ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
improvements; bicycle and pedestrian
improvements; or complete streets. (Other
project types may also be eligible.)
To receive funding from these local programs,
roundabout projects will need to take a
programmatic approach and be part of a broader
package of safety, complete streets, or traffic
calming. Eligibility may also vary for each of
these programs depending on project costs.
Website:
Regional Program Call for Projects - Sacramento
Area Council of Governments (sacog.org)
Regional Active
Transportation
Program (ATP)
Managing Agency:
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
SACOG competitively distributes ATP funding
to projects and programs in El Dorado, Placer,
Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties to
increase biking and walking. The ATP aims to
increase walking and bicycling trips, increase
the safety of non-motorized users, reduce
greenhouse gases, enhance public health,
and ensure that disadvantaged communities
fully share in the benefits of the program.
Roundabout projects submitted for ATP
grants must be a part of broader active
transportation improvement projects that
focus on pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Website:
Active Transportation Program - Sacramento
Area Council of Governments (sacog.org)
53 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 54
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Appendix E:
Roundabout
Guidelines
55 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 58
Using this Document 58
CAPACITY AND NUMBER OF LANES 59
Assess Demand with Daily Traffic Volumes 61
Compare Control Types with Peak Hour Roadway Volumes 62 Estimate Capacity Using Peak Hour TMCs 64
Determine Desired Level of Mobility 68
Forecast Future Conditions 68
USER AND CONTEXT CONSIDERATIONS 69
Trucks 69
Walking and Bicycling 71
Transit 76
APPLICATION 78
Identify Development Area 78
Screen Potential Locations 80
Sample Application: Rio Del Oro 80
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 56
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
FIGURES
Figure E1. Data and Methodologies by Data Specificity and Project Development Stage 60
Figure E2. Planning-level Daily Intersection Volumes 61 Figure E3. Intersection Control Type by Operation Performance and 50/50 Volume Distribution on Each Street 63
Figure E4. Intersection Control Type by Operation Performance and 67/33 Volume Distribution on Each Street 63
Figure E5. Traffic Flows at a Roundabout Entry 64
Figure E6. Calculating Circulating Volumes for South Leg 65 Figure E7. Planning-Level Practical Capacity Estimates Using Peak Hour Volumes for a Given Entry 67
Figure E8. Rancho Cordova STAA Truck Routes 70
Figure E9. Roundabout with Staggered Crosswalk 73
Figure E10. Two-Stage Crossing Example 73
Figure E11. A Raised Crosswalk with RRFBs 75
Figure E12. Roundabout Opportunity Areas by Land Constraints 79 Figure E13. Rio Del Oro Intersections Tested 81
Figure E14. Rio Del Oro Sample Footprints 82
Figure E15. Roundabout Footprint and Potential Parcel Conflict 83 Figure E16. Resulting Assessment of Possible Roundabout Locations 83 TABLES
TABLE E1. Analysis Methodologies by Input and Level of Detail 60 TABLE E2. Planning-Level Sizing Guide Using Peak Period Volume Thresholds 66
TABLE E3. Common Inscribed Circle Diameters 69
TABLE E4. Roundabout Bicycle Facility Type by Approaching Class 71 TABLE E5. Footprint Sizes for Roundabouts with Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities—AASHTO WB-62 or WB-67 Design Vehicle 72 TABLE E6. ICDs for Roundabouts with Pedestrian and
Bicycle Facilities—City Bus Design Vehicle 72
TABLE E7. Bus Stop Location Considerations 77
57 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Roundabout Guidelines
1 FHWA, Roundabouts, August 2023, https://highways.dot.gov/safety/ intersection-safety/intersection-types/roundabouts.
2 AASHTO, Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (2022), https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26432/highway-capacity-manual7th-edition-a-guide-for-multimodal-mobility and NCHRP Research Report 1043: Guide for Roundabouts (2023), https://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/182939.aspx.
Introduction
Roundabouts offer communities key safety and
operational benefits. Roundabouts slow vehicle
speeds and reduce conflict points while offering
improved traffic operations and community
aesthetics.1 And, because they don’t use traffic
signals that require power and routine maintenance,
roundabouts have lower operating costs and are
more resilient during natural disasters when the
power goes out.
To take advantage of these safety and operational
benefits, the City of Rancho Cordova studied the
feasibility of building roundabouts at new and
existing intersections throughout the city. Produced
as part of that study, these guidelines will help the
City plan for future roundabout implementation.
Using this Document
This document is intended to guide the City as it
plans and designs future roundabouts. The best
practices in these pages are designed to:
/ Support City staff, consultants, and other
practitioners involved in City projects during
the roundabout planning and design process.
/ Communicate roundabout planning and
design principles to guide the City and
partners when siting, planning, and moving
roundabouts through project development.
/ Reinforce best practices established
by national guidance documents.
Guidelines in this handbook primarily draw on
national guidance provided by the Highway
Capacity Manual 7th Edition (HCM-7) from the
Transportation Research Board (TRB) and NCHRP
Research Report 1043: Guide for Roundabouts
from the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP).2 Before beginning any
roundabout project, be sure to check that reference
material is the most recent version.
Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc.
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 58
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Capacity and
Number of Lanes
When planning and designing roundabouts,
determining desired capacity and number of lanes is
a critical first step.
Operational analysis tests whether a roundabout
would adequately serve existing or projected traffic
volumes and, if so, how many lanes that roundabout
would need. There are several operational analysis
tools to choose from, depending on how precise
results need to be and available data. Typically, the
level of detail required of the data increases as the
project development process advances beyond a
high-level assessment.
To select an assessment methodology, consider
the following:
/ Output precision—What questions does the
analysis need to answer? Does it need to test
whether a single or multilane roundabout
could work given future volumes? Does
it need to size a roundabout to develop a
concept design? What outputs are necessary?
Are you looking for a yes or no answer for
potential viability or average travel delays?
/ Existing or projected conditions—Are
you looking for an analysis based on the
intersection’s current conditions? If you are
interested in projected future conditions,
how well developed are future volumes—are
they daily link volumes or detailed turning
movement counts (TMCs)? What is the
level of confidence for those estimates?
/ Time period—Is the analysis focused only
on peak hours? Do you need or already
have data for other analysis periods,
such as 24-hour or 12-hour periods?
Use answers to those questions, TABLE E1, and
Figure E1 to select the appropriate methodology
or reference. The following sections cover each
methodology in more detail.
TABLE E1 arranges available methodologies
according to input and level of detail. Figure E1
arranges the methodologies according to the project
development stage in which they’d likely be used.
Six-Lane Roadways
The City is not pursuing roundabouts on
six-lane roadways due to the high cost of
retrofitting those locations. However, a
planned six-lane roadway (assumed to be
signalized) could be accommodated with a
two-lane roundabout and become a fourlane roadway instead. A planning-level operational analysis can determine whether
such a change would be feasible given
current and future volumes.
59 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Planning Alternatives
Identification
& Selection
Detailed
Assessment
TABLE E1. Analysis Methodologies by Input and Level of Detail Project Development Stage Application Data Required
Planning Study Planning-level sizing to
determine feasibility and
number of lanes
Annual average daily
traffic
High-level selection of suitable
alternatives, such as comparing
roundabout to stop control or
signal
Peak hour roadway
volumes
Alternatives Identification
and Selection
Lane number and assignment Peak hour roadway
volumes
Conceptual design of
roundabout, including lane
numbers for each approach
and exit
Peak hour turning
movement counts
Detailed Assessment Conceptual design refinement Peak hour turning movement counts
Public involvement with
animation or simulation of
proposed alternatives
Peak hour turning
movement counts
Less
Detail
More
Detail
Figure E1. Data and Methodologies by Data Specificity and Project Development Stage Input & Results Level of Detail Project Development Stage
Annual
Average
Daily Traffic
Peak
Hour
Roadway
Volumes
Peak
Hour
Turning
Movement
Counts
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 60
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Assess Demand with
Daily Traffic Volumes
Planning-level volume thresholds using daily
volumes can help determine whether a roundabout
could serve an intersection’s travel demand and, if
so, then how many lanes would be required to meet
mobility goals.
Guidance in this section applies to four-leg
intersections with all of the following conditions:
/ 9–10 percent of daily traffic occurs during
the peak hour—this is the “K factor”.
/ During the peak hour, the peak direction
carries 52–58 percent of the roadway’s
traffic—this is the “D factor”.
/ Volume-to-capacity ratio per approach
of 0.9 or 90 percent—this represents this
intersection’s “practical capacity”.
For more information about these conditions,
consult NCHRP Research Report 1043, Section 8.6
or HCM-7.
Use the following guidelines, as well as Figure E2, to
match daily entering vehicles to the number of lanes
required:
/ Intersections with less than 17,000 daily
entering vehicles would be well within
a single-lane roundabout’s capacity.
/ Intersections with between 17,000 and
25,000 daily entering vehicles would be
well within a two-lane roundabout’s capacity.
A single-lane roundabout may provide
sufficient capacity but would need to be
analyzed in more detail to confirm. The results
would depend on the percentage of traffic
occurring in the peak hour and the particular
turning movements at the intersection.
/ Intersections with 27,000–42,000 daily
entering vehicles would be over capacity
with a single-lane roundabout. A two-lane
roundabout may provide sufficient capacity, but
further analysis would be needed to confirm.
A note on left turns—These values assume a
left-turn percentage of 20 percent. Figure
E2 demonstrates how changes in the leftturning percentage may impact capacity (higher left-turn percentages reduce the capacity).
Figure E2. Planning-level Daily Intersection Volumes
Source: Reproduced from NCHRP Research Report 1043, Exhibit 8.2; data derived from HCM-1 Annual
Average Daily
Traffic
Passenger-Car
Equivalent Units
Throughout this guide, analysis volumes
are presented in passenger-car equivalent
units (PCUs). Raw traffic volumes need
to be converted to PCUs by applying
the conversion methodology from
the HCM-7. In this methodology, large
vehicles account for more than 1 PCU.
61 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Compare Control Types with
Peak Hour Roadway Volumes
Peak-hour roadway volume data can be used to
compare operational performance across different
intersection control types. NCHRP Research
Report 825: Planning and Preliminary Applications
Guide uses HCM methodologies and some base
assumptions to establish comparable values among
two-way stop-controlled intersections, all-way stop
controlled intersections, signalized intersections,
and roundabouts.
Use Figure E3 and Figure E4 to match peak
hour roadway volumes with one or more feasible
intersection control types. Replicated from NCHRP
Research Report 825 and NCHRP Research Report
1043, respectively, these charts use total peak hour
volume on major and minor streets to assess which
type of roundabout or other intersection control
type would be feasible. The charts are based on
motor vehicle volumes and FHWA’s Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices signal warrants.
To know which chart to use, check available
directional data. If streets have a roughly 50/50
split of directional traffic during the peak hour,
use Figure E3. If this data is unavailable, consider
using the more conservative 67/33 split in Figure
E4. If data shows a particular intersection type
would work for a 67/33 split, that type will work for
50/50—however, the reverse is not necessarily true.
A note on active transportation—Because
these charts only show control delay for
motor vehicles and do not include quality of
service for bicyclists and pedestrians, they
should not be used as the sole factor for choosing
intersection control type.
The Peak Hour Factor
If the City desires to use a peak
15-minute analysis instead of a
peak hour analysis, the analysis
should adjust raw peak hour
turning movement volumes with
the use of a peak hour factor,
as noted in the HCM-7.
Peak Hour
Roadway
Volumes
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 62
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Figure E3. Intersection Control Type by Operation Performance and 50/50 Volume Distribution on Each Street
Figure E4. Intersection Control Type by Operation Performance and 67/33 Volume Distribution on Each Street
Peak Hour
Roadway
Volumes
Source: Reproduced
from NCHRP Research
Report 1043, Exhibit 8.8
Note: Mini-roundabouts
and compact roundabouts
are not included in this
exhibit. Assumes eighthhighest-hour volumes
equal 55 percent of peak
hour volumes, peak hour
factor equals 0.92, each
approach has 10 percent
left turns and 10 percent
right turns, and each
approach is a single lane
in the base case. Derived
from MUTCD 8-hour
signal warrant, MUTCD
all-way stop warrant,
and HCM methods for
two-way stop-controlled
intersections and singlelane roundabouts. Source:
NCHRP Report 825 (10).
Source: Reproduced
from NCHRP Research
Report 1043, Exhibit 8.7
Note: Mini-roundabouts
and compact roundabouts
are not included in this
exhibit. Assumes eighthhighest-hour volumes
equal 55 percent of peak
hour volumes, peak hour
factor equals 0.92, each
approach has 10 percent
left turns and 10 percent
right turns, and each
approach is a single lane
in the base case. Derived
from MUTCD 8-hour
signal warrant, MUTCD
all-way stop warrant,
and HCM methods for
two-way stop-controlled
intersections and singlelane roundabouts. Source:
NCHRP Report 825 (10).
63 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Estimate Capacity Using
Peak Hour TMCs
If turning movement count (TMC) data is available, a
more detailed analysis may be conducted. Peak hour
TMCs record all through and turning movements
at each intersection leg during the busiest hour of
the day. These TMCs can be used to determine the
two relevant traffic flows for each roundabout leg:
entering vehicles and circulating vehicles (Figure
E5). Capacity can be estimated using the volumes of
these traffic flows.
In addition, an analyst or designer may use
HCM-7 methodologies or other, more current
methodologies, if available.
Figure E5. Traffic Flows at a Roundabout Entry
Source: HCM-1
To estimate capacity using peak hour TMCs, use the
following process:
1/ Begin with Peak Hour TMCs
Peak hour TMC data will include all through or
turning movements for each leg of an intersection
during the busiest 60 minutes of a day.
Example:
Peak Hour
Turning
Movement
Counts
1 Vc
Ve
Ve
Vc
Entering Volumes
Circulating Volumes
2 166
25 72280
8 269
409
26 3
553
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 64
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
2 166
25 72280
8 269
409
26 3
553
Source: Reproduced from NCHRP Research Report
1043, Exhibit 8.4 and adapted from HCM-1
Figure E6. Calculating Circulating
Volumes for South Leg
2/ Calculate Relevant Volumes at Entry
Use the TMCs to calculate the volumes entering
(Ve) and circulating (Vc) for one entry leg. To
calculate Vc of a selected entry leg, add each of the
conflicting through, left, and U-turn movements for
that entry (see Figure E6). Example:
Peak Hour
Turning
Movement
Counts
2 Ve
Vc
Vc
Entering = 26 + 3 + 553 = 582 veh/hr
Circulating = 2 + 166 + 80 = 248 veh/hr
Ve
Vc
65 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
3/ Estimate Capacity
Use TABLE E2 and Figure E7 to calculate
roundabout type and number of lanes. For TABLE
E2, add Ve and Vc. For Figure E7, Vc and Ve will be
the x and y axes, respectively.
TABLE E2. Planning-Level Sizing Guide Using Peak Period Volume Thresholds Ve + Vc
Sum of Peak Period Entering
and Conflicting Flows
(vehicles/hour)
Type of Roundabout and Number of Lanes
700 or less Single-lane roundabout with traversable or non-traversable central island is likely sufficient.
701–900 Single-lane roundabout with non-traversable central island is likely sufficient; single-lane roundabout with traversable central island may be sufficient.
901–1,300 Single-lane roundabout with non-traversable central island may be sufficient.
1,301–1,600 Two-lane entry into multilane roundabout is likely sufficient; detailed turning movement analysis recommended.
1,601–2,300 Two-lane entry into multilane roundabout may be sufficient; detailed turning movement analysis recommended.
Greater than 2,300 Three-lane entry into multilane roundabout may be sufficient; detailed turning movement analysis recommended.
Source: Reproduced from NCHRP Research Report 1043, Exhibit 8.6 3 Peak Hour
Turning
Movement
Counts
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 66
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Figure E7. Planning-Level Practical Capacity Estimates
Using Peak Hour Volumes for a Given Entry
Source: Reproduced from NCHRP Research Report 1043, Exhibit 8.5 Example:
Example:
The sum of peak period entering and conflicting
flows is 830. Using TABLE E2, this flow indicates
that a single-lane roundabout with a non-traversable
central island is likely sufficient and that a singlelane roundabout with a traversable central island (also called a mini roundabout) may be sufficient.
Figure E7 provides a more nuanced view of the
nonlinear relationship and provides the same
answer: with 456 conflicting vehicles, 582 entering
vehicles could be served by a single-lane with nontraversable central island and may be served with a smaller, single-lane entry at a roundabout with a
traversable central island. A two-lane roundabout
with a non-traversable central island would likely
create unused capacity and increase implementation
costs.
Peak Hour
Turning
Movement
Counts
4/ Repeat Calculations for Remaining Legs
5/ Compare Estimated
Capacities for Each Leg
Use the capacity estimates for each leg to sketch
potential lane configurations for the roundabout.
Leg capacities may all suggest the same number of
lanes for all entries. Sometimes, however, different
legs will require different numbers of lanes. When
leg capacities are close to the thresholds for
different lane numbers, use software to conduct a
more detailed analysis.
4 5
67 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Determine Desired
Level of Mobility
When planning a roundabout (as with any
intersection), consider the desired level of mobility,
or how easily people and goods can move through
an intersection.
Level of Service
One way to assess the mobility of motor vehicles
is through level of service (LOS), a qualitative
measure of a roadway or intersection’s operations.
LOS provides a letter grade from A to F to describe
the average delay experienced by people in motor
vehicles, with A being the best and F being the
worst. Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.
LOS thresholds for roundabouts in the HCM are the
same as those for other unsignalized intersections.
Note, however, that the HCM assigns LOS F if the
roundabout’s volume-to-capacity ratio is greater
than 1.0, regardless of control delay. Simply using
the LOS grade can obscure important differences
in delay. (For instance, the difference between two
LOS grades can be a fraction of a second of delay
or many seconds.) Instead, prioritize overall average
and per-user intersection delay numbers, which
reflect conditions more accurately and specifically.
According to the City’s
existing Circulation Element,
the minimum acceptable
level of service in Rancho
Cordova is LOS D.
Underused Capacity
It’s important to balance peak hour needs against
all-day needs. Achieving a low level of delay during
the peak hour could result in an intersection that
is “overbuilt,” meaning it is underused for the
vast majority of the day and that it generates
unnecessary construction and maintenance cost,
all while taking up valuable city space that could
be used for other purposes. When setting the
desired mobility, determine whether the peak hour
is concentrated (occurring just 15 or 60 minutes of
the day, for example) or if it represents conditions
across many hours of the day.
Forecast Future Conditions
Roundabouts need to meet the city’s capacity needs
today and tomorrow. Currently, Rancho Cordova
plans for the year 2055.
To generate 2055 volumes, the City uses a modified
version of the SACSIM-19 Activity-Based Travel
Model from the Sacramento Area Council of
Governments (SACOG). (This modified version
provides greater roadway and transit network
detail and more refined traffic analysis zones in
the city and adjacent areas.) This model estimates
movement within Rancho Cordova and predicts how
city development will interact with land use and
transportation across the region.
Future volume projections provided by this model
help estimate whether a roundabout will operate
within desired mobility targets in the future and the
extent to which new development may degrade its
operations.
The 2055 land use projections in this model
assume that:
/ Residential uses will be fully built out
/ About half of non-residential
uses will be built out
/ Areas outside city limits will develop according
to SACOG’s 2020 Metropolitan Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(MTP/SCS) preferred land use assumptions,
except in four proposed development areas
in Sacramento County adjacent to the City:
Cordova Hills, Easton/Glenborough, Mather
South, and New Bridge. These areas will
develop according to 2055 estimates.
These land use assumptions underpin the 2055
travel forecasts for daily, weekday AM peak hour,
and weekday PM peak hour forecasts. These
forecasts also account for future transit ridership
from planned transit services in Rancho Cordova
and surrounding areas, including those partially
funded by the Transit Benefit District.
For more on this methodology, see the Rancho
Cordova Nexus Study. Contact the City for relevant
traffic projections.
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 68
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
User and Context
Considerations
Trucks
The City aims to serve the community’s
transportation needs and balance the needs of all
roadway users.
Expect Truck Use
Roundabouts that serve trucks must be large
enough to accommodate wide turning movements.
Due to Rancho Cordova’s strategic shipping
location, the City is authorized to designate certain
trucking terminals as interstate truck terminals and
certain City highways or parts of City highways as
terminal access routes for interstate trucks (see
Rancho Cordova Municipal Code 10.41). However,
some very large trucks—called STAA trucks or
extralegal trucks—are restricted in where they can
travel in Rancho Cordova. Figure E8 illustrates
where STAA trucks may travel. Smaller trucks,
including the California legal trucks, are not
restricted within the city. (For more, check out
Caltran’s quick guide to truck lengths and routes.)
Therefore, for roundabout planning purposes, start
by assuming a given intersection will be used by
California Legals (in addition to smaller trucks)
unless it is on a designated restricted route. The
particular right- or left-turning movements needed
for those trucks can be vetted with the City.
Determine and Draw ICDs
To accommodate trucks at a roundabout, begin
with an inscribed circle diameter (ICD) that will
meet the needs of the intended design vehicle (the
largest trucks expected to use the route, although
infrequently). A roundabout should be designed
so that these trucks can navigate the circle while
remaining in their lanes and avoiding curbs.
To determine an ICD range consult TABLE E3, which
summarizes common inscribed circle diameter
ranges by design vehicle and roundabout type.
These values are not prescriptive but provide a good
starting point for developing a design (assuming
a four-leg intersection with roughly perpendicular
approaches).
What is an ICD?
An inscribed
circle diameter,
or ICD, is the
outer diameter of
the roundabout.
This measurement
includes the center
island and the width
of the circulating
travel lanes.
TABLE E3. Common Inscribed Circle Diameters
Roundabout Configuration Typical AASHTO Design Vehicle Common ICD Range3 Single-lane roundabout with a
non-traversable central island
BUS-40 90–120 ft
WB-40 100–130 ft
WB-62 or WB-67 120–180 ft
Two-lane roundabout4 WB-40 135–160 ft
WB-62 or WB-67 140–180 ft
3 Assumes 90-degree angles between entries and no more than four legs.
This list of possible design vehicles is not comprehensive. 4 Common ICD ranges depend on whether the design vehicle will straddle or stay inlane. These ranges do not account for special, oversized, or overweight vehicles.
Source: NCHRP Research Report 1043, Exhibit 10.3
69 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Figure E8. Rancho Cordova STAA Truck Routes
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 70
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Next, use this information to sketch a roundabout
layout with an ICD in the appropriate range for the
given design vehicles. Then use available software
to test whether the design vehicle can make turning
movements with the selected roundabout size.
Typically, right turns will be the most constrained
in entries and exits, and left turns will determine
truck apron requirements around the central island.
Design vehicle turning paths may be tested even at
a sketch level to establish geometry before further
details are developed.
For larger trucks that may occasionally but
infrequently use an intersection, first consider
adapting geometry to provide for required
movements. If necessary, provide reinforced
mountable curbs and external truck aprons in
strategic locations. For more on roundabouts and
trucks, see NCHRP Research Report 1043, Sections
9.7 and 10.5.
Walking and Bicycling
With their ability to slow vehicle speeds,
roundabouts can play an important role in creating
safe and comfortable space for people to walk and
bicycle.
To properly incorporate pedestrians and bicyclists
in roundabout plans and designs, consult facility
design recommendations in the Bicycle Master Plan
and other City design standards. Roundabouts,
like any other intersection, should be planned and
designed to provide adequate mobility for people
walking and biking and can be designed to provide
the same quality of service as the approaching
roadways.
In California, bicycle facilities are defined by four
types as described in the Caltrans Highway Design
Manual:
/ Class I: Bike Paths, Shared Use Paths, or
Sidepaths provide a completely separated
facility for the exclusive use of bicyclists and
pedestrians. These facilities have minimal
or no conflicts with motor vehicle traffic.
/ Class II: Bike Lanes are on-street bikeways
that provide a dedicated right-of-way
for bicycles. These facilities may include
painted buffers, but they are not physically
separated from vehicle travel lanes.
/ Class III: Bike Routes or Bicycle Boulevards are
shared right-of-way with motor vehicles and are
designated by signs or permanent markings.
/ Class IV: Separated Bike Lanes or Cycle
Tracks provide physical separation from motor
vehicle traffic through grade separation,
flexible posts, planters, on-street parking,
or other strong physical barriers.
Roundabouts, like other intersections, may provide
a similar level of separation, quality of service,
and comfort as their approaching roadways. For
example:
/ Where a Class I path is provided or
planned for an approaching roadway, the
roundabout should provide a ramp to a
Class I path outside the roundabout to
separate bicyclists from motor vehicles
traveling through the circulatory roadway.
/ Where an approaching roadway has Class II
bike lanes, the roundabout should provide
a ramp to a multiuse path or separated
bike lane to separate bicyclists from motor
vehicles in the circulatory roadway.
/ Where the approaching roadway
volumes and speeds are appropriate for
a Class III route, the roundabout could
provide a shared-lane for bicyclists.
/ Where the approaching roadway has Class
IV bike lane, the roundabout should provide
a multiuse path or separated bike lane to
separate bicyclists from motor vehicles
traveling through circulatory roadway.
TABLE E4 summarizes the relationship between
bicycle infrastructure on an approaching roadway
and the comparable facility through a roundabout.
See the following subsection for more information
on accommodating bicycle lanes at roundabouts.
TABLE E4. Roundabout Bicycle Facility
Type by Approaching Class
Approaching Bike
Infrastructure
Comparable Provision at
Roundabout
Class I Multiuse path or separated
bike lane
Class II Multiuse path or separated
bike lane
Class III Shared lane with motor
vehicles
Class IV Separated bike lane
71 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Accommodate Bike Lanes
At roundabouts with pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, the area outside the traveled way will need to be wider than those without them. The resulting
intersection footprint will be larger.
To accommodate shared use paths at the planning
level, add 28 feet to the ICD for a single lane
roundabout and 32 feet for a multilane roundabout.
These ranges assume 4-foot landscape buffers,
10-foot paths for a single-lane roundabout, 12-foot
paths for a multilane roundabout.
To accommodate a sidewalk and a separated
bike lane at the planning level, add 40 feet to the
ICD. This extra width for a separated bike lane
and sidewalk assumes 6-foot sidewalks, 4-foot
landscape buffers, and a 10-foot separated bike
lane.
To determine the total ICD for a roundabout with
pedestrian and bicycle facilities according to
different design vehicles, use TABLE E5 and TABLE
E6. These are by no means the only suitable sizes for
roundabouts; they are simply a reasonable starting
point for estimating spatial needs, given certain
characteristics and assuming a four-leg intersection
with roughly perpendicular approaches.
TABLE E5. Footprint Sizes for Roundabouts with Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities—AASHTO WB-62 or WB-67 Design Vehicle
Roundabout Type Sidewalk Only Shared Use Path Separated Bicycle Lanes Single Lane 150 + 20 = 170 feet 150 + 28 = 178 feet 150 + 40 = 190 feet Multilane N/A 165 + 28 = 193 feet 165 + 40 = 205 feet
TABLE E6. ICDs for Roundabouts with Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities—City Bus Design Vehicle Roundabout Type Sidewalk Only Shared Use Path Separated Bicycle Lanes Single Lane 100 + 20 = 120 feet 100 + 28 = 128 feet 100 + 40 = 140 feet Multilane N/A 150 + 28 = 178 feet 150 + 40 = 190 feet
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 72
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Locating and Designing Crossings
Crosswalk placement is a balancing act.
Practitioners often must reconcile competing
design objectives, such as:
/ Pedestrian convenience—People walking
naturally look for the shortest path between
their origins and destinations. The farther
a crossing is from the roundabout, the
more likely pedestrians are to choose a
shorter route that is not provided by the
design. Often times, that shorter route
increases their exposure and crash risk.
/ Pedestrian safety—Minimizing crossing
distance decreases pedestrian crash risk.
Because roundabouts typically have flared
entries, a location 20–25 feet back (about
one car length) from the entrance provides
a shorter crossing than one closer to the
circulatory roadway. This setback location
separates the pedestrian crossing from
any vehicular conflict points and allows
drivers to focus exclusively on each conflict,
rather than on both simultaneously.
/ Driver stopping or yielding—Pedestrian
crossings affect roundabout operations
because drivers must yield or stop for crossing
pedestrians. A queuing analysis may reveal
that an exit crossing should be located more
than one car length away from the circulatory
roadway to avoid a backup. However,
that placement must be balanced against
pedestrian convenience and safety needs.
Most roundabout crossings are located at least
20 feet (about one car length) back from the
circulatory roadway. In some cases, crossings are
located two or three car lengths on the exit. If an
exit crossing is farther away from the roundabout
than the typical one-car length, a two-stage
crossing can be provided to accommodate
staggered crossing distances with a closer
entrance crossing and farther exit crossing (see
Figure E9).
Regardless of a crossing’s location, a two-stage
crossing with an accessible refuge in the median
splitter island simplifies crossing and improves
safety for pedestrians (see Figure E10).
Figure E9. Roundabout with Staggered Crosswalk
Source: NCHRP Research Report 834, Figure 4-4
Figure E10. Two-Stage Crossing Example
Source: Lee Rodegerdts, NCHRP Research
Report 1043, Exhibit 14.14
73 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Roundabouts and Accessibility
Roundabouts can be designed to be safe and
accessible for all people walking.
NCHRP Research Report 834 provides principles
and checks for designing roundabouts that are
accessible for people with low vision and that
promote safe conditions for all people walking.
The report includes an assessment that designers
can use to evaluate whether a roundabout design
provides accessible crossings. The assessment
asks a series of questions related to the two
tasks a pedestrian must complete to navigate an
intersection:
/ Wayfinding—Locating the crosswalk,
aligning to cross, and maintaining correct
heading while crossing the street.
/ Crossing—Deciding when to cross the street.
The report also provides direction on how to
thoughtfully design the following elements which
contribute to creating accessible crossings:
/ Crosswalk location and angle
/ Sidewalk alignment
/ Buffering the outer edge of the sidewalk
/ Detectable warning and guidance surfaces
/ Curb ramp location and design
/ Crosswalk markings
/ Median splitter island design
/ Type, location, and accessibility
of traffic control devices
/ Signing and markings
For an example roundabout design accessibility
assessment, see NCHRP Research Report 1043,
Appendix A.7
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 74
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Multilane Crossings
Multilane crossings are more complicated than
single-lane crossings and can present greater
exposure for people walking. As of September
2023, the United States Access Board has issued a
final rule on the Public Right-of-Way Accessibility
Guidelines (PROWAG), which provides minimum
guidelines for implementing the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 for public rights-ofway.
With the final rule, multilane roundabouts are
required to implement at least one of the following
four pedestrian treatments to make the crossings
accessible for people who are blind or have low
vision:
/ Traffic control signal with pedestrian signal
head—A signal displays red-yellow-green
indications to drivers and rests in green. A
pedestrian signal head displays “Walk” and
flashing “Don’t Walk” phases for crossing
pedestrians. Signals should be sufficiently
offset from the entry yield sign to prevent users
from being confused by two traffic controls.
/ Raised crosswalks—A raised crosswalk refers to
an elevated crossing area relative to vehicular
travel lanes, with the full crosswalk width raised
(as opposed to a narrower speed bump or
hump). Elevating crossing areas forces drivers
to slow down and improves driver yielding
(Figure E11). Raised crosswalks can be paired
with other treatments (typically RRFBs).
5 PROWAG, R102.1, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/08/2023-16149/ accessibility-guidelines-for-pedestrian-facilities-in-the-public-right-of-way. / Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs)—
These push-button activated signs use flashing
yellow lights to alert drivers to pedestrians or
bicyclists waiting to cross the roadway (Figure
E11). RRFBs improve driver yielding and are
typically used for multilane roundabouts. Adding
audible messages helps people who are blind
or have low vision navigate the crossing.
/ Pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs)—Typically
mounted on mast arms, PHBs use a series
of colored lights to signal drivers to stop for
pedestrians. Until the device is activated, the
lights are dark. When activated, the beacon
flashes yellow then turns solid yellow. During
the pedestrian walk interval, the lights are solid
red. During the pedestrian clearance interval,
the lights alternate flashing red. PHBs also signal
“Walk” and “Don’t Walk” to pedestrians and
can be coordinated with other traffic control
devices at adjacent intersections. An audible
message like “Wait” or a percussive tone during
the “Walk” phase may help pedestrians who are
blind or have low-vision navigate the crossings.
The PROWAG final rule also provides for equivalent
facilitation: alternative designs are allowed so long
as they “result in substantially equivalent or greater
accessibility and usability then the requirements.”5
Although this suggests a performance measure
to compare and evaluate relative performance,
no metric is provided. NCHRP Research Report
1043, Appendix A.6 contains more information on
applying these treatments, including a potential
evaluation measure.
Figure E11. A Raised Crosswalk with RRFBs
Source: Jonathan French, NCHRP Research Report 1043,
Exhibit 11.15
Careful consideration should
be applied when selecting
crossing treatments at
multilane roundabouts.
75 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Transit
Transit plays an important role in Rancho Cordova’s
transportation network. Access to transit is
critical for many residents, particularly those
from groups more likely to rely on transit for their
everyday needs, including people from low-income
households, historically underserved communities,
and marginalized backgrounds.
Two critical elements of designing roundabouts for
transit are a) sizing to allow buses to travel in lane
(not using truck aprons), and b) locating bus stops
to balance access convenience with traffic and
service efficiency.
Planning for SacRT
The Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT)
is the regional transit service provider, and their
buses will travel through roundabouts in Rancho
Cordova. SacRT representatives played a key role
in developing these guidelines and advising on key
transit considerations.
When planning for transit at roundabouts, use the
following guidance:
/ Design roundabouts to serve buses fully
within the circulatory roadway (rather
than relying on the use of a truck apron)
to avoid jostling bus occupants.
/ Consult the SacRT Bus Stop Improvement
Plan to determine the recommended bus stop
improvements, design recommendations,
and amenities recommended for the location.
Corridors cited in that plan include Coloma
Road, Kilgore Road, Lincoln Village Drive,
Rockingham Drive, and Routier Road.
/ Consult the latest SACOG plans to
determine intended future bus service and
stop locations along project corridors.
/ Bus stops should not be located within the
circulatory roadway. Placing stops as close
to pedestrian crossings as possible minimizes
out-of-direction travel. Place these stops
either at nearside (on entry) or far side (on
exit), using the considerations in TABLE E7.
For more on these plans, see the SacRT Bus
Stop Improvement Plan and the SACOG Transit
Improvement Plan.
Schools
Well-designed roundabouts can help make
transportation around schools safer and more
efficient for everyone. Safety near schools is a top
concern for the City and for constituent schools,
including Elk Grove Unified School District,
Folsom Cordova Unified School District (FCUSD),
Sacramento City Unified School District, and area
private schools. As key stakeholders in projects
near schools, FCUSD has identified the following
priorities that are appropriate to consider for all
projects near schools:
/ Pedestrian Crossing Safety—A number of
design checks can be used to promote safety
and comfort for pedestrians—including schoolage children—crossing at roundabouts (see “Multilane Crossings” on page 75). FCUSD
has expressed interest in supplemental crossing
treatments like raised crosswalks and PHBs,
the suitability of which can be determined on
a case-by-case basis. In some cases, schools
may request post-implementation evaluation
to determine if additional interventions (such
as additional signage or RRFBs) are desirable.
/ Landscape and Plant Height—To provide
adequate sight distance, landscape and
plants should be maintained to meet the
sight distance checks conducted as part of
typical roundabout design. (For more detail on
roundabout sight distance and landscaping,
see NCHRP Research Report 1043, Chapters
9 and 14.) A maintenance agreement can
provide a framework to keep landscape
features compliant with sight distance needs.
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 76
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
TABLE E7. Bus Stop Location Considerations
Nearside Far Side
In-lane stops on a single-lane approach just
upstream of the pedestrian crossing are well
located but stop traffic temporarily to board and
alight passengers.
On multilane approaches:
• An in-lane bus stop may allows for the
“multiple-threat” condition in which the bus
stops for pedestrians crossing but an adjacent
driver does not see the pedestrian.
• A bus pullout avoids the “multiple threat,” but
buses existing the pullout may further obstruct
visibility between pedestrians and entering
traffic.
Bus stops located just beyond the pedestrian
crossing improve the visibility of crossing
pedestrians, who cross behind the bus.
Bus pullouts reduce the potential for vehicles to
queue into the roundabout when the bus stops to
board and alight passengers.
77 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Application
The process outlined in this section provides a blueprint that City staff can use to identify, plan, and implement roundabouts for future developments.
Identify Development Area
Identify potential areas early on in the parcel acquisition, subdivision, and development process. This increases the number of available opportunities for implementation before site and off-site improvement plans lock in constraints.
To identify roundabout opportunities in upcoming areas, use Figure E12. Consider all future intersections of roadways with functional classifications of collectors and above and with fewer than six lanes.
This map categories Rancho Cordova areas into two area types:
/ No tentative maps approved. These areas have the fewest constraints and the most potential for roundabouts. Intersections in these areas that meet the functional classification and lane criteria can proceed through the screening process explained in the following section.
Local examples: Arboretum and Westborough
/ Approved final or tentative maps. These areas are well on their way to development and have the most constraints. Given those constraints, these areas are unlikely to have as much roundabout potential. Nevertheless, City staff should engage in discussions with developers as early as possible. Intersections in these areas can be evaluated using the screening process in the following section.
Local example: The Ranch at Sunridge
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 78
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Figure E12. Roundabout Opportunity Areas by Land Constraints 79 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Screen Potential Locations
To identify future locations for roundabouts, use the
following three-step screening process:
Step 1: Assess Capacity
and Number of Lanes
A/ Determine the anticipated lane arrangement
(single lane or multilane) according to existing
and anticipated traffic volumes and the planned
number of lanes on the intersecting roadways.
To determine appropriate analysis volumes,
either modify existing count data or refer
to the model. Existing count data will likely
be unavailable for greenfield development
locations. In those cases, refer to the City’s travel
demand model to determine traffic volumes for
the appropriate analysis year. The model will
provide daily or peak-hour bidirectional volumes.
If necessary, methods are available to estimate
turning movement volumes from model link
volumes.
More information on converting model link
volumes to turning movement counts is beyond
the scope of this document but is available in
NCHRP Research Report 765: Analytical Travel
Forecasting Approaches for Project-Level
Planning and Design (2014).
Step 2: Test Roundabout Size
A/ Select the appropriate design vehicle based on
functional classification, roadway ownership,
and existing or planned transit service.
B/ Identify the appropriate inscribed circle
diameter (ICD) range to test based on the
number of lanes and the design vehicle.
C/ Identify additional width needed for existing
and planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities
according to the Active Transportation Plan or
other relevant planning documents and data. For
City planning documents and data, visit https://
data-ranchocordova.opendata.arcgis.com/.
Step 3: Develop Footprint Sketch
A/ Overlay circles with the widths from steps
2B and 2C on aerial imagery. Include
right-of-way and building lines.
B/ Assess this sketch for the feasibility of
implementing a roundabout based on the
following factors: potential right-of-way impacts,
building impacts, topographical challenges,
and impacts to roadway configuration. Note
that this feasibility sketch is based on the
expected width of the circular portion of the
roundabout and does not include potential
right-of-way impacts of the approaches.
Sample Application: Rio Del Oro
To see the roundabout prioritization process in action, review the following test case in Rio del Oro. The Rio Del Oro Plan Area includes 3,828 acres in Rancho Cordova south of White Rock Road, east of Sunrise Boulevard, and north of Douglas Road (just east of Mather Airport). At the time of the 2016 plan, the land was predominantly used for mining and grazing. The Rio Del Oro Specific Plan was intended to present a balanced, mixed-use community consistent with the City’s General Plan. This Rio del Oro test case shows the process to screen potential locations early in the entitlement process; it does not reflect final roundabout locations.
Step 1: Assess Capacity and Number of Lanes
To determine the number of lanes, we tested intersections identified in the published Rio Del Oro Circulation Plan (Figure E13). All of the intersections were on collectors and above. Some of the roadways are six lanes today, and some are planned to be six lanes. We used preliminary testing to understand whether those lanes could be reduced and better served with a roundabout.
A/ Determine whether a single or multilane roundabout is appropriate according to traffic volumes and the number of lanes on the intersecting roadways.
We used SACSIM future model volumes, which provide annual average daily traffic (daily, two-way volumes). From those numbers, we estimated daily total entering vehicles and compared the future volume estimates to the planning-level daily Intersection volumes in Figure E2.
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 80
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Figure E13. Rio Del Oro Intersections Tested
Source: Rio Del Oro Specific Plan
Step 2: Test Roundabout Size
A/ Select the appropriate design vehicle based on functional classification, roadway ownership, and existing or planned transit service.
Because all intersections in Rio Del Oro are expected to serve trucks, we selected an AASHTO WB-67 as the design vehicle.
B/ Identify the appropriate inscribed circle diameter (ICD) range to test based on the type of roundabout and the design vehicle.
We selected single-lane and multilane roundabouts with ICDs of 150 feet and 165 feet, respectively, to provide for WB-67 design vehicles.
C/ Example Footprint Selection
We used the Bicycle Master Plan to identify where bike lanes and paths were proposed. We added appropriate buffer distances to the ICDs and determined the appropriate total footprint for each intersection. The resulting footprint estimates ranged from 170 to 205 feet. Figure E14 shows single-lane and multilane footprints at two different roundabout locations in Rio del Oro. 81 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Figure E14. Rio Del Oro Sample Footprints
This location was tested as a multilane roundabout with a 165-foot ICD and a 205-foot total footprint. The roundabout was overlaid over an existing development plan where—as this aerial shows—there are potential constraints.
Step 3: Develop Footprint Sketch
A/ Overlay circles with the widths from steps 3 and 4 on aerial imagery. Include right-of-way and building lines.
To determine feasibility, we overlayed the ICD footprint on a GIS map of planned roadways in Rio Del Oro and a plan-set development along the Rancho Cordova Parkway corridor (Figure E15).
B/ Assess this sketch for the feasibility of implementing a roundabout based on the following factors: potential right-of-way impacts, building impacts, topographical challenges, and impacts to roadway configuration. For example, assess whether the roadway would need to be reconfigured to match the number of lanes through the roundabout. Note that this feasibility sketch is based on the expected width of the circular portion of the roundabout and does not include potential right-of-way impacts of the approaches.
This high-level exercise revealed that this particular intersection would be a challenge to implement due to committed right-of-way within the footprint.
We repeated this exercise for all test intersections in Rio del Oro, and the result was a map of prospective roundabout locations, organized by number of lanes and feasibility (Figure E16).
Out of 34 locations we identified 5 potential single-lane roundabouts and 14 potential multilane roundabouts.
We ruled out 15 locations, one for having a tentative map conflict (according to constraints of development currently underway) and 14 for being on existing six-lane roadways.
Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report 82
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
Figure E15. Roundabout Footprint and Potential Parcel Conflict Figure E16. Resulting Assessment of Possible Roundabout Locations Note: This Rio del Oro test case shows the process to screen potential locations early in the entitlement process; it does not reflect final roundabout locations. 83 Rancho Cordova Roundabout Feasibility Study Report
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1
1 City of Rancho Cordova
Roundabout Feasibility Study
City Council
January 16, 2024
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 2
2 Funded through Caltrans Sustainable Communities Grant Awarded $155k ($175k with local match)
Study how to capture benefits from innovative treatment Combine best practices and local context
20-month study (started in June 2022)
Citywide planning study
Roundabout Feasibility Study
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 2
3 What is a Roundabout?
~475 ft
~65-200 ft
Roundabout:
Yield control on entry
~50 ft
Examples that are not a Roundabout:
Signalized Traffic Circle
Neighborhood Traffic Circle (no control)
Source: NCHRP Report 1043 – Guide for Roundabouts
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 2
4 Why Build Roundabouts?
1 Proven Safety Treatment
2 More Resilient Infrastructure
3 Lower Life Cycle Costs
4 Reduced Congestion / Emissions
5 Aesthetic Enhancement
6 Access Management
Source: Kittelson
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 2
5 1 Proven Safety Treatment
2 More Resilient Infrastructure
3 Lower Life Cycle Costs
4 Reduced Congestion / Emissions
5 Aesthetic Enhancement
6 Access Management
Why Build Roundabouts?
Sources: Federal Highway Administration,
NCHRP Report 1043 – Guide for Roundabouts
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 2
6 Why Build Roundabouts?
Roundabout used as temporary traffic control
during power outage. Wilmington, NC.
Source: Wrightsville Beach Fire and Rescue
1 Proven Safety Treatment
2 More Resilient Infrastructure
3 Lower Life Cycle Costs
4 Reduced Congestion / Emissions
5 Aesthetic Enhancement
6 Access Management
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 2
7 Why Build Roundabouts?
Citrus Heights. Source: Google Earth
Bend, Oregon. Source: Lee Rodegerdts
1 Proven Safety Treatment
2 More Resilient Infrastructure
3 Lower Life Cycle Costs
4 Reduced Congestion / Emissions
5 Aesthetic Enhancement
6 Access Management
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 2
8 Why Build Roundabouts?
Roundabouts providing access management and allowing U-turns.
Bend, Oregon. Source: Google Earth.
1 Proven Safety Treatment
2 More Resilient Infrastructure
3 Lower Life Cycle Costs
4 Reduced Congestion / Emissions
5 Aesthetic Enhancement
6 Access Management
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 2
9 Pedestrian and Bicyclist
Considerations
• Design features
• Slow speeds, high driver yielding
• Pedestrians cross in 2 stages
• Space for vehicles to yield to pedestrians
• Bicyclists may behave like a vehicle or a
pedestrian
• Multilane Roundabouts
• Larger and more challenging to install in
built-out areas
• More complex; present greater exposure
for pedestrians
• With proper design treatments are safe
and accessible for all to cross
Storage Space for
Exiting Vehicles
before Yielding
Pedestrian cross
one direction of
traffic at a time
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 2
10 Project Process
Study top location intersections and
test overlay concept sketches.
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 2
11 Top 5 Feasible Locations
Study top location intersections and
test overlay concept sketches.
Developed draft concepts for five locations and accompanying “scorecards” help with future grant opportunities:
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 2
12 Community and Stakeholder
Engagement
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 2
13 Roundabout Guidelines
• Provides state of practice on planning and
design
• Resource for staff, developers, and
consultants
• Provides blueprint for roundabouts with
future development
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 2
14 What’s Next?
• Incorporate Council feedback and adopt plan.
• Test top 5 concepts against future traffic
volumes.
• Continue community engagement for top
locations.
• Evaluate funding opportunities.
• Use Roundabout Guidelines to hone concepts
and identify new roundabouts with future
development.
ITEM 12.2. ATTACHMENT 2
MEMORANDUM
City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2
ITEM 12.3.
DATE: January 16, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Adam Lindgren, City Attorney
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INCENTIVE PAYMENT FOR 2023
PERFORMANCE AND A SALARY INCREASE FOR MICAH RUNNER
FOR SERVICE AS CITY MANAGER, AND ADJUSTING THE FULL
TIME EMPLOYEE SALARY SCHEDULE FOR THE POSITION OF CITY
MANAGER
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adoption of the Resolution would authorize payment of a 5% ($13,250) performance incentive payment to City Manager Micah Runner based on his 2023 performance, increase his annual salary by $20,000 to $285,000 ($23,750 per month), and update the Full Time Employee Salary Schedule for the position of City Manager to $23,750 per month.
BACKGROUND
Micah Runner has served as the City Manager for the City of Rancho Cordova since December 2022. The City Council conducted closed sessions to evaluate Mr. Runner's performance, and to receive information and provide direction regarding his salary and benefits package. The City Council determined that the City Manager's overall performance in 2023 was "impressive." Consistent with the terms of the City's employment agreement with the City Manager, the Resolution before the City Council would approve a 5% performance incentive payment ($13,250) to be paid immediately based on the City Council's conclusion that Mr. Runner displayed impressive 2023 performance and succeeded in achieving the specific objectives previously established by the City Council. The Resolution would also increase the City Manager’s base salary by $20,000 per year from $265,000 to $285,000 ($23,750 per month), and update the Full Time Employee Salary Schedule for the position of City Manager to $23,750 per month.
Before taking final action, the City Council will orally report a summary of the recommended actions on City Manager pay and benefits during this open session of a regular council meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE
City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2
The ongoing fiscal impact will be $20,000 plus the cost of additional CalPERS retirement and insurance benefits in the approximate amount of $4,000, plus a one-time fiscal impact of $13,250 for the performance incentive payment. The City Manager's salary and benefits are paid by the City's General Fund.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Resolution
2. Exhibit A to the Resolution - City Manager Salary Schedule
ITEM 12.3. ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. XX-2024 Page 1 of 2
CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2024
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN INCENTIVE PAYMENT FOR 2023 PERFORMANCE AND
A SALARY INCREASE FOR MICAH RUNNER FOR SERVICE AS CITY MANAGER, AND
ADJUSTING THE FULL TIME EMPLOYEE SALARY SCHEDULE FOR THE POSITION OF
CITY MANAGER
WHEREAS, Micah Runner has served as City Manager for the City of Rancho Cordova since December of 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved an employment agreement (“Agreement”) with Micah Runner (“City Manager”) on December 19, 2022; and WHEREAS, Section II.A.1 of his Agreement allows up to a 5% performance incentive benefit, in addition to his salary; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a performance evaluation of City Manager in closed session at its November 13, 2023 meeting, and reported out of closed session that the City Manager’s overall performance in 2023 was “impressive”; and WHEREAS, the City Council met in closed session on December 4, 2023, to conduct labor negotiations related to the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, following the performance review and labor negotiations, the City Council directed that an item be placed on the City Council agenda for the Council to consider awarding the City Manager the maximum performance incentive pay available for 2023 based on his performance, as demonstrated by his success in meeting the specific objectives established by the City Council, and increasing Mr. Runner’s salary by $20,000 per year to $285,000 per year which is $23,750 per month; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution would adjust the adopted Full Time Employee Salary Schedule most recently approved on June 5, 2023 by Resolution No. 65-2023 to increase the identified City Manager monthly salary from $22,083.34 per month to $23,750 per month.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA resolves that:
1. City Manager, Micah Runner, shall be awarded a performance incentive for his impressive 2023 performance in the amount of $13,250.
2. Section II.A.1 of the “Employment Agreement with City Manager and City of Rancho Cordova” between the City of Rancho Cordova and Micah Runner entered into on December 19, 2022 is amended, effective January 1, 2024, to state:
“The City Manager shall be paid a monthly salary of Twenty-Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars which amount is Step E in the Salary Range Table as adopted by Resolution ___ - 2024. This constitutes “Base Salary.”
ITEM 12.3. ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. XX-2024 Page 2 of 2
3. The adopted Full Time Employee Salary Schedule most recently approved on June 5, 2023 by Resolution No. 65-2023 is hereby adjusted to increase the identified City Manager monthly salary from $22,083.34 per month to $23,750 per month as identified in Exhibit A hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova this 16th day of January 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
David Sander, Mayor
ATTEST:
Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk
Fiscal Year 2023/2024 (Efffective 1/1/2024)
Classification
Step A
Hourly
Step A BiWeekly Step A
Monthly
Step A1
Hourly
Step A1
Bi-Weekly
Step A1
Monthly
Step B
Hourly
Step B
Bi-Weekly
Step B
Monthly
Step B1
Hourly
Step B1
Bi-Weekly
Step B1
Monthly
Step C
Hourly
Step C BiWeeklyStep C
Monthly
Step C1
Hourly
Step C1 BiWeeklyStep C1
Monthly
Step D
Hourly
Step D BiWeeklyStep D
Monthly
Step D1
Hourly
Step D1 BiWeeklyStep D1
Monthly
Step E
Hourly
Step E BiWeeklyStep E
Monthly
Proposed Annual
Salary
City Manager (1/1/2024 - 12/31/2024) 23,750.00$ $ 285,000.00 Note: In accordance with Resolution #103-2012 and 20-2004, the City Manager is authorized to make title, salary range and classification changes during the fiscal year.
Revision Summary
Resolution 47-2012; effective 6-1-2012
Resolution 103-2012; retroactively made effective 7-1-2011 Resolution 63-2013; effective 7-1-2013
Resolution 62-2014; retroactively effective 7-1-13
Resolution 99-2015; retroactively effective 7-1-15
Resolution 87-2017; retroactively effective 7-1-2016
Resolution 87-2017; effective 7-1-2017
Resolution 144-2018; effective 7-1-2018
Resolution 141-2019; effective 7-1-2019
Resolution 75-2020; effective 7-1-2020
Resolution 80-2021; effective 6-27-2021
Resolution 122-2022; effective 6-26-2022
Resolution xx-2023; effective 6-25-2023
negotiated by City Council
ITEM 12.3. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution