ATT 1 - Resolution to Adopt the Negative Declaration — Mountain View City Council, October 11, 2022

Attachment 1
-1-

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
RESOLUTION NO.

SERIES 2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CASTRO STREET PEDESTRIAN MALL STUDY

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the City of Mountain View prepared an Initial Study and approved for circulation a Negative Declaration for the Castro Street Pedestrian Mall Study (the “Initial Study/Negative Declaration”) in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively “CEQA”); and

WHEREAS, the Castro Street Pedestrian Mall Study (the “Project”) analyzed under the Initial Study/Negative Declaration is to establish pedestrian malls on Castro Street between: (1) the east leg of West Evelyn Avenue and Villa Street ; (2) Villa Street and West Dana Street ; and (3) West Dana Street and California street in the City of Mountain View, County of Santa Clara.

Vehicular through-traffic access on the cross-streets along Villa Street and West Dana Street will remain open. A more detailed description of the Project is set forth in the Initial study/Negative Declaration; and

WHEREAS, the draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration was made available for public comment from September 8, 2022 through September 28, 2022; and

WHEREAS, the City of Mountain View considered the comments received during the public review period and prepared a final Initial Study/Negative Declaration which is unchanged from the draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration; and

WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Nega tive Declaration concluded that implementation of the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and

WHEREAS, the City of Mountain View is the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council is the decision-making body for the proposed approval of the Project; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, together with comments received on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA; and

WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the Project , attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, are on file at the City of Mountain View ’s Project website at www.mountainview.gov/pedmall and available for inspection by any interested person; -2-

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mountain View:

1. That the City Council finds the I nitial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA.

2. That the City Council finds on the basis of the whole record before it , including the Initial Study and comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment.

3. That the City Council finds the Initial Study/Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Mountain View.

4. That the City Council hereby designates the Public Works Director, at 500 Castro Street, First Floor, Mountain View, California, 94041, as the custodian of documents and records of proceedings on which this decision is based.

5. That the City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration for the Project.

– – – – – – – – – – –

LL/6/RESO
979-10-11-22r-1

Exhibit: A. Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
1 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Negative Declaration
Pursuant to Section 21000 et seq of the Public Resources Code and the City of Mountain View Environmental Review Guidelines and Procedures, a Negative Declaration is hereby adopted for the following Project:

1. Project Title and Number: Castro Street Pedestrian Mall Study

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street, Mounta
in View, CA 94041

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Aruna Bodduna, Transportation Planner [email protected]
(650) 903‐6311

4. Project Location and APN: Three segments of Castro Street (1) between West Evelyn Avenue (east leg) and Villa Street; (2) between
Villa Street and Dana Street; and (3) between Dana
Street and California Street

5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address: City of Mounta
in View
Public Works Department
500 Castro Street, Mountain View, CA 94041
(650) 903‐6311
[email protected]

6. Land Use Designations: The 100 to 300 blocks of Castro Street are designated as a Main Street in the General Plan and the Castro Street Historic Ret
ail District within the Downtown Precise Plan

7. Zoning: Downtown Precise Plan, Castro Street Historic Retail District
Exhibit A
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION S EPTEMBER 2022 2 8. Description of Project:

Following is a description of the Castro Street Pedestrian Mall (the Project) including a brief discussion of the Project background, existing conditions, and a description of the proposed improvements.

Background
In June 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18470 to temporarily close the 100 to 4001 blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic with continued side‐street access for motorists. With this action, the Castro StrEATs program was launched to support the recovery of Mountain View’s downtown businesses as a response to the COVID‐19 pandemic by allowing outdoor dining within the public right‐of‐way during the State of Emergency. The Castro StrEATs program has allowed businesses and the public the opportunity to experience a vehicle‐free roadway on the 100 to 300 blocks of Castro Street.

On October 12, 2021, a Council Study Session was held to review the Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibility Study’s high
‐level concept alternatives for the 100 block of Castro Street and the potential inclusion of the 200 and 300 blocks of Castro Street into the pedestrian mall concept. At the meeting, a Council majority indicated support to proceed with their preferred alternative for the 100 block of Castro Street and further directed staff to add the 200 and 300 blocks into the development of the pedestrian mall concept.

On December 14, 2021, Council adopted Resolution No. 18470 to extend the temporary closure of the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Castro Street until January 16, 2023, to continue to facilitate economic
recovery during and after the COVID‐19 states of emergency, with the understanding that the City would pursue a process in 2022 to consider adopting a pedestrian mall ordinance for a permanent closure of these blocks to vehicular traffic.

This temporary street closure was approved under California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 21101(e), which gives a local jurisdiction the authority to temporarily close a portion of any street to vehicles for celebrations, parades, local special events, or other purposes when the closing is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street during the temporary closing.

Over the course of the last two years, several engagement activities were conducted seeking feedback from the community and businesses on their experience of the open‐street arrangement.

Efforts included online surveys, business visits, public and business open houses, and presentations
at the Downtown Committee and Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Feedback from committees, community, and businesses showed strong support for permanently closing the 100 to 300 blocks of Castro Street to motor vehicles to create a permanent pedestrian mall.

On June 28, 2022, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent to Establish Pedestrian Malls on
Castro Street Between West Evelyn Avenue (East Leg) and Villa Street, Villa Street and Dana Street,

1 Council adopted resolution (Resolution No. 18576) to terminate the street closure for the 400‐block due to lack of support from businesses in that block.

SEPTEMBER 2022 C ITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3 and Dana Street and California Street, as first formal step toward creating a permanent pedestrian mall/plaza.

Existing Conditions
Castro Street is Mountain View’s oldest commercial corridor and is considered a central destination for commercial, office, and retail activity. The 100 to 300 blocks of Castro Street predominantly feature restaurant and retail
establishments and then transition to more office, recreational, and municipal uses further south along the corridor.

Each of the Project intersections are currently signalized as a four‐way intersection. The Project sections of Castro Street are currently developed with sidewalks, landscape planters with street trees, and a single lane of
traffic in each direction with turning lanes added at each intersection.

Street parking is also permitted on both sides of the street, although some spaces have been converted to outdoor dining through the City’s Sidewalk Café Program.

Project Description
As shown in Figure 1, the City intends to establish a pedestrian mall on the following three segments
of Castro Street: (1) between West Evelyn Avenue (east leg) and Villa Street; (2) between Villa Street and Dana Street; and (3) between Dana Street and California Street (Figure 2). Vehicular through‐ traffic access on the cross‐streets along Evelyn Avenue, Villa Street, Dana Street, and California Street will continue to remain open similar to current conditions. The City plans to utilize the pedestrian mall for outdoor dining, public use areas, special events and enhanced pedestrian circulation. Motor vehicle traffic will be prohibited on the proposed pedestrian malls except for emergency and utility maintenance vehicles.

To facilitate the Project, the intersections of Castro/California, Castro/Dana and Castro/Villa will be modified to prohibit motor vehicles from accessing Castro Street and to improve the overall pedestrian experience. The proposed intersection improvements are summarized below:

Castro/Villa and Castro/Dana intersections:
‐ Modifying the intersection control from traffic signal to a stop sign
‐ Narrowing the intersection to one‐lane each way and creating a single, wide raised crosswalk to align with the central pedestrian pathway
‐ Adding loading zones near the modified intersections

Castro/California
‐ Modifying the existing signal/roundabout intersection to operate as a single lane roundabout ‐ Narrowing the
approaches to the intersection from two to one lane
‐ Adding pedestrian and bicycle crossing elements

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2022 4 Figure 1 Extent of Castro Street Pedestrian Mall

SEPTEMBER 2022 C ITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5 The Project would result in a reduction of on street parking including seven spaces on the 100 block, 18 spaces on the 200 block, and 14 spaces on the 300 block, for a total of 39 on‐street parking spaces.2

There is no new development proposed as part of this Project. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate potential environmental impacts as a result of closing the above‐described segments of Castro Street to vehicular traffic in order to create a pedestrian mall.

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

Surrounding land uses are predominantly restaurant and retail establishments.

Requested Applications:

A. Negative Declaration to assess environmental impacts; and B. Adoption of Ordinance for Permanent Street Closure.

Other Public Agencies whose approval is Required: No other Agency approval is required.

Finding: Based on the attached Initial Study and the testimony received at a duly noticed public hearing, a Negative Declaration is granted, based on the judgment that:

_ The Project will not have a significant effect on the environment.

_ The significant effects of the Project noted in the Initial Study attached have been mitigated by modifications in the Project, or by imposition of required mitigation measures listed in the Initial Study, so that the potential adverse effects are reduced to a point where no significant effects would occur.

_______
Dawn S. Cameron, Public Works Director Date

_______
Prepared by Charity Wagner, Consulting Planner Date

2 Kimley Horn. Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibility Study – Traffic and Circulation Analysis. September 6 2022.

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION S EPTEMBER 2022 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ASSESSMENT

Items identified in each section of the environmental checklist below are discussed following that section.

Required mitigation measures are identified (if applicable) where necessary to reduce a projected impact to a level that is determined to be less than significant. The General Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse number 89100308) is herein incorporated by reference in accordance with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines. Copies of this document and all other documents referenced herein are available for review at the City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street, Mountain View.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AESTHETICS Except as provided in Public
Resources Code 21099, would the project:

a) Have a substantial effect upon a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?

c) In non‐urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?

Findings of Fact: There will be no aesthetic impacts. The Project is the creation of pedestrian mall, including the closure of three blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic and implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel. No physical development is proposed as part of this Project.

The pedestrian mall will not change the built environment thereby not resulting in impacts to scenic vistas,
damage of scenic resources, degradation of visual character, nor will the street closure result in new sources or light or glare in the area.

Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

SEPTEMBER 2022 C ITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non‐agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing agricultural
zoning, agricultural use or with land subject to a
Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to
non‐forest use?

Findings of Fact: There will be no agricultural or forest impacts. The Project is the creation of pedestrian mall including the closure of three blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic and implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel. Castro Street is in an urban built out area of downtown Mountain View. No impacts to agricultural lands, forest land, nor any other changes that would impair or convert agricultural or forest lands would result from approval of this pedestrian mall in downtown Mountain View.

Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION S EPTEMBER 2022 8 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AIR QUALITY Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non‐attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?

c) Expose sensitive receptors, which are
located within one (1) mile of the project site, to
substantial pollutant concentrations?

d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?

Findings of Fact: There will be no air quality impacts. There will be no air quality or forest impacts. The Project is the creation of pedestrian mall including the closure of three blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic and implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel.

No new development is proposed as part of this Project. Traffic signals will be removed and replaced with stop signs and enhanced pedestrian crossings.

Allowing for street closure to have improved pedestrian amenities would not result in significant air quality impacts. The pedestrian mall does not alleviate or modify compliance requirements with applicable air quality plans. The pedestrian mall does not promote or encourage development that would conflict with air quality plans or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The pedestrian mall allows for improved pedestrian experience and expanded service for restaurants that are otherwise already permitted within the underlying zoning. Implementation of this pedestrian mall would not result in cumulative considerable net increases to criteria pollutants nor result in other emissions that affect substantial numbers of people.

Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional plans,

SEPTEMBER 2022 C ITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means

d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Findings of Fact: There will be no biological impacts. The Project is the creation of pedestrian mall including the closure of three blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic and implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel. No physical development is proposed as part of this Project.

No impacts to a) protected species, b) riparian habitat, c) wetlands, d) wildlife corridors, e) tree preservation ordinances, or f) compliance with habitat conservation plans would occur as a result of this street closure.

Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION S EPTEMBER 2022 10 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource pursuant
to § 15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Findings of Fact: There will be no cultural resource impacts. The Project is the creation of a pedestrian mall including the closure of three blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic and implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel. There is no removal nor modifications to existing buildings and no excavation nor substantial ground disturbance. The street closure would not result in adverse changes to historical resources, paleontological resources, nor disturbance of human remains.

Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ENERGY Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?

b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or Local
plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
c) Result in a substantial increase in
demand upon energy resources in relation to
projected supplies?

Findings of Fact: There will be no energy impacts. The Project is the creation of pedestrian mall including the closure of three blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic and implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel. No physical development is proposed as part of this Project. The street closure would not result in increased use of energy consumption or conflict with plan for renewable energy efficiency.

Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

SEPTEMBER 2022 C ITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project directly or indirectly:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic‐related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on‐
or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of waste water?

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?

Findings of Fact: There will be no geology and soil impacts. The Project is the creation of pedestrian mall including the closure of three blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic and implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel. No physical development is proposed as part of this Project. The street closure does not result in increased risk of loss, injury, or death involving earthquakes, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides or erosion of top soil.

Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION S EPTEMBER 2022 12 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Findings of Fact: There will be no impacts. Approval of this pedestrian mall will permanently close segments of Castro Street in downtown to through vehicular traffic. The pedestrian mall allows for implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel. No physical development is proposed as part of this Project.

The street closure does not involve any new physical development and would not result in significant greenhouse gas impacts. Closing the street to vehicular traffic could conceivably result in more people walking to shops and businesses downtown thereby reducing car trips and associated car emissions.

Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?

c) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or an emergency evacuation plan?

d) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one‐quarter (1/4) mile
of an existing or proposed school?

e) Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
SEPTEMBER 2022 C ITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment?

Findings of Fact: There will be no hazard or hazardous material impacts. The Project is the creation of pedestrian mall including the closure of three blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic and implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel. No physical development is proposed as part of this Project. The street closure does not cause nor increase the potential for transporting or disposing of hazardous materials, accidental release of hazardous waste materials, impair emergency plans, emit increased emissions near schools, nor cause of future projects to be located on hazardous materials sites.

Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?

b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may
impede sustainable groundwater management of
the basin?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces?

d) Result in substantial erosion or siltation
on‐site or off‐site?
e) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on‐site or off‐site?

f) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION S EPTEMBER 2022 14 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
g) Impede or redirect flood flows?
h) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk the release of pollutants due to project
inundation?

i) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?

Findings of Fact: There will be no hydrology or water quality impacts. The Project is the creation of pedestrian mall including the closure of three blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic and implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel. No physical development is proposed as part of this Project.

Allowing for street closure to vehicular traffic does not violate or modify compliance requirements with
applicable water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The street closure does not decrease groundwater supplies, alter existing drainage patterns, result in substantial erosion, increase amount of surface runoff, contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems nor redirect flood flows. Implementation of this street closure will not change the requirements for all existing and future businesses to address hydrology and water quality issues.

Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
LAND USE/PLANNING Would the project:
a) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

b) Disrupt or divide the physical
arrangement of an established community
(including a low‐income or minority community)?

Findings of Fact: There will be no land use impacts. The Project is the creation of pedestrian mall including the closure of three blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic and implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel. No physical development is proposed as part of this Project.

SEPTEMBER 2022 C ITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15 Improving the pedestrian experience in downtown does not conflict with land use plans and policies nor disrupt the physical arrangement of the community. In fact, the street closure promotes many of the City’s land use policies for Downtown including:

LUD 7.6: Parking space flexibility. Encourage a portion of Downtown street parking spaces to be removed or reconfigured to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle amenities.

LUD 8.4: Pedestrian‐oriented civic and public spaces. Create and encourage new pedestrian‐ oriented civic and public spaces throughout the city
LUD 7.1: Downtown. Promote Downtown as a daytime and nighttime center for social, entertainment, cultural, business and government activity.3

Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of value to
the region or the residents of the State?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally‐important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or
other land use plan?

Findings of Fact: There will be no mineral resource impacts. The Project is the creation of pedestrian mall including the closure of three blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic and implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel. No physical development is proposed as part of this Project. Creation of the pedestrian mall does not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of local or regional value.

Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?

3 Mountain View 2030 General Plan, Land Use and Design Element, pages 51‐52. July 2012 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION S EPTEMBER 2022 16 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?

Findings of Fact: There will be no noise impacts. The Project is the creation of pedestrian mall including the closure of three blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic and implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel. No physical development is proposed as part of this Project.

Any outdoor events or activities within the pedestrian mall will be required to comply with the City’s Noise
Ordinance. The street closure does not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Rather, it is conceivable that eliminating vehicular traffic would result in decrease to ambient noise within the vicinity of the pedestrian mall.

Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Findings of Fact: There will be no population or housing impacts. The Project is the creation of pedestrian mall including the closure of three blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic and implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel. No physical development is proposed as part of this Project. Approval of this pedestrian mall does not include construction of new SEPTEMBER 2022 C ITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION 17 homes or businesses, nor does it include removal or any housing such that existing people would be displaced.

Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
1) Fire Services
2) Police Protection
3) Schools
4) Parks
5) Other Public Facilities

Findings of Fact: There will be no public service impacts. The Project is a street closure. No physical development is proposed as part of this Project. The Project is the creation of pedestrian mall including the closure of three blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic and implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel. No physical development is proposed as part of this Project.

Public safety and emergency vehicles will maintain full access to the closed street segments via operable barricade located at each of the intersections along Castro Street. A 12‐foot emergency travel lane will be maintained clear of impediments in the center of the closed street segments.

Creation of the pedestrian mall would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives public services.

Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
RECREATION Would the project:
a) Include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION S EPTEMBER 2022 18 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

Findings of Fact: There will be no recreation impacts. The Project is the creation of pedestrian mall including the closure of three blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic and implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel. No physical development is proposed as part of this Project.

Approval of this pedestrian mall would not result in the need to construct or expand existing recreational facilities, nor increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration would occur.

Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
TRANSPORTATION Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?

d) Result in inadequate emergency access
or access to nearby uses?

Findings of Fact: The Project is the creation of pedestrian mall including the closure of three blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic and implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel. No physical development is proposed as part of this Project. The City contracted with Kimley Horn to evaluate potential transportation impacts of the Project (see Attachment A for the Kimley Horn Traffic and Circulation Analysis Memo). The following findings rely upon the transportation analysis prepared by Kimley Horn.

SEPTEMBER 2022 C ITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION 19 Approval of this pedestrian mall does not conflict with plans or policies addressing circulation systems. In fact, the closure promotes goals for a walkable, pedestrian friendly downtown. The Project is consistent with City circulation policies because the Project will enhance pedestrian activity in the downtown area.

With respect to transportation
impacts related to vehicle miles traveled, Section F of OPR guidelines states that a VMT analysis is not required if the transportation project is not likely to lead to substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel because it is associated with the following items: 1) Reduction in number of through lanes; 2) Removal or relocation of on‐street parking spaces; or 3) Addition of new or enhanced bike or pedestrian facilities on existing street. The Project meets all of these criteria and as such, no further analysis for VMT is required by CEQA.

The transportation analysis did evaluate the potential impacts of traffic diversion and found that implementing the Project is anticipated to divert a minor amount of traffic due to vehicles choosing alternate routes to travel through downtown. However, the amount of diverted traffic would be so minimal that any change in VMT is anticipated to be nominal and insignificant. It is also anticipated that the Project would result in an increase in pedestrian and bicycle activity in downtown and thus would result in either no change or a reduction in VMT.

There are no hazardous design changes to the geometry for the intersections or the overall roadway design proposed by
the Project. The Project includes modifications to the intersections to increase pedestrian safety, including narrowing intersections and installing raised crosswalks. The Project includes maintenance of an emergency vehicle access lane and signage to address public awareness and safety.

Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k)?

b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1? (In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION S EPTEMBER 2022 20 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.)

Findings of Fact: There will be no tribal cultural resource impacts. The Project is the creation of a pedestrian mall including the closure of three blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic and implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel. No physical development is proposed as part of this Project. There is no removal nor modifications to existing buildings and no excavation nor substantial ground disturbance. Implementation of the pedestrian mall would not result in adverse changes to historical resources nor tribal resources.

Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage
systems, whereby the construction or relocation
would cause significant environmental effects?

b) Have insufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal,
dry, and multiple dry years?

c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider that serves or
may service the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?

d) Generate solid waste in excess of State
or Local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

e) Be noncompliant with federal, state,
and local management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?

SEPTEMBER 2022 C ITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION 21 Findings of Fact: There will be no utility or service system impacts. The Project is the creation of a pedestrian mall including the closure of three blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic and implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel. No physical development is proposed as part of this Project.

The street closure will not: a) result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, or storm water facilities; b) allow for future projects to have insufficient water supply; c) require construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, including septic systems, or expansion of existing facilities; d) allow for future projects to have insufficient wastewater treatment; nor e) generate solid waste in excess beyond existing capacity. Lastly, the street closure does not alleviate or modify compliance requirements with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
WILDFIRE If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?

c) Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?

d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?

Findings of Fact: There will be no wildfire impacts. The Project is the creation of a pedestrian mall including the closure of three blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic and implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel. Emergency access will be maintained to allow for continued access.

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION S EPTEMBER 2022 22 The Project is located in an urban developed portion of downtown Mountain View. The pedestrian mall would not result in wildfire impacts.

Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Does the Project:

1. Have the potential to substantially degrade
the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self‐ sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?

Findings of Fact: The Project is the creation of a pedestrian mall including the closure of three blocks of Castro Street to vehicular traffic and implementation of pedestrian amenities including seating areas and improved paths of travel. No physical development is proposed as part of this Project. Implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife populations to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2. Have impacts which are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula‐
tively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, other
current projects and probable future
projects)?

SEPTEMBER 2022 C ITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION 23 Findings of Fact: The pedestrian mall does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

3. Have environmental effects that will cause
substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?

Findings of Fact: The pedestrian mall would not result in environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION S EPTEMBER 2022 24 ATTACHMENT A

Kimley Horn Traffic and Circulation Analysis Memo

kimley-horn.com 10 Almaden Blvd #1250, San José, CA 95113 669-800-4130

MEMORANDUM
To: Sofie Kvist, Gehl
From: Adam Dankberg, P.E., Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Date: September 6, 2022
Subject: Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibility Study –Traffic and Circulation Analysis Introduction
The City of Mountain View (City) and Gehl directed Kimley-Horn to evaluate the traffic and circulation impacts of the Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibility Study, the 100 to 300 block closure of Castro Street (Project). The proposed geometry and operational changes are anticipated to impact traffic patterns for study intersections primarily along W. Evelyn Avenue, Villa Street, Dana Street, and California Street, between Shoreline Boulevard and Bush Street. This study also accounted for future proposed roadway and circulation modifications in the area, such as improvements from the Mountain View Transit Center Grade Separation and Access Project (GSAP). This memorandum has been prepared to document the circulation implications of the Project to vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit circulation. The sections below summarize the methodology, analysis, and results of the Project.

Background
Castro Street is Mountain View’s oldest commercial corridor and is considered a central destination for commercial, office, and retail activity. The 100 to 300 blocks of Castro Street predominantly feature restaurant and retail establishments and then transitions to more office, recreational, and municipal uses progressing further south along the corridor. The northern end of Castro Street is situated adjacent to the Mountain View Transit Center.

The Grade Separation and Access Project (GSAP) is the first component of the Mountain View Transit Center Master Plan, approved by the City Council in May 2017. The GSAP, which is currently in the final design phase, includes improvements to improve safety, station capacity, and multimodal access and mobility in the vicinity of the Transit Center. Most relevant to this Project, the GSAP includes the closure of Castro Street at the rail tracks and the opening of connections along Evelyn Avenue across Castro Street. The City conducted a traffic impact analysis in April 2019 to evaluate the potential transportation impacts of the GSAP. This traffic study is a separate study but assumed future proposed roadway and circulation modifications included with the GSAP.

CASTRO PEDESTRIAN MALL FEASIBILITY STUDY
In 2020, Kimley-Horn began supporting Gehl and the City on the Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibility Study to evaluate the impact of a full or partial closure of the 100 Block of Castro Street. The project was put on hold due to COVID-19 pandemic. During this time, the City shifted focus to Castro StrEATs program, which temporarily closed the 100 to 400 blocks of Castro Street to vehicle traffic

Page 2 ends

kimley-horn.com 10 Almaden Blvd #1250, San José, CA 95113

and created a pedestrian mall and outdoor seating area. The Castro StrEATs program was a success, but also highlighted opportunities for enhancing public spaces along Castro Street.

An initial feasibility study was completed in August 2021 to study the effects of the 100 block closure and found that all alternatives resulted in minimal changes to level of service within the downtown area. In October 2021, the City Council supported further development of 100 block pedestrian mall concept, expanded study efforts to include the 200 and 300 blocks, re-opened the 400 block of Castro Street to auto traffic, and continued temporary closure of 100-300 blocks through January 2023, and called for the development of a plan for low-cost improvements to be made for the interim closure period.

This analysis builds upon the initial evaluation, expanding it south to include the 200 and 300 blocks of Castro Street. With the additional closure of blocks 200 and 300 of Castro Street, all auto movements on Castro Street north of California Street would be diverted to nearby streets.

Emergency and service vehicle access will be maintained.

Analysis Methodology and Scenarios
Table 1 lists the 20 study intersections that were selected. All study intersections were also analyzed in the GSAP TIA. The level of service (LOS) analysis was conducted using the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) or Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6) methodology in Synchro 11 software for all intersections except roundabouts that was done using Sidra software.

Table 1: Castro Pedestrian Mall Study Intersections
#1 Intersection #1 Intersection
1 Shoreline Boulevard & Evelyn Avenue 11 View Street & Villa Street 2 Shoreline Boulevard & Villa Street 12 Bush Street& Evelyn Avenue 3 Franklin Street & Villa Street 13 Bush Street & Villa Street 4 Bryant Street & Evelyn Avenue 14 Shoreline Boulevard & Dana Street 5 Bryant Street & Villa Street 15 Castro Street & Dana Street 6 Castro Street & Evelyn Avenue 16 Bush Street & Dana Street 7 Castro Street & Villa Street 17 Shoreline Boulevard & California Street 8 Hope Street & Evelyn Avenue 18 Franklin Street & California Street 9 Hope Street & Villa Street 19 Bryant Street & California Street 10 View Street & Evelyn Avenue 20 Castro Street & California Street 1Intersection numbering has been modified from the Mountain View Transit Center Grade Separation Traffic Impact Analysis (GSAP TIA), dated April 2019
Traffic Volumes
Traffic counts along Castro Street at Evelyn Avenue, Villa Street, Dana Street, and California Street were collected in February 2022 and compared with existing condition volumes from the Mountain View Transit Center Grade Separation Traffic Impact Analysis (GSAP TIA) dated April 2019. The comparison of volumes is summarized in Table 2. Year 2022 traffic counts are included as Attachment A.

Page 3 ends

kimley-horn.com 10 Almaden Blvd #1250, San José, CA 95113 669-800-4130

Table 2: Traffic Volume Comparison
Intersection Peak
Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian
2019
(EBT+WBT)1
2022
(EBT+WBT)1
%
Change
2019
Total
2022
Total
%
Change
2019
Total
2022
Total
%
Change
Castro Street &
Evelyn Avenue
(east leg)
AM 242 110 -55% 56 18 -68% 300 47 -84%
Midday 201 128 -36% 38 16 -58% 367 134 -63%
PM 199 141 -29% 62 23 -63% 332 104 -69%
Castro Street &
Villa Street
AM 411 352 -14% 56 13 -77% 958 149 -84%
Midday 273 425 56% 18 16 -11% 889 692 -22%
PM 435 520 20% 62 18 -71% 958 814 -15%
Castro Street &
Dana Street
AM 136 93 -32% 47 12 -74% 228 122 -46%
Midday 115 166 44% 21 11 -48% 827 554 -33%
PM 219 209 -5% 58 18 -69% 1005 776 -23%
Castro Street &
California Street
AM 265 184 -31% 66 22 -67% 211 84 -60%
Midday 222 175 -21% 16 19 19% 813 318 -61%
PM 403 251 -38% 53 18 -66% 607 458 -25%
1 Comparison evaluated the sum of eastbound through (EBT) and westbound through (WBT) volumes at each intersection, except at Castro Street & Evelyn Avenue, which compared westbound right volumes.

Page 4 ends

kimley-horn.com 10 Almaden Blvd #1250, San José, CA 95113 669-800-4130

The comparison showed that 2022 counts were commonly significantly less than volumes used in GSAP TIA for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. The decrease in volumes could be attributed to change in traffic patterns due to a combination of disruption due to COVID-19 and the Castro StrEATs program. The GSAP TIA vehicular and pedestrian volumes were utilized for this analysis instead of basing the future volume forecast on existing 2022 volumes for the following reasons in order to result in a more conservative analysis:
• It cannot be determined what the level of influence the Castro StrEATs program had on the change in traffic compared with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic • 2022 volumes reflect the continued impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on commuting patterns and commercial activity; it is anticipated that those effects will continue to subside over time
• Castro Street currently still connects to Central Expressway and Moffett Boulevard and the Evelyn Avenue ramp has not been constructed to Shoreline Boulevard. Traffic patterns are expected to shift once the GSAP has been constructed.

Analysis Scenarios
• Baseline Conditions: Based on the volumes from the Cumulative (2030) Plus Project scenario in the GSAP TIA
• Project Conditions: Redistributed volumes from the Baseline Conditions to account for the 100 – 300 block closure of Castro Street
To forecast future year conditions, the traffic analysis utilized AM, Midday, and PM peak hour volumes from the Cumulative (2030) Plus Project scenario in the GSAP TIA. Figure 1 and Figure 2 illustrates the Cumulative (2030) Plus Project scenario peak hour volumes from the GSAP that were used as a baseline for the Project analysis. It should be noted that these volumes account for the redistribution of trips associated with the closure of the at-grade crossing at Castro Street and Moffett Boulevard and the construction of the W. Evelyn Avenue ramp at Shoreline Boulevard.

Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrates the redistribution of traffic. The baseline volumes (Cumulative Plus Project scenario from the GSAP TIA) were redistributed to account for the closure of Castro Street from California Street to W Evelyn Avenue. The redistribution of trips was based on engineering judgement and consistent with the redistribution approach for GSAP. The turning movement volumes that were used for evaluations are presented in Figure 5 and Figure 6.

Moffett Blvd
Shoreline Blvd
Central Expwy
Evelyn Ave
Villa St
W Dana StCalifornia StFranklin St
Bryant St
Hope StView St
Bush St
Castro St

CASTRO PEDESTRIAN MALL FEASIBILITY STUDY
F,*85E 1
BASEL,1E AM A1D PM PEA. H285 T851,1* M2VEME1T V2L8MES
N

NOT TO SCALE
LE*E1D
AM(PM) PEA. H285 V2L8MEXX(YY)
P52-ECT S,TE
X EX,ST,1* ST8DY A5EA
,1TE5SECT,21S
X* F8T85E ST8DY A5EA
,1TE5SECT,21S
X ST8DY A5EA
,1TE5SECT,21S
1 2 4
6 8
10 11
9 7
5 3
XX(YY)
CAST52 ST5EET
CL2S85E
AM(PM) PEA.

H285 V2L8ME
Villa St
Shoreline Blvd
Villa St
Franklin St
Villa St
Bryant St
Castro St
Evelyn Ave
Hope St
Villa St
Hope St
Villa St
View St
Evelyn Ave
Transit Center
Dwy
Shoreline Blvd
Evelyn Ave
Transit Center
Parking Lot Dwy
Evelyn Ave
12 13
14 15
16 18
19 20
17 Evelyn Ave
Bryant St
Castro St
Villa St
Evelyn Ave
Bush St
Bush St
Villa St
Shoreline Blvd
W Dana St W Dana St W Dana St
Castro St
Bush St
California St California St California StCalifornia St
Shoreline Blvd
Franklin St
Bryant St
Castro St
232(216)
186(322)
1301(2094)
11(22)
2143(1401)
1 34(64)
97(47)
251(247)
48(67)
75(93)
408(219)
159(277)
902(1623)
268(432)
32(65)
1495(1167)
47(45)
2 10(22)
306(282)
21(46)
39(54)
185(300)
28(59)
15(40)
4(12)
27(43)
8(16)
11(12)
23(18)
3 14(20)
212(150)
70(134)
118(192)
15(52)
21(42)
4 29(51)
329(257)
41(54)
15(46)
156(235)
36(53)
14(58)
56(98)
5(61)
10(48)
13(41)
10(35)
5 225(171)
40(82)
100(148)
31(64)
48(71)
6 38(31)
345(233)
21(20)
35(91)
135(260)
6(16)
6(14)
25(28)
8(34)
28(52)
62(99)
89(116)
7 44(75)
184(106)
11(17)
20(52)
71(123)
40(37)
30(44)
2(5)
26(24)
61(115)
5(9)
21(45)
8 38(40)
315(211)
20(25)
21(31)
100(180)
24(48)
18(23)
26(44)
19(34)
31(50)
20(60)
23(25)
9 41(31)
186(234)
33(41)
38(52)
77(143)
23(37)
120(101)
72(82)
34(23)
30(53)
55(53)
29(18)
10 127(82)
330(136)
6(5)
5(16)
122(219)
24(19)
33(31)
51(66)
60(47)
34(157)
39(51)
6(8)
11 395(287)
260(235)
27(53)
213(284)
101(228)
12 66(24)
3(5)
9(15)
83(130)
97(262)
397(290)
19(48)
13 81(107)
23(11)
952(1727)
20(10)
22(51)
1483(1174)
14 57(64)
116(108)
11(16)
9(21)
44(136)
7(18)
30(66)
63(74)
5(10)
28(45)
147(215)
12(22)
15 87(85)
154(166)
9(13)
32(64)
53(90)
3(16)
12(5)
5(3)
4(10)
75(161)
12(40)
18(6)
16 36(82)
139(157)
36(72)
112(98)
157(322)
300(279)
144(199)
675(1271)
140(254)
58(46)
1161(917)
81(119)
17 7(5)
181(303)
4(5)
26(45)
325(499)
25(59)
7(8)
7(13)
24(33)
8(6)
8(10)
4(8)
18 24(27)
149(202)
21(44)
64(57)
240(376)
28(65)
8(19)
35(46)
29(64)
8(27)
6(27)
10(52)
19 29(32)
141(144)
8(11)
81(84)
138(282)
17(37)
9(20)
115(125)
5(14)
22(37)
162(234)
60(59)
20 Moffett Blvd
Shoreline Blvd
Central Expwy
Evelyn Ave
Villa St
W Dana StCalifornia StFranklin St
Bryant St
Hope StView St
Bush St
Castro St

CASTRO PEDESTRIAN MALL FEASIBILITY STUDY
F,*85E 2
BASEL,1E M,DDAY PEA. H285 T851,1* M2VEME1T V2L8MES
N

NOT TO SCALE
LE*E1D
AM(PM) PEA. H285 V2L8MEXX(YY)
P52-ECT S,TE
X EX,ST,1* ST8DY A5EA
,1TE5SECT,21S
X* F8T85E ST8DY A5EA
,1TE5SECT,21S
X ST8DY A5EA
,1TE5SECT,21S
1 2 4
6 8
10 11
9 7
5 3
XX M,DDAY PEA.

CASTRO PEDESTRIAN MALL FEASIBILITY STUDY
F,*85E 3
5ED,ST5,B8TED AM A1D PM PEA. H285 T851,1* M2VEME1T V2L8MES N

CASTRO PEDESTRIAN MALL FEASIBILITY STUDY
F,*85E 4
5ED,ST5,B8TED M,DDAY PEA. H285 T851,1* M2VEME1T V2L8MES N

NOT TO SCALE
LE*E1D
AM(PM) PEA. H285 V2L8MEXX(YY)
P52-ECT S,TE
X EX,ST,1* ST8DY A5EA
,1TE5SECT,21S
X* F8T85E ST8DY A5EA
,1TE5SECT,21S
X ST8DY A5EA
,1TE5SECT,21S
1 2 4
6 8
10 11
9 7
5 3
XX M,DDAY PEA.

CASTRO PEDESTRIAN MALL FEASIBILITY STUDY
F,*85E 5
PLUS PROJECT AM A1D PM PEA. H285 T851,1* M2VEME1T V2L8MES N

H285 V2L8ME
Villa St
Shoreline Blvd
Villa St
Franklin St
Villa St
Bryant St
Castro St
Evelyn Ave
Hope St
Villa St
Hope St
Villa St
View St
Evelyn Ave
Transit Center
Dwy
Shoreline Blvd
Evelyn Ave
Transit Center
Parking Lot Dwy
Evelyn Ave
12 13
14 15
16 18
19 20
17 Evelyn Ave
Bryant St
Castro St
Villa St
Evelyn Ave
Bush St
Bush St
Villa St
Shoreline Blvd
W Dana St W Dana St W Dana St
Castro St
Bush St
California St California St California StCalifornia St
Shoreline Blvd
Franklin St
Bryant St
Castro St
199(171)
170(298)
1317(2120)
11(22)
2186(1450)
1 34(64)
89(13)
240(234)
48(67)
75(93)
408(219)
142(246)
935(1680)
268(432)
32(65)
1560(1245)
47(45)
2 10(22)
272(215)
21(46)
39(54)
168(269)
28(59)
15(40)
4(12)
27(43)
8(16)
11(12)
38(38)
3 14(20)
179(105)
70(134)
102(168)
15(52)
21(42)
4 29(51)
280(170)
41(54)
20(54)
134(196)
36(53)
14(58)
56(98)
5(61)
10(48)
13(41)
25(55)
5 225(171)
109(160)
6 366(253)
141(276)
7 52(83)
184(106)
11(17)
23(56)
56(90)
40(37)
30(44)
2(5)
26(24)
101(196)
5(9)
21(45)
8 59(53)
302(205)
20(25)
21(31)
75(133)
30(64)
18(23)
50(62)
6(28)
31(50)
54(125)
23(25)
9 41(31)
194(242)
33(41)
41(56)
99(187)
23(37)
120(101)
72(82)
34(23)
30(53)
55(53)
29(18)
10 127(82)
338(143)
6(5)
5(16)
97(172)
24(19)
34(33)
53(68)
60(47)
59(203)
39(51)
6(8)
11 395(287)
268(243)
30(57)
232(324)
101(228)
12 74(31)
3(5)
10(17)
83(129)
97(262)
3(4)
397(290)
19(48)
13 73(93)
23(11)
985(1784)
20(10)
22(51)
1556(1266)
14 127(124)
51(154)
15 108(98)
117(138)
9(13)
32(64)
34(62)
3(16)
12(5)
9(9)
4(10)
99(207)
12(40)
18(6)
16 36(82)
153(170)
109(164)
112(98)
157(322)
300(279)
177(256)
675(1271)
140(254)
58(46)
1161(917)
81(119)
17 7(5)
268(408)
19(25)
26(45)
358(556)
25(59)
12(16)
7(13)
24(33)
8(6)
8(10)
4(8)
18 24(27)
240(311)
36(64)
64(57)
278(441)
28(65)
13(27)
35(46)
40(80)
8(27)
6(27)
10(52)
19 101(84)
149(155)
124(157)
155(319)
81(139)
163(191)
20 CAST52 ST5EET
CL2S85E
Moffett Blvd
Shoreline Blvd
Central Expwy
Evelyn Ave
Villa St
W Dana StCalifornia StFranklin St
Bryant St
Hope StView St
Bush St
Castro St

CASTRO PEDESTRIAN MALL FEASIBILITY STUDY
F,*85E 6
PLUS PROJECT M,DDAY PEA. H285 T851,1* M2VEME1T V2L8MES
N

NOT TO SCALE
LE*E1D
AM(PM) PEA. H285 V2L8MEXX(YY)
P52-ECT S,TE
X EX,ST,1* ST8DY A5EA
,1TE5SECT,21S
X* F8T85E ST8DY A5EA
,1TE5SECT,21S
X ST8DY A5EA
,1TE5SECT,21S
1 2 4
6 8
10 11
9 7
5 3
XX M,DDAY PEA.

Page 11 ends

kimley-horn.com 10 Almaden Blvd #1250, San José, CA 95113 669-800-4130

Lane Configuration
The traffic analysis assumed lane geometry from the Cumulative (2030) Plus Project conditions from the GSAP TIA, planned improvements at Shoreline Boulevard / Villa Street (#2), and the following improvements due to the Project:
• Intersection #6 – Castro Street & W Evelyn Avenue: Unsignalized uncontrolled intersection with vehicle yielding at pedestrian crossing
• Intersection #7 – Castro Street & Villa Street: Unsignalized stop-controlled intersection • Intersection #15 – Castro Street & Dana Street: Unsignalized stop-controlled intersection • Intersection #20 – Castro Street & California Street: Three-leg roundabout The intersection concepts are included as Attachment B. Note that improvements at Castro Street & W Evelyn Avenue will be implemented by the GSAP and thus are not included with this memo.

VEHICLE MILE S TRAVELED
As of July 1, 2020, the State of California fully adopted a change in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significant impact methodology for transportation impacts to use vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as opposed to level of service (LOS), as required by Senate Bill 743 (SB 743). To address this change, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) developed Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA which provides guidelines for application in evaluating the effect of development on VMT. The City of Mountain View also developed Multi-Modal Transportation Analysis Handbook (MTA), which includes the City’s VMT guidelines.

Based on Section F of OPR guidelines, a VMT analysis is not required if the transportation project is not likely to lead to substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel because it is associated with the following items:
• Reduction in number of through lanes
• Removal or relocation of on-street parking spaces
• Addition of new or enhanced bike or pedestrian facilities on existing street The Project would result in the closure (reduction) in through lanes on Castro Street and remove on - street parking, while maintaining or enhancing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. While a small amount of traffic diversion may occur due to vehicles choosing alternate routes to travel through downtown, any change in VMT is anticipated to be nominal and insignificant. The Project is likely to result in an increase in pedestrian and bicycle activity in downtown Mountain View and thus would result in either no change or a reduction in VMT. Thus, no further analysis for VMT is required by CEQA.

VEHICLE CIRCULATION
Level of Service
Table 3 summarizes the level of service. All study intersections function within acceptable LOS standards. Analysis reports are provided in Attachment C.

Page 12 ends

kimley-horn.com 10 Almaden Blvd #1250, San José, CA 95113 669-800-4130 Table 3: Intersection Level of Service Summary
# Intersection LOS
Criteria Control
With Project
AM Peak PM Peak Midday Peak
LOS Delay (sec)1 LOS Delay
(sec)1 LOS Delay
(sec)1
1 Shoreline Boulevard & Evelyn Avenue3 D Signal B 13.0 B 10.9 B 11.7 2 Shoreline Boulevard & Villa Street D Signal D 45.4 D 51.9 C 34.9 3 Franklin Street & Villa Street4 E AWSC A 10.0 B 12.0 B 10.3 4 Bryant Street & Evelyn Avenue4 E SSSC B 8.5 A 8.0 A 8.5 5 Bryant Street & Villa Street4 E AWSC B 10.5 B 13.2 B 11.3 6 Castro Street & Evelyn Avenue3,4 E Uncontrolled B 11.6 B 11.5 C 15.5 7 Castro Street & Villa Street3,4 E AWSC5 B 10.9 A 9.4 A 8.6 8 Hope Street & Evelyn Avenue3,4 E Signal B 19.5 D 48.6 B 12.3 9 Hope Street & Villa Street4 E AWSC B 11.2 B 11.7 A 10.0 10 View Street & Evelyn Avenue4 E AWSC B 11.2 B 13.1 A 8.6 11 View Street & Villa Street4 E AWSC C 15.2 B 11.5 A 9.6 12 Bush Street& Evelyn Avenue3 D Signal B 14.2 B 16.1 B 10.4 13 Bush Street & Villa Street3 D Signal A 8.3 A 9.2 A 7.2 14 Shoreline Boulevard & Dana Street D SSSC D 26.1 C 22.6 C 15.5 15 Castro Street & Dana Street3,4 E AWSC5 A 7.7 A 8.0 A 7.6 16 Bush Street & Dana Street D AWSC A 8.8 A 10.0 A 8.6
17 Shoreline Boulevard & California Street D Signal D 40.5 D 43.8 C 27.4 18 Franklin Street & California Street4 E SSSC B 14.9 D 29.1 C 15.5 19 Bryant Street & California Street4 E Signal B 10.8 B 17.8 B 17.2 20 Castro Street & California Street4 E Roundabout A 5.1 A 7.6 A 6.1 1 AWSC = All-way stop controlled; SSSC = Side -street stop controlled 2 The average delay is report ed for signal, AWSC and roundabout intersections . The delay for the worst movement is report ed for SSSC intersection. 3 Intersection could not be analyzed in HCM 6 due to non -NEMA phasing or atypical control type and was analyzed in HCM 2000. 4 Intersection is within the Downtown Precise Plan boundary with a LOS E threshold. 5 Intersections #7 and 15 do not conflicting auto movements, but will have a stop sign at the pedestrian crossing at Castro Street and thus were analyzed as an all-way stop controlled intersection.

Page 13 ends

kimley-horn.com 10 Almaden Blvd #1250, San José, CA 95113 669-800-4130

Parking Impacts
The closure of 100- 300 block of Castro Street would displace seven spaces on the 100 block, 18 spaces on the 200 block, and 14 spaces on the 300 block, for a total of 39 on-street parking spaces.

Vehicles using those parking spaces today would need to find parking in other locations within the downtown area.

The City adopted the Downtown Parking Strategy in November 2021 which included a range of parking strategies to address parking needs in downtown area. This document considered the permanent closure of Castro Street and thus the parking impacts associated with the Project are fully accounted for and addressed in the Downtown Parking Strategy.

Existing parking inventory and utilization data were collected in November 2020 when 100-300 block of Castro Street was closed off to vehicular traffic. The existing parking data showed that even with the Castro Street closure, there was still off- and on-street parking available in the area.

Other Vehicle Circulation Concerns
Emergency Vehicle Access
Although motor vehicle traffic will be prohibited on the 100- 300 blocks of Castro Street, emergency and utility maintenance vehicle access will be maintained via the 12-foot central walkway along the three blocks by using collapsible bollards at the intersections.

Diverted Traffic
As shown Figure 3, a significant level of traffic is not anticipated to divert to residential streets. Traffic is expected to divert to downtown commercial streets such as Bryant Street and Hope Street that can accommodate the diverted traffic.

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
A pedestrian mall environment will be created within the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Castro Street.

This eliminates potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles crossing Castro Street within these blocks and provides a substantial increase in public space and programmable area.

Pedestrian Crossing at Evelyn Avenue
At the Castro Street and Evelyn Avenue intersection , the Cumulative (2030) GSAP TIA pedestrian volumes range from 860 to 1,680 during the peak period. To accommodate this traffic, it is proposed that a Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) be installed and the single proposed crossing .

Having a single crosswalk at this location will help both pedestrian and vehicle circulation and safety at this location. The RRFB and proposed crosswalk location will enhance pedestrian visibility, as well as create a more predicable environment for drivers’ anticipating p edestrians crossing Castro Street.

Table 4 indicates the pedestrian volume anticipated to cross Evelyn Avenue , based on volumes included in the GSAP TIA (Cumulative scenario).

Page 14 ends

kimley-horn.com 10 Almaden Blvd #1250, San José, CA 95113 669-800-4130

Table 4: Forecast Peak Period Pedestrian Volumes Crossing the Castro Street and Evelyn Avenue Intersection
Location AM Midday PM
Evelyn Avenue 1,286 857 1,681

Pedestrian Crossing at Villa Street and Dana Street
Table 5 presents GSAP TIA (Cumulative scenario) pedestrian volumes at these crossings across the respective cross-streets. The pedestrian crossings at both Villa Street and Dana Street will be stop- controlled for autos. Stop-controlled crossings at these locations were proposed to prioritize pedestrian safety and convenience. Both locations will have a single, raised crossing, which would reduce the number of conflict zones in the existing condition from two to one and improve pedestrian visibility. In addition, the stop sign will require vehicles traveling along Villa Street and Dana Street to slow down when approaching the crossing, reducing crossing hazards.

Table 5: Forecast Peak Period Pedestrian Volumes Crossing Villa and Dana Streets Location AM Midday PM
Villa Street 298 76 840
Dana Street 131 501 565
Safety Considerations
It is recommended that all these pedestrian crossings provide new signage to inform drivers of these pedestrian crossings. In order to enhance the safety of the pedestrian crossing, it is recommended that the crosswalks across Dana Street and Villa Street be raised approximately three to five inches.

The height of the raised crosswalk will be dependent on acceptable design standards for continued use of the roadways by trucks and buses.

BICYCLE CIRCULATION
The use of the Castro Street corridor by cyclists will be further considered in the design process for the permanent pedestrian mall. Similar to pedestrians, cyclists will face potential conflict points crossing Evelyn Avenue, Villa Street, and Dana Street. Bicycles are detoured to nearby parallel streets under Castro StrEATs temporary closure conditions, though that restriction may be reconsidered with implementation of permanent pedestrian mall.

TRANSIT IMPACTS
As indicated by the GSAP TIA (see Figure 29), there are no public transit vehicles anticipated to travel along Castro Street between Evelyn Avenue and Villa Street with the implementation of the GSAP. However, transit routes were anticipated to use Castro Street from the south to Villa Street.

Transit vehicles instead will need to turn off of Castro Street at California Street to use Hope Street and View Street, along with Evelyn Avenue, to access the Transit Center. It should be noted that VTA routes have already been rerouted as part of the Castro StrEATs program and there are no current

Page 15 ends

kimley-horn.com 10 Almaden Blvd #1250, San José, CA 95113 669-800-4130

transit routes on Castro Street in the proposed closure area; however, further coordination with VTA staff would be necessary to make the route adjustments permanent.

Conclusion
Kimley-Horn evaluated the traffic and circulation impacts of closure of the 100-300 blocks of Castro Street. This closure is intended to enhance public life, economic activity, and pedestrian safety in downtown Mountain View. The analysis found that the Project results in no deficiencies to level of service for the study intersections within the downtown area and is not anticipated to result in any significant congestion impacts to nearby streets. Parking impacts consisting of the loss of 39 on-street spaces, requiring vehicles to use nearby public parking lots or on-street parking options.

The pedestrian mall along the three blocks reduces the potential for vehicle-pedestrian conflicts, particularly for pedestrians crossing Castro Street to get from one side of the block to the other.

Intersection configuration recommendations are currently being developed for the intersections of Castro Street with W. Evelyn Avenue, Villa Street, Dana Street, and California Street. These will include enhanced pedestrian crossings, such as raised crosswalks, RRFBs, and new signage, in certain locations.

Minimal impact to transit is expected since no public transit vehicles are anticipated to use this segment of Castro Street with the implementation of the grade separation and access project and all existing VTA routes have been adjusted to accommodate the Castro StrEATs program. However, any permanent route adjustments should be coordinated with VTA staff. kimley-horn.com 10 Almaden Blvd #1250, San José, CA 95113 669-800-4130 Attachment A: 2022 Traffic Counts
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Castro St & Evelyn Ave
City: Mountain View Project ID:

Control: 1-Way Stop(WB) Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 15
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 18
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 16
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 31
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 25
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 34
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 16
9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 27
9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 23
9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 21
9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 25

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 271 0 271
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
PEAK HR : 07:45 AM 40 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 110
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.809 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
11:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 25
11:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 33
12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 26
12:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 23
12:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 37
12:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 30
1:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 30
1:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 31

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 235 0 235
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
PEAK HR : 12:30 PM 167 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 0 128
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.865 0.000 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 30
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 33
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 27
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 39
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 39
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 36
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 24
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 30
6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 33
6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20
6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 28
6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 33

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 372 0 372
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
PEAK HR : 04:30 PM 291 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 0 141
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.904 0.000 Data - Totals
Castro St Castro St Evelyn Ave Evelyn Ave

0.809

AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NOON NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
22-080047-001
2/9/2022
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM

0.9040.904
12:30 PM - 01:30 PM

0.8650.865
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM

0.809
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Castro St & Evelyn Ave
City: Mountain View Project ID:

Control: 1-Way Stop(WB) Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
7:30 AM 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6
7:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3
8:00 AM 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
8:30 AM 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
9:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
9:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 10 2 0 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 9 0 40
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 83.33% 16.67% 0.00% 56.25% 43.75% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 75.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:45 AM 40 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 6 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 18
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.375 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.500 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
11:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
11:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
12:00 PM 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5
12:15 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
12:30 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 4
12:45 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4
1:00 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
1:15 PM 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 6

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 6 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 26
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 85.71% 14.29% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 12:30 PM 167 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 16
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.667 0.000 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 6
4:15 PM 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 6
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 4
4:45 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 8
5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 10
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
5:30 PM 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 6
5:45 PM 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 8
6:00 PM 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 7
6:15 PM 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4
6:30 PM 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4
6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 7 10 0 14 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 10 0 21 1 68
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 41.18% 58.82% 0.00% 73.68% 10.53% 0.00% 15.79% 31.25% 0.00% 65.63% 3.13% PEAK HR : 04:30 PM 291 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 9 1 23
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.417 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.417 0.000 0.750 0.250 Data - Bikes
Castro St Castro St Evelyn Ave Evelyn Ave

0.438 0.583 0.500

AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NOON NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
22-080047-001
2/9/2022
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM

0.5750.500 0.500 0.625
12:30 PM - 01:30 PM

0.6670.500 0.500 0.667
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM

0.563
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning
Movement CountLocation:Castro St & Evelyn Ave Project ID:

City:Mountain View Date:

NS/EW Streets:

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3
7:15 AM 1 0 0 2 4 1 0 0 8
7:30 AM 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 4
7:45 AM 4 0 2 0 9 5 0 0 20
8:00 AM 2 0 1 1 2 4 0 0 10
8:15 AM 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 5
8:30 AM 0 0 0 3 5 4 0 0 12
8:45 AM 0 1 2 1 3 2 0 0 9
9:00 AM 0 1 0 1 4 8 0 0 14
9:15 AM 0 0 1 0 7 5 0 0 13
9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 6
9:45 AM 0 0 1 2 2 5 0 0 10

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 9 2 10 10 45 38 0 0 114
APPROACH %'s : 81.82% 18.18% 50.00% 50.00% 54.22% 45.78% PEAK HR : 07:45 AM 39 -1 -1 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 6 0 4 4 17 16 0 0 47
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.375 0.500 0.333 0.472 0.800
Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
11:30 AM 0 0 1 3 2 4 0 0 10
11:45 AM 0 0 1 1 7 6 0 0 15
12:00 PM 4 3 0 6 7 5 0 0 25
12:15 PM 2 0 0 2 10 17 0 0 31
12:30 PM 0 1 0 6 10 11 0 0 28
12:45 PM 0 1 3 0 10 16 0 0 30
1:00 PM 1 0 1 4 18 3 0 0 27
1:15 PM 0 0 8 0 4 5 0 0 17

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 7 5 14 22 68 67 0 0 183
APPROACH %'s : 58.33% 41.67% 38.89% 61.11% 50.37% 49.63% PEAK HR : 12:30 PM 165 -2 -2 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 1 2 12 10 42 35 0 0 102
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.500 0.375 0.417 0.583 0.547

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 2 0 3 0 6 2 0 0 13
4:15 PM 0 0 3 5 10 9 0 0 27
4:30 PM 1 0 1 4 5 6 0 0 17
4:45 PM 1 1 2 2 14 9 0 0 29
5:00 PM 0 0 1 8 8 11 0 0 28
5:15 PM 0 6 3 1 13 7 0 0 30
5:30 PM 3 4 3 6 9 15 0 0 40
5:45 PM 0 2 0 6 17 14 0 0 39
6:00 PM 1 0 4 7 8 32 0 0 52
6:15 PM 0 2 3 2 17 21 0 0 45
6:30 PM 2 2 1 2 10 16 0 0 33
6:45 PM 0 0 2 7 6 20 0 0 35

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 10 17 26 50 123 162 0 0 388
APPROACH %'s : 37.04% 62.96% 34.21% 65.79% 43.16% 56.84% PEAK HR : 04:30 PM 288 -3 -3 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 2 7 7 15 40 33 0 0 104
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500 0.292 0.583 0.469 0.714 0.750
Data - Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Castro St Castro St Evelyn Ave Evelyn Ave

0.667 0.589
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
AM

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
NOON

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
PM

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
22-080047-001
2/9/2022

0.8670.375 0.611 0.793
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
12:30 PM - 01:30 PM

0.8500.750 0.688 0.740

0.5880.375
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 22-080047-001 Day:

City: Mountain View Date:

AM 0 0 0 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 0 0 0 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 1 0 0 1 141 128 110
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 TEV 110 128 141 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 PHF 0.81 0.86 0.90
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 0 0 0 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 0 0 0 AM
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 0

NORTHBOUND
Castro St
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
12:30 PM - 01:30 PM
0 0 0
Totals (AM) 0 Total Bikes (AM)
Evelyn Ave

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
EvelynAve
0 0 0

CONTROL
1-Way Stop(WB)
128 11:30 AM - 01:30 PM
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 141
Castro St & Evelyn Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Castro St Wednesday
SOUTHBOUND 2/9/2022
4:00 PM - 07:00 PM
PEAK HOURS 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM 110 7:00 AM - 10:00 AM

COUNTPERIODS

NOONAM PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
0 0
0 0
0 0
7 12
4 15
10 4 40
42 17
33 35
16 7
2 0
2 1
6 9
0 50
0 0
0 0
5 2
0 0
8 0
00 0
0 0
0 4
0 4
0 2
0 20
0 0
0 4
3 1
6 0
141
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
128
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
110
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Castro St & Villa St
City: Mountain View Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 0.5 0.5 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 10 0 0 27
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 21 0 0 44
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 28 0 0 59
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 38 0 0 66
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 1 0 31 0 1 76
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 51 0 0 92
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 54 0 0 101
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 38 0 0 73
9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 52 0 0 86
9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 27 0 0 69
9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 47 0 0 81
9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 46 0 0 87

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 416 0 1 0 443 0 1 861 APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 99.76% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 99.77% 0.00% 0.23% PEAK HR : 08:15 AM 42 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 0 0 0 195 0 0 352
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.835 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.903 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
11:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 46 0 0 91
11:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 60 0 0 114
12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 1 0 50 0 2 113
12:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 47 0 0 101
12:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 41 0 0 100
12:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 42 0 1 96
1:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 42 0 0 91
1:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 36 0 0 79

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 417 0 1 0 364 0 3 785 APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 99.76% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 99.18% 0.00% 0.82% PEAK HR : 11:45 AM 164 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 227 0 1 0 198 0 2 428
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.946 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.825 0.000 0.250 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 46 0 0 103
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 40 0 0 95
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 53 0 0 106
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 57 0 0 129
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 70 0 0 129
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 62 0 0 129
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 0 64 0 0 125
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 62 0 0 132
6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 62 0 0 128
6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 56 0 0 135
6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 63 0 0 122
6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 1 0 42 0 0 92

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 747 0 1 0 677 0 0 1425 APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 99.87% 0.00% 0.13% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 05:30 PM 295 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 276 0 0 0 244 0 0 520
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.873 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.953 0.000 0.000 Data - Totals
Castro St Castro St Villa St Villa St

0.835 0.903

AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NOON NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
22-080047-002
2/9/2022
05:30 PM - 06:30 PM

0.9630.873 0.953
11:45 AM - 12:45 PM

0.9390.934 0.833
08:15 AM - 09:15 AM

0.871
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Castro St & Villa St
City: Mountain View Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 0.5 0.5 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
7:30 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
8:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 6
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4
8:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 5

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 5 1 0 1 6 1 0 4 5 0 0 0 10 0 0 33
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 83.33% 16.67% 0.00% 12.50% 75.00% 12.50% 0.00% 44.44% 55.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 08:15 AM 42 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 13
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.625 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
11:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:45 AM 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
12:00 PM 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 10
12:15 PM 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
12:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
1:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
1:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 3 6 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 1 1 22
APPROACH %'s : 27.27% 54.55% 9.09% 9.09% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 60.00% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 60.00% 20.00% 20.00% PEAK HR : 11:45 AM 164 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 3 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.375 0.625 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.250 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 6
4:15 PM 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 5
4:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 4
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5
5:00 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4
5:15 PM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4
5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4
5:45 PM 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 6
6:00 PM 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 7
6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
6:30 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 4 10 0 0 0 8 7 0 0 6 0 0 3 11 1 0 50
APPROACH %'s : 28.57% 71.43% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 53.33% 46.67% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 73.33% 6.67% 0.00% PEAK HR : 05:30 PM 295 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 1 4 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 18
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.375 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.750 0.000 0.000 Data - Bikes
Castro St Castro St Villa St Villa St

0.250 0.333 0.750 0.625

AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NOON NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
22-080047-002
2/9/2022
05:30 PM - 06:30 PM

0.6430.625 0.583 0.500 1.000
11:45 AM - 12:45 PM

0.4000.625 0.250 0.250 0.250
08:15 AM - 09:15 AM

0.813
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning
Movement CountLocation:Castro St & Villa St Project ID:

City:Mountain View Date:

NS/EW Streets:

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 4
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 2 10
7:30 AM 0 0 2 1 1 3 2 6 15
7:45 AM 2 0 1 0 7 4 4 3 21
8:00 AM 0 2 3 1 7 5 3 2 23
8:15 AM 0 0 8 6 2 4 4 5 29
8:30 AM 1 0 3 5 3 9 2 8 31
8:45 AM 6 4 3 0 9 9 8 7 46
9:00 AM 3 3 7 7 4 10 3 6 43
9:15 AM 0 0 8 7 10 15 5 5 50
9:30 AM 1 2 6 2 6 4 3 4 28
9:45 AM 6 5 8 6 5 6 5 10 51

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 20 16 49 35 61 71 41 58 351
APPROACH %'s : 55.56% 44.44% 58.33% 41.67% 46.21% 53.79% 41.41% 58.59% PEAK HR : 08:15 AM 41 -1 -1 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 10 7 21 18 18 32 17 26 149
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.417 0.438 0.656 0.643 0.500 0.800 0.531 0.813 Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
11:30 AM 5 4 6 10 26 13 22 12 98
11:45 AM 5 9 8 14 33 16 26 12 123
12:00 PM 19 29 16 8 25 18 40 22 177
12:15 PM 9 15 18 8 42 37 51 25 205
12:30 PM 15 17 9 18 32 33 32 31 187
12:45 PM 11 8 13 18 25 26 25 38 164
1:00 PM 13 12 26 19 37 31 18 50 206
1:15 PM 7 14 12 18 23 36 25 42 177

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 84 108 108 113 243 210 239 232 1337
APPROACH %'s : 43.75% 56.25% 48.87% 51.13% 53.64% 46.36% 50.74% 49.26% PEAK HR : 11:45 AM 162 -2 -2 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 48 70 51 48 132 104 149 90 692
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.632 0.603 0.708 0.667 0.786 0.703 0.730 0.726

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 3 1 7 7 18 13 16 8 73
4:15 PM 5 9 11 16 23 20 19 8 111
4:30 PM 8 11 7 6 26 13 33 13 117
4:45 PM 11 9 5 20 15 27 31 23 141
5:00 PM 16 11 9 16 25 33 25 24 159
5:15 PM 16 18 13 11 44 36 50 26 214
5:30 PM 16 18 15 11 33 26 29 29 177
5:45 PM 6 11 13 12 39 29 42 45 197
6:00 PM 8 18 5 15 40 48 56 19 209
6:15 PM 4 13 9 21 47 44 57 36 231
6:30 PM 5 29 17 15 44 53 32 47 242
6:45 PM 11 27 14 14 58 49 51 49 273

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 109 175 125 164 412 391 441 327 2144
APPROACH %'s : 38.38% 61.62% 43.25% 56.75% 51.31% 48.69% 57.42% 42.58% PEAK HR : 05:30 PM 292 -3 -3 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 34 60 42 59 159 147 184 129 814
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.531 0.833 0.700 0.702 0.846 0.766 0.807 0.717 Data - Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Castro St Castro St Villa St Villa St

0.696 0.694 0.717
08:15 AM - 09:15 AM
AM

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
NOON

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
PM

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
22-080047-002
2/9/2022

0.8810.691 0.842 0.841 0.841
05:30 PM - 06:30 PM
11:45 AM - 12:45 PM

0.8440.615 0.917 0.747 0.786

0.8100.425
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 22-080047-002 Day:

City: Mountain View Date:

AM 0 0 0 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 0 0 0 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM

0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 0 0
1 244 198 195
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 TEV 352 428 520 0 0 2 0
157 227 276 1 PHF 0.87 0.94 0.96
0 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 0.5

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 0 0 0 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 0 0 0 AM
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 0

NORTHBOUND
Castro St
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
11:45 AM - 12:45 PM
276 229 157
Totals (AM) 0 Total Bikes (AM)
Villa St

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
VillaSt
195 199 244

CONTROL
Signalized
0 11:30 AM - 01:30 PM
05:30 PM - 06:30 PM 0
Castro St & Villa St
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Castro St Wednesday
SOUTHBOUND 2/9/2022
4:00 PM - 07:00 PM
PEAK HOURS 08:15 AM - 09:15 AM 0 7:00 AM - 10:00 AM

COUNTPERIODS

NOONAM PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
129
90 26
184
149
17 42
51 21
59 48
18 159
132
18 147
104
32 60
70 7
34 48
10 0
3 10
2 0
4 3
0 0
4 1
1 0
00 0
3 0
0 1
1 5
3 0
5 00
1 2
0 3
1 1
0 0
0 244
00 276
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
198
00 227
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
195
00 157
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Castro St & Dana St
City: Mountain View Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 0.5 0.5 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 9
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 5 0 0 9
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 10 0 0 17
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 10 0 0 15
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 18 0 0 27
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 17 0 0 26
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 13 0 0 23
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 16 0 0 19
9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 14 0 0 23
9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 9 0 0 20
9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 17 0 0 25
9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 0 12 0 0 22

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 5 0 149 0 0 235
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 94.19% 0.00% 5.81% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 08:00 AM 41 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 2 0 64 0 0 95
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.725 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.889 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
11:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 23 0 0 36
11:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 23 0 0 38
12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 28 0 0 45
12:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 17 0 0 30
12:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 27 0 0 49
12:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 29 0 0 42
1:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 23 0 0 37
1:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 20 0 0 37

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 0 0 0 190 0 0 314 APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 12:00 PM 165 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 101 0 0 166
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.739 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.871 0.000 0.000 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 23 0 0 33
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 15 0 1 32
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 28 0 0 40
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 28 0 3 49
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 1 0 35 0 1 67
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 37 0 0 49
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 25 0 0 38
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 23 0 0 47
6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 1 0 35 0 0 53
6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 30 0 0 58
6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 1 0 31 0 0 53
6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 16 0 0 30

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 214 0 4 0 326 0 5 549 APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 98.17% 0.00% 1.83% 0.00% 98.49% 0.00% 1.51% PEAK HR : 05:45 PM 296 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 2 0 119 0 0 211
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.804 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.850 0.000 0.000 Data - Totals
Castro St Castro St Dana St Dana St

0.775 0.889

AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NOON NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
22-080047-003
2/9/2022
05:45 PM - 06:45 PM

0.9090.821 0.850
12:00 PM - 01:00 PM

0.8470.739 0.871
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM

0.880
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Castro St & Dana St
City: Mountain View Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 0.5 0.5 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
8:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 7
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 4 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 6 0 0 1 7 1 0 24
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 80.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.11% 77.78% 11.11% 0.00% PEAK HR : 08:00 AM 41 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 2 1 0 12
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.333 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
11:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
11:45 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5
12:00 PM 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 8
12:15 PM 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
12:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3
1:15 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 1 8 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 0 3 2 2 0 26
APPROACH %'s : 8.33% 66.67% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 83.33% 0.00% 0.00% 42.86% 28.57% 28.57% 0.00% PEAK HR : 12:00 PM 165 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 11
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.375 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
4:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 6
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4:45 PM 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 8
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 5
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
5:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
6:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4
6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
6:30 PM 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 7 8 0 0 0 11 4 0 3 5 2 0 1 10 0 0 51
APPROACH %'s : 46.67% 53.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 73.33% 26.67% 0.00% 30.00% 50.00% 20.00% 0.00% 9.09% 90.91% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 05:45 PM 296 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 7 3 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 18
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 Data - Bikes
Castro St Castro St Dana St Dana St

0.250 0.375 0.333 0.333

AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NOON NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
22-080047-003
2/9/2022
05:45 PM - 06:45 PM

0.5000.313 0.750 0.250 0.250
12:00 PM - 01:00 PM

0.3440.417 0.250 0.250 0.250
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM

0.429
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning
Movement CountLocation:Castro St & Dana St Project ID:

City:Mountain View Date:

NS/EW Streets:

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 1 1 3 0 3 2 2 0 12
7:15 AM 0 0 2 1 3 1 2 2 11
7:30 AM 0 1 1 2 6 5 1 4 20
7:45 AM 3 0 6 1 8 8 4 4 34
8:00 AM 0 4 2 4 6 4 3 5 28
8:15 AM 1 2 2 3 5 3 3 4 23
8:30 AM 1 0 1 4 5 5 6 8 30
8:45 AM 6 0 2 6 8 7 6 6 41
9:00 AM 0 3 1 4 7 5 2 5 27
9:15 AM 3 1 7 1 10 15 5 4 46
9:30 AM 1 1 6 9 6 8 5 9 45
9:45 AM 3 3 2 3 8 10 5 9 43

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 19 16 35 38 75 73 44 60 360
APPROACH %'s : 54.29% 45.71% 47.95% 52.05% 50.68% 49.32% 42.31% 57.69% PEAK HR : 08:00 AM 40 -1 -1 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 8 6 7 17 24 19 18 23 122
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.333 0.375 0.875 0.708 0.750 0.679 0.750 0.719 Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
11:30 AM 1 7 5 13 15 8 21 19 89
11:45 AM 3 6 13 11 25 15 22 21 116
12:00 PM 2 6 15 8 20 17 39 23 130
12:15 PM 3 6 9 16 21 33 39 26 153
12:30 PM 4 5 12 6 31 19 19 33 129
12:45 PM 10 8 9 8 18 19 23 47 142
1:00 PM 2 5 9 11 37 19 14 34 131
1:15 PM 1 0 11 13 25 34 27 42 153

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 26 43 83 86 192 164 204 245 1043
APPROACH %'s : 37.68% 62.32% 49.11% 50.89% 53.93% 46.07% 45.43% 54.57% PEAK HR : 12:00 PM 163 -2 -2 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 19 25 45 38 90 88 120 129 554
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.475 0.781 0.750 0.594 0.726 0.667 0.769 0.686

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 15 3 3 7 30 27 22 11 118
4:15 PM 2 20 9 13 22 17 21 9 113
4:30 PM 0 1 3 6 24 33 34 35 136
4:45 PM 5 4 8 1 23 27 32 36 136
5:00 PM 6 4 6 3 22 27 23 25 116
5:15 PM 4 5 19 4 39 32 34 19 156
5:30 PM 10 7 11 4 43 25 23 38 161
5:45 PM 5 6 11 23 39 26 48 39 197
6:00 PM 6 6 14 12 45 43 30 27 183
6:15 PM 6 4 10 8 55 31 39 40 193
6:30 PM 9 4 12 10 30 48 44 46 203
6:45 PM 3 4 24 14 66 49 44 49 253

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 71 68 130 105 438 385 394 374 1965
APPROACH %'s : 51.08% 48.92% 55.32% 44.68% 53.22% 46.78% 51.30% 48.70% PEAK HR : 05:45 PM 293 -3 -3 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 26 20 47 53 169 148 161 152 776
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.722 0.833 0.839 0.576 0.768 0.771 0.839 0.826 Data - Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Castro St Castro St Dana St Dana St

0.750 0.717 0.732
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
AM

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
NOON

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
PM

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
22-080047-003
2/9/2022

0.9560.885 0.735 0.901 0.869
05:45 PM - 06:45 PM
12:00 PM - 01:00 PM

0.9050.611 0.830 0.824 0.889

0.7440.583
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 22-080047-003 Day:

City: Mountain View Date:

AM 0 0 0 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 0 0 0 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM

0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 0 0
1 119 101 64
2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 TEV 95 166 211 0 0 0 0
29 65 90 1 PHF 0.88 0.85 0.91
0 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 0.5

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 0 0 0 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 0 0 0 AM
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 0

NORTHBOUND
Castro St
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
12:00 PM - 01:00 PM
90 65 29
Totals (AM) 0 Total Bikes (AM)
Dana St

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
DanaSt
66 101 121

CONTROL
Signalized
0 11:30 AM - 01:30 PM
05:45 PM - 06:45 PM 0
Castro St & Dana St
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Castro St Wednesday
SOUTHBOUND 2/9/2022
4:00 PM - 07:00 PM
PEAK HOURS 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0 7:00 AM - 10:00 AM

COUNTPERIODS

NOONAM PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
152
129
23 161
120
18 47
45 7
53 38
17 169
90 24
148
88 19
20 25
6 26
19 8
0 0
10 0
1 2
4 0
0 3
7 2
0 00
3 0
0 1
0 1
3 1
1 2
10 4
0 0
3 0
0 1
0 0
119
00 90
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
101
00 65
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
64 00
29 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Castro St & California St
City: Mountain View Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 3 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 7 3 0 3 5 0 0 27
7:15 AM 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 12 5 0 4 10 0 1 39
7:30 AM 1 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 1 14 6 1 5 7 0 0 43
7:45 AM 3 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 22 7 0 4 20 0 0 61
8:00 AM 6 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 44 12 1 13 31 0 0 116
8:15 AM 9 0 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 30 7 0 5 15 0 0 79
8:30 AM 7 0 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 18 5 0 4 9 0 0 60
8:45 AM 6 0 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 23 7 0 5 14 0 0 69
9:00 AM 10 0 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 21 9 0 5 17 0 0 74
9:15 AM 4 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 20 7 1 3 14 0 0 58
9:30 AM 4 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 27 14 0 9 15 0 0 80
9:45 AM 3 0 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 12 5 0 1 11 0 2 53

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 58 0 94 33 0 1 0 0 1 250 87 3 61 168 0 3 759 APPROACH %'s : 31.35% 0.00% 50.81% 17.84% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.29% 73.31% 25.51% 0.88% 26.29% 72.41% 0.00% 1.29% PEAK HR : 08:00 AM 41 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 28 0 41 12 0 0 0 0 0 115 31 1 27 69 0 0 324 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.778 0.000 0.683 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.653 0.646 0.250 0.519 0.556 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
11:30 AM 12 0 17 5 0 0 0 0 0 26 18 2 11 26 0 2 119
11:45 AM 11 0 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 23 10 0 8 21 0 0 92
12:00 PM 8 0 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 23 14 0 4 19 0 0 86
12:15 PM 10 0 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 19 17 0 6 18 0 0 87
12:30 PM 12 0 15 5 0 0 0 0 0 20 14 1 5 16 0 0 88
12:45 PM 6 0 14 6 0 0 0 0 0 21 13 1 6 20 0 0 87
1:00 PM 12 0 8 11 0 0 0 0 1 20 17 1 10 16 0 2 98
1:15 PM 20 0 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 25 17 1 5 13 0 1 98

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 91 0 109 42 0 0 0 0 1 177 120 6 55 149 0 5 755 APPROACH %'s : 37.60% 0.00% 45.04% 17.36% 0.33% 58.22% 39.47% 1.97% 26.32% 71.29% 0.00% 2.39% PEAK HR : 11:30 AM 163 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 41 0 61 15 0 0 0 0 0 91 59 2 29 84 0 2 384 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.854 0.000 0.897 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.875 0.819 0.250 0.659 0.808 0.000 0.250 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 4 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 39 14 0 6 25 0 0 102
4:15 PM 8 0 14 6 0 0 0 0 0 38 17 0 5 15 0 0 103
4:30 PM 12 0 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 40 17 0 8 24 0 0 125
4:45 PM 11 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 15 0 8 25 0 0 122
5:00 PM 9 0 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 25 5 3 6 19 0 0 88
5:15 PM 12 0 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 39 8 0 4 17 0 0 98
5:30 PM 10 0 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 38 11 0 6 20 0 0 115
5:45 PM 13 0 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 38 13 2 8 19 0 0 113
6:00 PM 7 0 15 4 0 0 0 0 0 44 11 0 5 29 0 0 115
6:15 PM 12 0 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 37 15 2 4 26 0 0 116
6:30 PM 7 0 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 38 12 1 6 22 0 1 109
6:45 PM 11 0 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 30 6 2 5 19 0 0 91

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 116 0 211 29 0 0 0 0 0 455 144 10 71 260 0 1 1297 APPROACH %'s : 32.58% 0.00% 59.27% 8.15% 0.00% 74.71% 23.65% 1.64% 21.39% 78.31% 0.00% 0.30% PEAK HR : 05:30 PM 295 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 42 0 80 9 0 0 0 0 0 157 50 4 23 94 0 0 459 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.808 0.000 0.690 0.563 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.892 0.833 0.500 0.719 0.810 0.000 0.000 Data - Totals
Castro St Castro St California St California St

0.844 0.645 0.545

AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NOON NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
22-080047-004
2/9/2022
05:30 PM - 06:30 PM

0.9890.819 0.959 0.860
11:30 AM - 12:30 PM

0.8070.860 0.826 0.737
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM

0.698
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Castro St & California St
City: Mountain View Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
7:30 AM 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 5
7:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
8:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 6 1 0 13
8:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3
9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 5
9:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3
9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 3
9:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 4 4 0 0 5 0 0 0 9 3 0 2 13 1 0 41
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 12.50% 81.25% 6.25% 0.00% PEAK HR : 08:00 AM 41 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 8 1 0 22
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.500 0.000 0.250 0.333 0.250 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
11:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
11:45 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 6
12:00 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
12:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 7
12:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
12:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 4
1:00 PM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
1:15 PM 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 6

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 1 9 1 0 0 4 1 0 2 6 2 0 2 5 0 0 33
APPROACH %'s : 9.09% 81.82% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 80.00% 20.00% 0.00% 20.00% 60.00% 20.00% 0.00% 28.57% 71.43% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 11:30 AM 163 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 4 0 0 2 4 0 0 19
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.625 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.000 0.500 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.500 0.000 0.000 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5
4:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4:30 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
4:45 PM 3 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 15
5:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 6
5:45 PM 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 7
6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:30 PM 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 4 15 4 0 2 7 2 1 1 16 2 1 1 6 0 0 62
APPROACH %'s : 17.39% 65.22% 17.39% 0.00% 16.67% 58.33% 16.67% 8.33% 5.00% 80.00% 10.00% 5.00% 14.29% 85.71% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 05:30 PM 295 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 2 1 0 1 6 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 2 0 0 18
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.417 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 Data - Bikes
Castro St Castro St California St California St

0.500 0.333 0.500 0.357

AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NOON NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
22-080047-004
2/9/2022
05:30 PM - 06:30 PM

0.6430.250 0.350 0.375 0.500
11:30 AM - 12:30 PM

0.6790.625 0.250 0.500 0.500
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM

0.423
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning
Movement CountLocation:Castro St & California St Project ID:

City:Mountain View Date:

NS/EW Streets:

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 1 0 1 2 2 2 0 8
7:15 AM 0 2 2 0 6 1 4 3 18
7:30 AM 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 4 11
7:45 AM 5 1 1 1 2 5 8 6 29
8:00 AM 2 0 1 1 3 5 5 3 20
8:15 AM 1 2 0 0 2 1 8 5 19
8:30 AM 1 3 2 1 1 2 10 7 27
8:45 AM 0 1 1 3 1 2 9 9 26
9:00 AM 4 3 2 1 9 6 6 11 42
9:15 AM 1 1 2 3 6 8 10 8 39
9:30 AM 4 4 2 0 3 1 5 7 26
9:45 AM 2 1 0 3 4 2 5 6 23

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 20 20 15 14 40 37 73 69 288
APPROACH %'s : 50.00% 50.00% 51.72% 48.28% 51.95% 48.05% 51.41% 48.59% PEAK HR : 08:00 AM 40 -1 -1 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 4 6 4 5 7 10 32 24 92
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.417 0.583 0.500 0.800 0.667 Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
11:30 AM 4 3 0 1 8 4 25 9 54
11:45 AM 5 3 1 1 16 8 27 8 69
12:00 PM 5 9 1 6 22 9 33 16 101
12:15 PM 2 5 2 5 19 11 29 21 94
12:30 PM 3 7 4 4 17 2 22 34 93
12:45 PM 14 5 2 0 18 18 17 32 106
1:00 PM 6 3 3 2 13 10 17 32 86
1:15 PM 11 2 1 3 8 22 19 24 90

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 50 37 14 22 121 84 189 176 693
APPROACH %'s : 57.47% 42.53% 38.89% 61.11% 59.02% 40.98% 51.78% 48.22% PEAK HR : 11:30 AM 161 -2 -2 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 16 20 4 13 65 32 114 54 318
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.800 0.556 0.500 0.542 0.739 0.727 0.864 0.643

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 6 9 0 2 18 8 16 15 74
4:15 PM 0 4 4 1 14 13 15 19 70
4:30 PM 6 3 1 4 13 8 28 26 89
4:45 PM 5 11 2 2 17 8 10 18 73
5:00 PM 6 15 4 5 14 13 16 20 93
5:15 PM 2 6 2 7 15 9 25 27 93
5:30 PM 16 11 11 3 14 8 28 14 105
5:45 PM 11 12 5 7 19 17 36 24 131
6:00 PM 3 4 8 10 16 19 45 24 129
6:15 PM 6 6 7 5 15 5 27 22 93
6:30 PM 10 15 8 5 10 17 19 43 127
6:45 PM 10 10 1 6 20 23 35 29 134

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 81 106 53 57 185 148 300 281 1211
APPROACH %'s : 43.32% 56.68% 48.18% 51.82% 55.56% 44.44% 51.64% 48.36% PEAK HR : 05:30 PM 292 -3 -3 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 36 33 31 25 64 49 136 84 458
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.563 0.688 0.705 0.625 0.842 0.645 0.756 0.875 Data - Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Castro St Castro St California St California St

0.563 0.531 0.778
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
AM

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
NOON

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
PM

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
22-080047-004
2/9/2022

0.8740.639 0.778 0.785 0.797
05:30 PM - 06:30 PM
11:30 AM - 12:30 PM

0.7870.643 0.607 0.782 0.840

0.8520.625
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 22-080047-004 Day:

City: Mountain View Date:

AM 0 0 0 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 0 0 0 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
1 94 84 69
1 2 4 0 0 23 29 27
0 0 0 0.5 TEV 324 384 459 0 0 2 0
115 91 157 0.5 PHF 0.70 0.81 0.99
31 59 50 1 0 1 0.5 0.5

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 9 42 0 80 PM
NOON 15 41 0 61 NOON
AM 12 28 0 41 AM
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
103
70 NORTHBOUND
Castro St
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
11:30 AM - 12:30 PM
237 154 156
Totals (AM) 82 Total Bikes (AM)
California St

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
CaliforniaSt
98 127 140

CONTROL
Signalized
0 11:30 AM - 01:30 PM
05:30 PM - 06:30 PM 0
Castro St & California St
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Castro St Wednesday
SOUTHBOUND 2/9/2022
4:00 PM - 07:00 PM
PEAK HOURS 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0 7:00 AM - 10:00 AM

COUNTPERIODS

NOONAM PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
84 54
24 136
114
32 31
4 4
25 13
5 64
65 7
49 32
10 33
20 6
36 16
4 0
2 00
5 0
0 6
1 1
2 0
0 4
20 4
2 1
1 0
0 5
0 1
8 12
4 0
0 4
0 1
1 0
0 94
2350
157
0 0
0 0
80 0
42 0
84 2959
91 0
0 0
0 61
0 41
0 69
2731
115
0 0
0 0
41 0
28 kimley-horn.com 10 Almaden Blvd #1250, San José, CA 95113 669-800-4130 Attachment B: Intersection Concepts

LOADING LOADING

kimley-horn.com 10 Almaden Blvd #1250, San José, CA 95113 669-800-4130 Attachment C: Synchro Analysis Sheets
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 2 AM 1: Shoreline Blvd & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 199 2186 11 170 1317
Future Volume (vph) 0 199 2186 11 170 1317
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91
Frt 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1611 5081 1770 5085
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1611 5081 1770 5085
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 216 2376 12 185 1432
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 199 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 17 2388 0 185 1432
Turn Type Perm NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.1 54.6 14.8 73.9
Effective Green, g (s) 7.1 54.6 14.8 73.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.61 0.16 0.82
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 127 3082 291 4175
v/s Ratio Prot c0.47 c0.10 0.28
v/s Ratio Perm c0.01
v/c Ratio 0.13 0.77 0.64 0.34
Uniform Delay, d1 38.6 13.1 35.1 2.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 2.0 4.5 0.2
Delay (s) 39.1 15.1 39.6 2.2
Level of Service D B D A
Approach Delay (s) 39.1 15.1 6.5
Approach LOS D B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues Phase 2 AM
2: Shoreline Blvd & Villa St Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 443 82 52 37 97 261 51 1731 154 1307 v/c Ratio 1.04 0.18 0.12 0.08 0.31 0.56 0.26 0.87 0.77 0.57 Control Delay 82.7 29.5 1.1 19.1 33.5 10.1 43.9 32.4 67.0 21.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 82.7 29.5 1.1 19.1 33.5 10.1 43.9 32.4 67.0 21.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~263 40 0 14 48 10 25 284 79 183 Queue Length 95th (ft) 308 75 4 32 87 66 77 #653 #257 386 Internal Link Dist (ft) 353 637 450 453
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 427 975 833 452 966 924 199 1994 199 2277 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.04 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.28 0.26 0.87 0.77 0.57 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 2 AM
2: Shoreline Blvd & Villa St Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 408 75 48 34 89 240 47 1560 32 142 935 268 Future Volume (veh/h) 408 75 48 34 89 240 47 1560 32 142 935 268 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 0.94 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 443 82 52 37 97 261 51 1696 35 154 1016 291 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 489 595 476 534 532 428 133 1747 36 173 1417 405 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.32 0.32 0.06 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.34 0.34 0.10 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1496 1781 1870 1505 1781 5142 106 1781 3908 1118 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 443 82 52 37 97 261 51 1123 608 154 885 422 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1496 1781 1870 1505 1781 1702 1844 1781 1702 1621 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 3.2 2.5 1.3 4.0 15.4 2.8 33.4 33.4 8.8 23.0 23.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 3.2 2.5 1.3 4.0 15.4 2.8 33.4 33.4 8.8 23.0 23.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.69
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 489 595 476 534 532 428 133 1157 627 173 1234 588 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.14 0.11 0.07 0.18 0.61 0.38 0.97 0.97 0.89 0.72 0.72 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 489 845 676 594 838 674 173 1157 627 173 1234 588 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 31.0 25.0 24.7 20.1 27.7 31.8 45.3 33.4 33.4 45.8 28.2 28.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 20.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.4 1.8 19.7 28.7 38.4 2.0 4.2 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 8.7 1.4 0.9 0.6 1.8 5.7 1.3 16.5 19.5 5.7 9.5 9.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.3 25.1 24.8 20.2 27.9 33.2 47.1 53.1 62.1 84.2 30.2 32.4 LnGrp LOS D C C C C C D D E F C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 577 395 1782 1461
Approach Delay, s/veh 45.2 30.7 56.0 36.6
Approach LOS D C E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.7 42.3 11.0 37.7 14.0 40.0 14.5 34.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.1 4.5 * 5 4.0 5.1 4.5 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 34.9 10.0 * 46 10.0 34.9 10.0 46.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 25.0 3.3 5.2 10.8 35.4 12.0 17.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.4
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th AWSC Phase 2 AM
3: Franklin St & Villa St Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 28 168 39 10 272 21 38 11 8 15 4 27
Future Vol, veh/h 28 168 39 10 272 21 38 11 8 15 4 27
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 30 183 42 11 296 23 41 12 9 16 4 29
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 9.7 10.6 9 8.5

HCM LOS A B A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 67% 12% 3% 33%
Vol Thru, % 19% 71% 90% 9%
Vol Right, % 14% 17% 7% 59%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 57 235 303 46
LT Vol 38 28 10 15
Through Vol 11 168 272 4
RT Vol 8 39 21 27
Lane Flow Rate 62 255 329 50
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.092 0.32 0.409 0.07
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.353 4.505 4.468 5.039
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 666 797 804 707
Service Time 3.412 2.543 2.503 3.1
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.093 0.32 0.409 0.071
HCM Control Delay 9 9.7 10.6 8.5
HCM Lane LOS A A B A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 1.4 2 0.2
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 2 AM
4: Bryant St & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 102 70 14 179 21 15
Future Vol, veh/h 102 70 14 179 21 15
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - Stop
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 111 76 15 195 23 16
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 187 0 374 149
Stage 1 - - - - 149 -
Stage 2 - - - - 225 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1387 - 627 898
Stage 1 - - - - 879 -
Stage 2 - - - - 812 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1387 - 619 898
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 619 -
Stage 1 - - - - 879 -
Stage 2 - - - - 802 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 8.5

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 1061 - - 1387 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.037 - - 0.011 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - - 7.6 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
HCM 6th AWSC Phase 2 AM
5: Bryant St & Villa St Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.5
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 36 134 20 29 280 41 25 13 10 14 56 5 Future Vol, veh/h 36 134 20 29 280 41 25 13 10 14 56 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 39 146 22 32 304 45 27 14 11 15 61 5
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 9.5 11.5 8.9 9.1

HCM LOS A B A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 52% 19% 8% 19%
Vol Thru, % 27% 71% 80% 75%
Vol Right, % 21% 11% 12% 7%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 48 190 350 75
LT Vol 25 36 29 14
Through Vol 13 134 280 56
RT Vol 10 20 41 5
Lane Flow Rate 52 207 380 82
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.078 0.268 0.472 0.121
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.358 4.679 4.47 5.326
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 664 764 803 668
Service Time 3.431 2.731 2.512 3.394
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.078 0.271 0.473 0.123
HCM Control Delay 8.9 9.5 11.5 9.1
HCM Lane LOS A A B A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 1.1 2.6 0.4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 2 AM 6: Castro St & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 109 0 0 225 0 0
Future Volume (Veh/h) 109 0 0 225 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Hourly flow rate (vph) 133 0 0 274 0 0
Pedestrians 40 14
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 0.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage 4 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 40 54 80 40 40
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 40 54 80 40 40
tC, single (s) 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 2.2
p0 queue free % 84 100 100 67 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 820 975 772 820 1510
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1
Volume Total 133 274
Volume Left 0 0
Volume Right 0 0
cSH 820 820
Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.33
Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 37
Control Delay (s) 10.2 11.6
Lane LOS B B
Approach Delay (s) 10.2 11.6
Approach LOS B B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 11.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 15.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 2 AM 7: Castro St & Villa St Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Yield Yield
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 141 0 0 366 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 141 0 0 366 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 164 0 0 426 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1
Volume Total (vph) 164 426
Volume Left (vph) 0 0
Volume Right (vph) 0 0
Hadj (s) 0.03 0.03
Departure Headway (s) 4.3 4.1
Degree Utilization, x 0.20 0.48
Capacity (veh/h) 810 864
Control Delay (s) 8.4 10.9
Approach Delay (s) 8.4 10.9
Approach LOS A B
Intersection Summary
Delay 10.2
Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Queues Phase 2 AM
8: Hope St & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 6
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 104 25 257 12 23 115 33 30
v/c Ratio 0.20 0.04 0.44 0.02 0.05 0.22 0.11 0.05
Control Delay 13.4 0.1 16.9 0.1 17.3 6.6 25.5 5.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 13.4 0.1 16.9 0.1 17.3 6.6 25.5 5.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 0 50 0 3 1 7 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 57 0 137 0 26 39 38 15
Internal Link Dist (ft) 286 264 327 4
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 892 940 937 912 614 706 745 1176
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.03 0.27 0.01 0.04 0.16 0.04 0.03 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 2 AM
8: Hope St & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 56 23 52 184 11 21 5 101 30 2 26 Future Volume (veh/h) 40 56 23 52 184 11 21 5 101 30 2 26 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.94 0.98 0.93 0.88 0.86 1.00 0.90 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 61 25 57 200 12 23 5 110 33 2 28 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 104 109 583 89 247 577 387 12 267 65 33 458
Arrive On Green 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 9 278 1487 8 631 1473 1220 60 1317 1781 97 1360 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 104 0 25 257 0 12 23 0 115 33 0 30 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 287 0 1487 638 0 1473 1220 0 1377 1781 0 1457 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.0 3.7 0.9 0.0 0.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.9 0.0 0.5 19.9 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.0 3.7 0.9 0.0 0.7 Prop In Lane 0.41 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.93
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 212 0 583 336 0 577 387 0 279 65 0 491 V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.00 0.04 0.76 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.41 0.51 0.00 0.06 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 212 0 583 338 0 579 500 0 406 525 0 572 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.8 0.0 9.6 12.7 0.0 9.5 16.5 0.0 17.7 24.1 0.0 11.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 6.1 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 0.1 2.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.6 0.0 9.6 23.2 0.0 9.5 16.6 0.0 18.6 30.1 0.0 11.5 LnGrp LOS B A A C A A B A B C A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 129 269 138 63
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.6 22.6 18.3 21.3
Approach LOS B C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.9 17.2 26.9 24.1 26.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 6.9 * 6.9 6.9 6.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 * 15 * 15 20.0 20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 5.7 21.9 2.7 21.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.5
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th AWSC Phase 2 AM
9: Hope St & Villa St Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 8
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh11.2
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 75 21 59 302 20 23 54 31 18 50 6
Future Vol, veh/h 30 75 21 59 302 20 23 54 31 18 50 6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 33 82 23 64 328 22 25 59 34 20 54 7
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 9.1 12.8 9.4 9.2

HCM LOS A B A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 21% 24% 15% 24%
Vol Thru, % 50% 60% 79% 68%
Vol Right, % 29% 17% 5% 8%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 108 126 381 74
LT Vol 23 30 59 18
Through Vol 54 75 302 50
RT Vol 31 21 20 6
Lane Flow Rate 117 137 414 80
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.17 0.186 0.531 0.12
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.204 4.882 4.614 5.391
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 682 729 779 658
Service Time 3.289 2.955 2.67 3.482
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.172 0.188 0.531 0.122
HCM Control Delay 9.4 9.1 12.8 9.2
HCM Lane LOS A A B A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 0.7 3.2 0.4
HCM 6th AWSC Phase 2 AM
10: View St & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 9
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh11.2
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 99 41 41 194 33 29 55 30 120 72 34 Future Vol, veh/h 23 99 41 41 194 33 29 55 30 120 72 34 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 25 108 45 45 211 36 32 60 33 130 78 37
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 10.2 12 9.8 11.6

HCM LOS B B A B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 25% 14% 15% 53%
Vol Thru, % 48% 61% 72% 32%
Vol Right, % 26% 25% 12% 15%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 114 163 268 226
LT Vol 29 23 41 120
Through Vol 55 99 194 72
RT Vol 30 41 33 34
Lane Flow Rate 124 177 291 246
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.189 0.261 0.421 0.369
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.497 5.296 5.199 5.407
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 652 677 693 666
Service Time 3.543 3.337 3.234 3.445
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.19 0.261 0.42 0.369
HCM Control Delay 9.8 10.2 12 11.6
HCM Lane LOS A B B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.7 1 2.1 1.7
HCM 6th AWSC Phase 2 AM
11: View St & Villa St Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 10
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh15.2
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 24 97 5 127 338 6 6 39 59 34 53 60
Future Vol, veh/h 24 97 5 127 338 6 6 39 59 34 53 60
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 26 105 5 138 367 7 7 42 64 37 58 65
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 9.9 19.2 9.8 10.5

HCM LOS A C A B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 6% 19% 27% 23%
Vol Thru, % 38% 77% 72% 36%
Vol Right, % 57% 4% 1% 41%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 104 126 471 147
LT Vol 6 24 127 34
Through Vol 39 97 338 53
RT Vol 59 5 6 60
Lane Flow Rate 113 137 512 160
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.175 0.208 0.708 0.25
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.587 5.462 4.977 5.622
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 640 656 727 638
Service Time 3.637 3.502 3.004 3.667
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.177 0.209 0.704 0.251
HCM Control Delay 9.8 9.9 19.2 10.5
HCM Lane LOS A A C B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 0.8 5.9 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 2 AM 12: Bush St & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 232 30 395 268 0 101
Future Volume (vph) 232 30 395 268 0 101
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.9 4.0 5.9 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.86
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1809 1770 1863 1611
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1809 1770 1863 1611
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Adj. Flow (vph) 264 34 449 305 0 115
RTOR Reduction (vph) 4 0 0 0 0 106
Lane Group Flow (vph) 294 0 449 305 0 9
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 41 41 9
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 28
Turn Type NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.1 25.2 45.3 4.5
Effective Green, g (s) 16.1 25.2 45.3 4.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.42 0.76 0.08
Clearance Time (s) 5.9 4.0 5.9 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 487 747 1413 121
v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.25 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm c0.01
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.60 0.22 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 19.0 13.4 2.1 25.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 1.4 0.1 0.3
Delay (s) 21.1 14.7 2.2 25.9
Level of Service C B A C
Approach Delay (s) 21.1 9.6 25.9
Approach LOS C A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 59.7 Sum of lost time (s) 13.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 2 AM 13: Bush St & Villa St Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 97 83 10 0 74 3 0 0 19 0 0 400
Future Volume (vph) 97 83 10 0 74 3 0 0 19 0 0 400
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.86 0.86
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1824 1850 1567 1570
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1824 1850 1567 1570
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 103 88 11 0 79 3 0 0 20 0 0 426
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 14 0 0 309
Lane Group Flow (vph) 103 96 0 0 80 0 0 0 6 0 0 117
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 12 12 5 8 9 9 8
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 3 1
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm
Protected Phases 1 6 2
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.6 11.2 3.6 7.3 7.3
Effective Green, g (s) 3.6 11.2 3.6 7.3 7.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.42 0.14 0.28 0.28
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 240 770 251 431 432
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.05 c0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.07
v/c Ratio 0.43 0.12 0.32 0.01 0.27
Uniform Delay, d1 10.5 4.7 10.3 7.0 7.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.3
Delay (s) 11.7 4.7 11.1 7.0 7.9
Level of Service B A B A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.3 11.1 7.0 7.9
Approach LOS A B A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 26.5 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 2 AM
14: Shoreline Blvd & Dana St Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 11
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 23 0 0 73 0 1556 22 0 985 20
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 23 0 0 73 0 1556 22 0 985 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 21 21 0 0 5 0 14 14 0 5
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 25 0 0 79 0 1691 24 0 1071 22
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 573 - - 872 - 0 0 - - 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 7.14 - - 7.14 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.92 - - 3.92 - - - - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 396 0 0 252 0 - - 0 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - 0 - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - 0 - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 386 - - 249 - - - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 15 26.1 0 0

HCM LOS C D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) - - 386 249 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.065 0.319 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15 26.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS - - C D - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 1.3 - -
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 2 AM 15: Dana St & Castro St Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Yield Yield
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 51 0 0 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 51 0 0 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 55 0 0 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1
Volume Total (vph) 55 138
Volume Left (vph) 0 0
Volume Right (vph) 0 0
Hadj (s) 0.03 0.03
Departure Headway (s) 4.1 4.0
Degree Utilization, x 0.06 0.15
Capacity (veh/h) 869 897
Control Delay (s) 7.3 7.7
Approach Delay (s) 7.3 7.7
Approach LOS A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 7.6
Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 6th AWSC Phase 2 AM
16: Bush St & Dana St Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 12
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 34 35 108 117 9 18 12 99 12 6 4
Future Vol, veh/h 3 34 35 108 117 9 18 12 99 12 6 4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 3 37 38 117 127 10 20 13 108 13 7 4
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 7.8 9.5 8.2 8

HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 14% 4% 46% 55%
Vol Thru, % 9% 47% 50% 27%
Vol Right, % 77% 49% 4% 18%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 129 72 234 22
LT Vol 18 3 108 12
Through Vol 12 34 117 6
RT Vol 99 35 9 4
Lane Flow Rate 140 78 254 24
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.167 0.093 0.315 0.032
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.29 4.301 4.455 4.857
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 837 833 809 737
Service Time 2.311 2.327 2.476 2.887
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.167 0.094 0.314 0.033
HCM Control Delay 8.2 7.8 9.5 8
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 0.3 1.4 0.1
Queues Phase 2 AM
17: Shoreline Blvd & California St Timing Plan: AM Peak Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 326 293 39 284 88 1325 192 886
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.23 0.24 0.39 0.46 0.97 0.69 0.51
Control Delay 65.0 15.7 59.3 25.1 61.0 61.7 61.3 33.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 65.0 15.7 59.3 25.1 61.0 61.7 61.3 33.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 206 46 25 54 58 320 125 169
Queue Length 95th (ft) #455 89 73 106 133 #646 244 299
Internal Link Dist (ft) 230 640 268 414
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 476 1298 476 1006 476 1360 476 1739 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.68 0.23 0.08 0.28 0.18 0.97 0.40 0.51 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 2 AM
17: Shoreline Blvd & California St Timing Plan: AM Peak Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 300 157 112 36 153 109 81 1161 58 177 675 140 Future Volume (veh/h) 300 157 112 36 153 109 81 1161 58 177 675 140 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 326 171 122 39 166 118 88 1262 63 192 734 152 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 364 687 455 116 407 267 159 1423 71 229 1376 282 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.34 0.34 0.07 0.20 0.20 0.09 0.29 0.29 0.13 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2007 1329 1781 2005 1314 1781 4970 248 1781 4228 865 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 326 150 143 39 146 138 88 864 461 192 589 297 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1559 1781 1777 1543 1781 1702 1814 1781 1702 1689 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.3 6.2 6.8 2.1 7.3 8.1 4.9 24.9 24.9 10.8 14.5 14.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.3 6.2 6.8 2.1 7.3 8.1 4.9 24.9 24.9 10.8 14.5 14.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.51
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 364 608 534 116 361 313 159 974 519 229 1108 550 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.25 0.27 0.33 0.40 0.44 0.55 0.89 0.89 0.84 0.53 0.54 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 521 608 534 521 519 451 521 995 530 521 1108 550 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 39.8 24.2 24.4 45.8 35.5 35.8 44.8 35.1 35.1 43.7 28.2 28.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.5 0.2 0.3 1.7 0.7 1.0 3.0 9.7 16.4 7.9 0.5 1.1 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 9.3 2.6 2.5 1.0 3.2 3.1 2.3 11.4 13.2 5.2 5.9 6.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.3 24.5 24.7 47.5 36.2 36.8 47.7 44.7 51.4 51.5 28.7 29.4 LnGrp LOS D C C D D D D D D D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 619 323 1413 1078
Approach Delay, s/veh 39.7 37.8 47.1 33.0
Approach LOS D D D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.2 38.5 10.7 40.2 17.2 34.5 25.0 26.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.1 4.0 5.1 4.0 5.1 4.0 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.9 16.8 4.1 8.8 12.8 26.9 20.3 10.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 4.9 0.1 1.7 0.5 2.2 0.7 1.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 6th TWSC Phase 2 AM
18: Franklin St & California St Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 15
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 25 358 26 7 268 19 4 8 8 12 7 24
Future Vol, veh/h 25 358 26 7 268 19 4 8 8 12 7 24
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 0 - - 0 - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 27 389 28 8 291 21 4 9 9 13 8 26
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 312 0 0 417 0 0 792 785 403 784 789 302 Stage 1 - - - - - - 457 457 - 318 318 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 335 328 - 466 471 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1248 - - 1142 - - 307 325 647 311 323 738 Stage 1 - - - - - - 583 568 - 693 654 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 679 647 - 577 560 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1248 - - 1142 - - 284 316 647 294 314 738 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 284 316 - 294 314 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 570 556 - 678 649 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 643 642 - 548 548 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0.2 14.9 13.9

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 386 1248 - - 1142 - - 450
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.056 0.022 - - 0.007 - - 0.104
HCM Control Delay (s) 14.9 7.9 - - 8.2 - - 13.9
HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.3
Queues Phase 2 AM
19: Bryant St & California St Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 16
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 372 26 300 27 95
v/c Ratio 0.10 0.38 0.09 0.31 0.08 0.24
Control Delay 22.6 12.4 22.9 11.9 12.8 11.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 22.6 12.4 22.9 11.9 12.8 11.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 3 32 3 25 2 6
Queue Length 95th (ft) 36 215 33 172 21 48
Internal Link Dist (ft) 299 284 48 414
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1383 1565 1383 1570 1179 1291
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.24 0.02 0.19 0.02 0.07
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 2 AM
19: Bryant St & California St Timing Plan: AM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 17
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 28 278 64 24 240 36 10 6 8 13 35 40 Future Volume (veh/h) 28 278 64 24 240 36 10 6 8 13 35 40 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.98 0.96 0.97 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 30 302 70 26 261 39 11 7 9 14 38 43 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 64 504 117 57 541 81 242 146 120 145 184 173 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.35 0.35 0.03 0.35 0.35 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1442 334 1781 1569 234 411 631 521 111 795 749 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 30 0 372 26 0 300 27 0 0 95 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1776 1781 0 1803 1563 0 0 1654 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 0.0 6.0 0.5 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6 0.0 6.0 0.5 0.0 4.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.13 0.41 0.33 0.15 0.45
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 64 0 620 57 0 622 508 0 0 502 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.00 0.60 0.46 0.00 0.48 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1545 0 2054 1545 0 2085 1450 0 0 1526 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 16.3 0.0 9.3 16.4 0.0 8.9 10.4 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.1 0.0 0.9 5.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 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 0.3 0.0 1.8 0.3 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.5 0.0 10.2 22.1 0.0 9.5 10.4 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A B C A A B A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 402 326 27 95
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.0 10.5 10.4 11.0
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.3 16.7 12.6 5.5 16.5 12.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 4.6 4.6 * 4.2 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 30 40.0 30.0 * 30 40.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 8.0 3.6 2.6 6.5 2.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.6 0.5 0.0 2.0 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 2 Midday 1: Shoreline Blvd & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: Midday Peak Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 191 1362 10 280 1323
Future Volume (vph) 0 191 1362 10 280 1323
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91
Frt 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1611 5080 1770 5085
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1611 5080 1770 5085
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 208 1480 11 304 1438
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 192 1 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 16 1490 0 304 1438
Turn Type Perm NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.5 33.4 17.6 55.5
Effective Green, g (s) 5.5 33.4 17.6 55.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.48 0.25 0.79
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 126 2423 445 4031
v/s Ratio Prot c0.29 c0.17 0.28
v/s Ratio Perm c0.01
v/c Ratio 0.13 0.61 0.68 0.36
Uniform Delay, d1 30.0 13.5 23.7 2.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 1.2 4.3 0.2
Delay (s) 30.5 14.7 28.0 2.3
Level of Service C B C A
Approach Delay (s) 30.5 14.7 6.8
Approach LOS C B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues Phase 2 Midday
2: Shoreline Blvd & Villa St Timing Plan: Midday Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 136 36 41 40 299 22 1110 207 1266 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.39 0.11 0.75 0.66 0.54
Control Delay 22.6 29.5 0.3 20.7 1.5 51.9 37.5 50.8 22.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 22.6 29.5 0.3 20.7 1.5 51.9 37.5 50.8 22.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 52 17 0 14 0 10 171 99 117
Queue Length 95th (ft) 117 48 0 43 0 47 395 246 363
Internal Link Dist (ft) 353 450 453
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 504 696 637 524 926 589 1717 589 2329 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.27 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.32 0.04 0.65 0.35 0.54 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 2 Midday
2: Shoreline Blvd & Villa St Timing Plan: Midday Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 125 33 38 37 0 275 20 990 31 190 900 265 Future Volume (veh/h) 125 33 38 37 0 275 20 990 31 190 900 265 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 0.96 0.98 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 136 36 41 40 0 299 22 1076 34 207 978 288 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 498 400 327 491 303 246 88 1582 50 258 1591 468 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.21 0.21 0.08 0.00 0.16 0.05 0.31 0.31 0.14 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1528 1781 1870 1518 1781 5083 161 1781 3910 1149 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 136 36 41 40 0 299 22 720 390 207 851 415 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1528 1781 1870 1518 1781 1702 1840 1781 1702 1655 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.3 1.1 1.6 1.2 0.0 11.8 0.9 13.5 13.6 8.2 14.5 14.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.3 1.1 1.6 1.2 0.0 11.8 0.9 13.5 13.6 8.2 14.5 14.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.69
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 498 400 327 491 303 246 88 1059 573 258 1385 673 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.09 0.13 0.08 0.00 1.22 0.25 0.68 0.68 0.80 0.61 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 513 766 626 599 303 246 730 1395 754 730 1395 678 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.0 23.1 23.3 18.9 0.0 30.7 33.5 22.0 22.0 30.3 17.2 17.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 129.0 1.5 0.9 1.6 5.7 0.8 1.7 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 1.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.0 12.9 0.4 5.2 5.8 3.8 5.4 5.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.3 23.2 23.4 19.0 0.0 159.7 35.0 22.9 23.6 36.0 18.0 18.8 LnGrp LOS C C C B A F C C C D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 213 339 1132 1473
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.4 143.1 23.4 20.8
Approach LOS C F C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 34.9 10.1 20.6 14.6 27.9 13.9 16.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.1 4.5 * 5 4.0 5.1 4.5 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 30.0 10.0 * 30 30.0 30.0 10.0 10.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 16.5 3.2 3.6 10.2 15.6 6.3 13.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.3 0.5 6.4 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.9
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th AWSC Phase 2 Midday
3: Franklin St & Villa St Timing Plan: Midday Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh10.3
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 58 163 72 34 174 55 38 13 27 33 15 32 Future Vol, veh/h 58 163 72 34 174 55 38 13 27 33 15 32 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 63 177 78 37 189 60 41 14 29 36 16 35
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 10.8 10.4 9.2 9.1

HCM LOS B B A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 49% 20% 13% 41%
Vol Thru, % 17% 56% 66% 19%
Vol Right, % 35% 25% 21% 40%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 78 293 263 80
LT Vol 38 58 34 33
Through Vol 13 163 174 15
RT Vol 27 72 55 32
Lane Flow Rate 85 318 286 87
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.125 0.407 0.369 0.127
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.317 4.603 4.646 5.268
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 667 777 769 673
Service Time 3.407 2.662 2.707 3.356
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.127 0.409 0.372 0.129
HCM Control Delay 9.2 10.8 10.4 9.1
HCM Lane LOS A B B A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 2 1.7 0.4
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 2 Midday
4: Bryant St & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: Midday Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 141 140 22 120 67 68
Future Vol, veh/h 141 140 22 120 67 68
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - Stop
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 153 152 24 130 73 74
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 305 0 407 229
Stage 1 - - - - 229 -
Stage 2 - - - - 178 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1256 - 600 810
Stage 1 - - - - 809 -
Stage 2 - - - - 853 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1256 - 587 810
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 587 -
Stage 1 - - - - 809 -
Stage 2 - - - - 835 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.2 8.5

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 1183 - - 1256 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.124 - - 0.019 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - - 7.9 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 0.1 -
HCM 6th AWSC Phase 2 Midday
5: Bryant St & Villa St Timing Plan: Midday Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.3
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 59 91 52 35 167 56 57 52 30 31 124 62 Future Vol, veh/h 59 91 52 35 167 56 57 52 30 31 124 62 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 64 99 57 38 182 61 62 57 33 34 135 67
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 11 12 10.5 11.4

HCM LOS B B B B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 41% 29% 14% 14%
Vol Thru, % 37% 45% 65% 57%
Vol Right, % 22% 26% 22% 29%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 139 202 258 217
LT Vol 57 59 35 31
Through Vol 52 91 167 124
RT Vol 30 52 56 62
Lane Flow Rate 151 220 280 236
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.237 0.328 0.411 0.354
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.644 5.371 5.27 5.402
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 635 667 681 665
Service Time 3.696 3.419 3.314 3.449
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.238 0.33 0.411 0.355
HCM Control Delay 10.5 11 12 11.4
HCM Lane LOS B B B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.9 1.4 2 1.6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 2 Midday 6: Castro St & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: Midday Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 161 0 0 195 0 0
Future Volume (Veh/h) 161 0 0 195 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 164 0 0 199 0 0
Pedestrians 68 153 143
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 0.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage 6 15 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 221 211 378 221 68
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 221 211 378 221 68
tC, single (s) 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 2.2
p0 queue free % 70 100 100 63 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 541 775 323 541 1434
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1
Volume Total 164 199
Volume Left 0 0
Volume Right 0 0
cSH 541 541
Volume to Capacity 0.30 0.37
Queue Length 95th (ft) 32 42
Control Delay (s) 14.5 15.5
Lane LOS B C
Approach Delay (s) 14.5 15.5
Approach LOS B C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 2 Midday 7: Castro St & Villa St Timing Plan: Midday Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Yield Yield
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 148 0 0 233 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 148 0 0 233 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 153 0 0 240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1
Volume Total (vph) 153 240
Volume Left (vph) 0 0
Volume Right (vph) 0 0
Hadj (s) 0.03 0.03
Departure Headway (s) 4.2 4.1
Degree Utilization, x 0.18 0.27
Capacity (veh/h) 848 874
Control Delay (s) 8.0 8.6
Approach Delay (s) 8.0 8.6
Approach LOS A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 8.4
Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Queues Phase 2 Midday
8: Hope St & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: Midday Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 6
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 102 104 155 10 95 162 28 32
v/c Ratio 0.19 0.16 0.30 0.02 0.23 0.28 0.08 0.06
Control Delay 10.5 2.3 13.0 0.0 13.5 4.8 16.1 5.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 10.5 2.3 13.0 0.0 13.5 4.8 16.1 5.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 11 0 19 0 11 0 4 1
Queue Length 95th (ft) 52 16 80 0 57 37 26 12
Internal Link Dist (ft) 286 264 327 4
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1079 1149 1014 1087 696 885 900 1514 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.15 0.01 0.14 0.18 0.03 0.02 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 2 Midday
8: Hope St & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: Midday Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 37 57 96 54 88 9 87 3 146 26 6 23 Future Volume (veh/h) 37 57 96 54 88 9 87 3 146 26 6 23 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 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 40 62 104 59 96 10 95 3 159 28 7 25 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 246 297 369 245 289 369 447 5 261 61 126 451 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 410 1275 1585 410 1241 1585 1377 29 1560 1781 359 1281 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 102 0 104 155 0 10 95 0 162 28 0 32 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1685 0 1585 1651 0 1585 1377 0 1590 1781 0 1640 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.1 0.0 3.1 0.5 0.0 0.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 0.0 1.8 2.3 0.0 0.2 2.1 0.0 3.1 0.5 0.0 0.4 Prop In Lane 0.39 1.00 0.38 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.78
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 543 0 369 534 0 369 447 0 266 61 0 578 V/C Ratio(X) 0.19 0.00 0.28 0.29 0.00 0.03 0.21 0.00 0.61 0.46 0.00 0.06 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 890 0 715 1107 0 953 838 0 717 804 0 986 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.4 0.0 10.5 10.7 0.0 9.8 12.4 0.0 12.8 15.8 0.0 7.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.2 5.3 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.5 0.0 10.9 11.1 0.0 9.9 12.6 0.0 15.1 21.0 0.0 7.2 LnGrp LOS B A B B A A B A B C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 206 165 257 60
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.7 11.0 14.2 13.6
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.1 12.5 14.6 18.6 14.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 6.9 * 6.9 6.9 6.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 * 15 * 15 20.0 20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 5.1 3.8 2.4 4.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.1 1.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th AWSC Phase 2 Midday
9: Hope St & Villa St Timing Plan: Midday Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 8
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 57 7 47 51 155 29 43 106 62 13 65 36 Future Vol, veh/h 57 7 47 51 155 29 43 106 62 13 65 36
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 62 8 51 55 168 32 47 115 67 14 71 39
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 9.1 10.7 10.2 9.1

HCM LOS A B B A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 20% 51% 22% 11%
Vol Thru, % 50% 6% 66% 57%
Vol Right, % 29% 42% 12% 32%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 211 111 235 114
LT Vol 43 57 51 13
Through Vol 106 7 155 65
RT Vol 62 47 29 36
Lane Flow Rate 229 121 255 124
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.311 0.167 0.349 0.172
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.879 4.98 4.917 4.99
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 729 712 725 710
Service Time 2.96 3.073 2.996 3.083
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.314 0.17 0.352 0.175
HCM Control Delay 10.2 9.1 10.7 9.1
HCM Lane LOS B A B A
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.3 0.6 1.6 0.6
HCM 6th AWSC Phase 2 Midday
10: View St & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: Midday Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 9
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 139 62 36 127 2 30 8 30 5 10 4
Future Vol, veh/h 7 139 62 36 127 2 30 8 30 5 10 4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 8 151 67 39 138 2 33 9 33 5 11 4
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 8.7 8.7 8.2 8

HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 44% 3% 22% 26%
Vol Thru, % 12% 67% 77% 53%
Vol Right, % 44% 30% 1% 21%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 68 208 165 19
LT Vol 30 7 36 5
Through Vol 8 139 127 10
RT Vol 30 62 2 4
Lane Flow Rate 74 226 179 21
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.096 0.263 0.22 0.028
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.668 4.181 4.426 4.844
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 768 861 812 739
Service Time 2.694 2.198 2.446 2.872
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.096 0.262 0.22 0.028
HCM Control Delay 8.2 8.7 8.7 8
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 1.1 0.8 0.1
HCM 6th AWSC Phase 2 Midday
11: View St & Villa St Timing Plan: Midday Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 10
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.6
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 85 34 57 193 1 17 33 92 21 42 34
Future Vol, veh/h 22 85 34 57 193 1 17 33 92 21 42 34
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 24 92 37 62 210 1 18 36 100 23 46 37
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 9.1 10.6 9 8.9

HCM LOS A B A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 12% 16% 23% 22%
Vol Thru, % 23% 60% 77% 43%
Vol Right, % 65% 24% 0% 35%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 142 141 251 97
LT Vol 17 22 57 21
Through Vol 33 85 193 42
RT Vol 92 34 1 34
Lane Flow Rate 154 153 273 105
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.203 0.204 0.363 0.146
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.724 4.782 4.786 4.983
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 753 745 748 713
Service Time 2.794 2.851 2.848 3.059
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.205 0.205 0.365 0.147
HCM Control Delay 9 9.1 10.6 8.9
HCM Lane LOS A A B A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.8 0.8 1.7 0.5
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 2 Midday 12: Bush St & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: Midday Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 173 28 216 165 0 64
Future Volume (vph) 173 28 216 165 0 64
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.9 4.0 5.9 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.86
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1818 1770 1863 1611
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1818 1770 1863 1611
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 188 30 235 179 0 70
RTOR Reduction (vph) 5 0 0 0 0 65
Lane Group Flow (vph) 213 0 235 179 0 5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 14 14 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5
Turn Type NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.0 11.5 28.5 3.1
Effective Green, g (s) 13.0 11.5 28.5 3.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.28 0.69 0.07
Clearance Time (s) 5.9 4.0 5.9 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 569 490 1279 120
v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 c0.13 0.10
v/s Ratio Perm c0.00
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.48 0.14 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 11.1 12.5 2.3 17.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.2
Delay (s) 11.5 13.2 2.3 18.0
Level of Service B B A B
Approach Delay (s) 11.5 8.5 18.0
Approach LOS B A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 41.5 Sum of lost time (s) 13.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 2 Midday 13: Bush St & Villa St Timing Plan: Midday Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 98 85 15 0 26 1 0 0 11 0 0 227
Future Volume (vph) 98 85 15 0 26 1 0 0 11 0 0 227
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.86 0.86
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1810 1841 1611 1569
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1810 1841 1611 1569
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 105 91 16 0 28 1 0 0 12 0 0 244
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 0 0 180
Lane Group Flow (vph) 105 102 0 0 28 0 0 0 3 0 0 64
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 14 16 16 14 10 10
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm
Protected Phases 1 6 2
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 4.3 9.3 1.0 6.1 6.1
Effective Green, g (s) 4.3 9.3 1.0 6.1 6.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.40 0.04 0.26 0.26
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 325 719 78 419 409
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.06 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.04
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.14 0.36 0.01 0.16
Uniform Delay, d1 8.3 4.5 10.9 6.4 6.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.1 2.8 0.0 0.2
Delay (s) 8.9 4.6 13.7 6.4 6.8
Level of Service A A B A A
Approach Delay (s) 6.7 13.7 6.4 6.8
Approach LOS A B A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 7.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 23.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 2 Midday
14: Shoreline Blvd & Dana St Timing Plan: Midday Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 11
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 13 0 0 75 0 956 14 0 969 6
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 13 0 0 75 0 956 14 0 969 6
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 - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 14 0 0 82 0 1039 15 0 1053 7
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 530 - - 527 - 0 0 - - 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 7.14 - - 7.14 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.92 - - 3.92 - - - - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 422 0 0 424 0 - - 0 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - 0 - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - 0 - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 422 - - 424 - - - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.8 15.5 0 0

HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) - - 422 424 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.033 0.192 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.8 15.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS - - B C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0.7 - -
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 2 Midday 15: Dana St & Castro St Timing Plan: Midday Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Yield Yield
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 63 0 0 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 63 0 0 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.92 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 68 0 0 114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1
Volume Total (vph) 68 114
Volume Left (vph) 0 0
Volume Right (vph) 0 0
Hadj (s) 0.03 0.03
Departure Headway (s) 4.0 4.0
Degree Utilization, x 0.08 0.13
Capacity (veh/h) 875 894
Control Delay (s) 7.4 7.6
Approach Delay (s) 7.4 7.6
Approach LOS A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 7.5
Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 6th AWSC Phase 2 Midday
16: Bush St & Dana St Timing Plan: Midday Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 12
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 28 44 78 136 10 12 15 88 3 5 8
Future Vol, veh/h 19 28 44 78 136 10 12 15 88 3 5 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 21 30 48 85 148 11 13 16 96 3 5 9
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 7.9 9.3 8.1 7.7

HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 10% 21% 35% 19%
Vol Thru, % 13% 31% 61% 31%
Vol Right, % 77% 48% 4% 50%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 115 91 224 16
LT Vol 12 19 78 3
Through Vol 15 28 136 5
RT Vol 88 44 10 8
Lane Flow Rate 125 99 243 17
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.149 0.117 0.299 0.022
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.284 4.266 4.417 4.586
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 838 841 818 780
Service Time 2.307 2.289 2.417 2.617
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.149 0.118 0.297 0.022
HCM Control Delay 8.1 7.9 9.3 7.7
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 0.4 1.3 0.1
Queues Phase 2 Midday
17: Shoreline Blvd & California St Timing Plan: Midday Peak Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 188 224 43 267 86 745 254 805
v/c Ratio 0.61 0.21 0.21 0.38 0.39 0.63 0.68 0.45
Control Delay 47.0 21.4 46.8 19.3 47.7 35.3 45.6 23.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 47.0 21.4 46.8 19.3 47.7 35.3 45.6 23.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 98 39 22 31 46 136 131 120
Queue Length 95th (ft) 214 87 71 85 117 238 271 206
Internal Link Dist (ft) 230 640 268 414
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 596 1196 596 1181 596 1703 596 1857 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.32 0.19 0.07 0.23 0.14 0.44 0.43 0.43 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 2 Midday
17: Shoreline Blvd & California St Timing Plan: Midday Peak Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 173 137 69 40 111 134 79 653 32 234 568 173 Future Volume (veh/h) 173 137 69 40 111 134 79 653 32 234 568 173 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 188 149 75 43 121 146 86 710 35 254 617 188 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 236 656 311 140 408 354 197 1122 55 307 1115 332 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2314 1099 1781 1777 1544 1781 4981 245 1781 3887 1159 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 188 112 112 43 121 146 86 484 261 254 539 266 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1636 1781 1777 1544 1781 1702 1822 1781 1702 1641 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.7 3.7 4.0 1.7 4.3 6.1 3.4 9.7 9.8 10.4 10.1 10.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.7 3.7 4.0 1.7 4.3 6.1 3.4 9.7 9.8 10.4 10.1 10.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.71
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 236 504 464 140 408 354 197 766 410 307 976 471 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.22 0.24 0.31 0.30 0.41 0.44 0.63 0.64 0.83 0.55 0.57 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 706 705 649 706 705 612 706 1350 722 706 1350 651 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 31.8 20.7 20.8 32.9 24.1 24.8 31.4 26.5 26.5 30.2 22.9 23.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.0 0.2 0.3 1.2 0.4 0.8 1.5 0.9 1.6 5.7 0.5 1.1 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 3.6 1.5 1.5 0.8 1.8 2.2 1.5 3.9 4.3 4.8 3.9 4.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.8 21.0 21.1 34.1 24.5 25.6 33.0 27.3 28.1 35.9 23.3 24.0 LnGrp LOS D C C C C C C C C D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 412 310 831 1059
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.7 26.3 28.2 26.5
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.4 26.8 9.9 26.5 17.0 22.1 14.0 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.1 4.0 5.1 4.0 5.1 4.0 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 12.4 3.7 6.0 12.4 11.8 9.7 8.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 5.1 0.1 1.3 0.7 4.7 0.5 1.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 6th TWSC Phase 2 Midday
18: Franklin St & California St Timing Plan: Midday Peak Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 15
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 21 333 27 4 267 22 7 12 8 17 19 37
Future Vol, veh/h 21 333 27 4 267 22 7 12 8 17 19 37
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 0 - - 0 - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 23 362 29 4 290 24 8 13 9 18 21 40
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 314 0 0 391 0 0 764 745 377 744 747 302 Stage 1 - - - - - - 423 423 - 310 310 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 341 322 - 434 437 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1246 - - 1168 - - 321 342 670 331 341 738 Stage 1 - - - - - - 609 588 - 700 659 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 674 651 - 600 579 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1246 - - 1168 - - 284 335 670 312 334 738 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 284 335 - 312 334 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 598 577 - 687 657 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 615 649 - 568 569 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0.1 15.5 14.7

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 373 1246 - - 1168 - - 452
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.079 0.018 - - 0.004 - - 0.176
HCM Control Delay (s) 15.5 7.9 - - 8.1 - - 14.7
HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.6
Queues Phase 2 Midday
19: Bryant St & California St Timing Plan: Midday Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 16
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 47 360 21 325 116 145
v/c Ratio 0.20 0.39 0.10 0.41 0.22 0.26
Control Delay 29.4 14.8 29.8 19.2 13.7 13.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 29.4 14.8 29.8 19.2 13.7 13.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 89 8 106 24 28
Queue Length 95th (ft) 48 209 29 192 66 75
Internal Link Dist (ft) 299 284 48 414
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1018 1204 1018 1174 848 898
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.05 0.30 0.02 0.28 0.14 0.16
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 2 Midday
19: Bryant St & California St Timing Plan: Midday Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 17
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 43 272 59 19 209 90 32 41 33 26 50 58 Future Volume (veh/h) 43 272 59 19 209 90 32 41 33 26 50 58 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.80 1.00 0.79 0.92 0.89 0.92 0.89 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 47 296 64 21 227 98 35 45 36 28 54 63 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 82 467 101 44 350 151 229 283 193 156 280 277 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.33 0.33 0.02 0.31 0.31 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1420 307 1781 1137 491 357 684 469 196 679 672 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 47 0 360 21 0 325 116 0 0 145 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1727 1781 0 1628 1510 0 0 1547 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 0.0 10.1 0.7 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 0.0 10.1 0.7 0.0 9.9 2.5 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.19 0.43
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 82 0 568 44 0 501 705 0 0 713 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.00 0.63 0.48 0.00 0.65 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 931 0 1203 931 0 1134 865 0 0 878 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 26.8 0.0 16.3 27.6 0.0 17.2 10.6 0.0 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.2 0.0 1.2 7.7 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 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 0.7 0.0 3.7 0.4 0.0 3.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.1 0.0 17.5 35.4 0.0 18.6 10.7 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A B D A B B A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 407 346 116 145
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.3 19.6 10.7 11.0
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.6 23.5 28.3 6.8 22.3 28.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 4.6 4.6 * 4.2 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 30 40.0 30.0 * 30 40.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 12.1 5.3 3.5 11.9 4.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.4 0.9 0.1 2.3 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 2 PM 1: Shoreline Blvd & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 171 1450 22 298 2120
Future Volume (vph) 0 171 1450 22 298 2120
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91
Frt 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1611 5074 1770 5085
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1611 5074 1770 5085
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 186 1576 24 324 2304
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 172 2 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 14 1598 0 324 2304
Turn Type Perm NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.5 36.7 19.3 60.5
Effective Green, g (s) 5.5 36.7 19.3 60.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.49 0.26 0.81
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 118 2482 455 4101
v/s Ratio Prot c0.32 c0.18 0.45
v/s Ratio Perm c0.01
v/c Ratio 0.12 0.64 0.71 0.56
Uniform Delay, d1 32.5 14.3 25.3 2.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 1.3 5.2 0.6
Delay (s) 32.9 15.6 30.5 3.1
Level of Service C B C A
Approach Delay (s) 32.9 15.6 6.5
Approach LOS C B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues Phase 2 PM
2: Shoreline Blvd & Villa St Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 238 101 73 70 14 254 49 1424 267 2296 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.21 0.15 0.16 0.03 0.47 0.33 0.78 0.86 0.96 Control Delay 34.8 37.8 2.1 27.2 34.7 7.1 66.6 40.9 77.2 43.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.5
Total Delay 34.8 37.8 2.1 27.2 34.7 7.1 66.6 40.9 77.2 87.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 145 67 0 38 9 0 43 443 241 ~858
Queue Length 95th (ft) 214 115 10 71 26 63 88 507 #410 #950 Internal Link Dist (ft) 353 637 450 453
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 464 669 614 435 662 714 147 1917 339 2398 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 328
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.51 0.15 0.12 0.16 0.02 0.36 0.33 0.74 0.79 1.11 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 2 PM
2: Shoreline Blvd & Villa St Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 219 93 67 64 13 234 45 1245 65 246 1680 432 Future Volume (veh/h) 219 93 67 64 13 234 45 1245 65 246 1680 432 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.94 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 238 101 73 70 14 254 49 1353 71 267 1826 470 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 466 489 392 442 477 380 115 1767 93 293 1843 458 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.16 0.46 0.46 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1499 1781 1870 1490 1781 4958 260 1781 4039 1004 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 238 101 73 70 14 254 49 929 495 267 1529 767 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1499 1781 1870 1490 1781 1702 1814 1781 1702 1640 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 5.4 4.8 3.5 0.7 19.5 3.4 30.8 30.8 18.8 56.5 58.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 5.4 4.8 3.5 0.7 19.5 3.4 30.8 30.8 18.8 56.5 58.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.61
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 466 489 392 442 477 380 115 1213 647 293 1553 748 V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.03 0.67 0.43 0.77 0.77 0.91 0.98 1.03 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 466 632 507 454 626 499 140 1213 647 321 1553 748 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 33.1 36.8 36.6 29.6 35.7 42.7 57.4 36.3 36.3 52.4 34.2 34.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 2.2 2.5 3.0 5.5 27.5 19.1 39.6 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 6.0 2.5 1.8 1.5 0.3 7.4 1.6 13.2 14.5 10.6 26.8 30.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.0 37.0 36.8 29.8 35.7 44.9 59.9 39.3 41.8 79.9 53.3 74.3 LnGrp LOS C D D C D D E D D E D F
Approach Vol, veh/h 412 338 1473 2563
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.2 41.4 40.8 62.3
Approach LOS D D D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.2 63.3 13.7 38.3 25.0 50.6 14.5 37.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.1 4.5 * 5 4.0 5.1 4.5 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 58.2 10.0 * 43 23.0 45.2 10.0 42.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 60.2 5.5 7.4 20.8 32.8 12.0 21.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 7.5 0.0 1.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 51.9
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th AWSC Phase 2 PM
3: Franklin St & Villa St Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 59 269 54 22 215 46 38 12 16 40 12 43 Future Vol, veh/h 59 269 54 22 215 46 38 12 16 40 12 43 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 64 292 59 24 234 50 41 13 17 43 13 47
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 13.4 11.3 9.6 9.7

HCM LOS B B A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 58% 15% 8% 42%
Vol Thru, % 18% 70% 76% 13%
Vol Right, % 24% 14% 16% 45%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 66 382 283 95
LT Vol 38 59 22 40
Through Vol 12 269 215 12
RT Vol 16 54 46 43
Lane Flow Rate 72 415 308 103
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.117 0.545 0.411 0.161
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.854 4.721 4.815 5.63
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 616 756 738 640
Service Time 3.859 2.811 2.913 3.634
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.117 0.549 0.417 0.161
HCM Control Delay 9.6 13.4 11.3 9.7
HCM Lane LOS A B B A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 3.3 2 0.6
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 2 PM
4: Bryant St & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 168 134 20 105 42 52
Future Vol, veh/h 168 134 20 105 42 52
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - Stop
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 183 146 22 114 46 57
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 329 0 414 256
Stage 1 - - - - 256 -
Stage 2 - - - - 158 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1231 - 595 783
Stage 1 - - - - 787 -
Stage 2 - - - - 871 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1231 - 584 783
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 584 -
Stage 1 - - - - 787 -
Stage 2 - - - - 854 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.3 8

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 1307 - - 1231 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.078 - - 0.018 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8 - - 8 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0.1 -
HCM 6th AWSC Phase 2 PM
5: Bryant St & Villa St Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.2
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 53 196 54 51 170 54 55 41 48 58 98 61 Future Vol, veh/h 53 196 54 51 170 54 55 41 48 58 98 61 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 58 213 59 55 185 59 60 45 52 63 107 66
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 14.3 13.5 11.3 12.6

HCM LOS B B B B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 38% 17% 19% 27%
Vol Thru, % 28% 65% 62% 45%
Vol Right, % 33% 18% 20% 28%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 144 303 275 217
LT Vol 55 53 51 58
Through Vol 41 196 170 98
RT Vol 48 54 54 61
Lane Flow Rate 157 329 299 236
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.262 0.508 0.464 0.384
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.029 5.548 5.589 5.865
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 590 646 640 609
Service Time 4.12 3.62 3.664 3.948
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.266 0.509 0.467 0.388
HCM Control Delay 11.3 14.3 13.5 12.6
HCM Lane LOS B B B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 1 2.9 2.5 1.8
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 2 PM 6: Castro St & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 160 0 0 171 0 0
Future Volume (Veh/h) 160 0 0 171 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 174 0 0 186 0 0
Pedestrians 86 8
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 0.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage 8 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 86 94 95 86 86
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 86 94 95 86 86
tC, single (s) 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 2.2
p0 queue free % 76 100 100 75 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 738 884 683 738 1387
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1
Volume Total 174 186
Volume Left 0 0
Volume Right 0 0
cSH 738 738
Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.25
Queue Length 95th (ft) 23 25
Control Delay (s) 11.4 11.5
Lane LOS B B
Approach Delay (s) 11.4 11.5
Approach LOS B B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 11.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 12.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 2 PM 7: Castro St & Villa St Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Yield Yield
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 276 0 0 253 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 276 0 0 253 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 300 0 0 275 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1
Volume Total (vph) 300 275
Volume Left (vph) 0 0
Volume Right (vph) 0 0
Hadj (s) 0.03 0.03
Departure Headway (s) 4.2 4.2
Degree Utilization, x 0.35 0.32
Capacity (veh/h) 843 833
Control Delay (s) 9.4 9.2
Approach Delay (s) 9.4 9.2
Approach LOS A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 9.3
Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Queues Phase 2 PM
8: Hope St & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 6
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 138 61 205 18 49 223 48 31
v/c Ratio 0.21 0.09 0.35 0.03 0.12 0.39 0.14 0.05
Control Delay 12.9 0.3 15.6 0.1 19.7 6.9 27.0 6.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 12.9 0.3 15.6 0.1 19.7 6.9 27.0 6.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 23 0 40 0 7 1 11 1
Queue Length 95th (ft) 74 0 116 0 45 56 50 16
Internal Link Dist (ft) 286 264 327 4
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 984 925 838 918 626 737 784 1137
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.07 0.24 0.02 0.08 0.30 0.06 0.03 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 2 PM
8: Hope St & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 37 90 56 83 106 17 45 9 196 44 5 24 Future Volume (veh/h) 37 90 56 83 106 17 45 9 196 44 5 24 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 0.83 0.83 1.00 0.87 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 40 98 61 90 115 18 49 10 213 48 5 26 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 84 160 519 94 86 519 420 15 320 84 90 470
Arrive On Green 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 443 1438 0 238 1438 1148 59 1267 1781 232 1205 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 138 0 61 205 0 18 49 0 223 48 0 31 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 443 0 1438 238 0 1438 1148 0 1327 1781 0 1437 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.8 0.0 8.4 1.5 0.0 0.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.0 0.0 1.6 20.0 0.0 0.4 1.8 0.0 8.4 1.5 0.0 0.7 Prop In Lane 0.29 1.00 0.44 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.84
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 244 0 519 180 0 519 420 0 335 84 0 560 V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.00 0.12 1.14 0.00 0.03 0.12 0.00 0.67 0.57 0.00 0.06 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 244 0 519 180 0 519 441 0 359 482 0 560 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.3 0.0 11.8 18.7 0.0 11.5 16.2 0.0 18.6 25.8 0.0 10.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.0 0.0 0.1 110.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 4.2 6.0 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 0.0 0.5 7.7 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 2.7 0.7 0.0 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.3 0.0 11.9 129.2 0.0 11.5 16.3 0.0 22.8 31.8 0.0 10.6 LnGrp LOS B A B F A B B A C C A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 199 223 272 79
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.7 119.7 21.7 23.5
Approach LOS B F C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 20.9 26.9 28.5 26.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 6.9 * 6.9 6.9 6.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 * 15 * 15 20.0 20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 10.4 22.0 2.7 22.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.6
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th AWSC Phase 2 PM
9: Hope St & Villa St Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 8
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh11.7
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 64 133 31 53 205 25 25 125 50 23 62 28 Future Vol, veh/h 64 133 31 53 205 25 25 125 50 23 62 28 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 70 145 34 58 223 27 27 136 54 25 67 30
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 11.5 12.6 11.3 10.2

HCM LOS B B B B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 12% 28% 19% 20%
Vol Thru, % 62% 58% 72% 55%
Vol Right, % 25% 14% 9% 25%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 200 228 283 113
LT Vol 25 64 53 23
Through Vol 125 133 205 62
RT Vol 50 31 25 28
Lane Flow Rate 217 248 308 123
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.333 0.369 0.451 0.195
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.516 5.363 5.282 5.714
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 650 669 680 626
Service Time 3.563 3.406 3.324 3.767
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.334 0.371 0.453 0.196
HCM Control Delay 11.3 11.5 12.6 10.2
HCM Lane LOS B B B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.5 1.7 2.3 0.7
HCM 6th AWSC Phase 2 PM
10: View St & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 9
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh13.1
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 37 187 56 31 242 41 18 53 53 101 82 23 Future Vol, veh/h 37 187 56 31 242 41 18 53 53 101 82 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 40 203 61 34 263 45 20 58 58 110 89 25
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 13.3 14.3 10.7 12.6

HCM LOS B B B B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 15% 13% 10% 49%
Vol Thru, % 43% 67% 77% 40%
Vol Right, % 43% 20% 13% 11%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 124 280 314 206
LT Vol 18 37 31 101
Through Vol 53 187 242 82
RT Vol 53 56 41 23
Lane Flow Rate 135 304 341 224
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.222 0.464 0.518 0.372
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.931 5.486 5.461 5.981
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 600 654 655 598
Service Time 4.016 3.553 3.526 4.056
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.225 0.465 0.521 0.375
HCM Control Delay 10.7 13.3 14.3 12.6
HCM Lane LOS B B B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.8 2.5 3 1.7
HCM 6th AWSC Phase 2 PM
11: View St & Villa St Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 10
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh11.5
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 172 16 82 143 5 8 51 203 33 68 47 Future Vol, veh/h 19 172 16 82 143 5 8 51 203 33 68 47
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 21 187 17 89 155 5 9 55 221 36 74 51
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 11.5 12.1 11.5 10.5

HCM LOS B B B B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 3% 9% 36% 22%
Vol Thru, % 19% 83% 62% 46%
Vol Right, % 77% 8% 2% 32%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 262 207 230 148
LT Vol 8 19 82 33
Through Vol 51 172 143 68
RT Vol 203 16 5 47
Lane Flow Rate 285 225 250 161
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.402 0.346 0.387 0.25
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.079 5.529 5.569 5.584
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 706 648 645 640
Service Time 3.133 3.584 3.622 3.645
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.404 0.347 0.388 0.252
HCM Control Delay 11.5 11.5 12.1 10.5
HCM Lane LOS B B B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.9 1.5 1.8 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 2 PM 12: Bush St & Evelyn Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 324 57 287 243 0 228
Future Volume (vph) 324 57 287 243 0 228
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.9 4.0 5.9 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.86
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1788 1770 1863 1611
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1788 1770 1863 1611
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 352 62 312 264 0 248
RTOR Reduction (vph) 6 0 0 0 0 221
Lane Group Flow (vph) 408 0 312 264 0 27
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 61 61 3
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 26
Turn Type NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.2 16.8 41.0 6.3
Effective Green, g (s) 20.2 16.8 41.0 6.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.29 0.72 0.11
Clearance Time (s) 5.9 4.0 5.9 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 631 519 1335 177
v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 c0.18 0.14
v/s Ratio Perm c0.02
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.60 0.20 0.15
Uniform Delay, d1 15.5 17.3 2.7 23.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 2.0 0.1 0.4
Delay (s) 17.8 19.3 2.7 23.4
Level of Service B B A C
Approach Delay (s) 17.8 11.7 23.4
Approach LOS B B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 57.2 Sum of lost time (s) 13.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 2 PM 13: Bush St & Villa St Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 262 129 17 0 31 5 0 0 48 0 0 294
Future Volume (vph) 262 129 17 0 31 5 0 0 48 0 0 294
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.86 0.86
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1821 1765 1611 1559
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1821 1765 1611 1559
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 273 134 18 0 32 5 0 0 50 0 0 306
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 42 0 0 255
Lane Group Flow (vph) 273 149 0 0 32 0 0 0 8 0 0 51
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 16 21 21 16 14 14
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm
Protected Phases 1 6 2
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.1 20.3 1.2 5.6 5.6
Effective Green, g (s) 15.1 20.3 1.2 5.6 5.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.60 0.04 0.17 0.17
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 788 1090 62 266 257
v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.08 c0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.03
v/c Ratio 0.35 0.14 0.52 0.03 0.20
Uniform Delay, d1 6.2 3.0 16.1 11.9 12.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.1 7.2 0.0 0.4
Delay (s) 6.4 3.0 23.2 11.9 12.6
Level of Service A A C B B
Approach Delay (s) 5.2 23.2 11.9 12.6
Approach LOS A C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 33.9 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 2 PM
14: Shoreline Blvd & Dana St Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 11
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 11 0 0 93 0 1266 51 0 1784 10
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 11 0 0 93 0 1266 51 0 1784 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 12 0 0 101 0 1376 55 0 1939 11
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 975 - - 716 - 0 0 - - 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 7.14 - - 7.14 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.92 - - 3.92 - - - - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 216 0 0 320 0 - - 0 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - 0 - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - 0 - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 216 - - 320 - - - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 22.6 21.4 0 0

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) - - 216 320 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.055 0.316 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 22.6 21.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS - - C C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 1.3 - -
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 2 PM 15: Dana St & Castro St Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Yield Yield
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 154 0 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 154 0 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 167 0 0 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1
Volume Total (vph) 167 135
Volume Left (vph) 0 0
Volume Right (vph) 0 0
Hadj (s) 0.03 0.03
Departure Headway (s) 4.1 4.1
Degree Utilization, x 0.19 0.15
Capacity (veh/h) 872 871
Control Delay (s) 8.0 7.8
Approach Delay (s) 8.0 7.8
Approach LOS A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 7.9
Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 6th AWSC Phase 2 PM
16: Bush St & Dana St Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 12
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 62 68 98 138 13 6 40 207 5 5 10
Future Vol, veh/h 16 62 68 98 138 13 6 40 207 5 5 10
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 17 67 74 107 150 14 7 43 225 5 5 11
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 9 10.7 9.9 8.3

HCM LOS A B A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 2% 11% 39% 25%
Vol Thru, % 16% 42% 55% 25%
Vol Right, % 82% 47% 5% 50%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 253 146 249 20
LT Vol 6 16 98 5
Through Vol 40 62 138 5
RT Vol 207 68 13 10
Lane Flow Rate 275 159 271 22
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.343 0.207 0.365 0.031
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.493 4.696 4.852 5.062
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 795 757 736 700
Service Time 2.548 2.767 2.916 3.146
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.346 0.21 0.368 0.031
HCM Control Delay 9.9 9 10.7 8.3
HCM Lane LOS A A B A
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.5 0.8 1.7 0.1
Queues Phase 2 PM
17: Shoreline Blvd & California St Timing Plan: PM Peak Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 303 457 89 363 129 1047 278 1658
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.44 0.47 0.55 0.58 0.79 0.79 1.00
Control Delay 60.8 33.4 60.0 28.1 60.3 45.9 62.3 60.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 60.8 33.4 60.0 28.1 60.3 45.9 62.3 60.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 204 138 61 72 89 252 189 413
Queue Length 95th (ft) #419 213 136 130 182 #461 #357 #795 Internal Link Dist (ft) 230 640 268 414
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 478 1070 478 1007 478 1368 478 1655 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0.43 0.19 0.36 0.27 0.77 0.58 1.00 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 2 PM
17: Shoreline Blvd & California St Timing Plan: PM Peak Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 279 322 98 82 170 164 119 917 46 256 1271 254 Future Volume (veh/h) 279 322 98 82 170 164 119 917 46 256 1271 254 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 303 350 107 89 185 178 129 997 50 278 1382 276 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 344 749 225 166 320 272 177 1301 65 319 1451 289 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.18 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2673 803 1781 1777 1508 1781 4974 249 1781 4251 848 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 303 231 226 89 185 178 129 682 365 278 1106 552 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1700 1781 1777 1508 1781 1702 1819 1781 1702 1694 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.2 10.5 10.8 4.7 9.3 10.7 6.9 18.1 18.1 14.9 31.0 31.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.2 10.5 10.8 4.7 9.3 10.7 6.9 18.1 18.1 14.9 31.0 31.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.47 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.50
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 344 498 477 166 320 272 177 890 476 319 1162 579 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.46 0.48 0.54 0.58 0.65 0.73 0.77 0.77 0.87 0.95 0.95 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 546 545 521 546 545 462 546 1044 558 546 1162 579 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 38.4 29.1 29.2 42.4 36.7 37.3 42.8 33.4 33.4 39.1 31.4 31.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.9 0.7 0.7 2.7 1.6 2.7 5.7 2.9 5.4 7.8 16.2 26.3 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 7.9 4.5 4.5 2.2 4.1 4.1 3.3 7.7 8.6 7.1 14.9 16.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.3 29.8 30.0 45.0 38.3 39.9 48.5 36.3 38.8 46.8 47.6 57.7 LnGrp LOS D C C D D D D D D D D E
Approach Vol, veh/h 760 452 1176 1936
Approach Delay, s/veh 37.2 40.3 38.4 50.4
Approach LOS D D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.7 38.5 13.1 32.5 21.5 30.7 22.9 22.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.1 4.0 5.1 4.0 5.1 4.0 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.9 33.1 6.7 12.8 16.9 20.1 18.2 12.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.0 0.2 2.6 0.7 4.8 0.7 2.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 43.8
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 6th TWSC Phase 2 PM
18: Franklin St & California St Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 15
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 59 556 45 5 408 25 8 10 6 16 13 33
Future Vol, veh/h 59 556 45 5 408 25 8 10 6 16 13 33
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 0 - - 0 - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 64 604 49 5 443 27 9 11 7 17 14 36
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 470 0 0 653 0 0 1249 1237 629 1233 1248 457 Stage 1 - - - - - - 757 757 - 467 467 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 492 480 - 766 781 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1092 - - 934 - - 150 176 482 154 173 604 Stage 1 - - - - - - 400 416 - 576 562 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 558 554 - 395 405 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1092 - - 934 - - 125 165 482 137 162 604 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 125 165 - 137 162 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 376 391 - 542 559 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 509 551 - 357 381 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 0.1 29.1 25.1

HCM LOS D D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 175 1092 - - 934 - - 246
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.149 0.059 - - 0.006 - - 0.274
HCM Control Delay (s) 29.1 8.5 - - 8.9 - - 25.1
HCM Lane LOS D A - - A - - D
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0.2 - - 0 - - 1.1
Queues Phase 2 PM
19: Bryant St & California St Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 16
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 71 541 29 408 115 166
v/c Ratio 0.24 0.61 0.12 0.53 0.34 0.42
Control Delay 28.0 15.2 30.2 16.3 21.3 18.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 28.0 15.2 30.2 16.3 21.3 18.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 70 7 90 24 28
Queue Length 95th (ft) 76 341 41 253 86 103
Internal Link Dist (ft) 299 284 48 414
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1173 1405 1173 1391 936 1038
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.39 0.02 0.29 0.12 0.16
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 2 PM
19: Bryant St & California St Timing Plan: PM Peak
Castro Pedestrian Mall Feasibilty Study Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 17
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 65 441 57 27 311 64 52 27 27 27 46 80 Future Volume (veh/h) 65 441 57 27 311 64 52 27 27 27 46 80 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.93 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 71 479 62 29 338 70 57 29 29 29 50 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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 105 599 78 58 510 106 321 162 131 131 209 292 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.38 0.38 0.03 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1588 206 1781 1454 301 638 456 369 160 587 822 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 71 0 541 29 0 408 115 0 0 166 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1794 1781 0 1756 1463 0 0 1569 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 0.0 15.3 0.9 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 0.0 15.3 0.9 0.0 11.2 2.6 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.17 0.50 0.25 0.17 0.52
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 105 0 677 58 0 615 614 0 0 632 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.00 0.80 0.50 0.00 0.66 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 937 0 1258 937 0 1231 851 0 0 892 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 26.3 0.0 15.8 27.1 0.0 15.7 12.7 0.0 0.0 13.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.2 0.0 2.2 6.7 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 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 1.1 0.0 5.8 0.5 0.0 4.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.5 0.0 18.1 33.8 0.0 16.9 12.8 0.0 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A B C A B B A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 612 437 115 166
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.9 18.0 12.8 13.4
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.0 26.1 24.9 7.6 24.6 24.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 4.6 4.6 * 4.2 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 30 40.0 30.0 * 30 40.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 17.3 6.2 4.2 13.2 4.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.8 1.0 0.2 2.8 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. kimley-horn.com 10 Almaden Blvd #1250, San José, CA 95113 669-800-4130 Attachment D: Sidra Analysis Sheets

MOVEMENT SUMMA
R
Y
Site: 101 [Int 20

AM (Site Folder: General)]
New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
V
ehicle Movement Performance
INPU
T

VOLUMES
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
QUEUE
Mov
ID
T
urn
Deg.

Satn
A
ve
r
.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
E
f
fective
Stop
Rate
A
ve
r
.

No.

Cycles
A
ve
r
.

Speed
[

T
otal
HV ]
[

T
otal
HV ]
[
V
eh.

Dist ]
veh/h
%
veh/h
%
v/c
sec
veh
ft
mph
South: Castro St
3 L2
163

3.0 177

3.0 0.236

5.4 LOS

1.2 29.7

0.37 0.23

0.37 33.1
18 R2
81 3.0
88 3.0

0.236

5.4 LOS

1.2 29.7

0.37 0.23

0.37 32.2
Approach
244

3.0 265

3.0 0.236

5.4 LOS

1.2 29.7

0.37 0.23

0.37 32.8
East: California Street
1 L2
101

3.0 1
10 3.0

0.244

5.5 LOS

1.2 30.9

0.38 0.25

0.38 33.9
6 T1
149

3.0 162

3.0 0.244

5.5 LOS

1.2 30.9

0.38 0.25

0.38 33.8
Approach
250

3.0 272

3.0 0.244

5.5 LOS

1.2 30.9

0.38 0.25

0.38 33.8
W
est: California Street
2 T1
155

3.0 168

3.0 0.254

5.3 LOS

1.3 33.4

0.30 0.16

0.30 35.0
12 R2
124

3.0 135

3.0 0.254

5.3 LOS

1.3 33.4

0.30 0.16

0.30 34.0
Approach
279

3.0 303

3.0 0.254

5.3 LOS

1.3 33.4

0.30 0.16

0.30 34.6
All
V
ehicles
773

3.0 840

3.0 0.254

5.4 LOS

1.3 33.4

0.35 0.21

0.35 33.7
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parame ter Settings dialog (Site
tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

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

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

Intersection and

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

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

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap
-
Acceptance Capacity:

T
raditional M1.

HV (%) values are calculated for

All Movement Classes of

All Heavy
V
ehicle Model Designation.

Akcelik and

Associates Pty Ltd
|
sidrasolutions.com
Organisation: KIMLEY
-
HORN &

ASSOCI
A

TES INC
|
Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise
|
Pr
ocessed:

W
ednesda
y
, June
22, 2022 9:57:23

AM
Project:

K:\OAK_TP
T
O\197345001
-
Castro Ped Mall
-
AJD\
T
ra
f
fic

Analysis\Phase 2\SIDRA\CastroPe
d.sip9

MOVEMENT SUMMA
R
Y
Site: 101 [Int 20 PM (Site Folder: General)]
New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
V
ehicle Movement Performance
INPU
T

VOLUMES
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
QUEUE
Mov
ID
T
urn
Deg.

Satn
A
ve
r
.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
E
f
fective
Stop
Rate
A
ve
r
.

No.

Cycles
A
ve
r
.

Speed
[

T
otal
HV ]
[

T
otal
HV ]
[
V
eh.

Dist ]
veh/h
%
veh/h
%
v/c
sec
veh
ft
mph
South: Castro St
3 L2
191

3.0 208

3.0 0.385

8.2 LOS

2.0 51.4

0.58 0.50

0.58 32.1
18 R2
139

3.0 151

3.0 0.385

8.2 LOS

2.0 51.4

0.58 0.50

0.58 31.1
Approach
330

3.0 359

3.0 0.385

8.2 LOS

2.0 51.4

0.58 0.50

0.58 31.7
East: California Street
1 L2
84 3.0
91 3.0

0.241

5.6 LOS

1.2 30.0

0.41 0.28

0.41 34.0
6 T1
155

3.0 168

3.0 0.241

5.6 LOS

1.2 30.0

0.41 0.28

0.41 33.9
Approach
239

3.0 260

3.0 0.241

5.6 LOS

1.2 30.0

0.41 0.28

0.41 33.9
W
est: California Street
2 T1
319

3.0 347

3.0 0.425

7.3 LOS

2.7 70.0

0.34 0.18

0.34 34.0
12 R2
157

3.0 171

3.0 0.425

7.3 LOS

2.7 70.0

0.34 0.18

0.34 33.0
Approach
476

3.0 517

3.0 0.425

7.3 LOS

2.7 70.0

0.34 0.18

0.34 33.7
All
V
ehicles
1045

3.0 1
136

3.0 0.425

7.2 LOS

2.7 70.0

0.43 0.31

0.43 33.1
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parame ter Settings dialog (Site
tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

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

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

Intersection and

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

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

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap
-
Acceptance Capacity:

T
raditional M1.

HV (%) values are calculated for

All Movement Classes of

All Heavy
V
ehicle Model Designation.

Akcelik and

Associates Pty Ltd
|
sidrasolutions.com
Organisation: KIMLEY
-
HORN &

ASSOCI
A

TES INC
|
Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise
|
Pr
ocessed:

W
ednesda
y
, June
22, 2022 9:58:23

AM
Project:

K:\OAK_TP
T
O\197345001
-
Castro Ped Mall
-
AJD\
T
ra
f
fic

Analysis\Phase 2\SIDRA\CastroPe
d.sip9

MOVEMENT SUMMA
R
Y
Site: 101 [Int 20 Mid
-
day (Site Folder: General)]
New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
V
ehicle Movement Performance
INPU
T

VOLUMES
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
QUEUE
Mov
ID
T
urn
Deg.

Satn
A
ve
r
.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
E
f
fective
Stop
Rate
A
ve
r
.

No.

Cycles
A
ve
r
.

Speed
[

T
otal
HV ]
[

T
otal
HV ]
[
V
eh.

Dist ]
veh/h
%
veh/h
%
v/c
sec
veh
ft
mph
South: Castro St
3 L2
181

3.0 197

3.0 0.288

5.9 LOS

1.5 38.2

0.38 0.25

0.38 33.0
18 R2
1 17

3.0 127

3.0 0.288

5.9 LOS

1.5 38.2

0.38 0.25

0.38 32.1
Approach
298

3.0 324

3.0 0.288

5.9 LOS

1.5 38.2

0.38 0.25

0.38 32.7
East: California Street
1 L2
80 3.0
87 3.0

0.198

5.1 LOS

0.9 23.7

0.38 0.25

0.38 34.1
6 T1
1 18

3.0 128

3.0 0.198

5.1 LOS

0.9 23.7

0.38 0.25

0.38 34.0
Approach
198

3.0 215

3.0 0.198

5.1 LOS

0.9 23.7

0.38 0.25

0.38 34.0
W
est: California Street
2 T1
152

3.0 165

3.0 0.281

5.5 LOS

1.5 38.5

0.27 0.14

0.27 34.9
12 R2
164

3.0 178

3.0 0.281

5.5 LOS

1.5 38.5

0.27 0.14

0.27 33.9
Approach
316

3.0 343

3.0 0.281

5.5 LOS

1.5 38.5

0.27 0.14

0.27 34.4
All
V
ehicles
812

3.0 883

3.0 0.288

5.6 LOS

1.5 38.5

0.34 0.21

0.34 33.6
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parame ter Settings dialog (Site
tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

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

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

Intersection and

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

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

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap
-
Acceptance Capacity:

T
raditional M1.

HV (%) values are calculated for

All Movement Classes of

All Heavy
V
ehicle Model Designation.

Akcelik and

Associates Pty Ltd
|
sidrasolutions.com
Organisation: KIMLEY
-
HORN &

ASSOCI
A

TES INC
|
Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise
|
Pr
ocessed:

W
ednesda
y
, June
22, 2022 9:59:06

AM
Project:

K:\OAK_TP
T
O\197345001
-
Castro Ped Mall
-
AJD\
T
ra
f
fic

Analysis\Phase 2\SIDRA\CastroPe
d.sip9

Mountain View City CouncilOctober 11, 2022

Mountain View City Council
October 11, 2022