
confusion by motorists and bicyclists, eliminate
ambiguity and induce all road users to operate
in accordance with the statutory rules of the road
in the California Vehicle Code. Right-turn-only
lanes should be designed to meet user
expectations and reduce conflicts between
vehicles and bicyclists.

Figure 403.6A illustrates a typical at-grade
intersection of multilane streets without rightturn-only lanes. Bike lanes or shoulders are included on all approaches. Some common
movements of motor vehicles and bicycles are
shown. A prevalent crash type is between
straight-through bicyclists and right-turning
motorists, who do not yield to through
bicyclists.

Optional right-turn lanes should not be used in
combination with right-turn-only lanes on roads
where bicycle travel is permitted. The use of
optional right-turn lanes in combination with
right-turn-only lanes is not recommended in any
case where a Class II bike lane is present. This
may increase the need for dual or triple rightturn-only lanes, which have

Page 1035 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-7
May 7, 2012
Figure 403.6A
Typical Bicycle and Motor Vehicle Movements at Intersections of Multilane Streets without Right-Turn-Only Lanes
NOTE:

Only one direction is shown for clarity.

Page 1036 of 1290 ends

400-8 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
July 1, 2015
Figure 403.6B
Bicycle Left-Turn-Only Lane
NOTES:
(1) For bicycle lane markings, see the California MUTCD. (2) Bicycle detectors are necessary for signalized intersections. (3) Left-turn bicycle lane should have receiving bike lane or shoulder.

Page 1037 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-9
December 16, 2016
challenges with visibility between turning
vehicles and pedestrians. Multiple right-turnonly lanes should not be free right-turns when there is a pedestrian crossing. If there is a
pedestrian crossing on the receiving leg of
multiple right-turn-only lanes, the intersection
should be controlled by a pedestrian signal head,
or geometrically designed such that pedestrians
cross only one turning lane at a time.

Locations with right-turn-only lanes should
provide a minimum 4-foot width for bicycle use
between the right-turn and through lane when
bikes are permitted, except where posted speed
is greater than 40 miles per hour, the minimum
width should be 6 feet. Configurations that
create a weaving area without defined lanes
should not be used.

For signing and delineation of bicycle lanes at
intersections, consult District Traffic
Operations.

Figure 403.6B depicts an intersection with a
left-turn-only bicycle lane, which should be
considered when bicycle left-turns are common.

A left-turn-only bicycle lane may be considered
at any intersection and should always be
considered as a tool to provide mobility for
bicyclists. Signing and delineation options for
bicycle left-turn-only lanes are shown in the
California MUTCD.
(2) Design of Intersections at Interchanges. The
design of at-grade intersections at interchanges
should be accomplished in a manner that will
minimize confusion of motorists, bicyclists, and
pedestrians. Higher speed, uncontrolled entries
and exits from freeway ramps should not be
used at the intersection of the ramps with the
local road. The smallest curb return radius
should be used that accommodates the design
vehicle. Intersections with interior angles close
to 90 degrees reduce speeds at conflict points
between motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

The intersection skew guidance in Index 403.3
applies to all ramp termini at the local road.
403.7 Refuge Areas
Traffic islands should be used to provide refuge areas
for bicyclists and pedestrians. See Index 405.4 for
further guidance.
403.8 Prohibited Turns
Traffic islands may be used to direct bicycle and
motorized vehicle traffic streams in desired
directions and prevent undesirable movements. Care
should be taken so that islands used for this purpose
accommodate convenient and safe pedestrian and
bicycle crossings, drainage, and striping options. See
Topic 303.
403.9 Effective Signal Control
At intersections with complex turning movements,
channelization is required for effective signal control.

Channelization permits the sorting of approaching
bicycles and motorized vehicles which may move
through the intersection during separate signal
phases. Pedestrians may also have their own signal
phase. This requirement is of particular importance
when traffic-actuated signal controls are employed.

The California MUTCD has warrants for the
placement of signals to control vehicular, bicycle and
pedestrian traffic. Pedestrian activated devices,
signals or beacons are not required, but must be
evaluated where directional, multilane, pedestrian
crossings occur. These locations may include:
• Mid-block street crossings;
• Channelized turn lanes;
• Ramp entries and exits; and
• Roundabouts.

The evaluation, selection, programming and use of a
chosen device should be done with guidance from
District Traffic Operations.
403.10 Installation of Traffic Control
Devices
Channelization may provide locations for the
installation of essential traffic control devices, such as “STOP” and directional signs. See Index 405.4 for
information about the design of traffic islands.
403.11 Summary
• Give preference to the major move(s).

Page 1038 of 1290 ends

400-10 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
July 2, 2018
• Reduce areas of conflict.
• Reduce the duration of conflicts.
• Cross traffic at right angles or skew no more than
75 degrees. (90 degrees preferred.)
• Separate points of conflict.
• Provide speed-change areas and separate turning
lanes where appropriate.
• Provide adequate width to shadow turning
traffic.
• Restrict undesirable moves with traffic islands.
• Coordinate channelization with effective signal
control.
• Install signs in traffic islands when necessary but
avoid building conflicts one or more modes of
travel.
• Consider all users.
403.12 Other Considerations
• An advantage of curbed islands is they can serve
as pedestrian refuge. Where curbing is
appropriate, consideration should be given to
mountable curbs. See Topic 303 for more
guidance.
• Avoid complex intersections that present
multiple choices of movement to the motorist
and bicyclist.
• Traffic safety should be considered. Collision
records provide a valuable guide to the type of
channelization needed.

Topic 404 - Design Vehicles
404.1 General
Any vehicle, whether car, bus, truck, or recreational
vehicle, while turning a curve, covers a wider path
than the width of the vehicle. The outer front tire can generally follow a circular curve, but the inner rear
tire will swing in toward the center of the curve.

Some terminology is vital to understanding the
engineering concepts related to design vehicles. See
Index 62.4 Interchanges and Intersection at Grade for
terminology.
404.2 Design Considerations
It may not be necessary to provide for design vehicle
turning movements at all intersections along the State
route if the design vehicle’s route is restricted or it is not expected to use the cross street frequently.

Discuss with Traffic Operations and the local agency
before a turning movement is not provided. The goal
is to minimize possible conflicts between vehicles,
bicycles, pedestrians, and other users of the roadway,
while providing the minimum curb radii appropriate
for the given situation.

Both the tracking width and swept width should be
considered in the design of roadways for use of the
roadway by design vehicles.

Tracking width lines delineate the path of the vehicle
tires as the vehicle moves through the turn.

Swept width lines delineate the path of the vehicle
body as the vehicle moves through the turn and will
therefore always exceed the tracking width. The
following list of criteria is to be used to determine
whether the roadway can accommodate the design
vehicle.
(1) Traveled way.
(a) To accommodate turn movements(e.g., at
intersections, driveways, alleys, etc.),the
travel way width and intersection design
should be such that tracking width and swept
width lines for the design vehicle do not
cross into any portion of the lane for
opposing traffic. Encroachment into the
shoulder and bike lane is permitted.
(b) Along the portion of roadway where there
are no turning options, vehicles are required
to stay within the lane lines. The tracking
and swept widths lines for the design
vehicle shall stay within the lane as
defined in Index 301.1 and Table 504.3.

This includes no encroachment into Class II
bike lanes.
(2) Shoulders. Both tracking width and swept width
lines may encroach onto paved shoulders to
accommodate turning. For design projects where
the tracking width lines are shown to encroach
onto paved shoulders, the shoulder pavement
structure should be engineered to sustain the
weight of the design vehicle. See Index 613 for
general traffic loading

Page 1039 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-11
December 14, 2018
considerations and Index 626 for tied rigid
shoulder guidance. At corners where no
sidewalks are provided and pedestrians are using
the shoulder, a paved refuge area may be
provided outside the swept width of turning
vehicle.
(3) Curbs and Gutters. Tires may not mount curbs.

If curb and gutter are present and any portion of
the gutter pan is likewise encroached, the gutter
pan must be engineered to match the adjacent
shoulder pavement structure. See Index
613.5(2)(c) for gutter pan design guidance.
(4) Edge of Pavement. To accommodate a turn, the
swept width lines may cross the edge of
pavement provided there are no obstructions.

The tracking width lines must remain on the
pavement structure, including the shoulder,
provided that the shoulder is designed to support
vehicular traffic. If truck volumes are high,
consideration of a wider shoulder is encouraged
in order to preserve the pavement edge.
(5) Bicycle Lanes. Where bicycle lanes are
considered, the design guidance noted above
applies. Vehicles are permitted to cross a bicycle
lane to initiate or complete a turning movement
or for emergency parking on the shoulder. See
the California MUTCD for Class II bike lane
markings.

To accommodate turn movements (e.g.,
intersections, driveways, alleys, etc. are present),
both tracking width and swept width lines may
cross the broken white painted bicycle lane
striping in advance of the right-turn, entering the
bicycle lane when clear to do so.
(6) Sidewalks. Tracking width and swept width lines
must not encroach onto sidewalks or pedestrian
refuge areas, without exception.
(7) Obstacles. Swept width lines may not encroach
upon obstacles including, but not limited to,
curbs, islands, sign structures, traffic
delineators/channelizers, traffic signals, lighting
poles, guardrails, trees, cut slopes, and rock
outcrops.
(8) Appurtenances. Swept width lines do not include
side mirrors or other appurtenances allowed by
the California Vehicle Code, thus,
accommodation to non-motorized users of the
facility and appurtenances should be considered.

If both the tracking width and swept width lines meet
the design guidance listed above, then the geometry
is adequate for that design vehicle. Consideration
should be given to pedestrian crossing distance,
motor vehicle speeds, truck volumes, alignment,
bicycle lane width, sight distance, and the presence
of on-street parking.

Note that the STAA Design Vehicle has a template
with a 56-foot (minimum) and a 67-foot (longer)
radius and the California Legal Design Vehicle has a
template with 50-foot (minimum) and 60-foot
(longer) radii. These templates are shown in Figures
404.5A through 404.5D. The longer radius templates
are more conservative. The longer radius templates
develop less swept width and leave a margin of error
for the truck driver. The longer radius templates
should be used for conditions where the vehicle may
not be required to stop before entering the
intersection.

The minimum radius template can be used if the
longer radius template does not clear all obstacles.

The minimum radius templates demonstrate the
tightest turn that the vehicles can navigate, assuming
a speed of less than 10 miles per hour.

For offtracking lane width requirements on freeway
ramps, see Topic 504.
404.3 Design Tools
District Truck Managers should be consulted early in
the project to ensure compliance with the design
vehicle guidance contained in Topic 404. Consult
local agencies to verify the location of local truck
routes. Essentially, two options are available –
templates or computer software.
• The turning templates in Figures 404.5A through
G are a design aid for determining the swept
width and/or tracking width of large vehicles as
they maneuver through a turn. The templates can
be used as overlays to evaluate the adequacy of
the geometric layout of a curve or intersection
when reproduced on clear film and scaled to
match the highway drawings. These templates
assume a vehicle speed of less than 10 miles per
hour.

Page 1040 of 1290 ends

400-12 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
December 14, 2018
• Computer software such as AutoTURN or
AutoTrak can draw the swept width and/or
tracking width along any design curve within a
CADD drawing program such as MicroStation or
AutoCAD. Dimensions taken from the vehicle
diagrams in Figures 404.5A through G may be
inputted into the computer program by creating a
custom vehicle if the vehicle is not already
included in the software library. The software
can also create a vehicle turn template that
conforms to any degree curve desired.
404.4 Design Vehicles and Related
Definitions
(1) The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of
1982 (STAA).
(a) STAA Routes. STAA allows certain longer
trucks called STAA trucks to operate on the
National Network. After STAA was
enacted, the Department evaluated State
routes for STAA truck access and created
Terminal Access and Service Access routes
which, together with the National Network,
are called the STAA Network. Terminal
Access routes allow STAA access to
terminals and facilities. Service Access
routes allow STAA trucks one-mile access
off the National Network, but only at
identified exits and only for designated
services. Service Access routes are
primarily local roads. A “Truck Route
Map,” indicating the National Network
routes and the Terminal Access routes is
posted on the Department’s Office of
Commercial Vehicle Operations website
and is also available in printed form.
(b) STAA Design Vehicle. The STAA design
vehicle is a truck tractor-semitrailer
combination with a 48-foot semitrailer, a
43-foot kingpin-to-rear-axle (KPRA)
distance, an 8.5-foot body and axle width,
and a 23-foot truck tractor wheelbase. Note,
a truck tractor is a non-load-carrying
vehicle. There is also a STAA double (truck
tractor-semitrailer-trailer); however, the
double is not used as the design vehicle due
to its shorter turning radius. The STAA
Design Vehicle is shown in Figures 404.5A
and B.

The STAA Design Vehicle in Figures
404.5A or B should be used on the National
Network, Terminal Access, California
Legal, and Advisory routes.
(c) STAA Vehicle – 53-Foot Trailer. Another
category of vehicle allowed only on STAA
routes has a maximum 53-foot trailer, a
maximum 40-foot KPRA for two or more
axles, a maximum 38-foot KPRA for a
single axle, and unlimited overall length.

This vehicle is not to be used as the design
vehicle as it is not the worst case for
offtracking due to its shorter KPRA. The
STAA Design Vehicle should be used
instead.
(2) California Legal.
(a) California Legal Routes. Virtually all State
routes off the STAA Network are California
Legal routes. There are two types of
California Legal routes, the regular
California Legal routes and the KPRA
Advisory Routes. Advisory routes have
signs posted that state the maximum KPRA
length that the route can accommodate
without the vehicle offtracking outside the
lane. KPRA advisories range from 30 feet
to 38 feet, in 2-foot increments. California
Legal vehicles are allowed to use both types
of California Legal routes. California Legal
vehicles can also use the STAA Network.

However, STAA trucks are not allowed on
any California Legal routes. The Truck
Route Map indicating the California Legal
routes is posted on the Department’s Office
of Commercial Vehicle Operations website.
(b) California Legal Design Vehicle. The
California Legal vehicle is a truck tractorsemitrailer with the following dimensions:
the maximum overall length is 65 feet; the
maximum KPRA distance is 40 feet for
semitrailers with two or more axles, and
38 feet for semitrailers with a single axle;
the maximum width is 8.5 feet. There are
also two categories of California Legal
doubles (truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer);
however, the doubles are not used as the
design vehicle due to their shorter turning
radii. The California Legal Design Vehicle
is shown in Figures 404.5C and D.

Page 1041 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-13
December 14, 2018
The California Legal Design Vehicle in
Figures 404.5C and D should only be used
when the STAA design vehicle is not
feasible and with concurrence from the
District Truck Manager.
(3) 40-Foot Bus.
(a) 40-Foot Bus Routes. All single-unit
vehicles, including buses and motor trucks
up to 40 feet in length, are allowed on
virtually every route in California.
(b) 40-Foot Bus Design Vehicle. The 40-Foot
Bus Design Vehicle shown in Figure
404.5E is an AASHTO standard. Its
25-foot wheelbase and 40-foot length are
typical of city transit buses and some
intercity buses. At intersections where
truck volumes are light or where the
predominate truck traffic consists of mostly
3-axle units, the 40-foot bus may be used.

Its wheel path sweeps a greater width than
3-axle delivery trucks, as well as smaller
buses such as school buses.
(4) 45-Foot Bus & Motorhome.
(a) 45-Foot Bus & Motorhome Routes. The
“45-foot bus and motorhome” refers to bus
and motorhomes over 40 feet in length, up
to and including 45 feet in length. These
longer buses and motorhomes are allowed
in California, but only on certain routes.

The 45-foot tour bus became legal on the
National Network in 1991 and later allowed
on some State routes in 1995. The 45-foot
motorhome became legal in California in
2001, but only on those routes where the 45-
foot bus was already allowed. A Bus and
Motorhome Map indicating where these
longer buses and motorhomes are allowed
and where they are not allowed is posted on
the Department’s Office of Commercial
Vehicle Operations website.
(b) 45-Foot Bus and Motorhome Design
Vehicle. The 45-Foot Bus & Motorhome
Design Vehicle shown in Figure 404.5F is
used by Caltrans for the longest allowable
bus and motorhome. Its wheelbase is

28.5 feet. It is also similar to the AASHTO
standard 45-foot bus. Typically this should
be the smallest design vehicle used on a
State highway. It may be used where the
State highway intersects local streets
without commercial or industrial traffic.

The 45-Foot Bus and Motorhome Design
Vehicle shown in Figure 404.5F should be
used in the design of all interchanges and
intersections on all green routes indicated
on the Bus and Motorhome Map for both
new construction and rehabilitation
projects. Check also the longer standard
design vehicles on these routes as required
– the STAA Design Vehicle and the
California Legal Design Vehicle in Indexes
404.4(1) and (2).
(5) 60-Foot Articulated Bus.
(a) 60-Foot Articulated Bus Routes. The
articulated bus is allowed a length of up to
60 feet per CVC 35400(b)(3)(A). This bus
is used primarily by local transit agencies
for public transportation. There is no
master listing of such routes. Local transit
agencies should be contacted to determine
possible routes within the proposed project.
(b) 60-Foot Articulated Bus Design Vehicle.

The 60-Foot Articulated Bus Design
Vehicle shown in Figure 404.5G is an
AASHTO standard. The routes served by
these buses should be designed to
accommodate the 60-Foot Articulated Bus
Design Vehicle.
404.5 Turning Templates & Vehicle
Diagrams
Figures 404.5A through G are computer-generated
turning templates at an approximate scale of 1"=50'
and their associated vehicle diagrams for the design
vehicles described in Index 404.3. The radius of the
template is measured to the outside front wheel path
at the beginning of the curve. Figures 404.5A
through G contain the terms defined as follows:
(1) Tractor Width - Width of tractor body.
(2) Trailer Width - Width of semitrailer body.
(3) Tractor Track - Tractor axle width, measured
from outside face of tires.

Page 1042 of 1290 ends

400-14 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
December 14, 2018
Figure 404.5A
STAA Design Vehicle
56-Foot Radius

Page 1043 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-15
December 14, 2018
Figure 404.5B
STAA Design Vehicle
67-Foot Radius

Page 1044 of 1290 ends

400-16 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
December 14, 2018
Figure 404.5C
California Legal Design Vehicle
50-Foot Radius

Page 1045 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-17
December 14, 2018
Figure 404.5D
California Legal Design Vehicle
60-Foot Radius

Page 1046 of 1290 ends

400-18 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
December 14, 2018
Figure 404.5E
40-Foot Bus Design Vehicle

Page 1047 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-19
December 14, 2018
Figure 404.5F
45-Foot Bus & Motorhome Design Vehicle

Page 1048 of 1290 ends

400-20 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
December 14, 2018
Figure 404.5G
60-Foot Articulated Bus Design Vehicle

Page 1049 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-21
December 14, 2018
(4) Trailer Track – Semitrailer axle width, measured
from outside face of tires.
(5) Lock To Lock Time - The time in seconds that an
average driver would take under normal driving
conditions to turn the steering wheel of a vehicle
from the lock position on one side to the lock
position on the other side. The default in
AutoTurn software is 6 seconds.
(6) Steering Lock Angle - The maximum angle that
the steering wheels can be turned. It is further
defined as the average of the maximum angles
made by the left and right steering wheels with
the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
(7) Articulating Angle - The maximum angle
between the tractor and semitrailer.

Topic 405 - Intersection Design
Standards
405.1 Sight Distance
(1) Stopping Sight Distance. See Index 201.1 for
minimum stopping sight distance requirements.
(2) Corner Sight Distance.
(a) General--At unsignalized intersections a
substantially clear line of sight should be
maintained between the driver of a vehicle,
bicyclist or pedestrian stopped on the minor
road and the driver of an approaching
vehicle on the major road that has no stop.

Line of sight for all users should be included
in right of way, in order to preserve sight
lines.

Adequate time should be provided for the
stopped vehicle on the minor road to either
cross all lanes of through traffic, cross the
near lanes and turn left, or turn right,
without requiring through traffic to
radically alter their speed. The visibility
required for these maneuvers form a clear
sight triangle with the corner sight distance
b and the crossing distance a1 or a2 (see
Figure 405.1 as an example of corner sight
distance at a two-lane, two-way highway).

Dimensions a1 and a2 are measured from the
decision point to the center of the lane. The
actual number of lanes will vary on the
major and minor roads. There should be no
sight obstruction within the clear sight
triangle.

The methodology used for the driver on the
minor road that is stopped to complete the
necessary maneuver while the approaching
vehicle travels at the design speed of the
major road is based on gap-acceptance
behavior. A 7-1/2 second criterion is
applied to a passenger car (including pickup
trucks) for a left turn from a stop on the
minor road. However, this time gap does
not account for a single-unit truck (no
semitrailer), a combination truck (see Index
404.4 for truck tractor-semitrailer
guidance), a right-turn from a stop, or for a
crossing maneuver. See Table 405.1A for
the time gap that addresses these situations
for the assumed design vehicle making
these maneuvers from the minor road.

In determining corner sight distance, a set
back distance for the vehicle waiting on the
minor road must be assumed as measured
from the edge of traveled way of the major
road. Set back for the driver of the vehicle
on the minor road should be a minimum of
10 feet plus the shoulder width of the major
road but not less than 15 feet. The location
of the driver’s eye for the set back is the
decision point per Figure 405.1. Corner
sight distance and the driver’s eye set back
are also illustrated in Figures 405.7 and
504.3I. Line of sight for corner sight
distance for passenger cars is to be
determined from a 3 and 1/2-foot height at
the location of the driver of the vehicle in
the center of the minor road lane to a 3 and
1/2-foot object height in the center of the
approaching outside lane of the major road.

This provides for reciprocal sight by both
vehicles. The passenger car driver’s eye
height should be applied to all minor roads.

In addition, a truck driver’s eye height of

7.6 feet should be applied to the minor road
where applicable. Additionally, if the major
road has a median barrier, a 2-foot object
height should be used to determine the
median barrier set back. A median that is
wide enough to accommodate a stopped
vehicle should also provide a clear sight
triangle.

Page 1050 of 1290 ends

400-22 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
December 14, 2018
The minimum corner sight distance (feet)
should be determined by the equation:

1.47VmTg, where Vm is the design speed
(mph) of the major road and Tg is the time
gap (seconds) for the minor road vehicle to
enter the major road. The values given in
Table 405.1A should be used to determine
Tg based on the design vehicle, the type of
maneuver, and whether the stopped
vehicle’s rear wheels are on an upgrade
exceeding 3 percent. The distance from the
edge of traveled way to the rear wheels at
the minor road stop location should be
assumed as: 20 feet for a passenger car, 30
feet for a single-unit truck, and 72 feet for a
combination truck.
(b) Public Road Intersections (Refer to
Topic 205)--At unsignalized public road
intersections (see Index 405.7) corner sight
distance applies.

At signalized intersections the corner sight
distances should also be applied whenever
possible. Even though traffic flows are
designed to move at separate times,
unanticipated conflicts can occur due to
violation of signal, right turns on red,
malfunction of the signal, or use of flashing
red/yellow mode.

The minimum value for corner sight
distance at signalized intersections should
be equal to the stopping sight distance as
given in Table 201.1, measured as
previously described. This includes an
urban driveway that forms a leg of the
signalized intersection.
(c) Private Road Intersections (Refer to
Index 205.2) and Rural Driveways (Refer to
Index 205.4)--The minimum corner sight
distance should be equal to the stopping
sight distance as given in
Table 201.1, measured as previously
described.
(d) Urban Driveways (Refer to Index 205.3)--
Corner sight distance requirements as
described above are not applied to urban
driveways. If parking is allowed on the
major road, parking should be prohibited on
both sides of the driveway per the California
MUTCD, 3B.19.
(3) Decision Sight Distance. At intersections where
the State route turns or crosses another State
route, the decision sight distance values given in
Table 201.7 should be used. In computing and
measuring decision sight distance, the 3.5-foot
eye height and the

0.5-foot object height should be used, the object
being located on the side of the intersection
nearest the approaching driver.

The application of the various sight distance
requirements for the different types of
intersections is summarized in Table 405.1B.

Table 405.1B
Application of Sight Distance
Requirements
Intersection Sight Distance
Types Stopping Corner Decision
Private Roads X X(1)
Public Streets and
Roads
X X
Signalized
Intersections
X X(2)
State Route Intersections & Route
Direction
Changes, with or
without Signals
X X X
NOTES:
(1) Per Index 405.1(2)(c), the minimum corner sight
distance shall be equal to the stopping sight
distance as given in Table 201.1. See Index
405.1(2)(a) for setback requirements.
(2) Apply corner sight distance requirements at
signalized intersections whenever possible due to
unanticipated violations of the signals or
malfunctions of the signals. See Index 405.1(2)(b).
(4) Acceleration Lanes for Turning Moves onto
State Highways. At rural intersections, with
“STOP” control on the local cross road,
acceleration lanes for left and right turns onto
the State facility should be considered. At a
minimum, the following features should be

Page 1051 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-23
December 14, 2018
Figure 405.1
Corner Sight Distance
Table 405.1A
Corner Sight Distance Time Gap (Tg)
for Unsignalized Intersections
Design Vehicle Left-turn from Stop (s) Right-turn from Stop and Crossing Maneuver (s)
Passenger Car 7½ 6½
Private Road Intersection
Rural Driveway
Single-Unit Truck 9½ 8½
Public Road Intersection
Combination Truck 11½ 10½
Major and Minor Roads on Routes:

National Network
Terminal or Service Access
California Legal
KPRA Advisory
Notes: Time gaps are for a stopped vehicle to turn left, right or cross a two-lane highway with no median and with minor road grades of 3 percent or less. The table values should be adjusted as follows:
(1) For multilane highways—When crossing or making a left-turn onto a two-way major road with more than two lanes, add 0.5 s for passenger cars or 0.7 s for trucks for each additional lane to be crossed. Median widths should be converted to an equivalent number of lanes in applying the 0.5 s and 0.7 s criteria. For example, an 18-foot wide median is equivalent to

1.5 lanes; this requires an additional 0.75 s for a passenger car to cross or an additional 1.05 s for a truck to cross. (2) For minor road approach grades—If the minor road approach grade is an upgrade that exceeds 3 percent and the rear wheels of the design vehicle are on the grade exceeding 3 percent, add 0.2 s for each percent grade for left-turns; or add 0.1 s for each percent grade for right-turns and crossing maneuvers. For example, a passenger car is turning right from a minor road and at the stop location its rear wheels are on a 4 percent upgrade; this requires an additional 0.4 s for the right-turn. (3) Unique situations may necessitate a different design vehicle for a particular minor road than those listed here (e.g., predominant combination trucks out of a rural driveway). Additionally, for intersections at skewed angles less than 60 degrees, a further adjustment is needed. See the AASHTO “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” for guidance.

Page 1052 of 1290 ends

400-24 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
December 14, 2018
evaluated for both the major highway and the
cross road:
• divided versus undivided
• number of lanes
• design speed
• gradient
• lane, shoulder and median width
• traffic volume and composition of highway
users, including trucks and transit vehicles
• turning volumes
• horizontal curve radii
• sight distance
• proximity of adjacent intersections
• types of adjacent intersections
For additional information and guidance,
refer to AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets, the
District Traffic Engineer or designee, the
District Design Liaison, and the Project
Delivery Coordinator.
405.2 Left-turn Channelization
(1) General. The purpose of a left-turn lane is to
expedite the movement of through traffic by,
controlling the movement of turning traffic,
increasing the capacity of the intersection, and
improving safety characteristics.

The District Traffic Branch normally
establishes the need for left-turn lanes.
(2) Design Elements.
(a) Lane Width – The lane width for both
single and double left-turn lanes on State
highways shall be 12 feet.

For conventional State highways with
posted speeds less than or equal to
40 miles per hour and AADTT (truck
volume) less than 250 per lane that are in
urban, city or town centers (rural main
streets), the minimum lane width shall be
11 feet.

When considering lane width reductions
adjacent to curbed medians, refer to Index
303.5 for guidance on effective roadway
width, which may vary depending on
drivers’ lateral positioning and shy distance
from raised curbs.
(b) Approach Taper -- On conventional
highways without a median, an approach
taper provides space for a left-turn lane by
moving traffic laterally to the right. The
approach taper is unnecessary where a
median is available for the full width of the
left-turn lane. Length of the approach taper
is given by the formula on
Figures 405.2A, B and C.

Figure 405.2A shows a standard left-turn
channelization design in which all widening
is to the right of approaching traffic and the
deceleration lane (see below) begins at the
end of the approach taper. This design
should be used in all situations where space
is available, usually in rural and semi-rural
areas or in urban areas with high traffic
speeds and/or volumes.

Figures 405.2B and 405.2C show alternate
designs foreshortened with the deceleration
lane beginning at the 2/3 point of the
approach taper so that part of the
deceleration takes place in the through
traffic lane. Figure 405.2C is shortened
further by widening half (or other
appropriate fraction) on each side. These
designs may be used in urban areas where
constraints exist, speeds are moderate and
traffic volumes are relatively low.
(c) Bay Taper -- A reversing curve along the
left edge of the traveled way directs traffic
into the left-turn lane. The length of this
bay taper should be short to clearly delineate the left-turn move and to discourage through traffic from drifting into the leftturn lane. Table 405.2A gives offset data for design of bay tapers. In urban areas,
lengths of 60 feet and 90 feet are normally
used. Where space is restricted and speeds
are low, a 60-foot bay taper is appropriate.

On rural high-speed highways, a 120-foot
length is considered appropriate.
(d) Deceleration Lane Length -- Design speed
of the roadway approaching the intersection

Page 1053 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-25
December 14, 2018
should be the basis for determining
deceleration lane length. It is desirable that
deceleration take place entirely off the
through traffic lanes. Deceleration lane
lengths are given in Table 405.2B; the bay
taper length is included. Where partial
deceleration is permitted on the through
lanes, as in Figures 405.2B and 405.2C,
design speeds in Table 405.2B may be
reduced
10 miles per hour to 20 miles per hour for a
lower entry speed. In urban areas where
cross streets are closely spaced and
deceleration lengths cannot be achieved, the
District Traffic branch should be consulted
for guidance.
(e) Storage Length -- At unsignalized intersections, storage length may be based on the number of turning vehicles likely to arrive
in an average 2-minute period during the
peak hour. At a minimum, space for 2
vehicles should be provided at 25 feet per
vehicle. If the peak hour truck traffic is 10
percent or more, space for at least one
passenger car and one truck should be
provided. Bus usage may require a longer
storage length and should be evaluated if
their use is anticipated.

At signalized intersections, the storage
length may be based on one and one-half to
two times the average number of vehicles
that would store per signal cycle depending
on cycle length, signal phasing, and arrival
and departure rates. At a minimum, storage
length should be calculated in the same
manner as unsignalized intersection. The
District Traffic Branch should be consulted
for this information.

When determining storage length, the end
of the left-turn lane is typically placed at
least 3 feet, but not more than 30 feet, from
the nearest edge of shoulder of the
intersecting roadway. Although often set by
the placement of a crosswalk line or limit
line, the end of the storage lane should
always be located so that the appropriate
turning template can be accommodated.

Table 405.2A
Bay Taper for Median
Speed-change Lanes
NOTES:
(1) The table gives offsets from a base line parallel to the edge of traveled way at intervals measured from point
"A". Add "E" for measurements from edge of traveled
way.
(2) Where edge of traveled way is a curve, neither base line nor taper between B & C will be a tangent. Use
proportional offsets from B to C.
(3) The offset "E" is usually 2 ft along edge of traveled way for curbed medians; Use "E" = 0 ft. for striped
medians.

Table 405.2B
Deceleration Lane Length
Design Speed
(mph)
Length to
Stop (ft)
30 235
40 315
50 435
60 530

Page 1054 of 1290 ends

400-26 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
December 14, 2018
(3) Double Left-turn Lanes. At signalized
intersections on multilane conventional
highways and on multilane ramp terminals,
double left-turn lanes should be considered if
the left-turn demand is 300 vehicles per hour or
more. The lane widths and other design
elements of left-turn lanes given under
Index 405.2(2) applies to double as well as
single left-turn lanes.

The design of double left-turn lanes can be
accomplished by adding one or two lanes in the
median. See "Complete Intersections: A Guide
to Reconstructing Intersections and
Interchanges for Bicyclists and Pedestrians",
published by Headquarters, Division of Traffic
Operations, for the various treatments of double
left-turn lanes.
(4) Two-way Left-turn Lane (TWLTL). The
TWLTL consists of a striped lane in the median
of an arterial and is devised to address the
special capacity and safety problems associated
with high-density strip development. It can be
used on 2-lane highways as well as multilane
highways. Normally, the District Traffic
Operations Branch should determine the need
for a TWLTL.

The minimum width for a TWLTL shall be
12 feet (see Index 301.1). The preferred width
is 14 feet. Wider TWLTL's are occasionally
provided to conform with local agency
standards. However, TWLTL's wider than
14 feet are not recommended, and in no case
should the width of a TWLTL exceed 16 feet.

Additional width may encourage drivers in
opposite directions to use the TWLTL
simultaneously.
405.3 Right-turn Channelization
(1) General. For right-turning traffic, delays are
less critical and conflicts less severe than for
left-turning traffic. Nevertheless, right-turn
lanes can be justified on the basis of capacity,
analysis, and crash experience.

In rural areas a history of high speed rear-end
collisions may warrant the addition of a rightturn lane.

In urban areas other factors may contribute to
the need such as:
• High volumes of right-turning traffic
causing backup and delay on the through
lanes.
• Conflicts between crossing pedestrians and
right-turning vehicles and bicycles.
• Frequent rear-end and sideswipe collisions
involving right-turning vehicles.

Where right-turn channelization is proposed,
lower speed right-turn lanes should be provided
to reduce the likelihood of conflicts between
vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
(2) Design Elements.
(a) Lane and Shoulder Width--Index 301.1
shall be used for right-turn lane width
requirements. Shoulder width shall be a
minimum of 4 feet. Although not
desirable, lane and shoulder widths less than
those given above can be considered for
right-turn lanes under the following
conditions pursuant to Index 82.2:
• In urban, city or town centers (rural
main streets) with posted speeds less
than 40 miles per hour in severely
constrained situations, if truck or bus
use is low, consideration may be given
to reducing the right-turn lane width to
10 feet.
• Shoulder widths may also be
considered for reduction under
constricted situations. Whenever
possible, at least a 2-foot shoulder
should be provided where the right-turn
lane is adjacent to a curb. Entire
omission of the shoulder should only be
considered in constrained situations and
where an 11-foot lane can be
constructed.

Gutter pans can be included within a
shoulder, but cannot be included as part
of the travel lane width. Additional
right of way for a future right-turn lane
should be considered when an
intersection is being designed.

Page 1055 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-27
December 14, 2018
Figure 405.2A
Standard Left-turn Channelization

Page 1056 of 1290 ends

400-28 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
December 14, 2018
Figure 405.2B
Minimum Median Left-turn Channelization
(Widening on one Side of Highway)

Page 1057 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-29
December 14, 2018
Figure 405.2C
Minimum Median Left-turn Channelization
(Widening on Both Sides in Urban Areas with Short Blocks)

Page 1058 of 1290 ends

400-30 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
December 14, 2018
(b) Curve Radius--Where pedestrians are
allowed to cross a free right-turning
roadway, the curve radius should be such
that the operating speed of vehicular traffic
is no more than 20 miles per hour at the
pedestrian crossing. See NCHRP Report
672, “Roundabouts: An Informational
Guide” for guidance on the determination of
design speed (fastest path) for turning
vehicles. See Index 504.3(3) for additional
information.
(c) Tapers--Approach tapers are usually unnecessary since main line traffic need not be shifted laterally to provide space for the
right-turn lane. If, in some rare instances, a
lateral shift were needed, the approach taper
would use the same formula as for a leftturn lane.

Bay tapers are treated as a mirror image of
the left-turn bay taper.
(d) Deceleration Lane Length--The conditions
and principles of left-turn lane deceleration
apply to right-turn deceleration. Where full
deceleration is desired off the high-speed
through lanes, the lengths in Table 405.2B
should be used. Where partial deceleration
is permitted on the through lanes because of
limited right of way or other constraints,
average running speeds in Table 405.2B
may be reduced 10 miles per hour to
20 miles per hour for a lower entry speed.

For example, if the main line speed is
50 miles per hour and a 10 miles per hour
deceleration is permitted on the through
lanes, the deceleration length may be that
required for 40 miles per hour.
(e) Storage Length--Right-turn storage length
is determined in the same manner as leftturn storage length. See Index 405.2(2)(e). (3) Right-turn Lanes at Off-ramp Intersections.

Diamond off-ramps with a free right-turn at the
local street and separate right-turn off-ramps
around the outside of a loop will likely cause
conflict as traffic volumes increase. Serious
conflicts occur when the right-turning vehicle
must weave across multiple lanes on the local
street in order to turn left at a major cross street
close to the ramp terminal. Furthermore, free
right-turns create sight distance issues for
pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the off-ramp,
or pedestrians crossing the local road. Also,
rear-end collisions can occur as right-turning
drivers slow down or stop waiting for a gap in
local street traffic. Free right-turns usually end
up with ”YIELD”, ”STOP”, or signal controls
thus defeating their purpose of increasing
intersection capacity.
405.4 Traffic Islands
A traffic island is an area between traffic lanes for
channelization of bicycle and vehicle movements or
for pedestrian refuge. An island may be defined by
paint, raised pavement markers, curbs, pavement
edge, or other devices. The California MUTCD
should be referenced when considering the
placement of traffic islands at signalized and
unsignalized locations. For splitter island guidance at roundabouts, see Index 405.10(13).

Traffic islands usually serve more than one function.

These functions may be:
(a) Channelization to confine specific traffic
movements into definite channels;
(b) Divisional to separate traffic moving in the same
or opposite direction; and
(c) Refuge, to aid users crossing the roadway.

Generally, islands should present the least potential
conflict to approaching or crossing bicycles and
vehicles, and yet perform their intended function.
(1) Design of Traffic Islands. Island sizes and
shapes vary from one intersection to another.

They should be large enough to command
attention. Channelizing islands should not be
less than 50 square feet in area, preferably
75 square feet. Curbed, elongated divisional
median islands should not be less than 4 feet
wide and 20 feet long. All traffic islands placed
in the path of a pedestrian crossing must comply
with DIB 82. See the Standard Plans for typical
island passageway details.

The approach end of each island should be
offset 3 feet to the left and 5 feet to the right of
approaching traffic, using standard 1:15
parabolic flares, and clearly delineated so that it
does not surprise the motorist or bicyclist.

These offsets are in addition to the shoulder

Page 1059 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-31
December 14, 2018
widths shown in Table 302.1. Table 405.4 gives
standard parabolic flares to be used in island
design. On curved alignment, parabolic flares
may be omitted for small triangular traffic
islands whose sides are less than 25 feet long.

The approach nose of a divisional island should
be highly visible day and night with appropriate
use of signs (reflectorized or illuminated) and
object markers. The approach nose should be
offset 3 feet from the through traffic to minimize
accidental impacts.
(2) Delineation of Traffic Islands. Generally,
islands should present the least potential
conflict to approaching traffic and yet perform
their intended function. See Index 303.2 for
appropriate curb type. Islands may be
designated as follows:
(a) Raised paved areas outlined by curbs.
(b) Flush paved areas outlined by pavement
markings.
(c) Unpaved areas (small unpaved areas should
be avoided).

On facilities with posted speeds over 40 miles
per hour, the use of any type of curb is
discouraged. Where curbs are to be used, they
should be located at or outside of the shoulder
edge, as discussed in Index 303.5.

In rural areas, painted channelization supplemented with raised pavement markers may be more appropriate than a raised curbed
channelization. This design is as forgiving as
possible and decreases the consequence of a
driver's or bicyclist’s failure to detect or
recognize the curbed island. Consideration for
snow removal operations should be determined
where appropriate.

In urban areas, posted speeds less than or equal
to 40 miles per hour allow more frequent use of
curbed islands. Local agency requirements and
matching existing conditions are factors to
consider.
(3) Pedestrian Refuge
Pedestrian refuge islands allow pedestrians to
cross fewer lanes at a time while judging
conflicts separately. They also provide a refuge
so slower pedestrians can wait for a gap in
traffic while reducing total crossing distance.

At unsignalized intersections in rural city/town
centers (rural main streets), suburban, or urban
areas, a pedestrian refuge should be provided
between opposing traffic where pedestrians are
allowed to cross 2 or more through traffic lanes
in one direction of travel, at marked or
unmarked crosswalks. Pedestrian islands at
signalized crosswalks should be considered,
taking into account crossing distance and
pedestrian activity. Note that signalized
pedestrian crossings must be timed to allow for
pedestrians to cross. See the California
MUTCD, Chapter 4E, for further guidance.

Traffic islands used as pedestrian refuge are to
be large enough to provide a minimum of
6 feet in the direction of pedestrian travel,
without exception.

All traffic islands placed in the path of a
pedestrian crossing must be accessible, refer to
DIB 82 and the Standard Plans for further
guidance. An example of a traffic island that
serves as a pedestrian refuge is shown on Figure
405.4.
405.5 Median Openings
(1) General. Median openings, sometimes called
crossovers, provide for crossings of the median
at designated locations. Except for emergency
passageways in a median barrier, median
openings are not allowed on urban freeways.

Median openings on expressways or divided
conventional highways should not be curbed
except when the median between openings is
curbed, or it is necessary for delineation of
traffic signal standards and other necessary
hardware, or for protection of pedestrians. In
these special cases B4 curbs should be used. An
example of a median opening design is shown
on Figure 405.5.
(2) Spacing and Location. By a combination of
interchange ramps and emergency
passageways, provisions for access to the
opposite side of a freeway may be provided for
law enforcement, emergency, and maintenance
vehicles to avoid extreme out-of-direction
travel. Access should not be more frequent

Page 1060 of 1290 ends

400-32 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
December 14, 2018
Table 405.4
Parabolic Curb Flares Commonly Used
OFFSET IN FEET FOR GIVEN "X" DISTANCE
Distance
Length
of Flare
L X 10 15 20 25 30 40 45 50 60 70 75 80 90 100 110 120
1:5 FLARES
25 00.80 1.80 3.20 5.00
50 00.40 1.60 3.60 6.40 10.00
1:10 FLARES
50 00.20 0.80 1.80 3.20 5.00
100 0.10 0.40 0.90 1.60 2.50 3.60 4.90 6.40 8.10 10.00
1:15 FLARES
45 00.15 0.59 1.33 2.37 3.00
75 00.09 0.36 0.80 1.42 2.22 3.20 4.36 5.00
90 0.07 0.30 0.67 1.19 1.85 2.67 3.63 4.74 6.00
120 00.06 0.22 0.50 0.89 1.39 2.00 2.72 3.56 4.50 5.56 6.72 8.00

Page 1061 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-33
December 14, 2018
Figure 405.4
Pedestrian Refuge Island
than at three-mile intervals. See Traffic Safety
Systems Guidance for additional information
on the design of emergency passageways.

Emergency passageways should be located
only where decision sight distance is available
(see Table 201.7).

Median openings at close intervals on other
types of highways create conflicts with high
speed through traffic. Median openings should
be spaced at intervals no closer than 1600 feet.

If a median opening falls within 300 feet of an
access opening, it should be placed opposite the
access opening.
(3) Length of Median Opening. For any three or
four-leg intersection on a divided highway, the
length of the median opening should be at least
as great as the width of the crossroads
pavement, median width, and shoulders. An
important factor in designing median openings
is the path of the design vehicle making a
minimum left turn at 5 miles per hour to
10 miles per hour. The length of median
opening varies with width of median and angle
of intersecting road.

Usually a median opening of 60 feet is
adequate for 90 degree intersections with
median widths of 22 feet or greater. When the
median width is less than 22 feet, a median
opening of 70 feet is needed. When the
intersection angle is other than 90 degrees, the
length of median opening should be established
by using truck turn templates (see Index 404.3).
(4) Cross Slope. The cross slope in the median
opening should be limited to 5 percent.

Crossovers on curves with super elevation
exceeding 5 percent should be avoided. This
cross slope may be exceeded when an existing
2-lane roadbed is converted to a 4-lane divided
highway. The elevation of the new construction
should be based on the 5 percent cross slope
requirement when the existing roadbed is
raised to its ultimate elevation.
(5) References. For information related to the
design of intersections and median openings,
"A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways
and Streets," AASHTO, should be consulted.
405.6 Access Control
The basic guidance which govern the extent to
which access rights are to be acquired at
interchanges (see Topic 104, Index 205.1 and 504.8
and the PDPM) also apply to intersections at grade
on expressways. Cases of access control which
frequently occur at intersections are shown in Figure
405.7. This illustration does not presume to cover all
situations. Where required by traffic conditions,
access should be extended in order to ensure proper
operation of the expressway lanes. Reasonable
variations which observe the basic principles
referred to above are acceptable.

However, negative impacts on the mobility needs of
pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrians, and transit users need to be assessed. Pedestrians and bicyclists are
sensitive to additional out of direction travel.

Page 1062 of 1290 ends

400-34 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
December 14, 2018
Figure 405.5
Typical Design for Median Openings

Page 1063 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-35
December 14, 2018
405.7 Public Road Intersections
The basic design to be used at right-angle public
road intersections on the State Highway System is
shown in Figure 405.7. The essential elements are
sight distance (see Index 405.1) and the treatment of
the right-turn on and off the main highway.

Encroachment into opposing traffic lanes by the
turning vehicle should be avoided or minimized.
(1) Right-turn Onto the Main Highway. The
combination of a circular curve joined by a 2:1
taper on the crossroads and a 75-foot taper on
the main highway is designed to fit the wheel
paths of the appropriate turning template
chosen by the designer.

It is desirable to keep the right-turn as tight as
practical, so the “STOP” or “YIELD” sign on
the minor leg can be placed close to the intersection. (2) Right-turn Off the Main Highway. The
combination of a circular curve joined by a
150-foot taper on the main highway and a
4:1 taper on the crossroads is designed to fit the
wheel paths of the appropriate turning template
and to move the rear of the vehicle off the main
highway. Deceleration and storage lanes may
be provided when necessary (see Index 405.3).
(3) Alternate Designs. Offsets are given in Figure
405.7 for right angle intersections. For skew
angles, roadway curvature, and possibly other
reasons, variations to the right-angle design are
permitted, but the basic rule is still to
approximate the wheel paths of the design
vehicle.

A three-center curve is an alternate treatment
that may be used at the discretion of the
designer.

Intersections are major consideration in bicycle
path design as well. See Indexes 403.6 and
1003.1(5) for general bicycle path intersection
design guidance. Also see Section 5.3 of the
AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and
Operation of Bicycle Facilities.
405.8 City Street Returns and Corner Radii
The pavement width and corner radius at city street
intersections is determined by the type of vehicle to
be accommodated and the mobility needs of
pedestrians and bicyclists, taking into consideration
the amount of available right of way, the types of
adjoining land uses, the place types, the roadway
width, and the number of lanes on the intersecting
street.

At urban intersections, the California truck or the
Bus Design Vehicle template may be used to
determine the corner radius. Where STAA truck
access is allowed, the STAA Design Vehicle
template should be used giving consideration to
factors mentioned above. See Index 404.3.

Smaller radii of 15 feet to 25 feet are appropriate at
minor cross streets where few trucks or buses are
turning. Local agency standards may be appropriate
in urban and suburban areas.

Encroachment into opposing traffic lanes must be
avoided.
405.9 Widening of 2-lane Roads at
Signalized Intersections
Two-lane State highways may be widened at
intersections to 4-lanes whenever signals are
installed. Sometimes it may be necessary to widen
the intersecting road. The minimum design is shown
in Figure 405.9. More elaborate treatment may be
warranted by the volume and pattern of traffic
movements. Unusual turning movement patterns
may possibly call for a different shape of widening.

The impact on pedestrian and bicycle traffic
mobility of larger intersections should be assessed
before a decision is made to widen an intersection.
405.10 Roundabouts
Roundabout intersections on the State highway
system must be developed and evaluated in
accordance with National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP) Report 672 entitled
“Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, 2nd ed.”
(NCHRP Guide 2) dated October 2010 and Traffic
Operations Policy Directive (TOPD) Number
13-02. Also see Index 401.5 for general information
and guidance. See Figure 405.10 Roundabout
Geometric Elements for nomenclature associated
with roundabouts. Signs, striping and markings at
roundabouts are to comply with the California
MUTCD.

Page 1064 of 1290 ends

400-36 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
December 14, 2018
Figure 405.7
Public Road Intersections

Page 1065 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-37
December 14, 2018
Figure 405.9
Widening of Two-lane Roads at Signalized Intersections

Page 1066 of 1290 ends

400-38 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
December 14, 2018
A roundabout is a form of circular intersection in
which traffic travels counterclockwise around a
central island and entering traffic must yield to the
circulating traffic. Roundabouts feature, among
other things, a central island, a circulatory roadway,
and splitter islands on each approach. Roundabouts
rely upon two basic and important operating
principles:
(a) Speed reduction at the entry and through the
intersection will be achieved through geometric
design and,
(b) The yield-at-entry rule, which requires traffic
entering the intersection to yield to traffic that is
traveling in the circulatory roadway.

Benefits of roundabouts are:
• Fewer conflict points typically result in fewer
collisions with less severity. Over half of vehicle
to vehicle points of conflict associated with
intersections are eliminated with the use of a
roundabout. Additionally, a roundabout
separates the points of conflict which eases the
ability of the users to identify a conflict and
helps prevent conflicts from becoming
collisions.
• Roundabouts are designed to reduce the
vehicular speeds at intersections. Lower speeds
lessens the vehicular collision severity.

Likewise, studies indicate that pedestrian and
bicyclist collisions with motorized vehicles at
lower speeds significantly reduce their severity.
• Roundabouts allow continuous free flow of
vehicles and bicycles when no conflicts exist.

This results in less noise and air pollution and
reduces overall delays at roundabout
intersections.

Except as indicated in this Index, the standards
elsewhere in this manual do not apply to
roundabouts. For the application of design
standards, the approach ends of the splitter islands
define the boundary of a roundabout intersection,
see Figure 405.10. The design standards elsewhere
in this manual apply to the approach legs beyond the
approach ends of the splitter islands.
(1) Design Period.

First consider the design of a single lane
roundabout per the design period guidance in
Index 103.2. If a second lane is not needed
until 10 or more years, it may be better to phase
the improvements. Construct the first phase of
the roundabout so at the 20-year design period,
an additional lane can be easily added. In order
to comply with the 20-year design period, the
initial project must provide the right of way
needed for utility relocations, a shared-use path
designed for a Class I Bikeway, and all other
features other than pavement, lighting, and
striping in their ultimate locations.

In some locations, it may not be practical to
build a single lane roundabout that will operate
for 10 years. Geometric constraints and other
conflicts may preclude widening to the ultimate
configuration. In such cases, other intersection
configurations or control strategies addressed
in Index 401.5 may need to be considered.

When staging improvements, see NCHRP
Guide 2, Section 6.12.
(2) Design Vehicles - See Topic 404.

The turning path for the design vehicle, see
Index 404.5, dictates many of the roundabout
dimensions. The design vehicle tracking and
swept width are to be used when designing all
the entries and exits, where design vehicles are
unrestricted (see Index 404.2), and the
circulatory roadway. The percentage of trucks
and their lane utilization is an important
consideration on multilane roundabouts when
determining if the design will allow trucks to
stay within their own lane or encroach into the
adjacent lane. If permit vehicles larger than the
design vehicle occasionally use the proposed
roundabout, they can be accommodated by
having removable signs or other removable
features in the central island or around the
circular path to ensure their swept path can
negotiate the roundabout. Roundabouts should
not be overdesigned for the occasional permit
vehicle.

To accurately simulate the design vehicle
swept width traveling through a roundabout,
the minimum speed of the design vehicle used
in computer simulation software (e.g., Auto

Page 1067 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-39
December 14, 2018
TURN) should be 10 miles per hour through
the roundabout.
(3) Inscribed Circle Diameter.

At single lane roundabouts, the size of the
inscribed circle is largely dependent upon the
turning requirements of the design vehicle. The
inscribed circle diameter (ICD) must be large
enough to accommodate: (a) the STAA design
vehicle for all roundabouts on the National
Network and on Terminal Access routes; and,
(b) the California Legal design vehicle on all
non-STAA route intersections on California
Legal routes and California Legal KPRA
Advisory routes, while maintaining adequate
deflection curvature to ensure appropriate
travel speeds for smaller vehicles. The design
vehicle is to navigate the roundabout with the
front tractor wheels off the truck apron, if one
is present. Transit vehicles, fire engines and
single-unit delivery vehicles are also to be able
to navigate the roundabout without using the
truck apron, if one is present. The inscribed
circle diameter for a single lane roundabout
generally ranges between 105 feet to 150 feet
to accommodate the California Legal design
vehicle and 130 feet to 180 feet to
accommodate the STAA design vehicle.

At multilane roundabouts, the inscribed circle
diameter is to achieve adequate alignment of
the natural vehicle path while maintaining
deflection curvature to ensure appropriate
travel speeds. To achieve both of these design
objectives requires a slightly larger diameter
than used for a single lane roundabout. The
inscribed circle diameter for a multilane
(2-lane) roundabout generally ranges between
150 feet to 220 feet to accommodate the
California Legal design vehicle for non-STAA
route intersections on California Legal routes
and California Legal KPRA Advisory routes,
and 165 feet to 220 feet to accommodate the
STAA design vehicle for roundabouts on the
National Network and on Terminal Access
routes. Similar to a single lane roundabout, the
design vehicle is to be able to navigate a
multilane roundabout with the front tractor
wheels staying off the truck apron, if one is
present. Transit vehicles, fire engines and
single-unit delivery vehicles are also to be able
to navigate the roundabout without using the
truck apron, if one is present.

The inscribed diameter ranges given above are
typical values, design may be larger or smaller.

Site location constraints and performance
checks will determine if the diameter is
appropriate for the location.
(4) Entry Speeds.

Lowering the speed of vehicles entering and
traveling through the roundabout is a primary
design objective that is achieved by approach
alignment and entry geometry.

The following entry speeds should not be
exceeded:
• Single lane entry, 25 miles per hour.
• Multilane entry, 30 miles per hour.

A bypass lane is not included in the number of
entry lanes. A bypass prohibits entry into the
circulatory roadway.

Entry speeds are to be determined through
fastest path analysis. Fastest path is the
smoothest, flattest path possible for a single
vehicle in the absence of other traffic and
ignoring all lane markings. The fastest path
analysis should begin at least 165 feet from the
inscribed circle diameter and should not bring
the path closer than 3 feet from a stripe nor
5 feet from the face of a curb. These distances
are minimums and the fastest path may occur
further away from the curbs and striping
depending on the roundabout configuration.

For fastest path evaluation, see NCHRP Guide
2, Section 6.7.1.
(5) Exit Design.

Similar to entry design, exit design flexibility
is required to achieve the optimal balance
between competing design variables and
project objectives to provide adequate capacity
and, essentially, safety while minimizing
excessive property impacts and costs. Thus,
the selection of a curved versus tangential
design is to be based upon the balance of
each of these criteria. Exit design is
influenced by the place type, pedestrian
demand, bicyclist needs, the design vehicle

Page 1068 of 1290 ends

400-40 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
December 14, 2018
and physical constraints. The exit curb radii
are usually larger than the entry curb radii in
order to minimize the likelihood of congestion
and crashes at the exits. However, the desire to
minimize congestion at the exits needs to be
balanced with the need to maintain an
appropriate operating speed through the
pedestrian crossing. Therefore, the exit path
radius should not be significantly greater than
the circulating path radius to ensure low speeds
are maintained at the pedestrian crossing.
(6) Number of Legs Serving the Roundabout.

Intersections with more than four legs are often
difficult to manage operationally. Roundabouts
are a proven traffic control device in such
situations. However, it is necessary to ensure
that the design vehicle can maneuver through
all unrestricted legs of the roundabout.
(7) Pedestrian Use.

Sidewalks around the circular roadway are to
be designed as shared-use paths, see
Index 405.10(8)(c). However, the guidance in
Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 82
Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for
Highway Projects must also be followed when
designing these shared-use facilities around a
roundabout. If there is a difference in the
standards, the guidance in DIB 82 is to be
followed. In addition,
(a) Pedestrian curb ramps need to be
differentiated from bike ramps:
• The detectable warning surface
(truncated domes) differentiates a
pedestrian curb ramp from a bicycle
ramp.
• Detectable warning surface is required
on curb ramps. They are not to be used
on a bike ramp.
(b) Truck aprons and mountable curbs are not
to be placed in the pedestrian crossing
areas.
(c) See the California MUTCD for the signs
and markings used at roundabouts.
(d) At pedestrian crossing locations the
accessibility design will be treated as a
midblock pedestrian street crossing. See
DIB 82 for more information.
(8) Bicyclist Use.
(a) General. Bicyclists may choose to travel in
the circular roadway of a roundabout by
taking a lane, while others may decide to
travel using the shared-use path to bypass
the circular roadway. Therefore, the
approach and circular roadways, as well as
the shared-use path all need to be designed
for the mobility needs of bicyclists. See the
California MUTCD for the signs and
markings used at roundabouts.
(b) Bicyclist Use of the Circular Roadway.

Single lane roundabouts do not require
bicyclists to change lanes in the circular
roadway to select the appropriate lane for
their direction of travel, so they tend to be
comfortable for bicyclists to use. Even
two-lane roundabouts, which may have
straighter paths of travel that can lead to
faster vehicular traveling speeds, appear to
be comfortable for bicyclists that prefer to
travel like vehicles. Roundabouts that have
more than two circular lanes can create
complexities in signing and striping (see
the California MUTCD for guidance), and
their operating speed may cause some
bicyclists to decide to bypass the circular
roadway and use the bicycle ramp that
provides access to the shared-use path
around the roundabout.
(c) Bicyclists Use of the Shared-Use Path.

The shared-use path is to be designed using
the guidance in Index 1003.1 for Class I
Bikeways and in NCHRP Guide 2
Section 6.8.2.2. However, the accessibility
guidance in DIB 82 must also be followed
when designing these shared-use facilities
around a roundabout. If there is a
difference in the standards, the
accessibility guidance in DIB 82 is to be
followed to ensure the facility is accessible
to pedestrians with disabilities.

Bicycle ramps are to be located to avoid
confusion as curb ramps for pedestrians.

Also see Index 405.10(7) for guidance on
how to differentiate the two types of ramps.

Page 1069 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-41
December 14, 2018
The design details and width of the ramp
are also important to the bicyclist.

Bicyclists approaching the bicycle ramp
need to be provided the choice of merging
left into the lane or moving right to use the
bicycle ramp. Bicycle ramps should be
placed at a 35 to 45 degree angle to the
departure roadway and the sidewalk to
enable the bicyclists to use the ramp and
discourage bicyclists from entering the
shared-use path at a speed that is
detrimental to the pedestrians. The shareduse path should be designated as Class I Bikeways; however, appropriate
regulatory signs may need to be posted if
the local jurisdiction has a law(s) that
prohibit bicyclists from riding on a
sidewalk.

A landscape buffer or strip between the
shared-use/Class I Bikeway and the
circular roadway of the roundabout is
needed and should be a minimum of 2 feet
wide.

Pedestrian crossings may also be used by
bicyclists; thus, these shared-use crossings
need to be designed for both bicyclist and
pedestrian needs.
(9) Transit Use.

Transit vehicles and buses will not have
difficulty negotiating a roundabout when it has
been designed using the California Legal
design vehicle or the STAA design vehicle.

However, to minimize passenger discomfort, a
roundabout should be designed such that the
transit vehicle or bus does not use the truck
apron, if one is present.
(10) Stopping Sight Distance and Visibility.

See Index 201.1 for stopping sight distance
guidance at roundabouts.

A domed or mounded central island, between

3.5 to 6 feet high, is needed to focus attention
on the approach and through roundabout
alignment. A domed central island provides a
visual screen from downstream alignment and
other distractions and provides a visual cue for
vehicles approaching the roundabout.

In high speed environments, additional lighting
of, and vertical elements in the central island
(i.e., landscaping and esthetic features) may be
needed.
(11) Speed Consistency.

Consistency in operating speeds between the
various movements within the roundabout can
minimize collisions between traffic streams.

The operating speeds between competing
traffic streams and between consecutive
geometric elements should be minimized such
that the maximum speed differential between
them is no more than 15 miles per hour; it is
preferred that the operating speed differential
be less than 10 miles per hour.
(12) Path Alignment (Natural Path).

As two traffic streams approach the roundabout
in adjacent lanes, drivers and bicyclists will be
guided by lane markings up to the entrance
line. At the yield point, they will continue
along their natural trajectory into the
circulatory roadway. The speed and
orientation of the design vehicle at the entrance
line determines what can be described as its
natural path. The geometry of the exits also
affects the natural path that the design vehicle
travels. The natural path of two vehicles are
not to overlap, see NCHRP Guide 2,
Section 6.7.2.
(13) Splitter Islands.

Splitter islands (also called separator islands,
divisional islands, or median islands) will be
provided on all roundabouts. The purpose is to
provide refuge for pedestrians, assist in
controlling speeds, guide traffic into the
roundabout, physically separate entering and
exiting traffic streams, and deter wrongway
movements.

The total length of the raised island should be
at least 50 feet although 100 feet is desirable.

On higher speed roadways, splitter island
lengths of 150 feet or more is beneficial.

Additionally, the splitter island should extend
beyond the end of the exit curve to prevent

Page 1070 of 1290 ends

400-42 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
December 14, 2018
Figure 405.10
Roundabout Geometric Elements
NOTE:

This figure is provided to only show nomenclature and is not to be used for design details.

Page 1071 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-43
December 14, 2018
exiting traffic from crossing into the path of
approaching traffic. The splitter island width
should be a minimum of 6 feet at the pedestrian
crossing to adequately provide refuge for
pedestrians.

Posted speeds on the approach roadway greater
than or equal to 45 miles per hour require the
splitter island length, as measured from the
inscribed circle diameter, to be 200 feet. In
some instances, a longer splitter island may be
desirable. Concrete curb is to be provided on
the right side of the approach roadway equal to
the length of the splitter island from the
inscribed circle diameter.
(14) Access Control.

The access control standards in Index 504.3(3)
and 504.8 apply to roundabouts at interchange
ramp intersections. The dimensions shown in
Index 504.8 are to be measured from the
inscribed circle diameter.

Driveways should not be placed within
100 feet from the inscribed circle diameter.
(15) Lighting.

Lighting is required at all roundabouts. See
NCHRP Report 672 Chapter 8, the Traffic
Manual Chapter 9 as well as consult with the
District Traffic Safety Engineer.
(16) Landscaping.

Landscaping should be designed such that
drivers and bicyclists can observe the signing
and shape of the roundabout as they approach,
allowing adequate visibility for making
decisions within the roundabout. The
landscaping of the central island can enhance
the intersection by making it a focal point, by
promoting lower speeds and by breaking the
headlight glare of oncoming vehicles or
bicycles. It is desirable to create a domed or
mounded central island, between 3.5 to 6 feet
high, to increase the visibility of the
intersection on the approach. Contact the
District Landscape Architecture Unit to
provide technical assistance in designing the
roundabout landscaping.
(17) Vertical Clearance.

The vertical clearance guidance provided in
Index 309.2 applies to roundabouts.
(18) Drainage Design.

See Chapter 800 to 890 for further guidance.
(19) Maintenance.

Contact the District Maintenance Engineer and
appropriate Regional Manager for maintenance
strategies and practices including seasonal
operations, maintenance resources, and
specialized equipment. Maintenance
responsibilities may also include multiple state,
county, and city agencies where coordination
of maintenance efforts and funding is needed.

Consider maintenance of the central island.

Provide a maintenance vehicle pullout within
the central island beyond the truck apron, so
maintenance vehicles will not conflict with
circulating trucks.
(20) Snow Areas.

In climate regions where snowfall requires the
use of snow removal equipment, consider the
equipment to be used. Design ICD’s as well as
entrance and exit geometry to accommodate
snow removal equipment and plow limitations.

Check with District Maintenance for their
requirements and limitations. Geometric
elements to consider that facilitate snow
removal are; mountable curb, tapering the ends
of curbs down to allow plows to ride over
curbs, plowing accommodation in both
directions, providing snow storage space
within the central island, and providing
minimum entry/exit widths to accommodate
the plow blade. Mountable curb may be used
if sidewalk/shared use path is not contiguous to
the curb. Provide a planter or textured
pavement between the path and the roadway.

Snow storage areas must be designed to
prevent snow melt from entering the circulating
lanes where it can freeze. Snow storage areas
must not block pedestrian paths.

Page 1072 of 1290 ends

400-44 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
December 14, 2018
(21) Utilities.

Utility access openings (manholes) should not
be located within the traveled way within the
boundary of the roundabout. Roundabouts do
not have shoulders to accommodate traffic
while manholes are accessed. Manholes
should not be allowed within the circulating
roadway to avoid closing down the intersection
during access. If a manhole is absolutely
necessary within the boundary of the inscribed
diameter, place it in the central island and off
of the truck apron. Provide a maintenance
vehicle pullout to allow access to the manhole
without blocking truck traffic.

Topic 406 - Ramp Intersection
Capacity Analysis
The following procedure for ramp intersection
analysis may be used to estimate the capacity of any
signalized intersection where the phasing is
relatively simple. It is useful in analyzing the need
for additional turning and through traffic lanes. For
a more complete analysis refer to the Highway
Capacity Manual.
(a) Ramp Intersection Analysis--For the typical
local street interchange there is usually a critical
intersection of a ramp and the crossroads that
establishes the capacity of the interchange. The
capacity of a point where lanes of traffic
intersect is 1500 vehicles per hour. This is
expressed as intersecting lane vehicles per hour
(ILV/hr). Table 406 gives values of ILV/hr for
various traffic flow conditions.

If a single-lane approach at a normal intersection
has a demand volume of 1000 vph, for example,
then the intersecting single-lane approach
volume cannot exceed 500 vph without delay.

The three examples that follow illustrate the
simplicity of analyzing ramp intersections using
this 1500 ILV/hr concept.
(b) Diamond Interchange--The critical intersection
of a diamond type interchange must
accommodate demands of three conflicting
travel paths. As traffic volumes approach
capacity, signalization will be needed. For the
spread diamond (Figure 406A), basic capacity
analysis is made on the assumption that
3-phase signalization is employed. For the tight
diamond (Figure 406B), it is assumed that 4-
phase signal timing is used.
(c) 2 Quadrant Cloverleaf--Because this interchange design (Figure 406C) permits 2-phase signalization, it will have higher capacities on
the approach roadways. The critical intersection
is shared two ways instead of three ways as in
the diamond case.

Table 406
Vehicle Traffic Flow Conditions at
Intersections at Various Levels of
Operation
ILV/hr Description
< 1200:

Stable flow with slight, but acceptable delay.

Occasional signal loading may develop. Free
midblock operations.
1200-1500:

Unstable flow with considerable delays possible.

Some vehicles occasionally wait two or more cycles
to pass through the intersection. Continuous backup
occurs on some approaches.
1500 (Capacity):

Stop-and-go operation with severe delay and heavy
congestion(1). Traffic volume is limited by
maximum discharge rates of each phase.

Continuous backup in varying degrees occurs on all
approaches. Where downstream capacity is
restrictive, mainline congestion can impede orderly
discharge through the intersection.

NOTE:
(1) The amount of congestion depends on how much the
ILV/hr value exceeds 1500. Observed flow rates will
normally not exceed 1500 ILV/hr, and the excess
will be delayed in a queue.

Page 1073 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-45
December 14, 2018
Figure 406A
Spread Diamond

Page 1074 of 1290 ends

400-46 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
December 14, 2018
Figure 406B
Tight Diamond

Page 1075 of 1290 ends

HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-47
December 14, 2018
Figure 406C
Two-quadrant Cloverleaf

Page 1076 of 1290 ends

APPENDIX E
Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant Worksheets

Page 1077 of 1290 ends

LEGEND
X Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project AM XPM
Campus Drive / 7th Street
XAM
XPM

Page 1078 of 1290 ends

LEGEND
X Existing Plus Project AM XPM
X Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project AM XPM
12th Avenue / Glendale Avenue
X Near-Term Plus Project AM XPM
X Existing AM XPM
XAM
XPM
XAM
XPM
XAM
XPM
XAM
XPM

Page 1079 of 1290 ends

APPENDIX F
VMT Analysis Maps

Page 1080 of 1290 ends

0.2mi
-119.662 36.326 Degrees
+
–
Kings County Online VMT Mapping Tool

Page 1081 of 1290 ends

0.2mi
-119.665 36.328 Degrees
+
–
Kings County Online VMT Mapping Tool

Page 1082 of 1290 ends

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) G-1

APPENDIX G

HANFORD PLACE MEDICAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM

Page 1083 of 1290 ends

HANFORD P LACE

CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
G P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -2 This page intentionally left blank

Page 1084 of 1290 ends

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

SAN LUIS OBISPO
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200, Riverside, California 92507 951.781.9310 www.lsa.net

MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 08, 2023
TO: Steve Brandt, AICP
FROM: Ambarish Mukherjee, P.E., AICP
SUBJECT: Hanford Place Medical Mixed‐use Development Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Memorandum
LSA has prepared this Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis for the Hanford Place medical development project (project) in the City of Hanford (City). The 39.23‐acre vacant project site is located between State Route 198 (SR‐198) and the San Joaquin Valley Railroad in the City, in Kings County (County). 5th Street passes through the project site in an east/west direction and Campus Drive passes through the project in a north/south direction. In addition, the Peoples Ditch runs through the project site.

The project proposes to develop a medical and mixed‐use development and would construct 15 buildings consisting of medical outpatient clinic services, a hotel and conference center, specialized education, retail, medical office, skilled nursing and assisted living, and multi‐family residential uses.

The project requires a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to convert the project site from Highway Commercial to Service Commercial and High‐Density Residential. Detailed proposed project land uses are shown in Table A below.

Table A: Detailed Project Land uses
Building Total Square Feet Number of Units
Ambulatory Surgery Center 22,525 ‐
Specialty Clinic 12,445 ‐
Medical Office Building 24,890 2 buildings
Psychiatric Health Facility 12,445 ‐
Hotel and Conference
Center
100,000 105 rooms
Nursing College 35,000 8‐10 classrooms
Skilled Nursing Facility 54,611 59 units
Memory Care 34,480 40 units
Assisted Living Facility 34,380 ‐
Multi‐Family Apartment 76,500 90 units
Medical/Commercial 41,500 ‐

Page 1085 of 1290 ends

3/7/23 (P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Transportation\HanfordPlace_Mixed‐Use Project VMT Analysis Memorandum3.docx) 2

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS METRICS
On December 28, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law cleared the revised California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines for use. Among the changes to the guidelines was removal of vehicle delay and level of service from consideration under CEQA. With the adopted guidelines, transportation impacts are to be evaluated based on a project generated VMT.

The City has recently adopted its Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) guidelines – City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines (guidelines), November 2022. Therefore, the project VMT analysis was conducted using the methodology and significant threshold criteria identified in the guidelines. As previously mentioned, the project includes residential, multiple medical uses, and commercial land uses. As per the guidelines, mixed‐use projects should be evaluated separately for each component of the project using the applicable VMT metric.

VMT Metrics and Thresholds
The guidelines recommend use of VMT per capita metric to evaluate residential land uses, VMT per service population for uses such as medical offices and hospitals and “net change in VMT” to evaluate commercial land uses. The guidelines also indicate that VMT per service population can be used for land uses that include trips and VMT from both visitors and employees. Though most of the project land uses are medical related that include considerable visitor trips, project uses such as Memory Care, Assisted Living, and Skilled Nursing facility only include trips from its employees and the trips/VMT from visitors on a daily basis is nominal. Therefore, to evaluate these project land uses, VMT per employee was considered as the applicable metric. The following table, Table B shows the project land uses and applicable VMT metrics used to evaluate the project land uses.

Table B: Project land uses and applicable VMT metrics
Land use VMT metric
Ambulatory Surgery Center VMT per service population
Specialty Clinic VMT per service population
Medical Office Building VMT per service population
Psychiatric Health Facility VMT per service population
Hotel and Conference Center VMT per service population
Nursing College VMT per service population
Skilled Nursing Facility VMT per employee
Memory Care VMT per employee
Assisted Living Facility VMT per employee
Multi‐Family Apartment VMT per capita
Medical/Commercial Net change in roadway VMT
The guidelines also established Kings County as the region and 13% as the threshold for comparison of VMT metrics. Therefore, if the project VMT per capita, VMT per employee, or VMT per service population exceeds 87% of corresponding Kings County baseline average, the project would have a significant VMT impact. Similarly, for the evaluation of retail component, if the regional roadway VMT is greater in the “with project” scenario compared to the “no project” scenario, the project will have a significant VMT impact.

Page 1086 of 1290 ends

3/7/23 (P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Transportation\HanfordPlace_Mixed‐Use Project VMT Analysis Memorandum3.docx) 3 The guidelines also provide multiple screening criteria to screen out land use projects from a detailed VMT analysis. As mentioned above, as per the guidelines, mixed‐use projects should be evaluated separately for each component of the project using applicable VMT metrics. Similarly, each component of the project can be evaluated against the screening criteria established in the guidelines. The following table, Table C shows various screening criteria from the guidelines and their applicability to the project land uses. As shown in Table C, only the retail component of the project can be screened out of detailed VMT analysis. However, the retail component was included in the project model run to appropriately account for the internal capture that will occur due to the mixed use nature of the project.

Table C: Project Land use Screening Evaluation
Project Land use VMT metric
Within
Transit
Priority
Area
Retail
less
than
55 TSF Redevelopment
Affordable
Housing
Low VMT area
(Screening
Maps) *
Screened
Out
Ambulatory Surgery
Center
VMT per service
population No N/A N/A N/A N/A No
Specialty Clinic
VMT per service
population No N/A N/A N/A N/A No
Medical Office Building
VMT per service
population No N/A N/A N/A N/A No
Psychiatric Health
Facility
VMT per service
population No N/A N/A N/A N/A No
Hotel and Conference
Center
VMT per service
population No N/A N/A N/A N/A No
Nursing College
VMT per service
population No N/A N/A N/A N/A No
Skilled Nursing Facility
VMT per
employee No N/A N/A N/A N/A No
Memory Care
VMT per
employee No N/A N/A N/A N/A No
Assisted Living Facility
VMT per
employee No N/A N/A N/A N/A No
Multi‐Family
Apartment VMT per capita No N/A N/A N/A N/A No
Medical/Commercial
Net Change in
roadway VMT No Yes N/A N/A N/A Yes
*: Use of screening maps is not applicable for projects that require a GPA The guidelines include an additional screening criterion for total trips generated by the project.

While other screening criteria are applicable for individual project components, this criterion should be applied to entire project. The project requires a GPA and therefore if the project generates less

Page 1087 of 1290 ends

3/7/23 (P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Transportation\HanfordPlace_Mixed‐Use Project VMT Analysis Memorandum3.docx) 4 than 500 daily trips, the project can be screened out of a VMT analysis. Based on project daily trip generation, the project generates more than 500 daily trips and therefore, the daily trip criterion is not applicable to the project. Given that the project land uses other than retail cannot be screened out, a detailed VMT analysis was conducted for these land uses. The VMT analysis is described in detail in the following sections.

METHODOLOGY
For projects that require a detailed VMT analysis, the guidelines recommend use of Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) travel demand model to conduct the VMT analysis. Therefore, KCAG model was used for the VMT evaluation of the project.

Numerical values for the regional thresholds (VMT per capita, VMT per employee, and VMT per service population) have been obtained from the guidelines document – Table E: Significance Thresholds for VMT Analysis.

Project Traffic Analysis Zone Update
To calculate the project’s VMT metrics, the first step was to update the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) in the model that include the project area. KCAG model includes capability to add new zones or conduct zone splits. Ideally, the project needs to be isolated to isolate the project VMT. Based on the review of project land uses, it was determined that addition of six new TAZs (one for multifamily residential, one for hotel/conference center, one for memory care, assisted living, and skilled nursing facility, one for specialty clinic, medical office, ambulatory surgery center, and psychiatric facility, one for nursing college, and one for commercial/retail land uses) would be adequate to incorporate the project in the model. Similar project land uses were grouped together for modeling purposes. Therefore, six new TAZ s were added in the project location within the model, and the proposed project socioeconomic data were added within these TAZs for purposes of this analysis.

The project traffic impact study – Draft Hanford Place Development Traffic Impact Study, December 2020 by VRPA Technologies Inc (TIS), included employee information for some of the project land uses. Number of employees information for available project land uses was obtained from the project TIS. For remaining project land uses, number of employees information was estimated using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. ITE trip generation manual includes trip rates for land uses by different units (thousand square feet‐ TSF, employees) which can be used to estimate number of employees per TSF for land uses. LSA converted the project land uses into model socioeconomic categories using the process described above. The KCAG model socioeconomic database for the baseline (2015) scenario was updated with the project socioeconomic data within the six project TAZs.

Based on project description, vehicular access to the site would be provided by Glendale Avenue, 5th Street, and Campus Drive. The extension of these roadways would be constructed to City standards and would be dedicated as public right of way. Therefore, model roadway network was updated to include these extensions (Glendale Ave, 5th Street, and Campus Drive).

Model run was conducted for this updated model and the outputs from this model run were used to estimate project VMT metrics for each of the project land uses.

Page 1088 of 1290 ends

3/7/23 (P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Transportation\HanfordPlace_Mixed‐Use Project VMT Analysis Memorandum3.docx) 5 Project Service Population
Also as indicated in the guidelines, for land uses that include substantial user base like hotels, hospitals, medical offices, and other similar uses, a significant amount of trips and VMT is generated by visitors, or patients. As such, as stated in the City’s VMT guidelines, customers/consumers must be included as part of the service population calculations to calculate project VMT per service population.

For the project land uses such as medical office building, ambulatory surgery center, and hotel, majority of trips and VMT would be generated by patients and visitors. Therefore, LSA used information from the KCAG TDM run to estimate the number of patients/visitors for the project for each of the applicable uses. Trip purpose information from the travel model was used to differentiate between employee trips and patient/visitor trips. Trips for all project TAZs were extracted by trip purpose in order to identify trips made by patients/visitors. Estimation of visitors using trip purpose information from the model is shown in detail in Table 2 of Appendix A.

VMT ANALYSIS
Table D shows the result of the VMT analysis. As shown in Table D, the project VMT per capita for residential component of the project is 39.9 percent lower than the regional threshold. Similarly, the project VMT per employee for the memory care, assisted living, and skilled nursing facility uses is

62.7 percent lower than the corresponding regional threshold. Also, the VMT per service population for rest of non‐residential uses (except retail/commercial) is 43.6 percent lower than the regional threshold. As such, based on the project’s VMT analysis, the project will not have a significant VMT impact.

Table D: Project VMT metrics and Regional Threshold Comparison 2015 Project
City of Hanford
Threshold * Difference % Difference
VMT Per Capita 5.40 8.99 ‐3.59 ‐39.9%
VMT per Employee 6.32 16.95 ‐10.63 ‐62.7%
VMT per service population 12.32 21.84 ‐9.52 ‐43.6%
* Obtained from City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, November 2022. (Table E: Significance Thresholds for VMT Analysis)
Detailed VMT calculation worksheet is included in Appendix A.

ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A: VMT Calculation Worksheet

Page 1089 of 1290 ends

Multi Family Project
City of Hanford
Threshold *
Total Households (a) 90
Total Population (b) 211
Homebased (HB) VMT (c') 1,138
HB VMT per capita (d = c/b) 5.40 8.99
Memory care, Assisted Living, and Skilled
Nursing Facility Project
City of Hanford
Threshold *
Total Employment (a) 24
Homebased Work (HBW) VMT (b) 152
HBW VMT per employee (c = b/a) 6.32 16.95
Ambulatory Surgery Center, Specialty Clinic,
Medical Office Building, Psychiatric Health
Facility Project
City of Hanford
Threshold *
Total Employment (a) 159
Total consumers/patients (b) 85
Total service population (c = b+a) 244
Origin-Destination (OD) VMT (d) 3,165
VMT per service population (e=d/c) 12.99 21.84
Hotel/Conference Center Project
City of Hanford
Threshold *
Total Employment (a) 59
Total visitors (b) 90
Total service population (c = b+a) 148
Origin-Destination (OD) VMT (d) 1,808
VMT per service population (e=d/c) 12.19 21.84
Nursing College Project
City of Hanford
Threshold *
Total Employment (a) 10
Total Students (b) 96
Total service population (c = b+a) 106
Origin-Destination (OD) VMT (d) 1,162
VMT per service population (e=d/c) 10.96 21.84
Appendix A
Table 1 - VMT Calculations
D:\Transfer\KCAG_Model_2018RTP\20230872_HanfordPlace\prj_sed5.xlsx\Appendix A (3/7/2023) Page - 1

Page 1090 of 1290 ends

Combined - Ambulatory Surgery Center
Specialty Clinic, Medical Office Building,
Psychiatric Health Facility, Hotel, and Nursing
College Project
City of Hanford
Threshold *
Total Employment (a) 227
Total consumers/patients (b) 271
Total service population (c = b+a) 498
Origin-Destination (OD) VMT (d) 6,136
VMT per service population (e=d/c) 12.32 21.84
* Tripends for appropriate trip purposes are identified as customer tripends As a conservative estimate, vehicle trips are used as number of customers D:\Transfer\KCAG_Model_2018RTP\20230872_HanfordPlace\prj_sed5.xlsx\Appendix A (3/7/2023) Page - 2

Page 1091 of 1290 ends

Trip Purpose Productions Attractions
Homebased Work (HW) - 142
Homebased Shop (HS) - 39
Homebased School (HK) - -
Homebased College (HC) - -
Homebased Other (HO) - 48
Workbased Other (WO) 13 13
Otherbased Other (OO) 110 109
Highway Commercial (HY) - -
Total 123 350
Total Customer trips * 85
* Attractions for HO, WO, OO trip purposes are considered for trips by customers (48+13+ 109 =170) Trip ends are divided by 2 to account for trips (from/to) (170/2 = 85) Also as a conservative estimate vehicle trips are considered as person trips/total customers Vehicle Trips by Trip purpose - Hotel/Conference Center Trip Purpose Productions Attractions
Homebased Work (HW) - 56
Homebased Shop (HS) - 52
Homebased School (HK) - -
Homebased College (HC) - -
Homebased Other (HO) - 41
Workbased Other (WO) 11 11
Otherbased Other (OO) 129 128
Highway Commercial (HY) - -
Total 140 288
Total Customer trips * 90
* Attractions for HO, WO, OO trip purposes are considered for trips by customers (41 + 11 + 128 = 180) Trip ends are divided by 2 to account for trips (from/to) (180/2 = 90) Also as a conservative estimate vehicle trips are considered as person trips/total customers Vehicle Trips by Trip purpose - Ambulatory Surgery Center, Specialty Clinic, Medical Office Building, Psychiatric Health Facility
Table 2 - Estimation of Customer Population
D:\Transfer\KCAG_Model_2018RTP\20230872_HanfordPlace\prj_sed5.xlsx\Appendix A (3/7/2023) Page - 3

Page 1092 of 1290 ends

Plan Review Team
Land Management
[email protected]
Public
November 3, 2022
Diana Black
City of Hanford
317 N Douty St
Hanford, CA 93230
Re: Hanford Place
GPA 2022-01, RZ 2022-01, PUD 2022-01
Dear Diana Black,
Thank you for providing PG&E the opportunity to review the proposed plans for Hanford Place dated 10/18/2022. Our review indicates the proposed improvements do not appear to directly interfere with existing PG&E facilities or impact our easement rights.

Please note this is our preliminary review and PG&E reserves the right for additional future review as needed. This letter shall not in any way alter, modify, or terminate any provision of any existing easement rights. If there are subsequent modifications made to the design, we ask that you resubmit the plans to the email address listed below.

If the project requires PG&E gas or electrical service in the future, please continue to work with PG&E’s Service Planning department: https://www.pge.com/cco/.

As a reminder, before any digging or excavation occurs, please contact Underground Service Alert (USA) by dialing 811 a minimum of 2 working days prior to commencing any work. This free and independent service will ensure that all existing underground utilities are identified and marked on-site.

If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact the PG&E Plan Review Team at [email protected].

Sincerely,
PG&E Plan Review Team
Land Management

Page 1093 of 1290 ends

November 8, 2022
Gabrielle Myers
City of Hanford
Department of Community Development
319 North Douty Street
Hanford CA, 93230
Project: Planned Unit Development No. 2022-01
District CEQA Reference No: 20221396
Dear Mr. Myers:

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Planned Unit Development (PUD) referenced above from the City of Hanford (City). Per the PUD, the project consists of constructing a master planned medical and mixed-use development, including the construction of 15 buildings consisting of medical outpatient clinic services, a hotel and conference center, specialized education, retail, medical office, skilled nursing and assisted living, and multi-family residential uses, as well as a bio infiltration basin, associated open space, circulation and parking, and infrastructure improvements (Project). The Project is located between 11th and 12th Avenue along Glendale Drive, north of Highway 198 in Hanford, CA.

The District offers the following comments regarding the Project:

Project Related Emissions
At the federal level under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the District is designated as extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standards and serious nonattainment for the particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) standards. At the state level under California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the District is designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone, PM10, PM2.5 standards.

The District’s initial review of the Project concludes that emissions resulting from construction and/or operation of the Project may exceed any of the following significance thresholds as identified in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf.

Page 1094 of 1290 ends

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 10 District Reference No: 20221396
November 8, 2022
The District recommends that a more detailed preliminary review of the Project be conducted for the Project’s construction and operational emissions.

Construction Emissions
The District recommends, to reduce impacts from construction-related diesel exhaust emissions, the Project should utilize the cleanest available off-road construction equipment, including the latest tier equipment.

Operational Emissions
Operational (ongoing) air emissions from mobile sources and stationary sources should be analyzed separately. For reference, the District’s significance thresholds are identified in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf.

Recommended Mitigation Measure: At a minimum, project related impacts on air quality should be reduced to levels of significance through incorporation of design elements such as measures that reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMTs), and measures that increase energy efficiency. More information on transportation mitigation measures can be found at:
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/Mitigation-Measures.pdf.

Recommended Model for Quantifying Air Emissions
Project-related criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operational sources should be identified and quantified. Emissions analysis should be performed using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which uses the most recent CARB-approved version of relevant emissions models and emission factors. CalEEMod is available to the public and can be downloaded from the CalEEMod website at: www.caleemod.com.

Project Siting
Based on the PUD, the Project consists of a master planned medical and mixed-use development that includes sensitive and residential uses adjacent to an existing freeway (SR 198). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) recommends that residences and other sensitive receptors not be located within 500 feet of freeways or high traffic roadways. Please refer to CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective located at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.

Page 1095 of 1290 ends

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 10 District Reference No: 20221396
November 8, 2022
Health Risk Screening/Assessment
The City should evaluate the risk associated with the Project for sensitive receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) in the area and mitigate any potentially significant risk to help limit exposure of sensitive receptors to emissions.

To determine potential health impacts on surrounding receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) a Prioritization and/or a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) should be performed for the Project. These health risk determinations should quantify and characterize potential Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) identified by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment/California Air Resources Board (OEHHA/CARB) that pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

Health risk analyses should include all potential air emissions from the project, which include emissions from construction of the project, including multi-year construction, as well as ongoing operational activities of the project. Note, two common sources of TACs can be attributed to diesel exhaust emitted from heavy-duty off-road earth moving equipment during construction, and from ongoing operation of heavy-duty on-road trucks.

Prioritization (Screening Health Risk Assessment):

A “Prioritization” is the recommended method for a conservative screening-level health risk assessment. The Prioritization should be performed using the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) methodology.

The District recommends that a more refined analysis, in the form of an HRA, be performed for any project resulting in a Prioritization score of 10 or greater. This is because the prioritization results are a conservative health risk representation, while the detailed HRA provides a more accurate health risk evaluation.

To assist land use agencies and project proponents with Prioritization analyses, the District has created a prioritization calculator based on the aforementioned CAPCOA guidelines, which can be found here:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/emission_factors/Criteria/Toxics/Utilities/PRIORI TIZATION-CALCULATOR.xls
Health Risk Assessment:

Prior to performing an HRA, it is strongly recommended that land use agencies/ project proponents develop and submit for District review a health risk modeling protocol that outlines the sources and methodologies that will be used to perform the HRA. This step will ensure all components are addressed when performing the HRA.

Page 1096 of 1290 ends

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 10 District Reference No: 20221396
November 8, 2022
A development project would be considered to have a potentially significant health risk if the HRA demonstrates that the project-related health impacts would exceed the District’s significance threshold of 20 in a million for carcinogenic risk, or 1.0 for either the Acute or Chronic Hazard Indices.

A project with a significant health risk would trigger all feasible mitigation measures.

The District strongly recommends that development projects that result in a significant health risk not be approved by the land use agency.

The District is available to review HRA protocols and analyses. For HRA submittals please provide the following information electronically to the District for review:
 HRA (AERMOD) modeling files
 HARP2 files
 Summary of emissions source locations, emissions rates, and emission factor calculations and methodologies.

For assistance, please contact the District’s Technical Services Department by:
 E-Mailing inquiries to: [email protected]
 Calling (559) 230-5900
Recommended Measure: Development projects resulting in TAC emissions should be located an adequate distance from residential areas and other sensitive receptors in accordance to CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective located at https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.

Ambient Air Quality Analysis
An Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emissions increases from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The District recommends an AAQA be performed for the Project if emissions exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant.

An acceptable analysis would include emissions from both project-specific permitted and non-permitted equipment and activities. The District recommends consultation with District staff to determine the appropriate model and input data to use in the analysis.

Specific information for assessing significance, including screening tools and modeling guidance, is available online at the District’s website:
www.valleyair.org/ceqa.

Page 1097 of 1290 ends

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 5 of 10 District Reference No: 20221396
November 8, 2022
Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
Criteria pollutant emissions may result in emissions exceeding the District’s significance thresholds, potentially resulting in a significant impact on air quality.

When a project is expected to have a significant impact, the District recommends the environmental review also include a discussion on the feasibility of implementing a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) for this Project.

A VERA is a mitigation measure by which the project proponent provides pound-forpound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that develops, funds, and implements emission reduction projects, with the District serving a role of administrator of the emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort. To implement a VERA, the project proponent and the District enter into a contractual agreement in which the project proponent agrees to mitigate project specific emissions by providing funds for the District’s incentives programs.

The funds are disbursed by the District in the form of grants for projects that achieve emission reductions. Thus, project-related impacts on air quality can be mitigated.

Types of emission reduction projects that have been funded in the past include electrification of stationary internal combustion engines (such as agricultural irrigation pumps), replacing old heavy-duty trucks with new, cleaner, more efficient heavy-duty trucks, and replacement of old farm tractors.

In implementing a VERA, the District verifies the actual emission reductions that have been achieved as a result of completed grant contracts, monitors the emission reduction projects, and ensures the enforceability of achieved reductions. After the project is mitigated, the District certifies to the Lead Agency that the mitigation is completed, providing the Lead Agency with an enforceable mitigation measure demonstrating that project-related emissions have been mitigated. To assist the Lead Agency and project proponent in ensuring that the environmental document is compliant with CEQA, the District recommends the environmental document includes an assessment of the feasibility of implementing a VERA.

Vegetative Barriers and Urban Greening
There are residential units located north of the Project. The District suggests the City consider the feasibility of incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to further reduce air pollution exposure on sensitive receptors (e.g., residential units).

While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, vegetative barriers have been shown to be an additional measure to potentially reduce a population’s exposure to air pollution through the interception of airborne particles and the update of gaseous pollutants. Examples of vegetative barriers include, but are not limited to the following: trees, bushes, shrubs, or a mix of these. Generally, a higher and thicker

Page 1098 of 1290 ends

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 6 of 10 District Reference No: 20221396
November 8, 2022
vegetative barrier with full coverage will result in greater reductions in downwind pollutant concentrations. In the same manner, urban greening is also a way to help improve air quality and public health in addition to enhancing the overall beautification of a community with drought tolerant, low-maintenance greenery.

Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment in the Community
Since the Project consists of commercial and residential development, gas-powered commercial and residential lawn and garden equipment have the potential to result in an increase of NOx and PM2.5 emissions. Utilizing electric lawn care equipment can provide residents with immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits.

The District recommends the Project proponent consider the District’s Clean Green Yard Machines (CGYM) program which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment. More information on the District CGYM program and funding can be found at:
http://www.valleyair.org/grants/cgym.htm
and http://valleyair.org/grants/cgym-commercial.htm.

On-Site Solar Deployment
It is the policy of the State of California that renewable energy resources and zerocarbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045. While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, the production of solar energy is contributing to improving air quality and public health. The District suggests that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for the Project.

Electric Vehicle Chargers
To support and accelerate the installation of electric vehicle charging equipment and development of required infrastructure, the District offers incentives to public agencies, businesses, and property owners of multi-unit dwellings to install electric charging infrastructure (Level 2 and 3 chargers). The purpose of the District’s Charge Up! Incentive program is to promote clean air alternative-fuel technologies and the use of low or zero-emission vehicles. The District recommends that the City and project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at project sites, and at strategic locations.

Please visit www.valleyair.org/grants/chargeup.htm for more information.

District Rules and Regulations
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and

Page 1099 of 1290 ends

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 7 of 10 District Reference No: 20221396
November 8, 2022
regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the District’s regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.

The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888.

District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources
Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

This Project may be subject to District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) and Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) and may require District permits. Prior to construction, the Project proponent should submit to the District an application for an ATC. For further information or assistance, the project proponent may contact the District’s SBA Office at (559) 230-5888.

District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR)
The Project is subject to District Rule 9510 because it will receives a projectlevel discretionary approval from a public agency and will equal or exceed 20,000 square feet of medical office space.

The purpose of District Rule 9510 is to reduce the growth in both NOx and PM emissions associated with development and transportation projects from mobile and area sources; specifically, the emissions associated with the construction and subsequent operation of development projects. The ISR Rule requires developers to mitigate their NOx and PM emissions by incorporating clean air design elements into their projects. Should the proposed development project clean air design elements be insufficient to meet the required emission

Page 1100 of 1290 ends

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 8 of 10 District Reference No: 20221396
November 8, 2022
reductions, developers must pay a fee that ultimately funds incentive projects to achieve off-site emissions reductions.

Per Section 5.0 of the ISR Rule, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required to be submitted no later than applying for project-level approval from a public agency. As of the date of this letter, the District has not received an AIA application for this Project. Please inform the project proponent to immediately submit an AIA application to the District to comply with District Rule 9510. One AIA application should be submitted for the entire Project. It is preferable for the applicant to submit an AIA application as early as possible in the City’s approval process so that proper mitigation and clean air design under ISR can be incorporated into the City’s analysis.

Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRHome.htm.

The AIA application form can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRFormsAndApplications.htm.

District staff is available to provide assistance and can be reached by phone at (559) 230-5900 or by email at [email protected].

District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction)
The Project may be subject to District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) if the project would result in employment of 100 or more “eligible” employees. District Rule 9410 requires employers with 100 or more “eligible” employees at a worksite to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP) that encourages employees to reduce singleoccupancy vehicle trips, thus reducing pollutant emissions associated with work commutes. Under an eTRIP plan, employers have the flexibility to select the options that work best for their worksites and their employees.

Information about District Rule 9410 can be found online at:
www.valleyair.org/tripreduction.htm.

For additional information, you can contact the District by phone at 559-230- 6000 or by e-mail at [email protected]
District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)
In the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed, the Project may be subject to District Rule 4002. This rule requires a

Page 1101 of 1290 ends

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 9 of 10 District Reference No: 20221396
November 8, 2022
thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated. Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/asbestosbultn.htm.

District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)
The Project may be subject to District Rule 4601 since it may utilize architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are paints, varnishes, sealers, or stains that are applied to structures, portable buildings, pavements or curbs.

The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings.

In addition, this rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup and labeling requirements. Additional information on how to comply with District Rule 4601 requirements can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4601.pdf
District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions)
The project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.

Should the project result in at least 1-acre in size, the project proponent shall provide written notification to the District at least 48 hours prior to the project proponents intent to commence any earthmoving activities pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). Also, should the project result in the disturbance of 5- acres or more, or will include moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials, the project proponent shall submit to the District a Dust Control Plan pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). For additional information regarding the written notification or Dust Control Plan requirements, please contact District Compliance staff at (559) 230-5950.

The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at:
https://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/PM10/forms/DCP-Form.docx Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/pm10/compliance_pm10.htm

Page 1102 of 1290 ends

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 10 of 10 District Reference No: 20221396
November 8, 2022
Other District Rules and Regulations
The Project may also be subject to the following District rules: Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).

District Comment Letter
The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent.

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Patrick Chimienti by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-6139.

Sincerely,
Brian Clements
Director of Permit Services
For: Seth Lane
Program Manager

Page 1103 of 1290 ends

From: Samantha McCarty
To: Gabrielle Myers
Cc: Shana Powers
Subject: RE: General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01, Rezone No. 2022-01, and Planned Unit Development No. 2022-01 Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 4:08:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear Gabrielle,
Thank you for contacting the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokut Tribe regarding: General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01, Rezone No. 2022-01, and Planned Unit Development No. 2022-01. Due to tribal history and knowledge of the area, the Tribe is requesting to have a burial treatment plan and curation agreement put in place, as well as be retained for a cultural presentation for all construction staff and to have a Native American Monitor on site during all ground disturbance. If you have any questions, comments, and or concerns please contact myself or the SRR Cultural Department. We look forward to working with you on this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Samantha McCarty
Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokut Tribe
Cultural Specialist ll
[email protected]
Office: (559) 924-1278 x 4091
Cell: (559) 633-6640
*PLEASE KEEP ALL CULTURAL STAFF IN EMAILS UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE

Page 1104 of 1290 ends

www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067-3284
P: 310.284.2200 F: 310.284.2100
David P. Waite
310.284.2218
[email protected]
August 8, 2023
Via E-mail: [email protected]
Gabrielle Myers
Senior Planner
City of Hanford
Community Development, Planning Division
317 N. Douty Street
Hanford, California 93230
Re: Comments on Hanford Place Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No 2023-93 Supporting General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01, Rezone No. 2022-01, and Planned Unit Development No. 2022-01
Dear Ms. Myers:

This purpose of this letter is to provide initial comments on the City’s draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the above-referenced Hanford Place project (“Project”) on behalf of our client, Adventist Health System/West (dba Adventist Health) and Hanford Community Hospital (dba Adventist Health Hanford) (collectively, “Adventist”). The Project proposes an intense and lengthy three-year construction project, ultimately resulting in a new, large mixed-use development adjacent to Adventist’s existing hospital and medical offices. Adventist is a neighboring property owner and is concerned about potential impacts of construction and eventual operation of the Project on its current facilities and operations. The IS/MND does not provide the requisite scope of analysis we would expect to see for a project of this size and scale. There are fair arguments of potential Project impacts to several resource areas requiring further analysis, which trigger the need for the preparation and circulation of an Environmental Impact Report, as described below. We are continuing to review the IS/MND and may submit further comments. In addition, Adventist welcomes the opportunity to discuss its concerns directly with the Project applicant and with the City.

Air Quality
The IS/MND requires no mitigation to ensure that impacts of three years of construction and decades of operation of a very large medical, commercial, hotel, educational and residential facilities will not result in significant air quality impacts. In addition, there is no mechanism to assure the Project will adhere to the assumptions in the air quality modeling that resulted in estimated emissions under the Air District thresholds. Without these requirements,

Page 1105 of 1290 ends

Gabrielle Meyers
August 8, 2023

Page 2 ends

there is a fair argument that the Project may exceed the assumptions in the IS/MND and therefore potentially significant impacts to air quality could occur.

Biology
The IS/MND states that the Project site has unoccupied burrows and suitable habitat for burrowing owl, San Joaquin kit fox, and nesting birds. The mitigation measure for burrowing owl is less extensive than similar measures in other jurisdictions and it inappropriately defers mitigation by requiring the applicant to get a permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) if owls are found. CEQA requires that mitigation be formulated within the IS/MND, not as part of a future permitting effort with a responsible agency.

Further, the IS/MND does not describe, let alone analyze, potential impacts to People’s Ditch. Due to changes in operational definitions for navigable waters, the IS/MND finds that it is not possible to definitively predict applicable regulations. For that reason, the IS/MND adopts a mitigation measure “recommending” consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers, CDFW, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (“RWQCB”) to verify the ditch’s jurisdictional status and obtain permits if necessary. The mitigation then says that the project “should” file a notification of streambed alteration and “should” consult with the Army Corps and RWQCB. The analysis on its face acknowledges there may be an impact and the mitigation is not effective because it does not actually require anything, instead deferring all analysis and mitigation to a possible, but not required, future action by the Army Corps, CDFW, and RWQCB.

Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources
Peoples Ditch is a previously recorded resource within the Project area. In addition, the pedestrian survey identified a refuse scatter and an isolate within the Project site.

The IS/MND defers all analysis and mitigation relating to potential impacts to these known resources. The IS/MND does not analyze whether any of the known resources are eligible for listing in the California Register. Instead, it says: “To determine whether the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significant quantities of a historical resource, additional mapping and subsurface testing would be required.” A mitigation measure requires such additional mapping and subsurface testing for the refuse scatter “to evaluate its eligibility for including in the California Register.” The same mitigation requires additional focused subsurface testing to confirm presence/absence or high-sensitivity paleosols that may include intact prehistoric cultural deposits. If those are found, the mitigation requires further investigation to determine if it is eligible for the California Register. This is deferred mitigation not allowed under CEQA and demonstrates there is a fair argument that the Project may result in a significant impact to cultural resources.

In addition, the mitigation does not apply to Peoples Ditch. The IS/MND acknowledges that the ditch is a previously recorded resource. The analysis states that a portion of the ditch on the project site is less than 50 years old and that the “only remaining evidence of

Page 1106 of 1290 ends

Gabrielle Meyers
August 8, 2023

Page 3 ends

the original alignment of the ditch is its scar on the landscape and the remains of a concrete containment well at the northern end of the abandoned segment.” The IS/MND does not address whether the People’s Ditch is eligible for listing on the California Register. Instead, it states that additional mapping and subsurface testing would be required to determine significance for impacts to historical resources and then the mitigation does not address People’s Ditch.

Accordingly, the IS/MND acknowledges that there may be significant impacts to historical resources and those potential impacts are not analyzed or mitigated.

Finally, the IS/MND states that the City met with the Tachi Yokut Tribe on a different project and the Tribe requested that all projects include a mitigation measure for a burial treatment plan. The IS/MND then states that it is requiring that mitigation measure to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measure simply requires preparation of a burial treatment plan, without any description of the plan requirements or any performance standards to ensure that impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Accordingly, the IS/MND finds there is a potential impact but does not include mitigation that can demonstrably reduce that impact to a less-than-significant level.

Geology
The IS/MND does not describe the potential for paleontological resources to be found on the Project site. The mitigation then starts with “The project applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for paleontological resources.” This is a puzzling reference and suggests that the Project site is actually sensitive, but such sensitivity is not disclosed in the IS/MND.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The City and the Air District do not have numeric significance thresholds and the Regional Climate Action Plan is only effective through the year 2020. Accordingly, the IS/MND evaluates emissions based on the Project’s consistency with state greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals, specifically the 2022 Scoping Plan. The IS/MND analysis is abbreviated, finding that the Project will provide electric vehicle charging, has vehicle miles traveled reduction benefits, and will comply with Title 24 building requirements. For the analysis of whether the Project would conflict with any applicable plan, the IS/MND assumes that the requirements from the Regional Climate Action Plan will continue to provide reductions after the milestone year and help demonstrate continued progress towards achieving the state’s 2030 target. This assumption is unsupported, as different strategies will need to be employed to reach ever-increasing emissions reduction targets. The IS/MND does not adequately analyze Project

Page 1107 of 1290 ends

Gabrielle Meyers
August 8, 2023

Page 4 ends

greenhouse gas emissions impacts in a post-2020 environment and there is a fair argument that Project may result in significant impacts without adequate mitigation.

Hydrology/Utilities/Water Supply
Water Code Section 10910 requires a Water Supply Assessment for mixed use projects that includes one or more of the following components: residential (500+ units); shopping center or business establishment (500,000+ square feet); commercial office building (250,000+ square feet); and projects demanding water equivalent to a 500-dwelling unit project.

Combining all of the uses proposed by the Project, preparation of a Water Supply Assessment and inclusion of that Water Supply Analysis in the CEQA analysis is required. The IS/MND does not include a Water Supply Assessment approved by the City in its role as a water service provider. Further, the IS/MND does not include the information required for a Water Supply Assessment. The IS/MND does not analyze the City’s ability to serve the Project over the required 20-year horizon accounting for both normal and drought years. The Project is large and will required extensive water over the three-year construction period and decades of operation in geographical area that is known for periods of prolonged drought. There is a fair argument of a potential impact to water supply and the IS/MND does adequately analyze or impose any mitigation for the impact.

Noise
The IS/MND conducted ambient noise monitoring and modeled noise impacts for traffic noise, but it does not model construction noise impacts at sensitive receptors. Instead, the IS/MND includes the typical construction equipment maximum noise levels at 100 feet, 200 feet, and 300 feet, some of which exceed the City’s exterior noise standard of 70dBA (daytime) for residential uses. The nearest sensitive receptors are 150 feet away. Hence, the IS/MND shows a possible exceedance of the daytime exterior noise standard not even accounting for ambient noise during three years of construction. The analysis states that construction noise is not considered to be a significant impact if construction is limited to the allowed hours and equipment is adequately maintained and muffled; however, required mitigation states only that activities “should” not occur outside of 7:00 am to 8:00 pm. In any event, the IS/MND still shows a potential exceedance of the exterior daytime noise standard for sensitive residential receptors. The IS/MND demonstrates a fair argument of an impact because it does not model the actual anticipated noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors and then the mitigation is general and non-specific and there is no demonstration that required “muffling” will reduce noise levels at sensitive receptor locations to the required standard.

This letter provides our comments based on our initial review of the lengthy IS/MND for this large and important project right next to our client’s existing hospital and medical office facility. We anticipate engaging in discussions with various technical consultants to further evaluate the potential impacts of the Project and may submit additional comments as

Page 1108 of 1290 ends

Gabrielle Meyers
August 8, 2023

Page 5 ends

the City continues its consideration of the proposed legislative and administrative entitlements required for the Project.

Please include the undersigned in all future public administrative notices pertaining to the Project. Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing comments.

Sincerely,
David P. Waite
105214\16940918v2

Page 1109 of 1290 ends

Page 1110 of 1290 ends

Page 1111 of 1290 ends

Page 1112 of 1290 ends

From: Rhett Swasey
To: Gabrielle Myers
Cc: lee Fausett; [email protected]
Subject: Hanford Place Project
Date: Thursday, January 9, 2025 7:50:03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Gabrielle Myers
Senior Planner
Hanford Planning Commission
It was nice to briefly meet with you Tuesday and exchange contact information. Per that conversation I am sending this email to express concerns for the Hanford Place Project.

I am a partner in business at Hanford Veterinary Hospital and have interest in Funny Faces Bed and Biscuit boarding facility which are located adjacent to the proposed development. I am writing to express concern over the negative impacts that will be dealt to our businesses during the construction phase of the project.

We purchased the old Adventure Park in 2012 and began construction shortly after on our state of the art veterinary hospital and boarding facility. We moved in and have been at our current location since 2014. We feel we provide a necessary service to the City of Hanford and surrounding communities. We are happy and welcome the news that there are plans for the vacant area to our east and north, this area has been a problem for fires, homelessness and other undesirable problems associated with vacant land in our city limits.

We thought that at some point we may be approached and asked for input/ concerns about the planned development but as of the writing of this email we have not been contacted. We are aware that the authors of the proposed project are aware of the impact it will have on us, in fact we are mentioned in the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration nine (9) times (pp. 21, 76, 116, 117, 127, 466, 477, 491, and 496). We would like to have some input into the redesign of Glendale Ave as it approaches from the west. We have a number of concerns.

1. Currently the schematics show the project taking a large part of the parking lot that services Funny Faces. It would also require moving major water lines and backflow preventers, signage, and landscaping.

2. We are concerned that the roadway will make it easy to speed in front of our property where pets are present.

3. The schematics show a divided roadway with no breaks or access in the middle median noted for entrance to Hanford Veterinary Hospital

4. We currently have a gate that is locked after hours at our property entrance on Glendale Ave. This added security and safety will need to be removed with a through roadway, but we would like somthing to replace it.

5. We currently have only 1 way in and out of our property via Glendale Ave. Any construction on this road would have a negative effect on access to our businesses.

Page 1113 of 1290 ends

We are happy for and welcome any improvements that are planned for the surrounding area but would request that we have a seat at the table concerning the above issues.

Rhett Swasey- DVM
Hanford Veterinary Hospital
cc- Lee Fausett and Tim Collier

Page 1114 of 1290 ends

Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Minutes
January 14, 2025 5:30 PM
Council Chambers
400 N. Douty St.

ROLL CALL:

Present: Absent:

Planning Commissioner Dennis Ham
Planning Commissioner Gunther Norris
Planning Commissioner Garry Curtis
Planning Commissioner Jim Nelson
Planning Commissioner Richard Douglas
Planning Commissioner (Alternate) Bernard Marez
INVOCATION:

Diana Black led the invocation.

FLAG SALUTE:

Chair NORRIS led the flag salute.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

This is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters not on the agenda and that are within the jurisdiction of the Commission. This is also the public’s opportunity to request an item from the Consent Calendar be pulled for discussion purposes or to comment on any item on the agenda. Comments related to Public Hearing items will be heard at the time the item is discussed. A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.

There were no public comments.

ELECTION OF THE 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR:

Chair NORRIS called for nominations for 2025 Planning Commission Chair. Commissioner DOUGLAS nominated Commissioner HAM. There were no other nominations. Commissioner HAM was approved to be the 2025 Chair, by a unanimous roll call vote.

Chair NORRIS then called for nominations for 2025 Planning Commission Vice-Chair. Commissioner CURTIS nominated Commissioner DOUGLAS. There were no other nominations. Commissioner DOUGLAS was approved to be the 2025 Vice-Chair, by a unanimous roll call vote.

Commissioner NORRIS passed the gavel to Commissioner HAM, who chaired the remainder of the meeting.

CONSENT CALENDAR:

Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these matters unless a request is made and then the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed

Page 1115 of 1290 ends

and voted upon by a separate motion.

There were no items.

PUBLIC HEARING:

A. Community Development: Annexation 161: A request to annex 88.89 acres into the City of Hanford from the Kings County jurisdiction. Prezone No. 0005-23: A request to prezone the land proposed to be annexed as R-L-5 Low-Density Residential, in accordance with the General Plan designation for the territory, Low-Density Residential.

Vesting Tentative Tract 943 (Silicon Valley Ranch): A request, by Marc Frelier, to subdivide 75.02 acres proposed to be prezoned R-L-5 Low-Density Residential into 326 single-family residential lots, a 3.58-acre park, and three-acre storm basin. Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) State Clearinghouse Number (SCH) 2024060956: A request to certify the Final Focused Environmental Impact Report for the project and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project’s significant impact to Transportation/Traffic. The Project is located south of Hanford Armona Road, between 12th and 13th Avenues (APN 011-040-008, -010, and -027).

Senior Planner Myers stated that, following publication of the staff report and related documents, it was recognized that there was a need to address some of the Conditions of Approval within the resolution and some items within the environmental document. Staff requested additional time to meet with the applicant and environmental consultant to work on these issues and bring back the item in two weeks, on January 28, 2025. She stated that continuing an item to a date certain does not require staff to re-notice the item.

Motion to Continue the Public Hearing to the regular scheduled January 28, 2025 meeting.

RESULT:

MOVER:

SECONDER:

AYES:

Passed (UNANIMOUS)
Planning Commissioner Garry Curtis
Planning Commissioner Gunther Norris
Dennis Ham, Gunther Norris, Garry Curtis, Jim Nelson, Richard Douglas B. Community Development: General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01: a request to change the general plan designation from Highway Commercial to Service Commercial and High-Density Residential on approximately 39.16 acres.

Rezone No. 2022-01: a request to change the zoning on 39.16 acres from C-H Highway Commercial to C-S Service Commercial and R-H High-Density Residential with a Planned Unit Development overlay.

Planned Unit Development No. 2022-01: a request to allow blended zoning for a master planned medical and mixed-use development, including the future construction of 15 buildings consisting of medical outpatient clinic services, a hotel and conference center, specialized education, retail, medical office, skilled nursing and assisted living, and multifamily residential uses, as well as a bio infiltration basin, associated open space, circulation and parking, and infrastructure improvements.

Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023-93: a request to certify that the project will have a less than significant impact with the incorporation of mitigation measures.

The project is located between 11th and 12th Avenues along Glendale Drive, north of

Page 1116 of 1290 ends

Hanford City CouncilSeptember 16, 2025

Hanford City Council
September 16, 2025