1 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
1 Source:
Downtown
Specific Plan
Redesigning the Loop
Safe Streets Downtown
Traffic Operations &
Diversion Analysis
January 9, 2026
ATTACHMENT IV
2 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
How do the options
perform from a traffic
operations standpoint?
Evaluation Workstream
ATTACHMENT IV
3 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
3 Purpose
Summarize preliminary
Synchro findings for Options
1 and 2
Inform next steps of
operational analysis and
alternative refinement
ATTACHMENT IV
4 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
4 Routing and Volume
Assumptions
Step 1
• Identify total volumes entering
the Loop at key points
• Counts collected at most
points – these serve as control
totals
• ADT collected on parallel
blocks of Foothill & Mission –
these serve as control totals for
the total north and south
bound traffic under 2-way
operation
ATTACHMENT IV
5 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
5 Routing and Volume
Assumptions
Step 2 – Route Traffic
• Route traffic onto the network
using the OD pattern from
Streetlight
• Balance volumes across road
(e.g., split Foothill NB onto
Foothill & Mission considering
available capacity)
• Assumed drivers prefer the most
direct/least cost path (i.e., people
don’t go out of their way)
ATTACHMENT IV
6 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
6 Routing and Volume
Assumptions
Step 3 – Through Traffic
Reduction
• Evaluate potential for through
traffic to use other routes
• About 20% of traffic is through
• Also evaluated 10% reduction
• Removed traffic traveling
between Foothill Blvd/A St and
Jackson/Mission/Foothill
• No changes to traffic entering
on B, C, or D streets)
Regional cut-through traffic
Traffic volume starting or ending in
Downtown Hayward
Traffic volume starting or ending in Hayward
(outside downtown)
Other trips
19%
72%
48%
72%
11%
8%
11%
13%
24%
13%
- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000
A Street
Foothill Boulevard
Mission Boulevard
Distribution of Weekday PM Traffic on the Loop
ATTACHMENT IV
7 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
7 Other Signal Assumptions
Signal Timing
• Revise cycle lengths to 90/120
seconds where it can be
accommodated with the
additional phases
• Does not account for shorter
pedestrian crossings to show a
conservative analysis
• Coordination along Mission and
Foothill
Protected Phasing
• Implement protected left turn
phasing where there is a left turn
pocket
• Implement protected right turn
phasing with overlap where there
is a right turn pocket
• Split phasing on B/C Street
intersections for pedestrian safety
ATTACHMENT IV
8 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Operations Results
ATTACHMENT IV
9 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Existing
AM/PM
C/
D
D/
C
B/E
B/
C
B/
C
D/
E
C/
C
B/
B
B/
B
D/
D
ATTACHMENT IV
10 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Operations Results with
0% Cut-through Traffic
Reduction
ATTACHMENT IV
11 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
11 Option 2 Is Better Able to Handle the Current Traffic Volumes on the Loop
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
A B C D Mission/ Foothill/ D C B A
Foothill Jackson Mission
Intersection Delay (seconds)
Existing Option 2 Option 3
Note: Delay at new intersection at Main St and D St (added in Option 1) is not shown but is expected to experience nearly 600 seconds of delay.
Option 1 Option 2
ATTACHMENT IV
12 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
12 Option 1:
Downtown Grid
(0% Reduction)
• Most intersections perform at
LOS F in the PM peak hour
• Mission Blvd is especially
challenged to carry the traffic
with Foothill Blvd reduced to
less capacity
• The new connection from
Jackson St to E St attracts
substantial traffic, creating
significant delay at Main St
and D St
AM/PM
-/F
-/F
-/B
-/F
-/F
-/F
-/F
-/E
-/F
-/D
-/F
-/D
ATTACHMENT IV
13 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
13 Option 1: Downtown Grid
(0% Reduction)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13
Intersection locations
and geometries may
change based on
design sub-options
ATTACHMENT IV
14 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
14 • Most intersections operate
at an acceptable level of
service (LOS D/E) in the PM
peak hour.
• Foothill Blvd and B St
operates at LOS F, but is
just above the delay
threshold for LOS F.
• Delay can be managed
with signal design.
-/D
-/E
-/C
-/E
-/D
-/D
-/F
-/D
-/D
-/C
Option 2: Current
Alignment (0%
Reduction)
AM/PM
-/C
ATTACHMENT IV
15 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
15 Option 2: Current Alignment
(0% Reduction)
1 2
3 4
6 7
8 9
10 11
Intersection locations
and geometries may
change based on design
sub-options
5A
5B
ATTACHMENT IV
16 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Operations Results with
20% Cut-through Traffic
Reduction
ATTACHMENT IV
17 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
17 Option 2 Continues to Show Significantly Less Delay
Under the 20% Reduction Scenario
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
A B C D Mission/ Foothill/ D C B A
Foothill Jackson Mission
Intersection Delay (seconds)
Existing Option 2 Option 3Option 1 Option 2
ATTACHMENT IV
18 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
18 Option 1:
Downtown Grid
(20% Reduction)
• Multiple intersections perform
at LOS E/F; operations
degrade due to additional
phases.
• Mission Blvd continues to
perform much worse than
Foothill Blvd, even with travel
balanced across the corridors.
• Main St and D St continues to
show significant delay.
-/F
-/E
-/B
-/F
-/F
-/F
-/E
-/D
-/E
-/D
AM/PM
-/F
-/C
ATTACHMENT IV
19 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
19 Option 1: Downtown Grid
(20% Reduction)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13
Intersection locations
and geometries may
change based on
design sub-options
ATTACHMENT IV
20 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
20 • All intersections perform at
acceptable LOS (D/E) in the
PM peak hour.
• Some intersections on
Foothill Blvd perform at
LOS C, consistent with
existing conditions.
-/D
-/E
-/B
-/E
-/D
-/D
-/C
-/D
-/D
Option 2: Current
Alignment (20%
Reduction)
AM/PM
-/C
-/C
ATTACHMENT IV
21 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
21 Option 2: Current Alignment
(20% Reduction)
1 2
3 4
6 7
8 9
10 11
Intersection locations
and geometries may
change based on design
sub-options
5A
5B
ATTACHMENT IV
22 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Operations Results with
10% Cut-through Traffic
Reduction
ATTACHMENT IV
23 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
23 Option 2 Continues to Show Significantly Less Delay
Under the 10% Reduction Scenario
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
A B C D Mission/ Foothill/ D C B A
Foothill Jackson Mission
Intersection Delay (seconds)
Existing Option 2 Option 3Option 1 Option 2
ATTACHMENT IV
24 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
24 Option 1:
Downtown Grid
(10% Reduction)
• No difference from 20%
reduction
AM/PM
-/F
-/F
-/B
-/F
-/F
-/F
-/F
-/E
-/F
-/D
-/F
-/D
ATTACHMENT IV
25 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
25 Option 1: Downtown Grid
(10% Reduction)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
Intersection locations
and geometries may
change based on
design sub-options
12 13
11 ATTACHMENT IV
26 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
26 • No difference from 20%
reduction
-/D
-/E
-/B
-/E
-/D
-/D
-/D
-/D
-/D
Option 2: Current
Alignment (10%
Reduction)
AM/PM
-/C
-/C
ATTACHMENT IV
27 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
27 Option 2: Current Alignment
(10% Reduction)
1 2
3 4
5A
6 7
8 9
10 11
Intersection locations
and geometries may
change based on design
sub-options
5B
ATTACHMENT IV
28 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
What is the risk of traffic
diversion with Safe
Streets Downtown?
ATTACHMENT IV
29 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
29 Diversion Risk Process
Process
• AlaCC Travel Demand model used to
evaluate potential diversion risk
• Scenario based on today
• Each option coded as defined
• Does not include potential changes to B
St and C St, except for making them 2-
way
Model Limitations
• Does not consider intersection
operations
• Identifies general travel pattern changes,
but is less accurate at estimating volume
changes on specific streets
ATTACHMENT IV
30 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Option 1
• Potential diversion risk of
up to 1,200 vehicles (NB
peak)
• Most uses new grid
connection from Jackson
to E St
• Large increase in traffic
expected on 2nd St (or
nearby streets)
• Diversion risk is high due
to poor intersection
performance of the loop
ATTACHMENT IV
31 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Option 2
• Potential diversion risk of
up to 1,200 vehicles (NB
peak)
• 2/3 on streets west of the
Loop (mostly Grand Ave)
• 1/3 on 2nd St (east)
• Significant need for
complete streets on 2nd
and Grand – Option 3
can handle today’s traffic
ATTACHMENT IV