Reedley City Council
December 9, 2025

Table 6‐7 Retail: Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs No expected future water supply projects or programs that provide a quantifiable increase to the agency's water supply. Supplier will not complete the table below.

Some or all of the supplier's future water supply projects or programs are not compatible with this table and are described in a narrative format.
6‐12 Provide page of narrative location in the UWMP
Name of Future
Projects or
Programs
Joint Project with other
agencies?
Description
(if needed)
Planned
Implementation
Year
Planned
for Use in
Year Type
Expected
Increase in
Water Supply
to Agency
(MGY)
New 2,000 gpm
groundwater
well (North
Central Well)
No NA Phase 1 2020 Average
Year 0.7
New 2,000 gpm
groundwater
well (North
Central Well)
No NA Phase 2 2030 Average
Year 4.8

6.2.9 Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water
Water supplies are summarized in Tables 6‐7 and 6‐8.

Law
CWC 10631
(b) Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five‐year increments described in subdivision 10631(a), providing supporting and related information, including all of the following…
(b)(2) When multiple sources of water supply are identified, a description of the management of each supply in correlation with the other identified supplies.

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 6‐12
(h) An urban water supplier that relies upon a wholesale agency for a source of water shall provide the wholesale agency with water use projections from that agency for that source of water in five‐year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. The wholesale agency shall provide information to the urban water supplier for inclusion in the urban water supplier’s plan that identifies and quantifies, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water asrequired by subdivision (b), available from the wholesale agency to the urban water supplier over the same five‐year increments, and during various water‐year typesin accordance with subdivision (f). An urban watersupplier may rely upon watersupply information provided by the wholesale agency in fulfilling the plan informational requirements of subdivisions (b) and (f).

6.2.9.1 Description of Supplies
The City relies 100% on local groundwater for its water supplies. The San Joaquin River Groundwater Basin is not adjudicated. The City is not restricted to a specific volume of groundwater from the Kings Subbasin. There are seven active domestic water supply wells that provide potable water to City customers.

6.2.9.2 Quantification of Supplies
Table 6‐8 provides an overview of the sources and volume of water that were available to the City for 2020.

Table 6‐8 Retail: Water Supplies — Actual
Water Supply Additional Detail on Water
Supply
2020
Actual Volume Water
Quality
Total Right
or Safe Yield
Groundwater Kings Subbasin 1,639 Drinking
Water
Total (MG) 1,639
Table 6‐9 provides an overview of the projected water supplies available to the City to serve future demands through 2045.

Table 6‐9 Retail: Water Supplies — Projected
Water
Supply
Projected Water Supply
Description
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045   Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Groundwater
Kings Subbasin 1,795 2,051 2,307 2,562 2,818
Total (MG) 1,795 2,051 2,307 2,562 2,818

6.2.10 Special Conditions
The following provides a summary of special conditions identified in the UWMP guidebook and their impact on future water supplies.

6.2.10.1 Climate Change Effects
As mentioned in Section 4.5, Appendix A contains the climate change assessment found in Chapter 17 of the Upper Kings IRWM Regional Water Management Plan. There is mounting scientific evidence that global climate conditions are changing and will continue to change as a result of the continued build‐up of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the Earth’s City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 6‐13
atmosphere. Changes in climate can affect municipal water supplies through modifications in the timing, amount, and form of precipitation, as well as water demands and the quality of surface runoff. These changes can affect all elements of watersupply systems, from watershedsto reservoirs, conveyance systems, and treatment plants. A copy of the Kings Basin Water Authority IRWMP Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment is included in Appendix A.

6.2.10.2 Other Locally Applicable Criteria
There are no known local flow criteria that would impact future water supply within the City’s service area.

6.3 Submittal Tables
All required submittal tables for the City’s water supply characterization are included throughout this chapter.

6.4 Energy Intensity
Law
CWC 10631.2. (a)
In addition to the requirements of Section 10631, an urban water management plan shall include any of the following information that the urban water supplier can readily obtain:
(1)  An estimate of the amount of energy used to extract or divert water supplies. (2) An estimate of the amount of energy used to convey water supplies to the water treatment plants or distribution systems.
(3) An estimate of the amount of energy used to treat water supplies. (3) An estimate of the amount of energy used to distribute water supplies through its distribution systems. (5)   An estimate of the amount of energy used for treated water supplies in comparison to the amount used for nontreated water supplies.
(6)   An estimate of the amount of energy used to place water into or withdraw from storage. (7)   Any other energy‐related information the urban water supplier deems appropriate.

There are seven active domestic water supply wells that provide potable water to City customers. One of the seven wells currently acts as a standby. Each well pumps water directly into the water system which includes approximately 82 miles of pipeline and three elevated storage tanks. There are three reporting options included in the guidebook based on available data which include the following:
 Option 1: Energy Intensity – Water Supply Process Approach by the individual Water Management Processes
 Option 2: Energy Intensity – Total Utility Approach using the sum of all Water Management Processes and total energy for the system
 Option 3: Energy Intensity – Multiple Water Delivery Products by breaking down percentages for retail potable, retail non‐potable, agricultural, etc.

Table 6‐10 summarizes the City’s supply facilities energy intensity using Option 2: Energy Intensity‐    Total Utility Approach.

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 6‐14
Table 6‐10: Recommended Energy Intensity‐ Total Utility Approach Enter Start Date for Period   1/1/2020 Urban Water Supplier Operational Control End Date   12/31/2020 Sum of all Water
Processes
Non‐Consequential
Hydropower
Total Utility   Hydropower   Net Utility
Volume of Water Entering Process (MG) 1,639
Energy Consumed (kWh) 2,385,479
Energy Intensity (kWh/MG) 1,455

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 7‐1
CHAPTER 7 WATER SERVICE RELIABILITY AND DROUGHT RISK ASSESSMENT New Requirements
Per the Water Code, the following new requirements are necessary for this chapter of the UWMP 2020 update.  The new UWMP requirements appear in the application of new criteria to the Water Use Analysis in Chapter 4, the Water Supply Analysis in Chapter 6, and the resulting Water Service Reliability Assessment in this chapter—including the requirement for a five‐consecutive dry years analysis compared to the 2015 UWMPs, which included only a three‐year analysis.
 A Drought Risk Assessment (DRA) is now also required under Water Code Section 10635, and it must be prepared as a component of the 2020 UWMP. The DRA requires a methodical assessment of watersupplies and water uses under an assumed drought period that lasts five consecutive years.

7.1 Introduction
Assessing water service reliability is the fundamental purpose for an urban water supplier to prepare and update their UWMP. Water service reliability reflects the Supplier’s ability to meet the water needs of its customers with water supplies under varying conditions. The City’s UWMP considers the reliability of meeting customer water use by analyzing plausible hydrological variability, regulatory variability, climate conditions, and other factors that could affect the City’s water supply and its customers’ water uses. This chapter synthesizes the details imbedded in the other chapters (including 4, 6, 8, and 9) and it provides a rational basis for future decision‐making related to supply management, demand management, and project development. In addition, this chapter includes a new requirement for a DRA that enables the City to evaluate its risk under a severe drought period lasting for the next five consecutive years.

7.2 Water Service Reliability Assessment
Law
CWC 10635
(a) Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, an assessment of the reliability of its water service to its customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. This water supply and demand assessment shall compare the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over the next 20 years, in five‐year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and multiple dry water years. The waterservice reliability assessmentshall be based upon the information compiled pursuant to Section 10631, including available data from state, regional or local agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier.

As described in Chapter 6, the City’s water portfolio consists of groundwater from the Kings Subbasin. To identify potential water supply reliability concerns, the City completed a preliminary climate change vulnerability screening analysis (including impacts from extreme heat, water quality, sea level rise, flooding and wildfire) for its supplies as shown in Table 7‐0.

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 7‐2
Table 7‐0: Climate Change Vulnerability Screening
Assessment Groundwater – Kings
Subbasin
Notes: Level of Risk: 1 ‐ low, 3‐medium, 5‐high
Level of Risk
I. Water Supply and Demand
Are the water supply diversions sensitive to climate change? 1 Is the water supply source affected by urban or agricultural water demand that might be climate sensitive? 1
Is groundwater a major supply source? 3
Does the water supply source rely on or could it be affected by snowmelt? 1 Does the water supply source come from or could it be affected by coastal aquifers? Has saltwater intrusion been a problem in the past? 1
Does the water supply source rely on or could it be affected by changes in stored water supplies? 2
II. Extreme Heat
Could extreme heat impact operations of the water supply project or diversions? 2 Does the supply source rely on equipment or infrastructure that could be impacted by extreme or prolonged heat? 2
III. Water Quality
Could water quality issues, such as low dissolved oxygen, algal blooms, disinfectant biproducts affect the water supply source? 1
Could reduction in assimilative capacity of a receiving water body affect the water supply source? NA
Could the water supply source be affected by water quality shifts during rainfall/runoff events? 1
IV. Sea Level Rise
Is any of the water supply source infrastructure located in area that could be exposed to rising tides? NA
Could coastal erosion affect the water supply source? 1 Is the water supply source dependent on coastal structures, such as levees or breakwaters, for protection from flooding? 1
V. Flooding
Is the water supply or any of its associated infrastructure located within the 200‐year floodplain? Does the water supply source rely on flood protection infrastructure such as levees or dams?
2 VI. Wildfire
Is the water supply source located in an area that is expected to experience an increase in wildfire activity or severity? Would a wildfire result in damage to the water supply source infrastructure or interruption of its ability to perform as designed? Could the water supply source be affected by an increase in wildfire activity or severity in an upstream watershed or other adjacent area?
2 City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 7‐3
There is no basis in the hydrologic record for reducing supply reliability based upon single and/or multiple dry year conditions when groundwater water supply is available. The Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency (KREGSA) does not identify any constraints to supply availability. City has historically pumped groundwater to meet all of its water demands. On this assumption, the City’s supply is presented as 100% reliable for single and multiple dry year periods as summarized in the following sections.

7.2.1 Service Reliability – Constraints on Water Sources Law
CWC 10631
(b)(1) A detailed discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal water year, single dry year, and droughts lasting at least five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought, as described in the drought risk assessment. For each source of water supply, consider any information pertinent to the reliability analysis conducted pursuant to Section 10635, including changes in supply due to climate change.

As described in Chapter 6, the City’s water supply portfolio only consists of groundwater. The Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency (KREGSA) mentions the decrease in groundwater levels over the last century in the San Joaquin Valley. The KREGSA intendsto expand its groundwater level network as additional well construction information is obtained. At the moment, management actions do not include setting groundwater pumping limitations and the KREGSA does not identify any constraints to supply availability. The City is part of the King’s Subbasin GSA and will continue to proactively manage groundwater resources in the Kings Subbasin to serve existing and future demands within the service area.

With respect to water quality, the City’s Consumer Confidence Report (2020) in Appendix F describes existing water quality. As shown, the City’s water supply meets all United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and SWRCB water quality standards.

7.2.2 Service Reliability – Year Type Characterization
To determine the typical normal, single dry year, and five consecutive dry years within the service area, the City reviewed historical rainfall data from the precipitation gauge station 142 (Orange Cove). The results of the historical rainfall data review are presented in Figure 7‐1.

Table 7‐1 identifies the basis of water year data as required by the UWMP for projecting supply available during single and multiple dry year conditions.

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 7‐4
Figure 7‐1: City Historic Rainfall Data
Table 7‐1 Retail: Basis of Water Year Data
Year Type Base Year
Available Supplies if
Year Type Repeats
Quantification of available supplies is
not compatible with this table and is
provided elsewhere in the UWMP
Quantification of available supplies is
provided in this table as either volume
only, percent only, or both.

Volume Produced
(MG)   % of Average Supply
Average Year 2011 1,450 100
Single‐Dry Year 2012 1,640 113
Multiple‐Dry Years 1st Year   2012 1,640 113
Multiple‐Dry Years 2nd Year 2013 1,600 110
Multiple‐Dry Years 3rd Year 2014 1,500 103
Multiple‐Dry Years 4th Year 2015 1,302 90
Multiple‐Dry Years 5th Year 2016 1,366 94
NOTE: % Of Average Supply in the table represents the City’s ability to reduce water demands and does not reflect supply limitations.

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 7‐6

7.2.3 Water Service Reliability – Supply and Demand Comparison Law
CWC 10631
(a) Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, an assessment of the reliability of its water service to its customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. This water supply and demand assessment shall compare the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the long‐term total projected water use over the next 20 years, in five‐year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. The water service reliability assessment shall be based upon the information compiled pursuant to Section 10631, including available data from state, regional, or local agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier.

The future demand projections are based on future population projections as described in Section 3.4.1 and historical per capita demands including the implementation of the required SBX7‐7 as described in Section 5.6. The future supply projections are based on the reasonably available groundwater as described in Section 6.2.9. The City produces only what it needs and considers this quantity to be the volume reasonably available as shown in Table 6‐9. Based on the analysis of the City’s current/projected water supply sources, the City has sufficient resources to serve existing and future demands under normal, single dry year, and five consecutive dry years conditions. The City’s UWMP considers the reliability of meeting customer water use by analyzing plausible hydrological variability, regulatory variability, climate conditions, and other factors that could affect the City’s water supply and its customers’ water uses. No factors were found that indicate variation in supply reliability or customer demand due to drought.

7.2.3.1 Water Service Reliability – Normal Year
Table 7‐2 provides a summary of the City’s projected supply and water demands through 2045.

Table 7‐2 Retail: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 (opt)
Supply totals (MG) 1,795 2,052 2,306 2,562 2,817
Demand totals (MG) 1,795 2,052 2,306 2,562 2,817
Difference 0 0 0 0 0

7.2.3.2 Water Service Reliability – Single Dry Year
Table 7‐3 provides a summary of City’s projected supply and demand through 2045 for a single dry year.

Table 7‐3 Retail: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 (opt)
Supply totals (MG) 1,795 2,052 2,306 2,562 2,817
Demand totals (MG) 1,795 2,052 2,306 2,562 2,817
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 7‐7

7.2.3.3 Water Service Reliability – Five Consecutive Dry Years Table 7‐4 provides a summary of City’s projected supply and demand through 2045 for multiple dry years.

Table 7‐4 Retail: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First year
Supply totals (MG) 1,795 2,052 2,306 2,562 2,817
Demand totals (MG) 1,795 2,052 2,306 2,562 2,817
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Second year
Supply totals (MG) 1,795 2,052 2,306 2,562 2,817
Demand totals (MG) 1,795 2,052 2,306 2,562 2,817
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Third year
Supply totals (MG) 1,795 2,052 2,306 2,562 2,817
Demand totals (MG) 1,795 2,052 2,306 2,562 2,817
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fourth year
Supply totals (MG) 1,795 2,052 2,306 2,562 2,817
Demand totals (MG) 1,795 2,052 2,306 2,562 2,817
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fifth year
Supply totals (MG) 1,795 2,052 2,306 2,562 2,817
Demand totals (MG) 1,795 2,052 2,306 2,562 2,817
Difference 0 0 0 0 0

7.2.4 Description of Management Tools and Options
Law
CWC 10620 (f)
An urban water supplier shall describe in the plan water management tools and options used by that entity that will maximize resources and minimize the need to import water from other regions.

The City coordinated closely with the Kings River Conservation District, Upper Kings Water Integrated Regional Management Authority, Alta Irrigation District and Consolidated Irrigation District with respect to regional water resource management. The City has and will continue to participate in the following regional water resource planning efforts:
 Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency

7.3 Drought Risk Assessment
Law
CWC 10635(b)
Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, a drought risk assessment for its water service to its customers as part of information considered in developing the demand management measures and water supply projects and programs to be included in the urban water management plan. The urban water supplier may conduct an interim update or updates to this drought risk assessment within the five‐year cycle of its urban water management plan update. The drought risk assessment shall include each of the following:
(1) A description of the data, methodology, and basis for one or more supply shortage conditions that are necessary to conduct a drought risk assessment for a drought period that lasts five consecutive water years, starting from the year following when the assessment is conducted.
(2) A determination of the reliability of each source of supply under a variety of water shortage conditions. This may include a determination that a particular source of water supply is fully reliable under most, if not all, conditions.

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 7‐8
(3) A comparison of the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use for the drought period.
(4) Considerations of the historical drought hydrology, plausible changes on projected supplies and demands under climate change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other locally applicable criteria..

7.3.1 DRA Data, Methods, and Basis for Water Shortage Condition The following information was used to support the City’s DRA to identify water production and consumption to its customers and determine restrictions to supply sources:
 Annual AWWA Water Loss Audit Worksheet
 City of Reedley Integrated Master Plan
 Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency GSP  Historical rainfall data from the precipitation gauge 142 Orange Cove

7.3.2 DRA Individual Water Source Reliability
As identified in Section 7.2.2, the City has never had a single year or multiple dry years in which it did not meet 100% of its demand, regardless of regional hydrology. Therefore, there is no basisin the hydrologic record for reducing supply reliability based upon single and/or multiple dry year conditions when imported water supply is available in addition to historical groundwater production. On this assumption, the City’s supply is presented as 100% reliable for single and multiple dry year periods as summarized in the following sections.

7.3.3 DRA Total Water Supply and Use Comparison
Sustainable management of its existing groundwater resources through water‐use efficiency measures will allow the City to serve existing and future water demands during normal years, single dry years, or multiple dry years. Table 7‐5 shows a five‐year drought risk assessment for the City.

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 7‐9
Table 7‐5: Five‐Year Drought Risk Assessment Tables to Address Water Code Section 10635(b) 2021 Total
Gross Water Use 1,670
Total Supplies 1,670
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 0
Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP – supply augmentation benefit 0
WSCP – use reduction savings benefit 0
Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 0
Resulting % Use Reduction from WSCP action 0
2022 Total
Gross Water Use [Use Worksheet] 1,701
Total Supplies [Supply Worksheet] 1,701
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 0
Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP – supply augmentation benefit 0
WSCP – use reduction savings benefit 0
Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 0
Resulting % Use Reduction from WSCP action 0
2023 Total
Gross Water Use [Use Worksheet] 1,733
Total Supplies [Supply Worksheet] 1,733
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 0
Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP – supply augmentation benefit 0
WSCP – use reduction savings benefit 0
Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 0
Resulting % Use Reduction from WSCP action 0
2024 Total
Gross Water Use [Use Worksheet] 1,764
Total Supplies [Supply Worksheet] 1,764
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 0
Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP – supply augmentation benefit 0
WSCP – use reduction savings benefit 0
Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 0
Resulting % Use Reduction from WSCP action 0
2025 Total
Gross Water Use [Use Worksheet] 1,795
Total Supplies [Supply Worksheet] 1,795
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 0
Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP – supply augmentation benefit 0
WSCP – use reduction savings benefit 0
Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 0
Resulting % Use Reduction from WSCP action 0

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 8‐1
CHAPTER 8 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLANNING
New Requirements
Per the Water Code the following new requirements are necessary for this chapter of the UWMP 2020 update.  Key attributes of the water supply reliability analysis conducted pursuant to Water Code Section 10635. [Water Code Section 10632(a)(1)]
 Six standard water shortage levels corresponding to progressive ranges of up to 10‐, 20‐, 30‐, 40‐, and 50‐ percent shortages and greater than 50‐percent shortage. [Water Code Section 10632 (a)(3)(A)]  Locally appropriate “shortage response actions” for each shortage level, with a corresponding estimate of the extent the action will address the gap between supplies and demands. [Water Code Section 10632 (a)(4)]
 Procedures for conducting an annual water supply and demand assessment with prescribed elements.

Under Water Code Section 10632.1, urban water Suppliers are required to submit, by July 1 of each year, beginning in the year following adoption of the 2020 UWMP, an annual water shortage assessment report to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). [Water Code Section 10632 (a)(2)]  Communication protocols and proceduresto inform customers, the public, and government entities of any current or predicted water shortages and associated response actions. [Water Code Section 10632 (a)(5)]  Monitoring and reporting procedures to assure appropriate data is collected to monitor customer compliance and to respond to any state reporting requirements. [Water Code Section 10632(a)(9)]  A reevaluation and improvement process to assess the functionality of its WSCP and to make appropriate adjustments as may be warranted. [Water Code Section 10632(a)(10)]

8.1 Water Supply Reliability Analysis
Law
CWC 10632(a)(1)
The analysis of water supply reliability conducted pursuant to Section 10635.

As described in Chapter 7 of this UWMP, the City’s water supply has been determined to be reliable. More detail about this section can be found in the City’s WSCP in Appendix G.

8.2 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Procedures Law
CWC 10632(a)(2)
The procedures used in conducting an annual water supply and demand assessment that include, at a minimum, both of the following:
(A) The written decision‐making process that an urban water supplier will use each year to determine its water supply reliability.
(B) The key data inputs and assessment methodology used to evaluate the urban water supplier’s water supply reliability for the current year and one dry year, including all of the following:
(i) Current year unconstrained demand, considering weather, growth, and other influencing factors, such as policies to manage current supplies to meet demand objectives in future years, as applicable. (ii) Current year available supply, considering hydrological and regulatory conditions in the current year and one dry year. The annual supply and demand assessment may consider more than one dry year solely at the discretion of the urban water supplier.
(iii) Existing infrastructure capabilities and plausible constraints.

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 8‐2
(iv) A defined set of locally applicable evaluation criteria that are consistently relied upon for each annual water supply and demand assessment.
(v) A description and quantification of each source of water supply.

CWC 10632.1.

An urban water supplier shall conduct an annual water supply and demand assessment pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10632 and, on or before July 1 of each year,submit an annual water shortage assessment report to the department with information for anticipated shortage, triggered shortage response actions, compliance and enforcement actions, and communication actions consistent with the supplier’s water shortage contingency plan. An urban water supplier that relies on imported water from the State Water Project or the Bureau of Reclamation shall submit its annual water supply and demand assessment within 14 days of receiving its final allocations, or by July 1 of each year, whichever is later.

In accordance with CWC 10632, the City will conduct an annual water supply and demand assessment, or annual assessment by July 1st of each year. The City will draft and prepare a written report that discusses the results of the annual watersupply and demand assessment.  Descriptions of the methodology, key data inputs, and a timeline for the annual assessment can be found in the WSCP.

8.2.1 Decision‐Making Process
The written decision‐making process can be found in the WSCP.

8.2.2 Data and Methodologies
The data and methodologies can be found in the WSCP.

8.3 Six Standard Water Shortage Levels
Law
CWC 10632(a)(3)
(A)  Six standard watershortage levels corresponding to progressive ranges of up to 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 percentshortages and greater than 50 percent shortage. Urban water suppliers shall define these shortage levels based on the suppliers’ water supply conditions, including percentage reductions in water supply, changes in groundwater levels, changes in surface elevation or level of subsidence, or other changes in hydrological or other local conditions indicative of the water supply available for use. Shortage levels shall also apply to catastrophic interruption of water supplies, including, but not limited to, a regional power outage, an earthquake, and other potential emergency events. (B)  An urban water supplier with an existing water shortage contingency plan that uses different water shortage levels may comply with the requirement in subparagraph (A) by developing and including a cross‐reference relating its existing categories to the six standard water shortage levels.

The WSCP establishes six stages of drought response actions to be implemented in times of shortage, with increasing restrictions on water use in response to decreasing supplies. The WSCP includes both voluntary and mandatory rationing depending on the causes, severity, and anticipated duration of the water supply shortage. A summary of the response actions taken for each shortage level are described in Table 8‐1, shown below.

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 8‐3
Table 8‐1: Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels
Shortage
Level
Percent
Shortage
Range
Shortage Response Actions
(Narrative Description)
1 Up to 10%
‐ Waste of Water Prohibition: The following uses of water are defined as “waste of water” and are hereby prohibited exceptions unless otherwise stated:

1. The use of water which allows excess water to run off a gutter, ditch, or drain.

2. The excessive use, loss, or escape of water through breaks, leaks or malfunctions in the water user’s plumbing or distribution facilities for any period of time after such escape of water should reasonably have been discovered or corrected. It shall be presumed that a period of forty‐eight (48) hours after discovery is a reasonable time within which to correct such a leak or break.

3. The washing of vehicles, building exteriors, sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts, patios or other paved areas without the use of positive shutoff nozzle on the hose, which results in excessive runoff. ‐ Landscape Irrigation

1. Installation of lawn sprinkling systems: Lawn sprinkling system/devices shall be properly designed, installed, maintained and operated to prevent overuse of water.

Modifying Duration of Watering: The “water customer” shall modify watering duration and frequency schedules so that the sprinkler’s application does not exceed the irrigated area’s absorption rate and generate surface runoff. 2 Up to 20%
‐ During anytime in which Level 2 restrictions are imposed, the following mandatory conservation measures shall apply in addition to all non‐conflicting Level 1 restrictions.

1. Hours of irrigation: All outdoor irrigation of lawns, gardens, landscaped areas, plants, trees, shrubs, or other greenscape areas shall occur only between the hours of twelve o’clock (12:00) midnight and eight o’ clock (8:00) a.m., and between eight o’clock (8:00) p.m. and twelve o’ clock midnight on designated days during the summer watering schedule. During the winter water schedule, water customers may water anytime during the designated day.

2. Summer Watering Schedule (April 2 through October 30): All dwellings or establishments with even numbered street addresses (addresses ending in 0,2,4,6,8) shall only water on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Dwelings or establishments with odd numbered addresses (1,3,5,7,9) shall water only on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. There shall be no watering on Mondays.

3. Winter Water Schedule (November 1 through April 1): All dwellings or establishments shall water on Wednesday or Sunday. Specific irrigation times shall not be enforced. During rain events, water customers should turn automatic sprinkler timers off or place them on pause.
3 Up to 30%
‐ During anytime in which Level 3 restrictions are imposed, the following mandatory conservation measures shall apply in addition to all non‐conflicting Level 1 and 2 restrictions.

1. Washing paved surfaces is prohibited, including but not limited to sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, tennis courts, or patios, except when it is necessary to alleviate safety or sanitation hazards

2. Two Day Summer Watering Schedule (April 2 through October 30) for all residential and commercial landscape irrigation. All landscape irrigation City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 8‐4
Table 8‐1: Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels
Shortage
Level
Percent
Shortage
Range
Shortage Response Actions
(Narrative Description)
watering in the City shall be limited to two days per week as follows: dwellings, establishments, and properties with even numbered street addresses (addresses ending in 0,2,4,6,8) shall only water on Wednesdays and Sundays.

Dwellings or establishments with odd numbered addresses (1,3,5,7,9) shall water only on Tuesdays and Saturdays. There shall be no watering on Mondays, Thursdays, and Fridays.

All outdoor landscape irrigation watering shall be limited to using sprinklers for no more than ten (10) minutes per washing station. This provision does not apply to landscape irrigation systems using drip/micro‐irrigation systems. 4 Up to 40%
‐ During anytime in which Level 4 restrictions are imposed, the following mandatory conservation measures shall apply in addition to all non‐conflicting Level 1, 2 and 3 restrictions.

1. Hours of irrigation: All outdoor irrigation of lawns, gardens, landscaped areas, plants, trees, shrubs, or other greenscape areas shall occur between the hours of twelve o’clock (12:00) midnight and eight o’ clock (8:00) a.m., and between eight o’clock (8:00) p.m. and twelve o’ clock midnight on designated days during both the summer and winter watering schedule.

2. Any outdoor watering of landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties, which are not irrigated by an automated landscape irrigation system shall be watered only by using a bucket, hand‐held hose with a positive shut‐off nozzle, or low‐volume non‐spray irrigation.

No outdoor watering allowed within 48 hours after measurable rain event. Rain capture systems are encouraged and any associated building permits for such systems will be expedited and permit fees waived. An administrative processing fee will still be applicable.
5 Up to 50%
‐ During any time in which Level 5 restrictions are imposed the following mandatory conservation measures apply in addition to all non‐conflicting Level 1, 2, 3 and 4 restrictions:

1. The filling or refilling of ornamental lakes or ponds shall be prohibited, except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life, provided that such animals are of significant value and have been actively managed within the water feature prior to declaration of a drought response level under this section.

2. The washing of vehicles is prohibited, except at commercial car washes that recirculate water, or by high pressure/low volume wash systems.

3. All leaks detected in landscape irrigation systems or water systems shall be repaired within forty‐eight (48) hours of notification by the city of Reedley unless other arrangements are made with the public works director.

4. No new potable waterservice, temporary meters or permanent meters shall be provided, and no statements of immediate ability to serve or provide potable water service shall be issued, except under the following circumstances:
a. A valid, unexpired building permit has been issued for the project; or b. The project is necessary to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare; or
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 8‐5
Table 8‐1: Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels
Shortage
Level
Percent
Shortage
Range
Shortage Response Actions
(Narrative Description)
c. The applicant provides a substantial evidence of an enforceable commitment that water demands for the project will be offset prior to the provision of a new meter(s) to the satisfaction of the City. 6 >50%
‐ During any time in which Level 6 restrictions are imposed the following mandatory conservation measures apply in addition to all non‐conflicting Level 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 restrictions:

1. All landscape irrigation shall be prohibited, except crops and landscape products of commercial growers and nurseries. This restriction shall not apply to the following categories of use(s) unless the city of Reedley has determined that recycled water is available and may be lawfully applied to the use(s):
d. Maintenance of trees and shrubs are to be watered using a bucket, handheld hose with a positive shutoff nozzle, or low volume non‐spray irrigation;
e. Maintenance of existing landscaping necessary for fire protection as specified by the fire marshal of the local fire protection agency having jurisdiction over the property to be irrigated;
f. Maintenance of existing landscaping for erosion control; g. Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the well‐being of rare animals;
h. Maintenance of landscaping within active public parks and playing fields, daycare centers, school grounds, cemeteries, and golf course greens, provided that such irrigation does not exceed two (2) days per week.
i. Watering of livestock; and
j. Public works projects and activity irrigated environmental mitigation projects.

All leaks detected in landscape irrigation systems or water systems shall be repaired within twenty‐four (24) hours of notification by the City unless other arrangements are made with the Public Works Director.

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 8‐6
Figure 8‐1 provides a crosswalk that shows AMWC’s water shortage levels to those mandated by statute.

Figure 8‐1: Crosswalk for the City’s 2015 Shortage Levels and the 2020 WSCP Mandated Shortage Levels Stages from 2015 UWMP Crosswalk 2020 WSCP Mandated Shortage Levels Shortage
Level
Percent
Supply
Reduction
Water Supply
Condition
Shortage
Level
Percent
Supply
Reduction
Water
Supply
Condition
Mandatory
compliance
with water
savings
measures
1 10%
‐  Total production
capacity loss of 0‐
10 percent
1 0% to 10% Normal
Voluntary,
always in
place
2 20%
‐ Total production
capacity loss of
10‐20 percent
2 10% to
20%
Slightly
Restricted
Mandatory
compliance
3 30%
‐ Total production
capacity loss of
20‐30 percent
3 20% to
30%
Moderately
Restricted
Mandatory
compliance
4 50%
‐ Total production
capacity greater
than 30 percent
4 30% to
40% Restricted   Mandatory
compliance
5 40% to
50%
Severely
Restricted
Mandatory
compliance
6 50% and
above
Extremely
Restricted
Mandatory
compliance

March 2022
Page | 8‐7
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan

8.4 Shortage Response Actions
Law
CWC 10632
(a)(1) Stages of action to be undertaken by the urban water supplier in response to water supply shortages, including up to a 50 percent reduction in water supply, and an outline of specific water supply conditions which are applicable to each stage.
(a)(4) Shortage response actions that align with the defined shortage levels and include, at a minimum, all of the following:
(A) Locally appropriate supply augmentation actions.
(B) Locally appropriate demand reduction actions to adequately respond to shortages. (C) Locally appropriate operational changes.
(D) Additional, mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices that are in addition to state‐mandated prohibitions and appropriate to the local conditions.
(E) For each action, an estimate of the extent to which the gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by implementation of the action.

8.4.1 Demand Reduction
Table 8‐2 summarizes the restrictions and prohibitions on end users during each stage of water shortage responses implemented by the City.

Table 8‐2: Demand Reduction Actions
Shortage
Level   Demand Reduction Actions
Estimated Extent
of Reducing the
Water Shortage
Gap
Penalty,
Charge, or
Other
Enforcement?
1 Other – Expand Public Information Campaign Low   No
1 Landscape – Limit landscape irrigation to specific times.   Low   Yes 1 Landscape – Limit landscape irrigation to specific days. Low   No 1 Other – Customer must repair leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in a timely manner
Medium   Yes
2   Other – Prohibit use of potable water for washing hard surfaces    High   Yes 2 Landscape – Limit landscape irrigation to specific times.   High   Yes 2 Landscape – Other landscape restriction or prohibition   High   Yes 3 Landscape – Other landscape restriction or prohibition Medium   Yes 3 Landscape – Limit landscape irrigation to specific times.   Low   Yes 4 Other – Prohibit the filling or refilling of ornamental lakes or ponds shall be prohibited
Low   Yes
4 Other – Prohibit vehicle washing except at facilities using recycled or recirculating water
Medium   Yes
4 Other – Customer must repair leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in a timely manner
Medium
Yes
5 Other – Prohibit new potable water service   High   Yes 5 Other – Prohibit new temporary or permanent meters   Medium   Yes City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 8‐8
Table 8‐2: Demand Reduction Actions
Shortage
Level   Demand Reduction Actions
Estimated Extent
of Reducing the
Water Shortage
Gap
Penalty,
Charge, or
Other
Enforcement?
5   Other‐ Prohibit statements of immediate ability to serve or provide potable water service
High   Yes
6 Landscape – Prohibit all landscape irrigation   High   Yes 6   Other – Customers must repair leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in a timely manner
High   Yes

8.4.2 Supply Augmentation
Table 8‐3 summarizes the restrictions and prohibitions on end uses during each stage of water shortage response implemented by the City.

Table 8‐3: Demand Reduction Actions
Shortage
Level
Supply Augmentation Methods and Other Actions by
Water Supplier
Estimated Extent
of Reducing the
Water Shortage
Gap
Penalty,
Charge, or
Other
Enforcement?
All Stages Reduce Water System Loss   High No

8.4.3 Operational Changes
In the event of an extreme water shortage, the City will implement some or all of the following operational changes in accordance with CWC §10632(a)(4)(C) and §10632.5(a):
 The City shall provide prompt notice to customer whenever the City obtains information that indicates a leak may exist within the end‐user’s exclusive control.  Decrease line flushing
 Evaluate maintenance procedures and alter if needed to improve system efficiency.  Evaluate infrastructure repairs, and complete if possible, to improve system efficiency.

8.4.4 Additional Mandatory Restrictions
The City’s customers shall comply to the mandatory water shortage response actions listed in Table 8‐2 associated with a level 3 or higher watershortage event in accordance with §10632(a)(4)(D). In the event of a watershortage emergency or severe drought, the City may enact additional mandatory restrictions:
 Implement drought water rates

8.4.5 Emergency Response Plan
In the event of an emergency, the City will declare a water shortage and enact the appropriate water savings actions until service is restored to pre‐emergency conditions. A more detailed description of the City’s emergency response plan and water shortage actions can be found in the WSCP.

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 8‐9

8.4.6 Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan
Law
CWC 10632.5. (a)
In addition to the requirements of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 10632, beginning January 1, 2020, the plan shall include a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan to assess the vulnerability of each of the various facilities of a water system and mitigate those vulnerabilities.
(b) An urban water supplier shall update the seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan when updating its urban water management plan as required by Section 10621.
(c) An urban water supplier may comply with this section by submitting, pursuant to Section 10644, a copy of the most recent adopted local hazard mitigation plan or multihazard mitigation plan under the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106‐390) if the local hazard mitigation plan or multihazard mitigation plan addresses seismic risk.

The City completed the America’s Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) Risk and Assessment (RRA) which assessed seismic risk. The City has an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), which provides guidance for emergency planning, organization and response policies and measures for catastrophic event preparation through recovery. A summary of the seismic risk assessment can be found in the WSCP.

8.4.7 Shortage Response Action Effectiveness
The City will monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the shortage response actions. In the event that the shortage response actions are not effective AMWC will have the power to amend the WSCP. A more detailed description of the City’s plan to monitor effectiveness can be found in the WSCP.

8.5 Communication Protocols
Law
CWC 10632 (a)(5)
Communication protocols and procedures to inform customers, the public, interested parties, and local, regional, and state governments, regarding, at a minimum, all of the following:
(A) Any current or predicted shortages as determined by the annual water supply and demand assessment described pursuant to Section 10632.1.
(B) Any shortage response actions triggered or anticipated to be triggered by the annual water supply and demand assessment described pursuant to Section 10632.1.

The City will inform the public, and the necessary local, regional, and state government entities regarding any current or predicted water shortages based on the results of the Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment in accordance with CWC §10632(a)(5). The City will also notify all necessary entities of any shortage response actions mandated in response to the Annual Assessment. A detailed communication plan can be found in the WSCP.

8.6 Compliance and Enforcement
Law
CWC 10632 (a)(6)
For an urban retail water supplier, customer compliance, enforcement, appeal, and exemption procedures for triggered shortage response actions as determined pursuant to Section 10632.2.

The City’s enforcement policies enforcement policies can be found in the WSCP.

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 8‐10

8.7 Legal Authorities
Law
CWC 10632 (a)(7)
(A) A description of the legal authorities that empower the urban water supplier to implement and enforce its shortage response actions specified in paragraph (4) that may include, but are not limited to, statutory authorities, ordinances, resolutions, and contract provisions.
(B) A statement that an urban water supplier shall declare a water shortage emergency in accordance with Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 350) of Division 1. [see below] (C) A statement that an urban watersuppliershall coordinate with any city or county within which it provides watersupply services for the possible proclamation of a local emergency, as defined in Section 8558 of the Government Code.

CWC Division 1, Section 350
Declaration of water shortage emergency condition. The governing body of a distributor of a public water supply, whether publicly or privately owned and including a mutual water company, shall declare a water shortage emergency condition to prevail within the area served by such distributor whenever it finds and determines that the ordinary demands and requirements of water consumers cannot be satisfied without depleting the water supply of the distributor to the extent that there would be insufficient water for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection.

The City has the power to declare a water shortage. See the WSCP for the City’s declaration of a water shortage.

8.8 Financial Consequences of WSCP
Law
CWC 10632 (a)(8)
A description of the financial consequences of, and responses for, drought conditions, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(A) A description of potential revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions described in paragraph (4).
(B) A description of mitigation actions needed to address revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions described in paragraph (4). (C) A description of the cost of compliance with Chapter 3.3 (commencing with Section 365) of Division 1.

In the event of a water shortage, the City has established drought water rates, see the WSCP for drought rates.

8.9 Monitoring and Reporting
Law
CWC 10632 (a)(9)
For an urban retail water supplier, monitoring and reporting requirements and procedures that ensure appropriate data is collected, tracked, and analyzed for purposes of monitoring customer compliance and to meet state reporting requirements.

Monitoring and reporting procedures can be found in the WSCP.

8.10 WSCP Refinement Procedures
Law
CWC 10632 (a)(10)
Reevaluation and improvement procedures for systematically monitoring and evaluating the functionality of the water shortage contingency plan in order to ensure shortage risk tolerance is adequate and appropriate water shortage mitigation strategies are implemented as needed.

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 8‐11
Refinement procedures can be found in the WSCP.

8.11 Special Water Feature Distinction
Law
CWC 10632 (b)
For purposes of developing the water shortage contingency plan pursuant to subdivision (a), an urban water supplier shall analyze and define water featuresthat are artificially supplied with water, including ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, separately from swimming pools and spas, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 115921 of the Health and Safety Code.

A description of special water features can be found in the WSCP.

8.12 Plan Adoption, Submittal and Availability
Law
CWC 10632 (a)(c)
The urban water supplier shall make available the water shortage contingency plan prepared pursuant to this article to its customers and any city or county within which it provides water supplies no later than 30 days after adoption of the water shortage contingency plan.

The procedures that were used to adopt the WSCP are detailed in the WSCP.

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 9‐1
CHAPTER 9 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES
New Requirements for 2020 Update
There are no new plan preparation requirements for the 2020 UWMP guidance.

9.1 Demand Management Measures for Wholesale Suppliers
The City is not a wholesale agency and is not required by DWR to complete Section 9.1.

9.2 Existing Demand Management Measures for Retail Suppliers Law
CWC 10631
(e)Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management measures. This description shall include all of the following:
(1)(A) For an urban retail water supplier, as defined in Section 10608.12, a narrative description that addresses the nature and extent of each water demand management measure implemented over the past five years. The narrative shall describe the water demand management measure that the supplier plans to implement to achieve its water use targets pursuant to Section 10608.20.
(B) The narrative pursuant to this paragraph shall include descriptions of the following water demand management measures:

(i) Water waste prevention ordinances.

(ii) Metering.

(iii) Conservation pricing.

(iv) Public education and outreach.

(v) Programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss.

(vi) Water conservation program coordination and staffing support. (vii) Other demand management measures that have a significant impact on water use as measured in gallons per capita per day, including innovative measures, if implemented
The UWMP Act requires a discussion of Demand Management Measures (DMMs), including a description of each of the DMMs currently being implemented/scheduled for implementation, the schedule of implementation for all DMMs, and the methods, if any, the City will use to evaluate the effectiveness of DMMs.

9.2.1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinances
This DMM consists of adopting and enforcing a water waste ordinance that explicitly states that the waste of water is to be prohibited. The ordinance must prohibit specific actions that waste water, such as excessive runoff from landscape irrigation, or use of a hose outdoors without a shut off nozzle.

The City adopted Ordinance 2015‐002 on May 26th, 2015, which amends Title 8 of the City’s Municipal by adding Section 8‐1‐12, Water Conservation Restrictions.   Section 8‐1‐12 describes water conservation levels and enforcement penalties. During FY 16/17, the City enforced a Level 2 of Water Conservation. The City is currently in Level 1 of Water Conservation.

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 9‐2
The City has recently been more pro‐active in response to water wasting.  As part of the water conservation efforts the City has expanded its public outreach and education on water conservation and has increased enforcement of water waste prohibitions.

9.2.2 Metering
Law
CWC 526
(a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, an urban water supplier that, on or after January 1, 2004, receives water from the federal Central Valley Project under a water service contract or subcontract... shall do both of the following:
(1) On or before January 1, 2013, install water meters on all service connections to residential and nonagricultural commercial buildings... located within its service area.

CWC 527
(a) An urban water supplier that is not subject to Section 526 shall do both the following:
(1) Install water meters on all municipal and industrial service connections located within its service area on or before January 1, 2025.

This DMM requires that water meters be installed for all new connections to allow billing by volume of use. This program also appliesto retrofitting any existing unmetered connections. In 2007, the City implemented the use of water meters and requires the use of meters on all new developments. Currently, all of the City’s service connections are metered. These water meters are manually read and monthly readings are collected by City staff. The City is currently in the middle of a long‐term meter replacing  program.

9.2.3 Conservation Pricing
As described above, the City meters all services and charges for use based on the quantity of water used. The tiered rate structure includes a monthly fixed service charge based on the size of the customer’s meter in addition to a commodity charge based on the total volume water consumed by a customer during the billing period. For example, a single‐family dwelling currently pays a fixed rate of $30.35 for ¾” to 1” meter and a commodity charge of $1.00/1,000 gallons. However, if a customer uses over 15,000 during a billing period the commodity charge increasesto $1.05/1,000 gallons. Water usage above 25,000 gallons is billed at a rate of $1.10/1,000 gallons. The excess consumption amount is added to the monthly bill.

9.2.4 Public Education and Outreach
The City distributes public information regarding water issues in mass mailings to all water service customers through the City’s Internet website, directly to walk‐in customers at City Hall, and at the Public Works Department. Also, when warranted, time‐critical public information is dispersed through the local print media, radio station announcements and public events.

Water use regulations and the annual Drinking Water Consumer Confidence Report (water quality report) are mailed each year to all customers. The City takes advantage of these mailings when necessary to provide its customers additional information on water conservation and other demand management measures.

Display cases and bulletin boards at City facilities augment the mailings by providing a permanent posting of the most current City mailings.

The City monthly water bill distributed to all water service customers is another vehicle used by the City for public education purposes. The bill mailing also contains public service announcements that are used to remind citizens of conservation and demand management measures.

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 9‐3

9.2.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss The City submits an AWWA Standard Water Audit and Water Balance worksheet every year to assess water losses. In the past, the City has enacted several measures that address water loss. These measures include implementing several thousands of dollars of leak detection equipment. This equipment is attached to the distribution systems valves and has been used to detect system losses. The City’s leak detection program also includes notifying customers when a leak may be occurring on their property. Potential leaks are typically discovered by unusually high meter readings identified by the meters which have high water use warnings or by the City’s customer service and billing staff when they prepare monthly bills. If a high meter read is identified, a City service representative flags the meter and alerts the customer.

In addition, water efficiency standards are set for landscaping in the aforementioned Conservation Ordinance.

Landscape construction requirements,such as a requirement to installsprinkler heads greater than 12 inchesfrom hard surfaces, has also minimized water loss.

9.2.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support The City’s Water Systems Supervisor is the designated Water Conservation Coordinator. In addition, the public works department staff supports the coordinator and the water conservation activities of the City and its customers. The Water Conservation Coordinator’s responsibilities include:
 Coordination with the City and public works departments to promote existing water conservation measures.
 Evaluating existing and planning future water conservation measures.  Tracking, planning, and reporting on Best Management Practices (BMP) implementation.

The City and public works department personnel also contribute a significant amount of time to water conservation efforts. These efforts include an operations staff that actively monitors for water waste, a customer service staff that responds to conservation inquires, and a financial department that regularly monitors bills to detect for potential customer leaks.

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 9‐4

9.2.7 Other Demand Management Measures
Law
CWC 10631
(e) Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management measures. This description shall include all of the following:
(1)(A) For an urban retail water supplier, as defined in Section 10608.12, a narrative description that addresses the nature and extent of each water demand management measure implemented over the past five years. The narrative shall describe the water demand management measure that the supplier plans to implement to achieve its water use targets pursuant to Section 10608.20.
(B) The narrative pursuant to this paragraph shall include descriptions of the following water demand management measures:
(i) Water waste prevention ordinances
(ii) Metering.
(iii) Conservation pricing.
(iv) Public education and outreach.
(v) Programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss. (vi) Water conservation program coordination and staffing support. (vii) Other demand management measures that have significant impact on water use as measured in gallons per capita per day, including innovative measures, if implemented.

Other demand management measures that the City has implemented include the following:

Residential Plumbing Retrofit
This program benefits existing customers by reducing their water consumption while minimizing the impact of their lifestyle. State legislation requiresthe installation of efficient plumbing in new construction, and effective 1994 requires that only Ultra Low Flush Toilets be sold in California. Several studies suggest that savings resulting from miscellaneous interior retrofit fixtures can range between 25 and 65 gallons per day per housing unit. The studies also suggest that installation of retrofit fixtures in older single‐family homes tend to produce more savings, while newer multi‐family homes tend to produce less savings per housing unit. As of January 1, 2015, Reedley residential customers in single and multi‐family homes are eligible for the High‐Efficiency Toilet (HET) Rebate Program. The program offers customers a $100 rebate for each new qualifying HET of 1.28 gallons per flush or less. The City also advertises the HET rebated offered by the DWR that may be used in addition to the Reedley rebate program.

High‐Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Program
This program generally provides a financial incentive (rebate offer) to qualifying customers who install high efficiency washing machines in their home. Other regional municipalities that performed an economic analysis on this program concluded that it would have a low benefit‐to‐cost ratio. This program is not currently implemented in the City.

However, the City will seek grant funding when available to offer rebate programs to customers.

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 9‐5

9.3 Implementation over the Past Five Years
Law
CWC 10631
I Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management measures. This description shall include all of the following:
(1)(A) … a narrative description that addresses the nature and extent of each water demand management measure implemented over the past five years.

9.3.1 Implementation Over the Past Five Years
Ordinance
In 2015 the City revised its Water Conservation Program to enhance it and the City moved from Level 1 to Level 2 in the Water Conservation Levels. The City is currently in a Level 1 water shortage level.

Metering
Since 2007, the City has installed meters on all accounts and replaced older meters on existing accounts. Since 2011, the City has added approximately 119 new residential meters and 3 industrial meters. The City also added new meters to 40 City locations and public facilities. The City is currently in the middle of a long‐term meter replacing program.

Conservation Pricing
On April 13, 2021, the City adopted Resolution No. 2021‐053 authorizing an annual increase in waterservice rates based on the 10‐year rolling average of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The current 10‐year rolling average of the CPI is 2.5 percent. This 2.5 percent increase is used to cover inflationary increases in operation and maintenance cost. As of April 13, 2021, single family residence service meter increased to $34.28. The resolution also increased commodity charges.

Public Education and Outreach
The programs described in this chapter were either expanded or started in the last five years.

Water Distribution System Losses
In 2013, the City began to track water conservation complaints and make direct contact with customers. The City will continue auditing its water production and metered deliveries to ensure that leakage in the distribution system is maintained at low levels or further reduced.

Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support The City has enlisted the assistance of all staff in any City department that is in the field and residents for purposes of reporting running water or potential waste. All residents and staff are encouraged to report such observations to water department staff.

Other
The City continues to promote its High Efficiency Residential Washer Rebate Program and High Efficiency Residential Toilet Rebate Program. Flyers for both programs are included in Appendix H.

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 9‐6

9.3.2 Implementation to Achieve Water Use Targets
The City has implemented the required DMM per CWC 10631 to achieve its water use targets pursuant to Section 10608.20. Baseline and target 2020 GPCD are described in Chapter 5 of the UWMP. The City adopted its WSCP (Appendix G) at its March 8, 2022 Council meeting which outlines measures the City will take to achieve water use targets.

9.4 Water Use Objectives (Future Requirements)
The Water Code requiressuppliersto develop new water use objectivesthat area based on specific standardsfor certain water use sectors. These water use objectives will not be developed until 2023, and the first report will require information on what DMMs Suppliers will implement to meet their objectives. As such, each Supplier is encouraged to consider aligning conservation management actions and the changing urban use patterns in order to consider these future obligations.

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 10‐1
CHAPTER 10 PLAN ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION New Requirements
 Since 2015, the public processes for completing the UWMP have not been revised. However, the Water Shortage Contingency Plan is a new component of the 2020 UWMP that can be amended separately from the UWMP (see Chapter 8)

10.1 Inclusion of all 2020 Data
This 2020 UWMP update includes water use and planning data for the entire 2020 calendar year.

10.2 Notice of Public Hearing

10.2.1 Notice to Cities and Counties
Law
(b) CWC 1062b) Every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall… at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan … notify any city or county within which the supplier provides waterssupplies that the urban watersupplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan.

CWC 10642
…The urban water supplier shall provide notice of the time and place of hearing to any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies. A privately owned water supplier shall provide an equivalent notice within its service area…

10.2.1.1 60 Day Notification
The City notified the agencies listed in Table 10‐1 at least sixty (60) days prior to the public hearing of the preparation of the 2020 Plan and invited them to participate in the development of the Plan. A copy of the notification letters sent to these agencies is provided in Appendix I.

10.2.1.2 Notice of Public Hearing
The Notice of the public hearing, held at the March 8, 2022 Council meeting at City Hall, was sent to the Kings River Conservation District, Upper Kings Water Integrated Regional Management Authority, Alta Irrigation District, Consolidated Irrigation District, and County of Fresno on December 6, 2021. A copy of the letter from the City to the County and other agencies is included in Appendix I of this UWMP.

10.2.1.3 Submittal Tables
Table 10‐1 summarizes the agencies which were provided notifications by the City.

Table 10‐1 Retail: Notification to Cities and Counties
City Name                     60 Day Notice Notice of
Public Hearing
County Name 60 Day Notice Notice of
Public Hearing
County of Fresno
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 10‐2

10.2.2 Notice to the Public
Law
CWC 10642
…Prior to adopting a plan, the urban watersuppliershall make the plan available for public inspection…Prior to the hearing, notice of the time and place of hearing shall be published within the jurisdiction of the publicly owned water supplier pursuant to Section 6066 of the Government Code…
Government Code 6066
Publication of notice pursuant to this section shall be once a week for two successive weeks. Two publications in a newspaper published once a week or oftener, with at least five days intervening between the respective publication dates not counting such publication dates, are sufficient. The period of notice commences upon the first day of publication and terminates at the end of the fourteenth day, including therein the first day.

Copies of the City’s draft UWMP were made available for public review at City Hall and the local public library in the City. The City noticed a public hearing to review and accept comments on the draft plan with more than two weeks in advance of the hearing. On March 8, 2022 ,the City will hold a noticed public hearing to review and accept comments on the draft plan. Notice of the public hearing was published in the local press and a copy of the Notice to the Public is included in Appendix J.

As required by the Act, the 2020 UWMP is being provided by the City to the California Department of Water Resources, the California State Library, and the public within 30 days of the City’s adoption.

10.3 Public Hearing and Adoption
Law
CWC 10642
…Prior to adopting either, the [plan or watershortage contingency plan], the urban watersuppliershall make both the plan and the watershortage contingency plan available for public inspection and shall hold a public hearing or hearings thereon.

CWC 10608.26
(a) In complying with this part, an urban retail water supplier shall conduct at least one public hearing to accomplish all of the following:
(1) Allow community input regarding the urban retail water supplier’s implementation plan for complying with this part. (2) Consider the economic impacts of the urban retail water supplier’s implementation plan for complying with this part. (3) Adopt a method, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 10608.20 for determining its urban water use target.

10.3.1 Public Hearing
Prior to adopting the 2020 UWMP and WSCP, the City held a public hearing at the March 8, 2022 Council meeting, which included input from the community regarding the City’s draft 2020 UWMP and WSCP. As part of the public hearing, the City provided information on determination of its water use targets and action plan in case of severe water shortage conditions.

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 10‐3

10.3.2 Adoption
Law
CWC 10642
…After the hearing, the plan shall be adopted as prepared or as modified after the hearing.

The 2020 UWMP was adopted on March 8, 2022 during a regularly scheduled City Council meeting. A copy of resolution is included in Appendix K of this UWMP.

10.4 Plan Submittal
Law
CWC 10621
(e) Each urban water supplier shall update and submit its 2020 plan to the department by July 1, 2021… CWC 10644
(a)(1) An urban water supplier shall submit to the department, the California State Library, and any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies a copy of its plan no later than 30 days after adoption. (a)(2) The plan, or amendments to the plan, submitted to the department… shall be submitted electronically and shall include any standardized forms, tables, or displays specified by the department.

CWC 10635
(c) The urban water supplier shall provide that portion of its urban water management plan prepared pursuant to this article to any city or county within which it provides water supplies no later than 60 days after the submission of its urban water management plan.

10.4.1 Submitting a UWMP and Water Shortage Contingency Plan to DWR Within 30 days of adoption of the 2020 UWMP by the City Council, the City will submit the adopted 2020 UWMP to DWR, as required by CWC 10621 and 10644. The 2020 UWMP will be submitted through DWR’s “Water Use Efficiency (WUE) Data Online Submittal Tool” website.

DWR previously provided a checklist to make determine if an Urban Water Management Plan has addressed the requirements of the California Water Code. The City has completed the DWR checklist by indicating where the required CWC elements can be found within the City’s 2020 UWMP (See Appendix L).

10.4.2 Electronic Data Submittal
Law
CWC 10644
(a)(2) The plan, or amendments to the plan, submitted to the department… shall be submitted electronically and shall include any standardized forms, tables, or displays specified by the department.

Within 30 days of adoption of the 2020 Plan, the City will also submit all data tables associated with the 2020 Plan through DWR’s “Water Use Efficiency (WUE) Data Online Submittal Tool” website.

10.4.3 Submitting a UWMP, including WSCP, to the California State Library Within 30 days of adoption of the 2020 UWMP by the City Council, a copy (CD or hardcopy) of the 2020 Plan will be submitted to the State of California Library. A copy of the letter to the State Library will be maintained in the City’s file.

The 2020 Plan will be mailed to the following address if sent by regular mail:

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 10‐4
California State Library
Government Publications Section
P.O. Box 942837
Sacramento, CA 94237‐0001
Attention: Coordinator, Urban Water Management Plans
The 2020 Plan will be delivered to the following address if sent by courier or overnight carrier:

California State Library
Government Publications Section
914 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814

10.4.4 Submitting a UWMP to Cities and Counties
Within 30 days of adoption of the 2020 Plan by the City Council, a copy of the 2020 UWMP will be submitted to the County of Fresno / Recorders office and City Hall. A copy of the letter to the County of Fresno will be maintained in the City’s file.

10.5 Public Availability
Law
CWC 10645
(a) Not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its plan with the department, the urban water supplier and the department shall make the plan available for public review during normal business hours. (b) Not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its water shortage contingency plan with the department, the urban water supplier and the department shall make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.

Within 30 days of adoption, the plan will be available on the City’s website at https://reedley.ca.gov/and at the administrative office between the hours of 8 AM and 5PM Monday through Friday.

10.6 Notification to Public Utilities Commission
Law
CWC 10621(c)
An urban water supplier regulated by the Public Utilities Commission shall include its most recent plan and water shortage contingency plan as part of the supplier’s general rate case filings.

This section does not apply to the City.

10.7 Amending an Adopted UWMP or Water Shortage Contingency Plan Law
CWC 10621
(d) The amendments to, or changes in, the plan shall be adopted and filed in the manner set forth in Article 3 (commencing with Section 10640).
(a)(1) Copies of amendments or changes to the plans shall be submitted to the department, the California State Library, and any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies within 30 days after adoption.

City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan                                                            March 2022

Page | 10‐5

10.7.1 Amending a UWMP
If the City amends the adopted 2020 UWMP, the amended UWMP will undergo adoption by the City Council. Within 30 days of adoption, the amended UWMP will then be submitted to DWR, the State of California Library, and the County of Fresno / Recorders office.

10.7.2 Amending a Water Shortage Contingency Plan
If the City amends the adopted 2020 WSCP, the amended WSCP will undergo adoption by the City Council. Within 30 days of adoption, the amended WSCP will then be submitted to DWR, the State of California Library, and the County of Fresno / Recorders office.

APPENDIX C
TTM 6497 – WEST HAVEN II WSA – CONSISTENCY WITH DWR GUIDELINES VTTM 6497 West Haven II Property WSA – Consistency with DWR Guidelines Guidelines Section Number and
Title (DWR, 2003)
Guidelines Direction Relevant WSA Section and
Response
Section 1 (page 2). Does SB 610
or SB221 apply to the proposed
project?
Is the project subject to SB 610?
Is the project subject to CEQA
(Water Code §10910(a)? If yes,
continue.

WSA Section 1.1. Yes, the
project is subject to SB610 and
CEQA.

Is it a “Project” as defined by
Water Code §10912(a) or (b)?
If yes, to comply with SB 610 go
to Section 2.0, page 4.

WSA Section 1.1. No, the
Project is not considered to
meet the definition of “project”
per Water Code §10912(a) or
(b).

Is the project subject to SB 221?
Does the tentative map include
a “subdivision” as defined by
Government Code
§66473.7(a)(1)? If no, stop.

No
Section 2.0 (page 4). Who will
prepare the SB 610 analysis?
Is there a public water system
(“water supplier”) for the
project (Water Code
§10910(b)? If no, go to Section

3.0, page 6.

WSA Section 2.1. Yes, the
project site will connect to a
public water system.

Section 3.0 (page 6). Has an
assessment already been
prepared that includes this
project?
Has this project already been
the subject of an assessment
(Water Code §10910(h)? If no,
go to Section 4.0, page 8.

No, the Project has not been the
subject of an assessment.

Section 4.0 (page 8). Is there a
current Urban Water
Management Plan?
Is there an adopted urban water
management Plan (Water Code
§10910(c)? If yes, continue. If
yes, the information from the
UWMP related to the proposed
water demand for the project
may also be used for carrying
out Section 5.0, Steps 1 and 2,
Section 7; proceed to Section 5,
page 10 of the Guidelines.

Yes, there is an Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) for
the proposed project location
described in WSA Section 3.2.

Is the project water demand for
the project accounted for in the
most recent UWMP (Water
Code §10910(c)(2)? If no, go to
Section 5.0, page 10.

Yes
Section 5.0 (page 10). What
information should be included
in an assessment?
Step One (page 13).

Documenting wholesale water
supplies.

The Project is not a retail water
supplier and would not include
the use of wholesale water
supplies.

Step Two (page 17).

Documenting Supply if
Groundwater is a Source.

The proposed water supply
wells are located within the City
of Reedley. WSA Sections 1.3,

2.3 and 3.2.

Guidelines Section Number and
Title (DWR, 2003)
Guidelines Direction Relevant WSA Section and
Response
Specify if a groundwater
management plan or any other
specific authorization for
groundwater management for
the basin has been adopted and
how it affects the water
supplier’s use of the basin.

WSA Section 3.2
The water supply wells are
located within the Kings River
East Groundwater
Sustainability Agencies which
includes the City of Reedley.

Description and analysis of the
amount and location of
groundwater pumped by the
water supplier for the past five
years. Include information on
proposed pumping locations
and quantities. The description
and analysis is to be based on
information that is reasonably
available, including, but not
limited to, historic use records
from DWR.

City of Reedley historic records
are included in WSA Section 3.0.

WSA Section 1.3 provides a
description of the Project’s
water requirements.

Analysis of the location,
amount, and sufficiency of
groundwater that is projected
to be pumped by the water
supplier.

WSA Section 3.2. The quantity
of water available in the City of
Reedley is sufficient for the
Project.

Step 3 (page 21). Documenting
project demand (Project
Demand Analysis).

WSA Section 1.3. Addresses the
Project water demands
Step 4 (page 26). Documenting
dry year(s) supply.

WSA Section 3.2. Addresses
water supply availability
including during dry years.

Step 5 (page 31). Documenting
dry year(s) demand.

WSA Section 3.2 addresses
annual demands, including dry
year scenarios.

Section 6.0 (page 33). Is the
projected water supply
sufficient or insufficient for the
proposed project
WSA Section 4.0 summarizes
how the identified water
supply/supplies are considered
sufficient for the Project.

Section 7.0 (page 35). If the
projected supply is determined
to be insufficient.

Does the assessment conclude
that supply is “sufficient”? If no,
continue.

WSA Section 4.0 concludes that
sufficient water supplies are
available for the Project.

Section 8.0 (page 38). Final SB
610 assessment actions by lead
agencies.

The lead agency shall review
the WSA and must decide
whether additional water
supply information is needed
for its consideration of the
proposed project. The lead
agency “shall determine, based
on the entire record, whether
projected water supplies will be
The WSA for the Project must
be approved prior to or in
concurrence with the EIR.

Guidelines Section Number and
Title (DWR, 2003)
Guidelines Direction Relevant WSA Section and
Response
sufficient to satisfy the demands
of the project, in addition to
existing and planned future
uses.”
The description of the
groundwater basin may be
excerpted from the
groundwater management plan,
from DWR Bulleting 118,
California’s Ground Water, or
from some other document that
has been published and that
discusses the basin boundaries,
type of rock that constitutes the
aquifer, variability of the
aquifer material, and total
groundwater in storage
(average specific yield times the
volume of the aquifer).

WSA Section 2.2 provides a
description of the groundwater
basin characteristics using all
available resources, including
DWR Bulletin 118.

In an adjudicated basin the
amount of water the urban
supplier has the legal right to
pump should be enumerated in
the court decision.

Basin is not adjudicated.

The Department of Water
Resources has projected
estimates of overdraft, or
“water shortage”, based on
projected amounts of water
supply and demand (basin
management) are projected by
the Watermaster agency
(AVEK) in WSA Section 3.2, the
hydrologic region level in
Basin groundwater resources
are discussed in WSA Section

2.3. Bulletin 160, California Water
Plan Update. Estimates at the
basin or subbasin level will be
projected for some basins in
Bulletin 118. If the basin has
not been evaluated by DWR,
data that indicate groundwater
level trends over a period of
time should be collected and
evaluated.

If the evaluation indicates an
overdraft due to existing
groundwater extraction, or
WSA Section 3.2. The
referenced and Appendicized
City of Reedley 2020 Urban
Guidelines Section Number and
Title (DWR, 2003)
Guidelines Direction Relevant WSA Section and
Response
projected increases in
groundwater extraction,
describe actions and/or
program designed to eliminate
the long term overdraft
condition.

Water Master Plan describes in
detail the subject actions and
programs.

APPENDIX D

ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS

ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS
WESTHAVEN II RESIDENTIAL
REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
WJVA Project No. 24‐66
PREPARED FOR
QK/QUAD KNOPF, INC.
5080 CALIFORNIA AVENUE, SUITE 220
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93309
PREPARED BY
WJV ACOUSTICS, INC.

VISALIA, CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 17, 2024
113 North Church Street, Suite 203 ∙ Visalia, CA 93291∙ (559) 627-4923 24‐66 (Westhaven II, Reedley) 12‐17‐24  2

INTRODUCTION
The proposed project would consist of 153 single‐family residential lots, to be constructed on an approximately 34‐acre site within the City of Reedley. The project site is located at the northeast corner of S. Buttonwillow Avenue and E. Springfield Avenue. The project site plan is provided as Figure 1.

The project developer has requested an acoustical analysis to assess project site noise exposure and determine if noise mitigation measures should be incorporated into the project design.   This analysis,  prepared  by WJV  Acoustics,  Inc.  (WJVA),  is  based  upon  a  site  visit  and  traffic  noise measurements,  traffic  data  provided  by  Fresno  Council  of  Governments  (Fresno  COG),  and  a project site plan dated March 1, 2024.

Appendix  A  provides  definitions  of  the  acoustical  terminology  used  in  this  report.  Unless otherwise stated, all sound levels reported in this analysis are A‐weighted sound pressure levels in decibels (dB).  A‐weighting de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequencies of sound in a manner similar to the human ear. Most community noise standards utilize A‐weighted sound levels,  as  they  correlate  well  with  public  reaction  to  noise.  Appendix  B  provides  typical A‐weighted sound levels for common noise sources.
24‐66 (Westhaven II, Reedley) 12‐17‐24  3

CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTABLE NOISE EXPOSURE
General Plan‐
The City of Reedley Noise Element of the General Plan (adopted 2013) sets noise compatibility standards for both transportation and non‐transportation (stationary) noise sources. The General Plan sets noise compatibility standards for transportation noise sources in terms of the Day‐Night Average Level (Ldn). The Ldn represents the time‐weighted energy average noise level for a 24‐ hour day, with a 10 dB penalty added to noise levels occurring during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m.‐7:00 a.m.). The Ldn represents cumulative exposure to noise over an extended period of time and are therefore calculated based upon annual average conditions.

Table I  provides  the General  Plan  noise  level  standards  for  transportation  noise  sources. The Noise Element provides an exterior noise standard of 60 dB Ldn and an interior noise standard of 45 dB Ldn, for noise‐sensitive land uses exposed to transportation noise sources.

TABLE I
TRANSPORTATION NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS, dBA, Ldn

CITY OF REEDLEY GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT
Noise Sensitive Land Uses  New Transportation Noise Sources Indoor  Outdoor  Indoor  Outdoor
45  60  45  60

1. This table is applicable to noise sources created by either new development and/or new transportation projects.

2. Based on an evaluation of the existing condition and proposed project, the Community Development Director may allow exterior exposure up to 65 dB DNL where practical application of construction practices has been used to mitigate exterior noise exposure.

Source:  City of Reedley General Plan Noise Element
The  standards  for  non‐transportation  (stationary)  noise  sources  are  provided  in  Table  II.  The standards are made more restrictive during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The standards  are  to  be  applied  to  the  outdoor  activity  areas  for  residential  land  uses.  Outdoor activity areas generally include backyards, decks and patios of single‐family residences, individual patios or decks of multi‐family developments and common outdoor recreation areas of multi‐ family  developments.  The  intent  of  the  exterior  noise  level  requirement  is  to  provide  an acceptable noise environment for outdoor activities and recreation. 24‐66 (Westhaven II, Reedley) 12‐17‐24  4

TABLE II
NON-TRANSPORTATION (STATIONARY) NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS, dBA

CITY OF REEDLEY GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT
Daytime (7 a.m.‐10 p.m.)  Nighttime (10 p.m.‐7 a.m.)
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
55  70  50  65

1. As determined within outdoor activity areas of existing or planned noise‐sensitive uses, if outdoor activity area locations are unknown, the allowable noise exposure shall be determined at the property line of the noise sensitive use.

2. Based on an evaluation of the existing condition and proposed project, the Community Development Director may allow exterior exposure up to 65 dB DNL where practical application of construction practices has been used to mitigate exterior noise exposure.

Source:  City of Reedley General Plan Noise Element
Construction Noise and Vibration‐
There are no City of Reedley construction noise standards or guidelines. However, it is common to  limit  hours  of  construction  activities  to  daytime  hours  to  avoid  annoyances  and  sleep disturbances at nearby noise sensitive land uses. As a point of reference, Fresno County provides the following in regards to allowable hours of construction:

Section 8.40.060(c) of the Fresno County Ordinance Code (Noise Source Exemptions) states that noise associated with construction activities would be exempt from the noise standards provided such activities do not take place before 6:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. on any day except Saturday or Sunday, or before 7:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. on Saturday or Sunday.

The City of Reedley does not have any applicable vibration level standards. Some guidance is provided  by  the  Caltrans  Transportation  and  Construction  Vibration  Guidance  Manual. The Manual provides guidance  for determining annoyance potential criteria and damage potential threshold criteria. These criteria are provided below in Table III and Table IV, and are presented in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec). 24‐66 (Westhaven II, Reedley) 12‐17‐24  5

TABLE III

GUIDELINE VIBRATION ANNOYANCE POTENTIAL CRITERIA
Human Response
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources  Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Barely Perceptible   0.04  0.01
Distinctly Perceptible  0.25  0.04
Strongly Perceptible  0.9  0.1
Severe  2.0  0.4
Source:  Caltrans

TABLE IV

GUIDELINE VIBRATION DAMAGE POTENTIAL THRESHOLD CRITERIA Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources  Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile, historic buildings, ancient monuments  0.12  0.08 Fragile buildings  0.2  0.1
Historic and some old buildings  0.5  0.25
Older residential structures  0.5  0.3
New residential structures  1.0  0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings  2.0  0.5
Source:  Caltrans

24‐66 (Westhaven II, Reedley) 12‐17‐24  6

PROJECT SITE NOISE EXPOSURE
The proposed project would consist of 153 single‐family residential lots, to be constructed on a 34‐acre  site  within  the  City  of  Reedley.  The  project  is  located  at  the  northeast  corner  of  S.

Buttonwillow Avenue and E. Springfield Avenue. The project site currently consists of agricultural lands (tree crops). The project site is exposed to traffic noise associated with vehicles traveling on S.  Buttonwillow Avenue. The  distance  from  the  center  of  the  closest  proposed  residential backyards to the centerline of S. Buttonwillow Avenue is approximately 70 feet.

Traffic Noise Exposure
Noise exposure  from  traffic on S. Buttonwillow Avenue was calculated  for existing and  future (2046)  conditions  using  the FHWA Traffic Noise Model and  traffic  data  obtained  from Fresno COG.  A  description  of  the  noise  model,  applied  data,  methodology  and  findings  is  provided below.

WJVA  utilized  the  Federal  Highway  Administration  (FHWA)  Highway  Traffic  Noise  Prediction Model (FHWA‐RD‐77‐108). The FHWA Model is a standard analytical method used for roadway traffic  noise  calculations.  The  model  is  based  upon  reference  energy  emission  levels  for automobiles, medium  trucks  (2 axles) and  heavy  trucks  (3  or more axles), with  consideration given  to  vehicle  volume,  speed,  roadway  configuration,  distance  to  the  receiver,  and  the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA Model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free‐flowing traffic conditions, and is generally considered to be accurate within ±1.5 dB.  To predict Ldn values, it is necessary to determine the hourly distribution of traffic for a typical day and adjust the traffic volume input data to yield an equivalent hourly traffic volume.

Noise level measurements and  concurrent  traffic  counts were  previously  conducted  by WJVA staff within  the project site on November 27, 2024. The purpose of  the measurement was  to evaluate the accuracy of the FHWA Model in describing traffic noise exposure within the project site. The traffic noise measurement site was located at a distance of approximately 40 feet from the centerline of S. Buttonwillow Avenue. The speed limit was assumed to be 40 mph (miles per hour).  The  project  vicinity  and  noise  monitoring  site  location  are  provided  as  Figure  2.  A photograph showing the S. Buttonwillow Avenue noise measurement site is provided as Figure

3. Noise monitoring equipment consisted of Larson‐Davis Laboratories Model LDL‐820 sound level analyzer equipped with a B&K Type 4176 1/2” microphone. The equipment complies with the specifications of the American National Standards Institute  (ANSI)  for Type I  (Precision) sound level meters. The meter was calibrated in the field prior to use with a B&K Type 4230 acoustic calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The microphone was located on a tripod at 5 feet above the ground. The project site presently consists of undeveloped land and a portion is currently used for industrial purposes.
24‐66 (Westhaven II, Reedley) 12‐17‐24  7
Noise  measurements  were  conducted  in  terms  of  the  equivalent  energy  sound  level  (Leq).

Measured Leq values were compared  to Leq values calculated  (predicted) by  the FHWA Model using  as  inputs  the  traffic  volumes,  truck  mix  and  vehicle  speed  observed  during  the  noise measurements. The results of the comparison are shown in Table V.

From Table V it may be determined that the traffic noise levels predicted by the FHWA Model were 0.2 dB higher than those measured  for the conditions observed at the time of the noise measurements  for S. Buttonwillow Avenue. This is considered to be excellent agreement with the model and therefore no adjustments to the model are necessary.

TABLE V

COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED
(FHWA MODEL) NOISE LEVELS

WESTHAVEN II, REEDLEY
S. Buttonwillow Ave.

Measurement Start Time  3:10 p.m.

Observed # Autos/Hr.   340
Observed # Medium Trucks/Hr.  8
Observed # Heavy Trucks/Hr.   4
Observed Speed (MPH)  40
Distance, ft. (from center of roadway)  40
Leq, dBA (Measured)  63.0
Leq, dBA (Predicted)  63.2
Difference between Predicted and Measured Leq, dBA  0.2 Note:  FHWA “soft” site assumed for calculations.

Source:  WJV Acoustics, Inc.

Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) data for S. Buttonwillow Avenue in the project vicinity was obtained  from  Fresno  COG.  Truck  percentages  and  the  day/night  distribution  of  traffic  were estimated  by  WJVA,  based  upon  previous  studies  conducted  in  the  project  vicinity  since project‐specific data were not available from government sources. A speed limit of 40 mph was assumed for S. Buttonwillow Avenue. Table VI summarizes annual average traffic data used to model noise exposure within the project site.
24‐66 (Westhaven II, Reedley) 12‐17‐24  8

TABLE VI

TRAFFIC NOISE MODELING ASSUMPTIONS

WESTHAVEN II, REEDLEY
S. Buttonwillow Ave
Existing  2046
Annual Avenue Daily Traffic (AADT) 4,469  4,855
Day/Night Split (%)  90/10
Assumed Vehicle Speed (mph)  55
% Medium Trucks (% AADT)   2
% Heavy Trucks (% AADT)  2
Sources:  Fresno COG
WJV Acoustics, Inc.

Using data from Table VI, the FHWA Model, annual average traffic noise exposure was calculated for the closest proposed backyards from S. Buttonwillow Avenue. Table VII provides the noise exposure  levels  for  S.  Buttonwillow  Avenue,  at  the  closest  proposed  residential  lots  to  each roadway  for both existing and future (2046) traffic conditions.

TABLE VII
MODELED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS, S. BUTTONWILLOW AVENUE, dB, Ldn

WESTHAVEN II, REEDLEY
Roadway  Existing Conditions  2046 Conditions
S. Buttonwillow Avenue   59  60
Source: WJV Acoustics
Fresno COG
Reference  to  Table  VII  indicates  that  the  traffic  noise  exposure  at  the  closest  lots  to  S.

Buttonwillow  Avenue  would  be  approximately  59  dB  Ldn  for  existing  conditions  and approximately  60  dB  Ldn  for  future  (2046)  traffic  conditions  on S.  Buttonwillow Avenue. Such noise  exposure  levels  (2046  traffic  conditions)  meet  the  City’s  60  dB  Ldn  exterior  noise  level standard and mitigation measures are required for compliance with the City’s exterior noise level standard along S. Buttonwillow Avenue.

Exterior Noise Mitigation
The City of Reedley Noise Element of the General Plan establishes a 60 dB Ldn criterion within outdoor activity areas (backyards) of single‐family homes. The project site traffic noise exposure for future (2046) traffic conditions was calculated to be approximately 60 dB Ldn within the closest lots along S. Buttonwillow Avenue. Such noise exposure levels meet the City of Reedley exterior noise level standard and mitigation must be incorporated into project design. 24‐66 (Westhaven II, Reedley) 12‐17‐24  9
To mitigate exterior traffic noise exposure along S. Buttonwillow Avenue, it will be necessary to construct  a  sound  wall  along  the  project  roadway  frontage.  The sound  wall  would  provide acoustical shielding of the outdoor activity areas located closest to the roadway.

A  sound  wall  insertion  loss  program  based  on  the  FHWA  Model  was  used  to  calculate  the insertion loss (noise reduction) provided by the proposed sound walls. The model calculates the insertion loss of a wall of given height based on the effective height of the noise source, height of the receiver, distance from the receiver to the wall, and distance from the noise source to the wall. The standard assumptions used in the sound wall calculations are effective source heights of  8,  2  and  0  feet  above  the  roadway  for  heavy  trucks,  medium  trucks,  and  automobiles, respectively.  The  standard  height  of  a  residential  receiver  is  five  (5)  feet  above  the  ground elevation.

Based upon the above‐described assumptions and method of analysis, the noise level insertion loss values for sound walls of various heights were calculated. The calculations indicated that a sound wall along S. Buttonwillow Avenue, constructed to a minimum height of six (6) feet relative to the closest building pad elevations to the roadway would reduce traffic noise exposure within individual backyards by approximately  6 dB,  resulting in a  projected  future noise exposure of approximately 54 dB Ldn at the closest residential lots along S. Buttonwillow Avenue.

The  sound  wall  should  be  constructed  along  the  entire  project  site  frontage  adjacent  to  S.

Buttonwillow Avenue. The sound wall should be constructed to a minimum height of 6 feet above each lot’s pad elevation along S. Buttonwillow Avenue, as indicated on Figure 1.

It  should  be  noted,  the  above‐described  sound  wall  would  be  effective  at  first‐floor  receiver locations  only,  and  would  not  provide  acoustical  shielding  to  any  proposed  second‐floor receivers.  Therefore,  if  two‐story  construction  is  proposed,  noise  levels  within  any  proposed individual  second‐floor  balconies  adjacent  to  and  facing  S.  Buttonwillow  Avenue  would  be approximately 60 dB Ldn.

Interior Noise Exposure:

The  City  of  Reedley  interior  noise  level  standard  is  45  dB  Ldn. The worst‐case  noise exposure within  the  proposed  residential  development  would  be  approximately  60  dB  Ldn  (2046 conditions). This means that the proposed residential construction must be capable of providing a minimum outdoor‐to‐indoor noise level reduction (NLR) of approximately 15 dB (60‐45=15).

A specific analysis of interior noise levels was not performed. However, it may be assumed that residential construction methods complying with current building code requirements will reduce exterior  noise  levels  by  approximately  25  dB  if  windows  and  doors  are  closed.  This  will  be sufficient for compliance with the City’s 45 dB Ldn interior standard at all proposed lots. Requiring that it be possible for windows and doors to remain closed for sound insulation means that air conditioning or mechanical ventilation will be required. 24‐66 (Westhaven II, Reedley) 12‐17‐24  10
Construction Noise and Vibration
Construction noise would occur at various locations within the project site through the build‐out period. The distance  from  the closest  residences  to  the project site is approximately 150  feet (residential land uses west of the project site) and approximately 200 feet (school land use east of the project site). Table VIII provides typical construction‐related noise levels at distances of 100 feet, 200 feet, and 300 feet.

Construction noise is typically not considered to be a significant impact if construction is limited to  the daytime hours and construction equipment is adequately maintained and muffled. The City  of  Reedley  does  not  provide  any  specific  guidelines  regarding  allowable  hours  of construction. For the purpose of this analysis, Fresno County guidelines can be considered, which limits all construction activities to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between the hours 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday or Sunday. Construction noise impacts could result in annoyance or sleep disruption for nearby residents if nighttime operations were to occur or if equipment is not properly muffled or maintained.

TABLE VIII

TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS, dBA
Type of Equipment 100 Ft. 200 Ft. 300 Ft.

Concrete Saw  84  78  74
Crane  75  69  65
Excavator  75  69  65
Front End Loader  73  67  63
Jackhammer  83  77  73
Paver  71  65  61
Pneumatic Tools  79  73  69
Dozer  76  70  66
Rollers  74  68  64
Trucks   80  72  70
Pumps  74  68  64
Scrapers  81  75  71
Portable Generators  74  68  64
Backhoe  80  74  70
Grader  80  74  70
Source: FHWA
Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987 24‐66 (Westhaven II, Reedley) 12‐17‐24  11
Potential Impact:

A  noise  impact  could  occur  if  construction  activities  do  not  incorporate  appropriate  best management practices.

Recommended Best Management Practices for Construction Noise:

Noise levels associated with construction activities may be effectively mitigated by incorporating noise  mitigation  measures  and  appropriate  best  management  practices.  The  following  best management practices should be applied during periods of project construction.  Per the Fresno County Code, construction activities should not occur outside the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and between 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.
 All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and muffled as to minimize noise generation at the source.
 Noise‐producing equipment shall not be operating, running, or idling while not in immediate use by a construction contractor.
 All noise‐producing construction equipment shall be located and operated, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distance from any noise‐sensitive land uses.  Locate construction staging areas, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distances from any noise‐sensitive land uses.
24‐66 (Westhaven II, Reedley) 12‐17‐24  12
The dominant sources of man‐made vibration are sonic booms, blasting, pile driving, pavement breaking,  demolition,  diesel  locomotives,  and  rail‐car  coupling.  None  of  these  activities  are anticipated  to  occur  with  construction  or  operation  of  the  proposed  project.  Vibration  from construction  activities  could  be  detected  at  the  closest  sensitive  land  uses,  especially  during movements  by  heavy  equipment  or  loaded  trucks  and  during  some  paving  activities.  Typical vibration levels at distances of 25, 100 feet and 300 feet are summarized by Table IX. These levels would not be expected to exceed any significant threshold levels for annoyance or damage, as provided above in Table III and Table IV.

TABLE IX

TYPICAL VIBRATION LEVELS DURING CONSTRUCTION
PPV (in/sec)
Equipment @ 25´ @ 100´ @ 300´
Bulldozer (Large)  0.089  0.019  0.006
Bulldozer (Small)  0.003  0.0006  0.0002
Loaded Truck  0.076  0.017  0.005
Jackhammer  0.035  0.008  0.002
Vibratory Roller  0.210  0.046  0.013
Caisson Drilling   0.089  0.019  0.006
Source:  Caltrans
24‐66 (Westhaven II, Reedley) 12‐17‐24  13

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed 153‐lot single‐family residential development will comply with all City of Fresno exterior  and  interior  noise  level  standards,  provided  the  following  mitigation  measures  are incorporated into final project design.
 A  sound wall is constructed  to a minimum height of  six  (6)  feet  relative  to  the closest building pad elevations along the project site frontage with S. Buttonwillow Avenue. The sound wall should be constructed along the entire project site frontage adjacent to W.

Buttonwillow Avenue, as indicated on Figure 1. Suitable construction materials include concrete blocks, masonry, or stucco on both sides of a wood or steel stud wall.  If two‐story construction is proposed at the first row of lots adjacent to S. Buttonwillow Avenue, noise levels within individual second‐floor balconies facing the roadway would be expected  to be approximately  60 dB Ldn, approximately equaling  the exterior noise standard.
 Mechanical  ventilation  or  air  conditioning  must  be  provided  for  all  homes  so  that windows and doors can remain closed for sound insulation purposes.

The  conclusions  and  recommendations  of  this  acoustical  analysis  are  based  upon  the  best information  known  to  WJV  Acoustics  Inc.  (WJVA)  at  the  time  the  analysis  was  prepared concerning  the  proposed  lot  layout  plan,  project  site  elevation,  traffic  volumes  and  roadway configurations. Any significant changes in these factors will require a reevaluation of the findings of  this  report.  Additionally,  any  significant  future  changes  in motor  vehicle  technology,  noise regulations or other factors beyond WJVA’s control may result in long‐term noise results different from those described by this analysis.

Respectfully submitted,
Walter J. Van Groningen
President
WJV:wjv
24‐66 (Westhaven II, Reedley) 12‐17‐24  14
FIGURE 1: PROJECT SITE PLAN
24‐66 (Westhaven II, Reedley) 12‐17‐24  15
FIGURE 2: PROJECT SITE VICINITY AND TRAFFIC NOISE MEASUREMENT SITE LOCATION 24‐66 (Westhaven II, Reedley) 12‐17‐24  16
FIGURE 3: S. BUTTONWILLOW AVENUE TRAFFIC NOISE MEASUREMENT SITE 24‐66 (Westhaven II, Reedley) 12‐17‐24
APPENDIX A
ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY
AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL:  The  composite  of  noise  from  all  sources  near  and  far.    In  this context,  the  ambient  noise  level  constitutes  the  normal  or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

CNEL:  Community  Noise  Equivalent  Level.    The  average  equivalent sound  level  during  a  24‐hour  day,  obtained  after  addition  of approximately five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and ten decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m.

DECIBEL, dB:  A unit for describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound  measured  to  the  reference  pressure,  which  is  20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter).

DNL/Ldn:  Day/Night Average Sound Level.  The average equivalent sound level during a 24‐hour day, obtained after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m.

Leq:  Equivalent  Sound  Level.    The  sound  level  containing  the  same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period.

Leq is typically computed over 1, 8 and 24‐hour sample periods.

NOTE:    The  CNEL  and  DNL  represent  daily  levels  of  noise  exposure averaged  on  an  annual  basis,  while  Leq  represents  the  average noise exposure for a shorter time period, typically one hour.

Lmax:      The maximum noise level recorded during a noise event.

Ln:      The sound level exceeded "n" percent of the time during a sample interval  (L90,  L50,  L10,  etc.).    For  example,  L10  equals  the  level exceeded 10 percent of the time.

24‐66 (Westhaven II, Reedley) 12‐17‐24
A‐2
ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY
NOISE EXPOSURE
CONTOURS:    Lines  drawn  about  a  noise  source  indicating  constant  levels  of noise exposure.  CNEL and DNL contours are frequently utilized to describe community exposure to noise.

NOISE LEVEL
REDUCTION (NLR):  The noise reduction between indoor and outdoor environments or  between  two  rooms  that  is  the  numerical  difference,  in decibels, of the average sound pressure levels in  those areas or rooms.  A measurement of Anoise level reduction@ combines the effect of the transmission loss performance of the structure plus the effect of acoustic absorption present in the receiving room.

SEL or SENEL:    Sound Exposure Level or Single Event Noise Exposure Level.  The level of noise accumulated during a single noise event, such as an aircraft  overflight,  with  reference  to  a  duration  of  one  second.

More  specifically,  it  is  the  time‐integrated  A‐weighted  squared sound  pressure  for  a  stated  time  interval  or  event,  based  on  a reference pressure of 20 micropascals and a reference duration of one second.

SOUND LEVEL:    The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A‐weighting filter network.  The A‐weighting filter de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear and gives good correlation with subjective reactions to noise.

SOUND TRANSMISSION
CLASS (STC):    The  single‐number  rating  of  sound  transmission  loss  for  a construction element (window, door, etc.) over a frequency range where speech intelligibility largely occurs.

APPENDIX E

TRAFFIC STUDY
Project No: 01665-24-006

TRAFFIC STUDY
TTM 6497 - WESTHAVEN 2

NORTHEAST CORNER

SPRINGFIELD AVENUE & S BUTTONWILLOW AVENUE

REEDLEY, CA
Prepared for:

QK, Inc.

August 2025
REVISED September 2025
Prepared by:
1518 MILL ROCK WAY, SUITE 100
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93311
__________________________________________
Ian J. Parks, RCE 58155
Traffic Study 01665-24-006
Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 6497 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pg
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP..................................................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2: LOCATION MAP.................................................................................................................................. 3 FIGURE 3: SITE PLAN ............................................................................................................................................ 4 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION VOLUMES.......................................................................................................... 6 TABLE 1: TRIP GENERATION .............................................................................................................................. 6 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT........................................................................................ 6 TABLE 2: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION .......................................................................................................... 6 EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC...................................................................................................................... 7 FIGURE 4: PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC...................................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 5: 2025 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC............................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 6: 2025+PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC.......................................................................................... 10 FIGURE 7: 2030 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC............................................................................................................. 11 FIGURE 8: 2030+PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC.......................................................................................... 12 FIGURE 9: 2045 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC............................................................................................................. 13 FIGURE 10: 2045+PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC........................................................................................ 14 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 15 TABLE 3a: INTERSECTION LOS, AM PEAK HOUR......................................................................................... 16 TABLE 3b: INTERSECTION LOS, PM PEAK HOUR......................................................................................... 17 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS........................................................................................................ 18 TABLE 4a: AM PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 18 TABLE 4b: PM PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS....................................................................... 19 QUEUE LENGTH ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 20 TABLE 5a: AM QUEUE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 20 TABLE 5b: PM QUEUE ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................... 20 ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION.............................................................................................................................. 21 TABLE 6: ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION DATA ............................................................................................... 21 MITIGATION & RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................ 22 TABLE 7: FUTURE INTERSECTION MITIGATION.......................................................................................... 22 VMT ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................................................... 23 TABLE 8: VMT ANALYSIS RESULTS................................................................................................................ 23 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................ 24 APPENDIX.............................................................................................................................................................. 25 Traffic Study 01665-24-006
Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 6497 1

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the potential traffic impact of a proposed residential development located on the east side of S Buttonwillow Avenue, north of E Springfield Avenue in Reedley, CA. The project land use includes 166 single-family dwelling units.

A vicinity map is presented in Figure 1 and a location map is presented in Figure 2. The site plan is shown in Figure 3.

A. Study Area
The study area is generally bounded by S Buttonwillow Avenue to the west, Tobu Avenue to the east, North Avenue to the north, and E Springfield Avenue to the south.

A total of nine intersections (one future intersection and one project intersection) are included in the study; two signalized, six unsignalized, and one roundabout. The scope of the study was developed in association with the City of Reedley.

B. Existing Site Uses and Site Access
The site is currently vacant land. The project will construct frontage improvements, including sidewalks.

The construction of the sidewalk and bike lanes will close gaps in pedestrian and bicycle access and will allow access to the site for all users.

C. Existing Uses in Vicinity of the Site
Existing land uses in the vicinity of the proposed development are generally existing educational and residential land uses and vacant land.

Traffic Study 01665-24-006
Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 6497 2
FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP
Traffic Study 01665-24-006
Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 6497 3
FIGURE 2: LOCATION MAP
Traffic Study 01665-24-006
Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 6497 4
FIGURE 3: SITE PLAN
Traffic Study 01665-24-006
Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 6497 5
D. Existing Street Descriptions
Buttonwillow Avenue is a north-south major arterial that extends throughout the western portion of the City of Reedley. In the vicinity of the project, it exists as a two-lane roadway that provides access to agricultural and residential land uses.

Columbia Avenue/11th Avenue is a primarily north-south arterial that extends south from Manning Avenue in the City of Reedley. In the vicinity of the project, it exists as two- to four-lane roadway and provides access to commercial and residential land uses.

Dinuba Avenue is an east-west arterial that extends through the southern portion of the City of Reedley.

In the vicinity of the project, it exists as two-lane roadway and provides access to industrial and residential land uses.

East Avenue is a north-south collector that extends from Manning Avenue to Dinuba Avenue in the City of Reedley. In the vicinity of the project, it exists as a two-lane roadway and provides access to residential land uses.

Manning Avenue is an east-west major arterial that extends throughout the City of Reedley. In the vicinity of the project, it exists as a two-lane roadway and provides access to agricultural, commercial, and residential land uses.

North Avenue is an east-west collector that extends from east from Reed Avenue in the City of Reedley.

In the vicinity of the project, it exists as a two-lane roadway and provides access to agricultural, commercial, educational, and residential land uses.

Springfield Avenue is an east-west collector that extends from East Avenue to Buttonwillow Avenue in the City of Reedley. In the vicinity of the project, it exists as a two-lane roadway and provides access to residential land uses.

Tobu Avenue is a future north-south collector that extends through the eastern portion of the City of Reedley. It is proposed to provide access to residential land uses.

Zumwalt Avenue is a north-south arterial that extends throughout the eastern portion of the City of Reedley. In the vicinity of the project, it exists as a two-lane roadway and provides access to agricultural and residential land uses.

Traffic Study 01665-24-006
Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 6497 6

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION VOLUMES
The project trip generation volumes shown in Table 1 were estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Trip rates, equations and directional splits for ITE Land Use Code 210 (Single-Family Detached Housing) were used to estimate project trips for weekday peak hour of adjacent street traffic based on information provided by the project applicant.

Table 1
Trip Generation
ITE Development Variable ADT ADT Rate In Out Rate In Out Code Type RATE % Split/ % Split/ % Split/ % Split/
Trips Trips Trips Trips
210 166 eq 1608 eq 25% 75% eq 63% 37%
Dwelling Units =EXP(0.92*LN(166)+2.68) 118 30 88 160 101 59 Single-Family
detached Housing
General Information Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips

PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
The distribution of project peak hour trips is shown in Table 2 represents the movement of traffic accessing the project site by direction. The project trip distribution was developed based on site location and travel patterns anticipated for the proposed land uses.

Table 2
Project Trip Distribution
Direction Percent
North 20%
East 5%
South 20%
West 55%
Project peak hour trips were assigned to the study intersections as shown in Figure 4. Project trip assignment was developed based on trip generation, trip distribution and likely travel routes for traffic accessing the project site.

Traffic Study 01665-24-006
Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 6497 7

EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC
Weekday peak hour turning movements were counted at the study intersections in June 2025. Traffic counts were obtained between the hours of 7:00 and 9:00am, and 4:00 and 6:00pm. The peak hour for each intersection was used. Count data is included in the Appendix.

Annual growth rates ranging between 0.13 and 6.78 percent were applied to existing peak hour volumes to estimate future peak hour volumes for the years 2030 and 2045. These growth rates were estimated based on a comparison of regional travel demand model volumes from the Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) between the years 2018 and 2035.

Existing peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 5. Existing plus project peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 6. Future peak hour volumes for the years 2030 and 2045, both without and with project traffic, are shown in Figures 7-10, respectively.

Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 64978
11th St
East Ave
Dinuba Ave
Manning Ave
Frankwood Ave
Parlier Ave
S Buttonwillow Ave
North Ave
El Dorado Ave
North Ave
G St
I St
E Springfield Ave
Zumwalt Ave
Tobu Ave
Columbia Ave
1 0
11 5
000
007
0 14
0 PM
1 0
16 7
000
002
0 5
0 AM
2 3
16 3
200
005
0 21
0 PM
2 4
23 4
100
001
0 7
0 AM
3 0
0 2
040 25
51 0
0 31
PM
3 0
0 1
010 37
71 0
0 9
AM
4 0
2 7
000
004
0 1
0 PM
4 0
1 2
000
006
0 1
0 AM
5 17
0 10
2980
0 24
11 0
0 0
PM
5 24
0 14
920
0 24
4 0
0 0
AM
0 63
20 4
1 PM
0 62
10 3
1 AM
35 70
0 18
0 0
AM
724
0 0
60 0
0 PM
8 2
0 0
01713
0 20
0 28
0 0
PM
8 1
0 0
02519
060
8 0
0 AM
9 1
6 26
3 2
44 PM
9 1
3 38
3 1
12 AM
Map data ©2025
Traffic Study 257-92

PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FIGURE 4
N

NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND

STUDY INTERSECTION
8 Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 64979
11th St
East Ave
Dinuba Ave
Manning Ave
Frankwood Ave
Parlier Ave
S Buttonwillow Ave
North Ave
El Dorado Ave
North Ave
G St
I St
E Springfield Ave
Zumwalt Ave
Tobu Ave
Columbia Ave
1 0
481
20 102 40
1 28
6 458
39 PM
1 2
444
36 001 36
0 19
11 367
56 AM
2 14
435
191
155428 48
55 231
31 426
36 PM
2 17
402
196
197346 24
25 161
16 285
23 AM
3 93
230
51 10024868 156
244
28 63
285
104
PM
3 70
259
47 115252103 139
185
90 56
224
66 AM
4 0
374
0 000
000
0 413
0 PM
4 0
501
0 000
000
0 429
0 AM
5 1
0 0
040614 31
416
0 4
0 21
PM
5 0
0 0
036911 18
418
0 14
0 17
AM
41 6
34 35
21 33
48 PM28
6 140 197
36 73
195
AM
352 733 61
370
57 51
AM
7382
33 40
422
38 44
PM
8 116
259
63 7616585 108
229
54 121
298
148
PM
8 103
334
78 60165108 97
114
55 90
248
76 AM
9 0
0 00
0 0
PM
9 0
0 00
0 0
AM
Map data ©2025
Traffic Study 257-92
2025 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FIGURE 5
N

NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND

STUDY INTERSECTION
9 Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 649710
11th St
East Ave
Dinuba Ave
Manning Ave
Frankwood Ave
Parlier Ave
S Buttonwillow Ave
North Ave
El Dorado Ave
North Ave
G St
I St
E Springfield Ave
Zumwalt Ave
Tobu Ave
Columbia Ave
1 0
492
25 102 40
1 35
6 472
39 PM
1 2
460
43 001 36
0 21
11 372
56 AM
2 17
451
194
175428 48
55 236
31 447
36 PM
2 21
425
200
207346 24
25 162
16 292
23 AM
3 93
230
53 10025268 181
249
29 63
285
135
PM
3 70
259
48 115253103 176
192
91 56
224
75 AM
4 0
376
7 000
004
0 414
0 PM
4 0
502
2 000
006
0 430
0 AM
5 18
0 10
2941414 31
440
11 4
0 21
PM
5 24
0 14
937111 18
442
4 14
0 17
AM
41 6
37 37
21 37
49 PM28
6 142 198
36 76
196
AM
387 733 61
388
57 51
AM
7406
33 40
482
38 44
PM
8 118
259
63 7618298 108
249
54 149
298
148
PM
8 104
334
78 60190127 97
120
55 98
248
76 AM
9 1
6 26
3 2
44 PM
9 1
3 38
3 1
12 AM
Map data ©2025
Traffic Study 257-92
2025+PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FIGURE 6
N

NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND

STUDY INTERSECTION
10 Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 649711
11th St
East Ave
Dinuba Ave
Manning Ave
Frankwood Ave
Parlier Ave
S Buttonwillow Ave
North Ave
El Dorado Ave
North Ave
G St
I St
E Springfield Ave
Zumwalt Ave
Tobu Ave
Columbia Ave
1 0
570
24 102 41
1 29
7 535
46 PM
1 2
527
43 001 37
0 20
13 429
65 AM
2 16
510
224
165629 52
59 249
37 505
43 PM
2 20
471
230
207648 26
27 173
19 338
27 AM
3 116
286
63 11027475 172
269
31 74
334
122
PM
3 87
322
58 127278114 153
204
99 66
263
77 AM
4 0
383
0 000
000
0 423
0 PM
4 0
514
0 000
000
0 440
0 AM
5 1
0 0
044814 31
459
0 4
0 21
PM
5 0
0 0
040711 18
462
0 14
0 17
AM
44 6
37 46
28 39
56 PM30
6 151 259
47 85
228
AM
389 733 61
409
57 51
AM
7422
33 40
466
38 44
PM
8 119
266
65 8418294 119
253
60 124
306
152
PM
8 106
342
80 66182119 107
126
61 92
254
78 AM
9 0
0 00
0 0
PM
9 0
0 00
0 0
AM
Map data ©2025
Traffic Study 257-92
2030 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FIGURE 7
N

NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND

STUDY INTERSECTION
11 Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 649712
11th St
East Ave
Dinuba Ave
Manning Ave
Frankwood Ave
Parlier Ave
S Buttonwillow Ave
North Ave
El Dorado Ave
North Ave
G St
I St
E Springfield Ave
Zumwalt Ave
Tobu Ave
Columbia Ave
1 0
581
29 102 41
1 36
7 549
46 PM
1 2
543
50 001 37
0 22
13 434
65 AM
2 19
526
227
185629 52
59 254
37 526
43 PM
2 24
494
234
217648 26
27 174
19 345
27 AM
3 116
286
65 11027875 197
274
32 74
334
153
PM
3 87
322
59 127279114 190
211
100
66 263
86 AM
4 0
385
7 000
004
0 424
0 PM
4 0
515
2 000
006
0 441
0 AM
5 18
0 10
2945614 31
483
11 4
0 21
PM
5 24
0 14
940911 18
486
4 14
0 17
AM
44 6
40 48
28 43
57 PM30
6 153 260
47 88
229
AM
424 733 61
427
57 51
AM
7446
33 40
526
38 44
PM
8 121
266
65 84199107 119
273
60 152
306
152
PM
8 107
342
80 66207138 107
132
61 100
254
78 AM
9 1
6 26
3 2
44 PM
9 1
3 38
3 1
12 AM
Map data ©2025
Traffic Study 257-92
2030+PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FIGURE 8
N

NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND

STUDY INTERSECTION
12 Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 649713
11th St
East Ave
Dinuba Ave
Manning Ave
Frankwood Ave
Parlier Ave
S Buttonwillow Ave
North Ave
El Dorado Ave
North Ave
G St
I St
E Springfield Ave
Zumwalt Ave
Tobu Ave
Columbia Ave
1 0
952
40 103 46
1 32
11 855
73 PM
1 4
878
71 001 41
0 22
21 685
105
AM
2 26
823
361
176232 65
74 311
61 843
71 PM
2 32
761
371
228453 32
34 217
32 564
46 AM
3 222
548
122
149369101 232
363
42 119
539
197
PM
3 167
618
112
171374153 207
275134
106
424
125
AM
4 0
413
0 000
000
0 456
0 PM
4 0
554
0 000
000
0 474
0 AM
5 1
0 0
060314 32
618
0 4
0 22
PM
5 0
0 0
054811 18
621
0 14
0 17
AM
55 6
45 104
62 62
90 PM37
6 187 586
107
137
365
AM
523 734 62
550
58 52
AM
7568
34 41
627
39 45
PM
8 128
286
70 113245126 160
340
80 134
329
164
PM
8 114
369
86 89245160 144
169
82 99
274
84 AM
9 0
0 00
0 0
PM
9 0
0 00
0 0
AM
Map data ©2025
Traffic Study 257-92
2045 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FIGURE 9
N

NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND

STUDY INTERSECTION
13 Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 649714
11th St
East Ave
Dinuba Ave
Manning Ave
Frankwood Ave
Parlier Ave
S Buttonwillow Ave
North Ave
El Dorado Ave
North Ave
G St
I St
E Springfield Ave
Zumwalt Ave
Tobu Ave
Columbia Ave
1 0
963
45 103 46
1 39
11 869
73 PM
1 4
894
78 001 41
0 24
21 690
105
AM
2 29
839
364
196232 65
74 316
61 864
71 PM
2 36
784
375
238453 32
34 218
32 571
46 AM
3 222
548
124
149373101 257
368
43 119
539
228
PM
3 167
618
113
171375153 244
282135
106
424
134
AM
4 0
415
7 000
004
0 457
0 PM
4 0
555
2 000
006
0 475
0 AM
5 18
0 10
2961114 32
642
11 4
0 22
PM
5 24
0 14
955011 18
645
4 14
0 17
AM
55 6
48 106
62 66
91 PM37
6 189 587
107
140
366
AM
558 734 62
568
58 52
AM
7592
34 41
687
39 45
PM
8 130
286
70 113262139 160
360
80 162
329
164
PM
8 115
369
86 89270179 144
175
82 107
274
84 AM
9 1
6 26
3 2
44 PM
9 1
3 38
3 1
12 AM
Map data ©2025
Traffic Study 257-92
2045+PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FIGURE 10
N

NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND

STUDY INTERSECTION
14 Traffic Study 01665-24-006
Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 6497 15

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
A capacity analysis of the study intersections was conducted using Synchro 12 software from Trafficware. This software utilizes the capacity analysis methodology in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual. The analysis was performed for the following AM and PM Peak Hour traffic scenarios:
• Existing (2025)
• Existing (2025) + Project
• Opening Year (2030)
• Opening Year (2030) + Project
• Future (2045)
• Future (2045) + Project
Criteria for intersection level of service (LOS) are shown in the tables below.

LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA

UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
Level of Service Average Control Delay
(sec/veh)
Expected Delay to Minor
Street Traffic
A ≤ 10 Little or no delay
B > 10 and ≤ 15 Short delays
C > 15 and ≤ 25 Average delays
D > 25 and ≤ 35 Long delays
E > 35 and ≤ 50 Very long delays
F > 50 Extreme delays

LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service Average Control Delay
(sec/veh)
Volume-to-Capacity
Ratio
A ≤ 10 < 0.60
B > 10 and ≤ 20 0.61 - 0.70
C > 20 and ≤ 35 0.71 - 0.80
D > 35 and ≤ 55 0.81 - 0.90
E > 55 and ≤ 80 0.91 - 1.00
F > 80 > 1.00
Traffic Study 01665-24-006
Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 6497 16
The City of Reedley level of service threshold for requiring mitigation is if the facility operates below LOS of “C”. Level of service for the study intersections is presented in Tables 3a and 3b.

Table 3a
Intersection Level of Service
AM Peak Hour
# Intersection Control
Type 2025 2025+Project 2030 2030+Project 2045 2045+Project 2045+
Project w/
Improvements¹
1 N East Ave &
Manning Ave NB C C C C F(108.0)
F
(121.2) -
2 2
N Columbia
Ave/11th Ave &
Manning Ave
Signal B B B B B B -
3 S Buttonwillow
Ave & Manning
Ave
Signal C C C C C C -
4 Tobu Ave &
Manning Ave NB - B - B - B -
5 S Buttonwillow
Ave & North Ave
EB
WB
B
-
C
C
C
-
C
C
C
-
D
(27.4)
D
(25.7)
-
Signal - - - - - - A
6 Zumwalt Ave &
North Ave EB B B C C F(73.9)
F
(>300) -
2 7
S Buttonwillow
Ave & E
Springfield Ave

EB C C C C E
(36.1)
E
(41.3) -
2 8 S Buttonwillow
Ave & Dinuba Ave Roundabout B B B B C C -
9 Project Entrance &
N Ave NB - A - A - A -
1 Improvements shown in Table 7.
2 Improvements not necessary as intersection degrades prior to project traffic.

Traffic Study 01665-24-006
Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 6497 17
Table 3b
Intersection Level of Service
PM Peak Hour
# Intersection Control
Type 2025 2025+Project 2030 2030+Project 2045 2045+Project 2045+
Project w/
Improvements¹
1 N East Ave &
Manning Ave NB C C D(26.5)
D
(27.6)
F
(201.3)
F
(229.6) -
2 2
N Columbia
Ave/11th Ave &
Manning Ave
Signal B B B B C C -
3 S Buttonwillow
Ave & Manning
Ave
Signal C C C C D
(36.5)
D
(46.9) -
2 4 Tobu Ave &
Manning Ave NB - B - B - B -
5 S Buttonwillow
Ave & North Ave
EB
WB
B
-
B
C
B
-
B
C
C
-
C
D
(29.9)
-
Signal - - - - - - B
6 Zumwalt Ave &
North Ave EB A A A A B B -
7 S Buttonwillow
Ave & E
Springfield Ave

EB C C C C D
(31.1)
D
(32.7) -
2 8
S Buttonwillow
Ave & Dinuba
Ave
Roundabout B B B C D
(27.1)
D
(33.7) -
2 9 Project Entrance
& N Ave NB - A - A - A -
1 Improvements shown in Table 7.
2 Improvements not necessary as intersection degrades prior to project traffic.

Traffic Study 01665-24-006
Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 6497 18

TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Peak hour signal warrants were also analyzed for the unsignalized study intersection is shown in Tables 4a and 4b.

It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which signalization of an intersection might be warranted. Meeting this threshold does not suggest traffic signals are required, but rather, other traffic factors and conditions be considered in order to determine whether signals are truly justified.

It is also noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with level of service. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above an acceptable level of service or operate below an acceptable level of service and not meet signal warrant criteria.

Table 4a
AM Peak Hour Signal Warrant Analysis
Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor
Street Street Street Street Street Street
Total High Total High Total High
Approach Approach Warrant Approach Approach Warrant Approach Approach Warrant # Intersection Vol Vol Met Vol Vol Met Vol Vol Met
1 N. East Ave at Manning Ave 916 55 NO 1079 57 NO 1764 63 NO 4 Tobu Ave at Manning Ave 930 0 NO 954 0 NO 1028 0 NO
5 S Buttonwillow Ave at North Ave 816 31 NO 898 31 NO 1198 31 NO 6 Zumwalt Ave at North Ave 404 268 YES 490 313 YES 923 502 YES 7 S Buttonwillow Ave at E Springfield Ave 816 108 NO 892 108 YES 1169 110 YES 9 S Orange Ave at North Ave - - - - - - - - -
2025 2030 2045
Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor
Street Street Street Street Street Street
Total High Total High Total High
Approach Approach Warrant Approach Approach Warrant Approach Approach Warrant # Intersection Vol Vol Met Vol Vol Met Vol Vol Met
1 N. East Ave at Manning Ave 942 56 NO 1107 59 NO 1792 65 NO 4 Tobu Ave at Manning Ave 932 6 NO 958 6 NO 1032 6 NO
5 S Buttonwillow Ave at North Ave 854 43 NO 937 38 NO 1237 38 NO 6 Zumwalt Ave at North Ave 405 269 YES 493 317 YES 926 506 YES 7 S Buttonwillow Ave at E Springfield Ave 872 108 YES 945 108 YES 1222 110 YES 9 S Orange Ave at North Ave 43 16 NO 41 13 NO 41 13 NO
2025+Project 2030+Project 2045+Project
Traffic Study 01665-24-006
Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 6497 19
Table 4b
PM Peak Hour Signal Warrant Analysis
Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor
Street Street Street Street Street Street
Total High Total High Total High
Approach Approach Warrant Approach Approach Warrant Approach Approach Warrant # Intersection Vol Vol Met Vol Vol Met Vol Vol Met
1 N. East Ave at Manning Ave 1004 69 NO 1182 71 NO 1931 79 YES 4 Tobu Ave at Manning Ave 787 0 NO 806 0 NO 869 0 NO
5 S Buttonwillow Ave at North Ave 867 25 NO 952 25 NO 1267 26 NO 6 Zumwalt Ave at North Ave 131 81 NO 155 95 NO 266 152 NO 7 S Buttonwillow Ave at E Springfield Ave 877 82 NO 961 82 NO 1270 84 YES 9 S Orange Ave at North Ave - - - - - - - - -
2025 2030 2045
Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor
Street Street Street Street Street Street
Total High Total High Total High
Approach Approach Warrant Approach Approach Warrant Approach Approach Warrant # Intersection Vol Vol Met Vol Vol Met Vol Vol Met
1 N. East Ave at Manning Ave 1033 74 NO 1212 78 YES 1961 86 YES 4 Tobu Ave at Manning Ave 790 4 NO 816 4 NO 879 4 NO
5 S Buttonwillow Ave at North Ave 933 35 NO 1024 28 NO 1339 28 NO 6 Zumwalt Ave at North Ave 132 83 NO 160 100 NO 271 157 NO 7 S Buttonwillow Ave at E Springfield Ave 963 82 NO 1045 82 YES 1354 84 YES 9 S Orange Ave at North Ave 53 29 NO 53 29 NO 53 29 NO
2025+Project 2030+Project 2045+Project
Traffic Study 01665-24-006
Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 6497 20

QUEUE LENGTH ANALYSIS
A queue length analysis was conducted dedicated turn movements within the study area to evaluate the adequacy of the existing storage lengths. Tables 5a and 5b below show the existing storage lengths, as well as the 95th percentile queue length determined for each traffic scenario analyzed.

Table 5a
AM Queue Analysis
Intersection N East Ave &
Manning Ave
Movement WBL EBL WBL NBR EBL WBL WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR
Storage Capacity 215 100 180 115 250 200 110 150 200 80 90 2025 26 37 96 51 82 43 38 137 51 120 98
2025+Project 25 66 92 80 69 83 47 149 36 100 81
2030 31 42 86 53 103 86 37 157 62 124 155
2030+Project 41 35 95 77 81 66 28 165 77 129 132
2045 51 61 92 84 141 312 170 155 234 124 146
2045+Project 81 88 93 78 177 300 192 155 227 130 139
N Columbia Ave &
Manning Ave S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave
Table 5b
PM Queue Analysis
Intersection N East Ave &
Manning Ave
Movement WBL EBL WBL NBR EBL WBL WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR
Storage Capacity 215 100 180 115 250 200 110 150 200 80 90 2025 26 50 96 72 85 73 41 145 43 101 51
2025+Project 22 86 87 99 118 104 57 163 52 115 87
2030 22 59 84 111 104 91 45 168 48 122 143
2030+Project 33 108 102 94 106 197 68 159 46 129 146
2045 35 98 86 143 139 296 161 155 238 132 137
2045+Project 29 116 91 135 198 294 177 155 214 133 123
N Columbia Ave &
Manning Ave S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave
Traffic Study 01665-24-006
Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 6497 21
As shown in the tables, the storage lengths are adequate for existing queue lengths both prior to, and with the addition of project traffic with the exception of the southbound left and southbound right storage lengths at the intersection of S Buttonwillow Avenue & Manning Avenue. With the addition of project traffic in 2025, the northbound left storage length for the intersection of S Buttonwillow Avenue & Manning Avenue is exceeded, but only by 13 feet which is less than the average car length.

In 2030, with the addition of project traffic, the eastbound left storage length for the intersection of N Columbia Avenue & Manning Avenue is exceeded, but only by eight feet which is less than the average car length.

In 2045, prior to the addition of project traffic, the northbound right storage length for the intersection of N Columbia Avenue & Manning Avenue and the westbound left, westbound right, and northbound right storage lengths for the intersection of S Buttonwillow Avenue & Manning Avenue are exceeded.

With the addition of project traffic, the eastbound left storage length for the intersection of N Columbia Avenue & Manning Avenue is exceeded, but only by 16 feet which is less than the average car length.

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION
Accident data was requested from SWITRS for the years 2020 through 2024 and are shown below in Table 6. Upon review of the data provided, it was determined that there were nine accidents spanning between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2024.

Table 6
Accident Investigation Data
Year Intersection
Primary Crash
Factor Crash Type Injuries Weather
2020 N East Ave & Manning Ave Sideswipe Ped ROW 1 Clear 2020 N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave Rear End Improper Drive 1 Clear 2024 N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave Vehicle/Pedestrian Ped ROW 1 Clear 2021 S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave Rear End Unsafe Speed 1 Clear 2023 S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave Broadside Signals/Signs 1 Clear 2023 S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave Rear End Unsafe Speed 1 Clear 2022 S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave Head On Improper Turn 2 Clear 2024 S Buttonwillow Ave & Dinuba Ave Rear End Unsafe Speed 1 Clear 2023 S Buttonwillow Ave & Springfield Ave Sideswipe Auto ROW 2 Clear Traffic Study 01665-24-006
Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 6497 22

MITIGATION & RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon review of the intersection level of service, it was determined that one intersection required improvements to operate within an acceptable level of service.

Intersection improvements needed by the years 2030 and 2045 to maintain or improve the operational level of service of the street system in the vicinity of the project are presented in Table 7.

Table 7
Future Intersection Mitigation
# Intersection Total Improvements
Required by 2045
Project Percent
Share
5 S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave Signal 20.51%
Traffic Study 01665-24-006
Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 6497 23

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS
In 2013, the state of California enacted legislation (SB 743) which required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to identify new metrics for measuring and mitigating transportation impacts within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For land development projects, OPR recommended replacing the metric of vehicle delay, as defined by level of service (LOS) and other similar measures, with VMT metrics based on project land use. Regulatory changes to CEQA Guidelines incorporating SB 743 were approved on December 28, 2018. Statewide implementation began on July 1, 2020.

Under CEQA, lead agencies have the authority to establish their own VMT significance thresholds and analysis methodologies. The VMT analysis for this project was conducted in accordance with Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines dated January 2021 (VMT Guidelines).

The VMT analysis involved comparing an estimate of VMT attributable to the project to the City VMT threshold and assessing whether project VMT would result in a significant transportation impact under CEQA. The analysis was performed using the Fresno COG VMT Calculation Tool for residential projects since the project has less than 500 dwelling units. The output from the tool is included in the Appendix. Analysis results are summarized in Table 8 below.

Table 8
VMT Analysis Results
Significant Reduction
Regional1 Threshold2 Project3 Impact Needed
Residential 17.4 16.1 14.0 NO -15.0%
1 Source: Figure 7, "VMT per Capita Screening Map for Fresno County," Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines, Fresno Council of Governments, January 2021 2 City significance threshold for residential projects is equivalent to 87 percent of "existing regional average"
3 Source: Fresno COG ABM
Land Use VMT per Capita
As shown above, the project’s VMT per capita (14.0) is less than the City’s significance threshold (16.1). Therefore, the project would be expected to result in a less than significant transportation impact under CEQA.

Traffic Study 01665-24-006
Traffic Impact Study
Reedley TTM 6497 24

REFERENCES

1. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2014 Edition, Federal Highway Administration (FHA)

2. CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds for the City of Fresno, June 25, 2020.

3. City of Reedley California General Plan 2030, City of Reedley, Adopted February 18, 2014

4. Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition, Transportation Research Board

5. Trip Generation, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2025
1: N. East Ave & Manning Ave 07/08/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 367 56 36 444 36 19
Future Volume (vph) 367 56 36 444 36 19
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.982 0.953
Flt Protected 0.950 0.969
Satd. Flow (prot) 1829 0 1630 1863 1584 0
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.969
Satd. Flow (perm) 1829 0 1630 1863 1584 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 2176 1309 3105
Travel Time (s) 27.0 16.2 38.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 399 61 39 483 39 21
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 460 0 39 483 60 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 24 24 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2025
1: N. East Ave & Manning Ave 07/08/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 367 56 36 444 36 19
Future Vol, veh/h 367 56 36 444 36 19
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 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 399 61 39 483 39 21
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 460 0 990 429
Stage 1 - - - - 429 -
Stage 2 - - - - 561 -
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 - - 1101 - 273 626
Stage 1 - - - - 656 -
Stage 2 - - - - 571 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1101 - 263 626
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 263 -
Stage 1 - - - - 656 -
Stage 2 - - - - 551 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.63 18.34

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 329 - - 1101 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.182 - - 0.036 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 18.3 - - 8.4 -
HCM Lane LOS C - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - 0.1 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2025
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/08/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 16 285 23 196 402 17 24 25 161 19 73 46 Future Volume (vph) 16 285 23 196 402 17 24 25 161 19 73 46 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 55 0 0 115 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 0.99
Frt 0.989 0.994 0.850 0.955
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.976 0.993
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3491 0 1630 1849 0 0 1818 1458 0 1755 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.858 0.956
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 3491 0 1630 1849 0 0 1598 1458 0 1689 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 9 3 175 28
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1309 2645 1456 513
Travel Time (s) 16.2 32.8 18.0 6.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 17 310 25 213 437 18 26 27 175 21 79 50 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 335 0 213 455 0 0 53 175 0 150 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 2 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2025
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/08/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.6 22.0 8.6 20.6 20.0 20.0 20.0 24.5 24.5 Total Split (s) 13.0 31.0 30.0 48.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Total Split (%) 14.4% 34.4% 33.3% 53.3% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% Maximum Green (s) 8.4 26.4 25.4 43.4 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min Min
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 10.4 9.0 13.3 13.3
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 7.1 11.4 12.6 26.6 10.4 10.4 10.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.24 0.27 0.56 0.22 0.22 0.22
v/c Ratio 0.07 0.40 0.49 0.44 0.15 0.38 0.38
Control Delay (s/veh) 23.5 17.5 20.6 9.8 17.5 6.4 17.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 23.5 17.5 20.6 9.8 17.5 6.4 17.4

LOS C B C A B A B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 17.8 13.2 9.0 17.4
Approach LOS BBAB
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 47.1
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.49
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 14.1 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary AM 2025
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/08/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 285 23 196 402 17 24 25 161 19 73 46 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 285 23 196 402 17 24 25 161 19 73 46 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 0.99 1.00 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 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 17 310 25 213 437 18 26 27 175 21 79 50 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 61 718 57 316 662 27 283 224 298 160 201 114 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.37 0.35 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 3322 266 1641 1781 73 537 1099 1460 135 982 559 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 17 165 170 213 0 455 53 0 175 150 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1777 1811 1641 0 1855 1637 0 1460 1676 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 2.5 2.5 3.7 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 2.5 2.5 3.7 0.0 6.3 0.7 0.0 3.4 2.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.04 0.49 1.00 0.14 0.33
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 61 384 391 316 0 689 507 0 298 475 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.28 0.43 0.44 0.67 0.00 0.66 0.10 0.00 0.59 0.32 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 476 1548 1578 1376 0 2633 1416 0 1178 1454 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.5 10.5 10.6 11.6 0.0 8.1 10.1 0.0 11.1 10.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.8 0.8 2.5 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.0 1.8 0.4 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 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.0 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 17.0 11.3 11.3 14.1 0.0 9.2 10.2 0.0 13.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS BBBB AB BB
Approach Vol, veh/h 352 668 228 150
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.6 10.8 12.3 11.1
Approach LOS BBBB
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.3 10.0 10.7 10.3 5.1 15.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.8 25.4 26.4 24.8 8.4 43.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 5.7 4.5 4.3 2.3 8.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.0 1.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 11.3
HCM 7th LOS B
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2025
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/08/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 56 224 66 47 259 70 139 185 90 115 252 103 Future Volume (vph) 56 224 66 47 259 70 139 185 90 115 252 103 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Storage Length (ft) 250 0 200 110 130 200 80 90
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.96
Frt 0.966 0.850 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3394 0 1630 3539 1458 1630 3539 1458 1630 1863 1458 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 3394 0 1630 3539 1430 1630 3539 1429 1630 1863 1407 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 32 136 136 177
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 2645 661 1321 4072
Travel Time (s) 32.8 8.2 16.4 50.5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5555
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2222
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 Adj. Flow (vph) 61 243 72 51 282 76 151 201 98 125 274 112 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 61 315 0 51 282 76 151 201 98 125 274 112 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 11 111111111
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2025
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/08/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.5 35.7 8.5 35.7 35.7 8.5 31.3 31.3 8.5 31.3 31.3 Total Split (s) 28.0 39.0 26.0 37.0 37.0 29.0 33.0 33.0 22.0 26.0 26.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 32.5% 21.7% 30.8% 30.8% 24.2% 27.5% 27.5% 18.3% 21.7% 21.7% Maximum Green (s) 23.5 34.5 21.5 32.5 32.5 24.5 28.5 28.5 17.5 21.5 21.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 24.2 24.2 24.2 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 8.7 17.0 8.2 14.1 14.1 13.0 33.1 33.1 11.6 28.4 28.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.21 0.10 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.41 0.41 0.14 0.35 0.35 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.42 0.31 0.45 0.21 0.57 0.14 0.15 0.53 0.42 0.18 Control Delay (s/veh) 43.3 27.4 43.2 32.8 1.6 42.8 21.1 2.7 44.1 27.0 1.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (s/veh) 43.3 27.4 43.2 32.8 1.6 42.8 21.1 2.7 44.1 27.0 1.4

LOS DC DCADCADCA
Approach Delay (s/veh) 30.0 28.3 24.4 25.6
Approach LOS CCCC
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 80.2
Natural Cycle: 85
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.57
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 26.9 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary AM 2025
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/08/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 56 224 66 47 259 70 139 185 90 115 252 103 Future Volume (veh/h) 56 224 66 47 259 70 139 185 90 115 252 103 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 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 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 61 243 72 51 282 76 151 201 98 125 274 112 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 76 440 127 62 551 221 193 1527 617 160 766 581 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.43 0.43 0.10 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 2694 776 1641 3554 1424 1641 3554 1436 1641 1870 1419 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 61 158 157 51 282 76 151 201 98 125 274 112 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1777 1693 1641 1777 1424 1641 1777 1436 1641 1870 1419 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 5.4 5.7 2.0 4.8 2.3 5.9 2.3 2.8 4.9 6.7 2.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 5.4 5.7 2.0 4.8 2.3 5.9 2.3 2.8 4.9 6.7 2.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 76 290 277 62 551 221 193 1527 617 160 766 581 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.54 0.57 0.82 0.51 0.34 0.78 0.13 0.16 0.78 0.36 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 581 924 881 532 1741 698 606 1527 617 433 766 581 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 31.3 25.5 25.6 31.7 25.7 13.1 28.4 11.4 11.6 29.2 13.6 6.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.1 1.6 1.8 22.0 0.7 0.9 6.7 0.2 0.5 8.1 1.3 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 2.1 2.1 1.1 1.8 1.0 2.4 0.7 0.8 2.1 2.5 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 48.4 27.0 27.4 53.7 26.5 14.0 35.2 11.6 12.1 37.3 14.9 6.7 LnGrp LOS DCCDCBDBBDBA
Approach Vol, veh/h 376 409 450 511
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.7 27.5 19.6 18.6
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 33.0 7.0 15.3 12.3 31.6 7.6 14.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.5 28.5 21.5 34.5 24.5 21.5 23.5 32.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.9 4.8 4.0 7.7 7.9 8.7 4.4 6.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 1.1 0.1 1.1 0.4 1.1 0.1 1.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 23.6
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2025
5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/08/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 14 17 18 418 369 11
Future Volume (vph) 14 17 18 418 369 11
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.926 0.996
Flt Protected 0.978 0.998
Satd. Flow (prot) 1554 0 0 1859 1855 0
Flt Permitted 0.978 0.998
Satd. Flow (perm) 1554 0 0 1859 1855 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1588 1310 1321
Travel Time (s) 19.7 16.2 16.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 15 18 20 454 401 12
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 0 0 474 413 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2025
5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/08/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 17 18 418 369 11
Future Vol, veh/h 14 17 18 418 369 11
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 15 18 20 454 401 12
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 901 407 413 0 - 0
Stage 1 407 -----
Stage 2 493 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 309 644 1146 - - -
Stage 1 672 -----
Stage 2 614 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 302 644 1146 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 302 -----
Stage 1 657 -----
Stage 2 614 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v14.18 0.34 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 74 - 426 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - 0.079 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 0 14.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.3 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2025
6: Zumwalt Ave & North Ave 07/08/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 73 195 197 36 28 140
Future Volume (vph) 73 195 197 36 28 140
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.902 0.887
Flt Protected 0.987 0.959
Satd. Flow (prot) 1527 0 0 1786 1652 0
Flt Permitted 0.987 0.959
Satd. Flow (perm) 1527 0 0 1786 1652 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1009 1972 678
Travel Time (s) 12.5 24.4 8.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 79 212 214 39 30 152
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 291 0 0 253 182 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2025
6: Zumwalt Ave & North Ave 07/08/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 73 195 197 36 28 140
Future Vol, veh/h 73 195 197 36 28 140
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 79 212 214 39 30 152
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 574 107 183 0 - 0
Stage 1 107 -----
Stage 2 467 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 480 948 1392 - - -
Stage 1 918 -----
Stage 2 631 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 405 948 1392 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 405 -----
Stage 1 774 -----
Stage 2 631 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v13.88 6.81 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1362 - 694 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.154 - 0.42 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.1 0 13.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - 2.1 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2025
7: S Buttonwillow Ave & E Springfield Ave 07/08/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 57 51 61 370 352 33
Future Volume (vph) 57 51 61 370 352 33
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.937 0.988
Flt Protected 0.974 0.993
Satd. Flow (prot) 1566 0 0 1850 1840 0
Flt Permitted 0.974 0.993
Satd. Flow (perm) 1566 0 0 1850 1840 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1753 2642 1310
Travel Time (s) 21.7 32.8 16.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 62 55 66 402 383 36
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 117 0 0 468 419 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2025
7: S Buttonwillow Ave & E Springfield Ave 07/08/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 57 51 61 370 352 33
Future Vol, veh/h 57 51 61 370 352 33
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 62 55 66 402 383 36
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 935 401 418 0 - 0
Stage 1 401 -----
Stage 2 535 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 294 649 1141 - - -
Stage 1 677 -----
Stage 2 587 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 272 649 1141 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 272 -----
Stage 1 626 -----
Stage 2 587 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 18.9 1.18 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 255 - 375 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.058 - 0.313 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4 0 18.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 1.3 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2025
8: S Buttonwillow Ave & Dinuba Ave 07/08/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 90 248 76 78 334 103 97 114 55 60 165 108 Future Volume (vph) 90 248 76 78 334 103 97 114 55 60 165 108 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.975 0.973 0.972 0.956
Flt Protected 0.989 0.992 0.982 0.991
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1796 0 0 1798 0 0 1778 0 0 1765 0
Flt Permitted 0.989 0.992 0.982 0.991
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1796 0 0 1798 0 0 1778 0 0 1765 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 4282 3376 788 2642
Travel Time (s) 53.1 41.9 9.8 32.8
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 Adj. Flow (vph) 98 270 83 85 363 112 105 124 60 65 179 117 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 451 0 0 560 0 0 289 0 0 361 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Roundabout
Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th Roundabout AM 2025
8: S Buttonwillow Ave & Dinuba Ave 07/08/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.3
Intersection LOS B
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 451 560 289 361
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 460 571 294 368
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 336 333 441 564
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 596 402 355 340
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.4 11.7 7.9 11.3
Approach LOS ABAB
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976
A (Intercept) 1380 1380 1380 1380
B (Slope) 1.02e-3 1.02e-3 1.02e-3 1.02e-3
Entry Flow, veh/h 460 571 294 368
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 980 983 880 776
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.980 0.981 0.982
Flow Entry, veh/h 451 560 289 361
Cap Entry, veh/h 960 963 864 762
V/C Ratio 0.470 0.581 0.334 0.474
Control Delay, s/veh 9.4 11.7 7.9 11.3

LOS ABAB
95th %tile Queue, veh 3413

Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2025+Project
1: N. East Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 372 56 43 460 36 21
Future Volume (vph) 372 56 43 460 36 21
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.982 0.950
Flt Protected 0.950 0.970
Satd. Flow (prot) 1829 0 1630 1863 1581 0
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.970
Satd. Flow (perm) 1829 0 1630 1863 1581 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 2176 1309 3105
Travel Time (s) 27.0 16.2 38.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 404 61 47 500 39 23
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 465 0 47 500 62 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 24 24 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2025+Project
1: N. East Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 372 56 43 460 36 21
Future Vol, veh/h 372 56 43 460 36 21
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 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 404 61 47 500 39 23
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 465 0 1028 435
Stage 1 - - - - 435 -
Stage 2 - - - - 593 -
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 - - 1096 - 259 621
Stage 1 - - - - 653 -
Stage 2 - - - - 552 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1096 - 248 621
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 248 -
Stage 1 - - - - 653 -
Stage 2 - - - - 528 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.72 19

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 319 - - 1096 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.194 - - 0.043 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 19 - - 8.4 -
HCM Lane LOS C - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - 0.1 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2025+Project
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 16 292 23 200 425 21 24 25 162 20 73 46 Future Volume (vph) 16 292 23 200 425 21 24 25 162 20 73 46 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 55 0 0 115 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 0.99
Frt 0.989 0.993 0.850 0.955
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.976 0.993
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3491 0 1630 1847 0 0 1818 1458 0 1755 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.860 0.954
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 3491 0 1630 1847 0 0 1602 1458 0 1686 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 9 4 176 28
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1309 2645 1456 513
Travel Time (s) 16.2 32.8 18.0 6.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 17 317 25 217 462 23 26 27 176 22 79 50 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 342 0 217 485 0 0 53 176 0 151 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 2 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2025+Project
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.6 22.0 8.6 20.6 20.0 20.0 20.0 24.5 24.5 Total Split (s) 12.0 31.0 29.0 48.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 13.3% 34.4% 32.2% 53.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Maximum Green (s) 7.4 26.4 24.4 43.4 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min Min
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 10.4 9.0 13.3 13.3
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 7.0 11.5 12.8 27.0 10.4 10.4 10.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.24 0.27 0.57 0.22 0.22 0.22
v/c Ratio 0.07 0.40 0.49 0.46 0.15 0.39 0.39
Control Delay (s/veh) 24.0 17.7 20.8 10.0 17.8 6.4 17.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 24.0 17.7 20.8 10.0 17.8 6.4 17.6

LOS C B C A B A B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 18.0 13.3 9.1 17.6
Approach LOS B B A B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 47.5
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.49
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 14.3 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary AM 2025+Project 2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 292 23 200 425 21 24 25 162 20 73 46 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 292 23 200 425 21 24 25 162 20 73 46 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 0.99 1.00 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 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 17 317 25 217 462 23 26 27 176 22 79 50 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 60 723 57 320 663 33 282 224 298 161 200 113 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.38 0.36 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 3328 261 1641 1764 88 540 1097 1460 141 978 554 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 17 168 174 217 0 485 53 0 176 151 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1777 1812 1641 0 1851 1637 0 1460 1673 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 2.6 2.6 3.8 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 2.6 2.6 3.8 0.0 6.9 0.7 0.0 3.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.05 0.49 1.00 0.15 0.33
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 386 394 320 0 696 506 0 298 474 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.28 0.44 0.44 0.68 0.00 0.70 0.10 0.00 0.59 0.32 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 419 1532 1562 1310 0 2601 1450 0 1212 1488 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.7 10.6 10.7 11.7 0.0 8.3 10.2 0.0 11.3 10.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.8 0.8 2.5 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 1.9 0.4 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 0.1 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 17.2 11.4 11.4 14.2 0.0 9.6 10.3 0.0 13.1 11.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B B B A B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 359 702 229 151
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.7 11.0 12.5 11.3
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.4 10.1 10.8 10.4 5.1 15.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.8 24.4 26.4 25.8 7.4 43.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 5.8 4.6 4.4 2.3 8.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.0 1.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 11.4
HCM 7th LOS B
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2025+Project
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 56 224 75 48 259 70 176 192 91 115 253 103 Future Volume (vph) 56 224 75 48 259 70 176 192 91 115 253 103 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Storage Length (ft) 250 0 200 110 130 200 80 90
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.962 0.850 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3405 0 1630 3539 1458 1630 3539 1458 1630 1863 1458 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 3405 0 1630 3539 1458 1630 3539 1458 1630 1863 1458 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 56 127 127 127
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 2645 1322 1321 4072
Travel Time (s) 32.8 16.4 16.4 50.5
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 Adj. Flow (vph) 61 243 82 52 282 76 191 209 99 125 275 112 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 61 325 0 52 282 76 191 209 99 125 275 112 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.5 35.7 8.5 35.7 35.7 8.5 31.3 31.3 8.5 31.3 31.3 Total Split (s) 8.5 35.7 8.5 35.7 35.7 14.0 34.2 34.2 11.6 31.8 31.8 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2025+Project
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Split (%) 9.4% 39.7% 9.4% 39.7% 39.7% 15.6% 38.0% 38.0% 12.9% 35.3% 35.3% Maximum Green (s) 4.0 31.2 4.0 31.2 31.2 9.5 29.7 29.7 7.1 27.3 27.3 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 24.2 24.2 24.2 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 4.0 15.5 4.0 13.7 13.7 9.6 30.1 30.1 7.2 27.6 27.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.21 0.05 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.41 0.41 0.10 0.38 0.38 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.42 0.58 0.43 0.20 0.89 0.14 0.15 0.78 0.39 0.18 Control Delay (s/veh) 74.2 22.2 63.8 27.4 2.3 75.2 15.5 3.0 68.2 20.5 4.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (s/veh) 74.2 22.2 63.8 27.4 2.3 75.2 15.5 3.0 68.2 20.5 4.2

LOS E C E C A E B A E C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 30.4 27.3 35.9 28.6
Approach LOS C C D C
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 73.2
Natural Cycle: 85
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.89
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 30.7 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary AM 2025+Project 3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 56 224 75 48 259 70 176 192 91 115 253 103 Future Volume (veh/h) 56 224 75 48 259 70 176 192 91 115 253 103 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 61 243 82 52 282 76 191 209 99 125 275 112 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 74 360 118 62 461 189 229 1628 669 155 773 603 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.46 0.46 0.09 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 2627 864 1641 3554 1460 1641 3554 1460 1641 1870 1460 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 61 162 163 52 282 76 191 209 99 125 275 112 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1777 1715 1641 1777 1460 1641 1777 1460 1641 1870 1460 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 5.7 6.0 2.1 5.0 3.2 7.5 2.2 2.6 4.9 6.7 3.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 5.7 6.0 2.1 5.0 3.2 7.5 2.2 2.6 4.9 6.7 3.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 74 243 235 62 461 189 229 1628 669 155 773 603 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.67 0.69 0.83 0.61 0.40 0.84 0.13 0.15 0.81 0.36 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 99 839 810 99 1678 689 236 1628 669 176 773 603 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 31.3 27.1 27.2 31.6 27.2 26.4 27.7 10.3 10.4 29.3 13.3 12.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 31.7 3.1 3.6 27.0 1.3 1.4 21.7 0.2 0.5 21.2 1.3 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 2.3 2.4 1.2 1.9 1.0 3.9 0.7 0.7 2.6 2.5 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 63.0 30.2 30.8 58.6 28.5 27.8 49.4 10.5 10.9 50.5 14.6 13.0 LnGrp LOS E C C E C C D B B D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 386 410 499 512
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.6 32.2 25.4 23.0
Approach LOS D C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.7 34.8 7.0 13.6 13.7 31.8 7.5 13.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.1 29.7 4.0 31.2 9.5 27.3 4.0 31.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.9 4.6 4.1 8.0 9.5 8.7 4.4 7.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 28.5
HCM 7th LOS C
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2025+Project
4: Tobu Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 430 0 2 502 0 6
Future Volume (vph) 430 0 2 502 0 6
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.865
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 0 0 1863 1484 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 0 0 1863 1484 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1322 1305 869
Travel Time (s) 16.4 16.2 10.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 467 0 2 546 0 7
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 467 0 0 548 7 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2025+Project
4: Tobu Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 430 0 2 502 0 6
Future Vol, veh/h 430 0 2 502 0 6
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 467 0 2 546 0 7
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 467 0 1017 467
Stage 1 - - - - 467 -
Stage 2 - - - - 550 -
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 - - 1094 - 263 596
Stage 1 - - - - 631 -
Stage 2 - - - - 578 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1094 - 262 596
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 262 -
Stage 1 - - - - 631 -
Stage 2 - - - - 576 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.03 11.11

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 596 - - 7 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 - - 0.002 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 11.1 - - 8.3 0
HCM Lane LOS B - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2025+Project
5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 14 0 17 14 0 24 18 442 4 9 371 11
Future Volume (vph) 14 0 17 14 0 24 18 442 4 9 371 11
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.926 0.914 0.999 0.996
Flt Protected 0.978 0.982 0.998 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1687 0 0 1672 0 0 1857 0 0 1853 0
Flt Permitted 0.978 0.982 0.998 0.999
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1687 0 0 1672 0 0 1857 0 0 1853 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1588 698 1310 1321
Travel Time (s) 19.7 8.7 16.2 16.4
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 Adj. Flow (vph) 15 0 18 15 0 26 20 480 4 10 403 12
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 33 0 0 41 0 0 504 0 0 425 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2025+Project
5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
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 14 0 17 14 0 24 18 442 4 9 371 11
Future Vol, veh/h 14 0 17 14 0 24 18 442 4 9 371 11
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 15 0 18 15 0 26 20 480 4 10 403 12
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 948 953 409 945 957 483 415 0 0 485 0 0 Stage 1 429 429 - 522 522 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 520 524 - 423 435 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 241 259 642 242 258 584 1144 - - 1078 - - Stage 1 604 584 - 538 531 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 540 530 - 609 581 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 222 250 642 227 249 584 1144 - - 1078 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 222 250 - 227 249 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 597 577 - 525 519 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 503 518 - 584 574 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v16.52 15.96 0.32 0.19

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 70 - - 346 370 41 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - - 0.097 0.112 0.009 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 0 - 16.5 16 8.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - C C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.3 0.4 0 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2025+Project
6: Zumwalt Ave & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 76 196 198 36 28 142
Future Volume (vph) 76 196 198 36 28 142
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.903 0.887
Flt Protected 0.986 0.959
Satd. Flow (prot) 1528 0 0 1786 1652 0
Flt Permitted 0.986 0.959
Satd. Flow (perm) 1528 0 0 1786 1652 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1920 1972 678
Travel Time (s) 23.8 24.4 8.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 83 213 215 39 30 154
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 296 0 0 254 184 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2025+Project
6: Zumwalt Ave & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 8.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 76 196 198 36 28 142
Future Vol, veh/h 76 196 198 36 28 142
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 83 213 215 39 30 154
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 577 108 185 0 - 0
Stage 1 108 - - - - -
Stage 2 470 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 478 946 1390 - - -
Stage 1 917 - - - - -
Stage 2 629 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 403 946 1390 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 403 - - - - -
Stage 1 772 - - - - -
Stage 2 629 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v14.14 6.82 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1360 - 687 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.155 - 0.43 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.1 0 14.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - 2.2 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2025+Project
7: S Buttonwillow Ave & E Springfield Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 57 51 61 388 387 33
Future Volume (vph) 57 51 61 388 387 33
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.937 0.989
Flt Protected 0.974 0.993
Satd. Flow (prot) 1566 0 0 1850 1842 0
Flt Permitted 0.974 0.993
Satd. Flow (perm) 1566 0 0 1850 1842 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1753 2642 1310
Travel Time (s) 21.7 32.8 16.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 62 55 66 422 421 36
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 117 0 0 488 457 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2025+Project
7: S Buttonwillow Ave & E Springfield Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 57 51 61 388 387 33
Future Vol, veh/h 57 51 61 388 387 33
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 62 55 66 422 421 36
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 993 439 457 0 - 0
Stage 1 439 - - - - -
Stage 2 554 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 272 618 1104 - - -
Stage 1 650 - - - - -
Stage 2 575 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 251 618 1104 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 251 - - - - -
Stage 1 599 - - - - -
Stage 2 575 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v20.48 1.15 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 245 - 349 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.06 - 0.337 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.5 0 20.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 1.5 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2025+Project
8: S Buttonwillow Ave & Dinuba Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 98 248 76 78 334 104 97 120 55 60 190 127 Future Volume (vph) 98 248 76 78 334 104 97 120 55 60 190 127 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.976 0.973 0.973 0.955
Flt Protected 0.989 0.992 0.983 0.992
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1798 0 0 1798 0 0 1782 0 0 1765 0
Flt Permitted 0.989 0.992 0.983 0.992
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1798 0 0 1798 0 0 1782 0 0 1765 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 4282 3376 788 2642
Travel Time (s) 53.1 41.9 9.8 32.8
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 Adj. Flow (vph) 107 270 83 85 363 113 105 130 60 65 207 138 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 460 0 0 561 0 0 295 0 0 410 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Roundabout
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th Roundabout AM 2025+Project
8: S Buttonwillow Ave & Dinuba Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.0
Intersection LOS B
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 460 561 295 410
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 469 572 301 418
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 364 349 450 564
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 618 402 383 357
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.0 12.1 8.1 12.8
Approach LOS B B A B
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976
A (Intercept) 1380 1380 1380 1380
B (Slope) 1.02e-3 1.02e-3 1.02e-3 1.02e-3
Entry Flow, veh/h 469 572 301 418
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 952 967 872 776
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.980 0.981 0.981
Flow Entry, veh/h 460 561 295 410
Cap Entry, veh/h 933 948 856 761
V/C Ratio 0.493 0.592 0.345 0.538
Control Delay, s/veh 10.0 12.1 8.1 12.8

LOS B B A B
95th %tile Queue, veh 3 4 2 3
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2025+Project
9: Project Entrance & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 12 3 1 38 3
Future Volume (vph) 1 12 3 1 38 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.875 0.991
Flt Protected 0.964 0.955
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 0 0 1796 1763 0
Flt Permitted 0.964 0.955
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 0 0 1796 1763 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 698 1920 515
Travel Time (s) 8.7 23.8 6.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 1 13 3 1 41 3
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 14 0 0 4 44 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 0 0 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2025+Project
9: Project Entrance & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 12 3 1 38 3
Future Vol, veh/h 1 12 3 1 38 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 1 13 3 1 41 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 14 0 15 8
Stage 1 - - - - 8 -
Stage 2 - - - - 8 -
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 - - 1604 - 1003 1075
Stage 1 - - - - 1015 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1015 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1604 - 1001 1075
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 1001 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1015 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1013 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 5.44 8.74

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 1006 - - 1350 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 - - 0.002 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.7 - - 7.2 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030
1: N. East Ave & Manning Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 429 65 43 527 37 20
Future Volume (vph) 429 65 43 527 37 20
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.982 0.952
Flt Protected 0.950 0.969
Satd. Flow (prot) 1829 0 1630 1863 1583 0
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.969
Satd. Flow (perm) 1829 0 1630 1863 1583 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 2176 1309 3105
Travel Time (s) 27.0 16.2 38.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 466 71 47 573 40 22
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 537 0 47 573 62 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 24 24 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2030
1: N. East Ave & Manning Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 429 65 43 527 37 20
Future Vol, veh/h 429 65 43 527 37 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 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 466 71 47 573 40 22
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 537 0 1168 502
Stage 1 - - - - 502 -
Stage 2 - - - - 666 -
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 - - 1031 - 214 570
Stage 1 - - - - 608 -
Stage 2 - - - - 511 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1031 - 204 570
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 204 -
Stage 1 - - - - 608 -
Stage 2 - - - - 487 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.65 22.82

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 263 - - 1031 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.235 - - 0.045 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 22.8 - - 8.7 -
HCM Lane LOS C - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 - - 0.1 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 19 338 27 230 471 20 26 27 173 20 76 48 Future Volume (vph) 19 338 27 230 471 20 26 27 173 20 76 48 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 55 0 0 115 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 0.99
Frt 0.989 0.994 0.850 0.955
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.976 0.993
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3491 0 1630 1849 0 0 1818 1458 0 1755 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.869 0.956
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 3491 0 1630 1849 0 0 1619 1458 0 1689 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 9 3 188 27
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1309 2645 1456 513
Travel Time (s) 16.2 32.8 18.0 6.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 21 367 29 250 512 22 28 29 188 22 83 52 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 21 396 0 250 534 0 0 57 188 0 157 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 2 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.6 22.0 8.6 20.6 20.0 20.0 20.0 24.5 24.5 Total Split (s) 13.0 31.0 30.0 48.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Total Split (%) 14.4% 34.4% 33.3% 53.3% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% Maximum Green (s) 8.4 26.4 25.4 43.4 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min Min
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 10.4 9.0 13.3 13.3
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 7.3 12.7 14.3 29.7 10.8 10.8 10.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.25 0.28 0.59 0.21 0.21 0.21
v/c Ratio 0.09 0.45 0.54 0.49 0.17 0.41 0.41
Control Delay (s/veh) 26.0 18.9 22.1 10.1 19.8 6.9 19.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 26.0 18.9 22.1 10.1 19.8 6.9 19.9

LOS C B C B B A B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 19.2 13.9 9.9 19.9
Approach LOS B B A B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 50.7
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.54
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 15.3 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary AM 2030
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 19 338 27 230 471 20 26 27 173 20 76 48 Future Volume (veh/h) 19 338 27 230 471 20 26 27 173 20 76 48 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 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 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 21 367 29 250 512 22 28 29 188 22 83 52 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 63 749 59 359 720 31 272 222 301 147 204 114 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.41 0.39 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 3327 261 1641 1778 76 559 1078 1460 132 989 555 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 21 195 201 250 0 534 57 0 188 157 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1777 1812 1641 0 1854 1637 0 1460 1676 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 3.3 3.3 4.8 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 3.3 3.3 4.8 0.0 8.2 0.9 0.0 4.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.04 0.49 1.00 0.14 0.33
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 63 400 408 359 0 751 494 0 301 465 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.49 0.49 0.70 0.00 0.71 0.12 0.00 0.63 0.34 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 431 1401 1429 1246 0 2382 1281 0 1066 1315 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.0 11.5 11.6 12.3 0.0 8.5 11.1 0.0 12.4 11.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.0 0.9 0.9 2.4 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 2.1 0.4 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 0.2 0.8 0.9 1.3 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 19.0 12.5 12.5 14.8 0.0 9.8 11.2 0.0 14.5 12.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B B B A B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 417 784 245 157
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.8 11.4 13.8 12.3
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 11.5 11.7 11.0 5.3 17.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.8 25.4 26.4 24.8 8.4 43.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 6.8 5.3 4.7 2.4 10.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 0.8 1.3 0.5 0.0 2.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 12.2
HCM 7th LOS B
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 66 263 77 58 322 87 153 204 99 127 278 114 Future Volume (vph) 66 263 77 58 322 87 153 204 99 127 278 114 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Storage Length (ft) 250 0 200 110 130 200 80 90
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96
Frt 0.966 0.850 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3394 0 1630 3539 1458 1630 3539 1458 1630 1863 1458 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 3394 0 1630 3539 1430 1630 3539 1409 1630 1863 1407 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 32 136 136 177
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 2645 965 1321 4072
Travel Time (s) 32.8 12.0 16.4 50.5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 2 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 72 286 84 63 350 95 166 222 108 138 302 124 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 72 370 0 63 350 95 166 222 108 138 302 124 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.5 35.7 8.5 35.7 35.7 8.5 31.3 31.3 8.5 31.3 31.3 Total Split (s) 28.0 39.0 26.0 37.0 37.0 29.0 33.0 33.0 22.0 26.0 26.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 32.5% 21.7% 30.8% 30.8% 24.2% 27.5% 27.5% 18.3% 21.7% 21.7% Maximum Green (s) 23.5 34.5 21.5 32.5 32.5 24.5 28.5 28.5 17.5 21.5 21.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 24.2 24.2 24.2 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 9.4 15.9 8.9 15.5 15.5 14.1 30.3 30.3 12.2 28.5 28.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.19 0.11 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.36 0.36 0.15 0.34 0.34 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.55 0.36 0.53 0.25 0.60 0.17 0.18 0.58 0.47 0.21 Control Delay (s/veh) 45.3 31.7 45.2 34.6 3.6 44.5 22.6 3.7 46.9 29.7 2.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (s/veh) 45.3 31.7 45.2 34.6 3.6 44.5 22.6 3.7 46.9 29.7 2.4

LOS D C D C A D C A D C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 33.9 30.1 25.8 27.9
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 83.3
Natural Cycle: 85
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.60
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 29.3 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary AM 2030
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 66 263 77 58 322 87 153 204 99 127 278 114 Future Volume (veh/h) 66 263 77 58 322 87 153 204 99 127 278 114 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 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 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 72 286 84 63 350 95 166 222 108 138 302 124 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 92 486 139 79 613 246 210 1449 579 175 723 548 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.41 0.41 0.11 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 2698 774 1641 3554 1426 1641 3554 1419 1641 1870 1419 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 72 186 184 63 350 95 166 222 108 138 302 124 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1777 1695 1641 1777 1426 1641 1777 1419 1641 1870 1419 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 6.7 7.0 2.7 6.3 3.0 6.9 2.8 3.4 5.7 8.3 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 6.7 7.0 2.7 6.3 3.0 6.9 2.8 3.4 5.7 8.3 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 92 320 305 79 613 246 210 1449 579 175 723 548 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.58 0.60 0.80 0.57 0.39 0.79 0.15 0.19 0.79 0.42 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 551 877 837 505 1652 663 575 1449 579 411 723 548 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.6 26.2 26.4 32.9 26.6 13.1 29.6 13.1 13.3 30.5 15.7 7.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.6 1.7 1.9 16.3 0.8 1.0 6.6 0.2 0.7 7.7 1.8 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 2.6 2.6 1.3 2.4 1.3 2.8 0.9 1.0 2.4 3.2 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 46.2 27.9 28.3 49.2 27.4 14.1 36.2 13.3 14.0 38.2 17.5 8.0 LnGrp LOS D C C D C B D B B D B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 442 508 496 564
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.0 27.6 21.1 20.5
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.9 33.0 7.9 17.1 13.4 31.5 8.4 16.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.5 28.5 21.5 34.5 24.5 21.5 23.5 32.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.7 5.4 4.7 9.0 8.9 10.3 5.0 8.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 1.2 0.1 1.3 0.4 1.2 0.2 1.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 24.8
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030
4: Tobu Ave & Manning Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 440 0 0 514 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 440 0 0 514 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 0 0 1863 1716 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 0 0 1863 1716 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 965 771 1109
Travel Time (s) 12.0 9.6 13.7
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 478 0 0 559 0 0
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 478 0 0 559 0 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2030
4: Tobu Ave & Manning Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 440 0 0 514 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 440 0 0 514 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 478 0 0 559 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 478 0 1037 478
Stage 1 - - - - 478 -
Stage 2 - - - - 559 -
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 - - 1084 - 256 587
Stage 1 - - - - 623 -
Stage 2 - - - - 573 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1084 - 256 587
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 256 -
Stage 1 - - - - 623 -
Stage 2 - - - - 573 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 1084 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 0 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030
5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 14 17 18 462 407 11
Future Volume (vph) 14 17 18 462 407 11
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.926 0.996
Flt Protected 0.978 0.998
Satd. Flow (prot) 1554 0 0 1859 1855 0
Flt Permitted 0.978 0.998
Satd. Flow (perm) 1554 0 0 1859 1855 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1588 1310 1321
Travel Time (s) 19.7 16.2 16.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 15 18 20 502 442 12
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 0 0 522 454 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2030
5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 17 18 462 407 11
Future Vol, veh/h 14 17 18 462 407 11
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 15 18 20 502 442 12
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 990 448 454 0 - 0
Stage 1 448 - - - - -
Stage 2 541 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 273 610 1106 - - -
Stage 1 643 - - - - -
Stage 2 583 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 267 610 1106 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 267 - - - - -
Stage 1 628 - - - - -
Stage 2 583 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v15.22 0.31 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 68 - 386 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.018 - 0.087 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 0 15.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.3 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030
6: Zumwalt Ave & North Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 85 228 259 47 30 151
Future Volume (vph) 85 228 259 47 30 151
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.902 0.888
Flt Protected 0.987 0.959
Satd. Flow (prot) 1527 0 0 1786 1654 0
Flt Permitted 0.987 0.959
Satd. Flow (perm) 1527 0 0 1786 1654 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1009 1972 678
Travel Time (s) 12.5 24.4 8.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 92 248 282 51 33 164
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 340 0 0 333 197 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2030
6: Zumwalt Ave & North Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 9.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 85 228 259 47 30 151
Future Vol, veh/h 85 228 259 47 30 151
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 92 248 282 51 33 164
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 729 115 197 0 - 0
Stage 1 115 - - - - -
Stage 2 614 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 390 938 1376 - - -
Stage 1 910 - - - - -
Stage 2 540 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 308 938 1376 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 308 - - - - -
Stage 1 719 - - - - -
Stage 2 540 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v18.42 7.02 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1337 - 603 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.205 - 0.564 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 0 18.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - 3.5 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030
7: S Buttonwillow Ave & E Springfield Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 57 51 61 409 389 33
Future Volume (vph) 57 51 61 409 389 33
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.937 0.989
Flt Protected 0.974 0.994
Satd. Flow (prot) 1566 0 0 1852 1842 0
Flt Permitted 0.974 0.994
Satd. Flow (perm) 1566 0 0 1852 1842 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1753 2642 1310
Travel Time (s) 21.7 32.8 16.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 62 55 66 445 423 36
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 117 0 0 511 459 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2030
7: S Buttonwillow Ave & E Springfield Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 57 51 61 409 389 33
Future Vol, veh/h 57 51 61 409 389 33
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 62 55 66 445 423 36
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1018 441 459 0 - 0
Stage 1 441 - - - - -
Stage 2 577 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 263 616 1102 - - -
Stage 1 649 - - - - -
Stage 2 562 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 242 616 1102 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 242 - - - - -
Stage 1 597 - - - - -
Stage 2 562 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v21.12 1.1 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 234 - 339 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.06 - 0.346 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.5 0 21.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 1.5 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030
8: S Buttonwillow Ave & Dinuba Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 92 254 78 80 342 106 107 126 61 66 182 119 Future Volume (vph) 92 254 78 80 342 106 107 126 61 66 182 119 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.975 0.973 0.972 0.956
Flt Protected 0.989 0.992 0.982 0.991
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1796 0 0 1798 0 0 1778 0 0 1765 0
Flt Permitted 0.989 0.992 0.982 0.991
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1796 0 0 1798 0 0 1778 0 0 1765 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 4282 3376 788 2642
Travel Time (s) 53.1 41.9 9.8 32.8
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 Adj. Flow (vph) 100 276 85 87 372 115 116 137 66 72 198 129 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 461 0 0 574 0 0 319 0 0 399 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Roundabout
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th Roundabout AM 2030
8: S Buttonwillow Ave & Dinuba Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.3
Intersection LOS B
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 461 574 319 399
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 471 585 325 407
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 364 360 457 586
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 629 422 378 359
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.1 12.8 8.6 13.0
Approach LOS B B A B
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976
A (Intercept) 1380 1380 1380 1380
B (Slope) 1.02e-3 1.02e-3 1.02e-3 1.02e-3
Entry Flow, veh/h 471 585 325 407
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 952 956 866 759
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.980 0.982 0.980
Flow Entry, veh/h 461 574 319 399
Cap Entry, veh/h 933 937 850 744
V/C Ratio 0.495 0.612 0.375 0.536
Control Delay, s/veh 10.1 12.8 8.6 13.0

LOS B B A B
95th %tile Queue, veh 3 4 2 3

Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030+Project
1: N. East Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 434 65 50 543 37 22
Future Volume (vph) 434 65 50 543 37 22
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.982 0.949
Flt Protected 0.950 0.970
Satd. Flow (prot) 1829 0 1630 1863 1579 0
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.970
Satd. Flow (perm) 1829 0 1630 1863 1579 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 2176 1309 3105
Travel Time (s) 27.0 16.2 38.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 472 71 54 590 40 24
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 543 0 54 590 64 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 24 24 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2030+Project
1: N. East Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 434 65 50 543 37 22
Future Vol, veh/h 434 65 50 543 37 22
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 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 472 71 54 590 40 24
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 542 0 1206 507
Stage 1 - - - - 507 -
Stage 2 - - - - 699 -
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 - - 1026 - 203 566
Stage 1 - - - - 605 -
Stage 2 - - - - 493 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1026 - 192 566
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 192 -
Stage 1 - - - - 605 -
Stage 2 - - - - 467 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.73 23.82

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 255 - - 1026 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.252 - - 0.053 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 23.8 - - 8.7 -
HCM Lane LOS C - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 - - 0.2 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030+Project
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 19 345 27 234 494 26 26 27 174 21 76 48 Future Volume (vph) 19 345 27 234 494 26 26 27 174 21 76 48 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 55 0 0 115 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 0.99
Frt 0.989 0.993 0.850 0.956
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.976 0.993
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3491 0 1630 1846 0 0 1818 1458 0 1754 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.853 0.956
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 3491 0 1630 1846 0 0 1589 1458 0 1689 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 10 3 189 17
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1309 2645 1456 513
Travel Time (s) 16.2 32.8 18.0 6.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 21 375 29 254 537 28 28 29 189 23 83 52 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 21 404 0 254 565 0 0 57 189 0 158 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 2 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030+Project
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.6 22.0 8.6 20.6 20.0 20.0 20.0 24.5 24.5 Total Split (s) 40.0 67.0 36.0 63.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Total Split (%) 33.3% 55.8% 30.0% 52.5% 14.2% 14.2% 14.2% 14.2% 14.2% Maximum Green (s) 35.4 62.4 31.4 58.4 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min Min
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 10.4 9.0 13.3 13.3
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 7.3 13.5 14.9 30.8 12.4 12.4 12.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.25 0.28 0.58 0.23 0.23 0.23
v/c Ratio 0.09 0.46 0.56 0.53 0.15 0.39 0.39
Control Delay (s/veh) 26.9 19.8 23.1 11.1 19.8 6.6 20.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 26.9 19.8 23.1 11.1 19.8 6.6 20.7

LOS C B C B B A C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.1 14.8 9.7 20.7
Approach LOS C B A C
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 53.5
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.56
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 16.0 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary AM 2030+Project 2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 19 345 27 234 494 26 26 27 174 21 76 48 Future Volume (veh/h) 19 345 27 234 494 26 26 27 174 21 76 48 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.99 1.00 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 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 21 375 29 254 537 28 28 29 189 23 83 52 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 63 766 59 366 729 38 266 215 288 148 194 109 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.41 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 3334 256 1641 1759 92 556 1089 1460 141 980 550 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 21 199 205 254 0 565 57 0 189 158 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1777 1813 1641 0 1851 1645 0 1460 1671 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 3.3 3.4 4.9 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 3.3 3.4 4.9 0.0 8.8 0.9 0.0 4.1 2.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.05 0.49 1.00 0.15 0.33
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 63 408 417 366 0 767 481 0 288 450 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.49 0.49 0.69 0.00 0.74 0.12 0.00 0.66 0.35 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1721 3262 3329 1530 0 3182 754 0 553 743 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.1 11.5 11.5 12.3 0.0 8.5 11.4 0.0 12.7 12.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.0 0.9 0.9 2.4 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.0 2.5 0.5 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 0.2 0.8 0.9 1.3 0.0 1.6 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 19.1 12.4 12.4 14.6 0.0 9.9 11.5 0.0 15.2 12.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B B B A B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 425 819 246 158
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.7 11.4 14.4 12.6
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.8 11.7 11.9 10.8 5.3 18.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.8 31.4 62.4 12.8 35.4 58.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.1 6.9 5.4 4.7 2.4 10.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.9 1.4 0.3 0.0 2.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 12.3
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030+Project
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 66 263 87 59 322 87 191 211 100 127 279 114 Future Volume (vph) 66 263 87 59 322 87 191 211 100 127 279 114 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Storage Length (ft) 250 0 200 110 130 200 80 90
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.963 0.850 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3408 0 1630 3539 1458 1630 3539 1458 1630 1863 1458 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 3408 0 1630 3539 1458 1630 3539 1458 1630 1863 1458 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 36 95 136 136
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 2645 1322 1321 4072
Travel Time (s) 32.8 16.4 16.4 50.5
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 Adj. Flow (vph) 72 286 95 64 350 95 208 229 109 138 303 124 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 72 381 0 64 350 95 208 229 109 138 303 124 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.5 35.7 8.5 35.7 35.7 8.5 31.3 31.3 8.5 31.3 31.3 Total Split (s) 11.0 35.7 22.0 46.7 46.7 28.0 31.0 31.0 31.3 34.3 34.3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030+Project
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Split (%) 9.2% 29.8% 18.3% 38.9% 38.9% 23.3% 25.8% 25.8% 26.1% 28.6% 28.6% Maximum Green (s) 6.5 31.2 17.5 42.2 42.2 23.5 26.5 26.5 26.8 29.8 29.8 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 24.2 24.2 24.2 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 9.4 19.1 9.2 16.3 16.3 16.5 27.4 27.4 19.5 30.5 30.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.21 0.10 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.30 0.30 0.21 0.33 0.33 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.51 0.39 0.55 0.28 0.71 0.22 0.20 0.40 0.49 0.21 Control Delay (s/veh) 49.9 32.8 49.0 37.8 9.4 50.3 27.7 4.4 36.1 30.7 5.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (s/veh) 49.9 32.8 49.0 37.8 9.4 50.3 27.7 4.4 36.1 30.7 5.6

LOS D C D D A D C A D C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 35.5 33.9 31.6 26.5
Approach LOS D C C C
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 91.1
Natural Cycle: 85
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.71
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 31.7 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary AM 2030+Project 3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 66 263 87 59 322 87 191 211 100 127 279 114 Future Volume (veh/h) 66 263 87 59 322 87 191 211 100 127 279 114 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 72 286 95 64 350 95 208 229 109 138 303 124 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 90 396 129 80 515 211 254 1273 523 327 753 588 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.36 0.36 0.20 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 2635 857 1641 3554 1460 1641 3554 1460 1641 1870 1460 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 72 191 190 64 350 95 208 229 109 138 303 124 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1777 1716 1641 1777 1460 1641 1777 1460 1641 1870 1460 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 7.6 7.8 2.9 6.9 4.4 9.1 3.3 2.8 5.4 8.5 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 7.6 7.8 2.9 6.9 4.4 9.1 3.3 2.8 5.4 8.5 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 90 267 258 80 515 211 254 1273 523 327 753 588 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.71 0.74 0.80 0.68 0.45 0.82 0.18 0.21 0.42 0.40 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 144 749 724 388 2027 833 521 1273 523 594 753 588 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 34.6 29.9 30.0 34.8 30.0 28.9 30.3 16.3 8.9 25.9 15.8 7.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.2 3.5 4.1 16.0 1.6 1.5 6.5 0.3 0.9 0.9 1.6 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 3.1 3.2 1.4 2.7 1.5 3.6 1.2 1.2 2.0 3.3 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 49.8 33.5 34.1 50.8 31.6 30.4 36.7 16.6 9.8 26.8 17.4 8.0 LnGrp LOS D C C D C C D B A C B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 453 509 546 565
Approach Delay, s/veh 36.3 33.8 22.9 17.6
Approach LOS D C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.2 31.0 8.1 15.6 15.9 34.3 8.5 15.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.8 26.5 17.5 31.2 23.5 29.8 6.5 42.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 5.3 4.9 9.8 11.1 10.5 5.2 8.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 1.2 0.1 1.3 0.5 1.4 0.0 1.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 27.1
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030+Project
4: Tobu Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 441 0 2 515 0 6
Future Volume (vph) 441 0 2 515 0 6
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.865
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 0 0 1863 1484 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 0 0 1863 1484 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1322 1305 869
Travel Time (s) 16.4 16.2 10.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 479 0 2 560 0 7
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 479 0 0 562 7 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2030+Project
4: Tobu Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 441 0 2 515 0 6
Future Vol, veh/h 441 0 2 515 0 6
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 479 0 2 560 0 7
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 479 0 1043 479
Stage 1 - - - - 479 -
Stage 2 - - - - 564 -
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 - - 1083 - 254 586
Stage 1 - - - - 623 -
Stage 2 - - - - 569 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1083 - 253 586
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 253 -
Stage 1 - - - - 623 -
Stage 2 - - - - 568 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.03 11.21

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 586 - - 7 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 - - 0.002 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 11.2 - - 8.3 0
HCM Lane LOS B - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030+Project
5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 14 0 17 17 0 26 18 486 4 10 409 11 Future Volume (vph) 14 0 17 17 0 26 18 486 4 10 409 11
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.926 0.918 0.999 0.997
Flt Protected 0.978 0.981 0.998 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1687 0 0 1678 0 0 1857 0 0 1855 0
Flt Permitted 0.978 0.981 0.998 0.999
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1687 0 0 1678 0 0 1857 0 0 1855 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1588 698 1310 1321
Travel Time (s) 19.7 8.7 16.2 16.4
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 Adj. Flow (vph) 15 0 18 18 0 28 20 528 4 11 445 12
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 33 0 0 46 0 0 552 0 0 468 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2030+Project
5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 0 17 17 0 26 18 486 4 10 409 11
Future Vol, veh/h 14 0 17 17 0 26 18 486 4 10 409 11
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 15 0 18 18 0 28 20 528 4 11 445 12
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1040 1044 451 1036 1048 530 457 0 0 533 0 0 Stage 1 472 472 - 570 570 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 567 572 - 466 478 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 208 229 609 210 228 549 1104 - - 1035 - - Stage 1 572 559 - 507 506 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 508 504 - 577 555 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 190 220 609 195 219 549 1104 - - 1035 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 190 220 - 195 219 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 564 551 - 494 493 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 470 492 - 551 548 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v18.26 18.16 0.29 0.2

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 64 - - 305 320 42 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.018 - - 0.11 0.146 0.011 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 0 - 18.3 18.2 8.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - C C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.4 0.5 0 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030+Project
6: Zumwalt Ave & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 86 228 259 47 30 152
Future Volume (vph) 86 228 259 47 30 152
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.902 0.887
Flt Protected 0.987 0.959
Satd. Flow (prot) 1527 0 0 1786 1652 0
Flt Permitted 0.987 0.959
Satd. Flow (perm) 1527 0 0 1786 1652 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1920 1972 678
Travel Time (s) 23.8 24.4 8.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 93 248 282 51 33 165
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 341 0 0 333 198 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2030+Project
6: Zumwalt Ave & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 10
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 86 228 259 47 30 152
Future Vol, veh/h 86 228 259 47 30 152
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 93 248 282 51 33 165
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 729 115 198 0 - 0
Stage 1 115 - - - - -
Stage 2 614 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 390 937 1375 - - -
Stage 1 910 - - - - -
Stage 2 540 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 308 937 1375 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 308 - - - - -
Stage 1 718 - - - - -
Stage 2 540 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v18.59 7.02 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1336 - 601 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.205 - 0.568 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 0 18.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - 3.6 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030+Project
7: S Buttonwillow Ave & E Springfield Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 57 51 61 427 427 33
Future Volume (vph) 57 51 61 427 427 33
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.937 0.990
Flt Protected 0.974 0.994
Satd. Flow (prot) 1566 0 0 1852 1844 0
Flt Permitted 0.974 0.994
Satd. Flow (perm) 1566 0 0 1852 1844 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1753 2642 1310
Travel Time (s) 21.7 32.8 16.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 62 55 66 464 464 36
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 117 0 0 530 500 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2030+Project
7: S Buttonwillow Ave & E Springfield Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 57 51 61 427 427 33
Future Vol, veh/h 57 51 61 427 427 33
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 62 55 66 464 464 36
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1079 482 500 0 - 0
Stage 1 482 - - - - -
Stage 2 597 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 242 584 1064 - - -
Stage 1 621 - - - - -
Stage 2 550 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 222 584 1064 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 222 - - - - -
Stage 1 569 - - - - -
Stage 2 550 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v23.21 1.08 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 225 - 313 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.062 - 0.375 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.6 0 23.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 1.7 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030+Project
8: S Buttonwillow Ave & Dinuba Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 100 254 78 80 342 107 107 132 61 67 209 138 Future Volume (vph) 100 254 78 80 342 107 107 132 61 67 209 138 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.976 0.973 0.973 0.955
Flt Protected 0.989 0.992 0.982 0.992
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1798 0 0 1798 0 0 1780 0 0 1765 0
Flt Permitted 0.989 0.992 0.982 0.992
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1798 0 0 1798 0 0 1780 0 0 1765 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 4282 3376 788 2642
Travel Time (s) 53.1 41.9 9.8 32.8
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 Adj. Flow (vph) 109 276 85 87 372 116 116 143 66 73 227 150 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 470 0 0 575 0 0 325 0 0 450 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Roundabout
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th Roundabout AM 2030+Project
8: S Buttonwillow Ave & Dinuba Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.3
Intersection LOS B
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 470 575 325 450
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 480 586 331 459
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 395 375 467 586
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 650 423 408 375
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.8 13.2 8.9 15.0
Approach LOS B B A B
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976
A (Intercept) 1380 1380 1380 1380
B (Slope) 1.02e-3 1.02e-3 1.02e-3 1.02e-3
Entry Flow, veh/h 480 586 331 459
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 922 941 857 759
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.980 0.982 0.981
Flow Entry, veh/h 470 575 325 450
Cap Entry, veh/h 904 923 842 745
V/C Ratio 0.520 0.623 0.386 0.605
Control Delay, s/veh 10.8 13.2 8.9 15.0

LOS B B A B
95th %tile Queue, veh 3 4 2 4
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2030+Project
9: Project Entrance & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 15 0 1 43 0
Future Volume (vph) 1 15 0 1 43 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.873
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1626 0 0 1863 1770 0
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1626 0 0 1863 1770 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 698 1920 515
Travel Time (s) 8.7 23.8 6.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 1 16 0 1 47 0
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 0 0 1 47 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 0 0 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2030+Project
9: Project Entrance & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.3
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 15 0 1 43 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1 15 0 1 43 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 1 16 0 1 47 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 17 0 10 9
Stage 1 - - - - 9 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1 -
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 - - 1600 - 1010 1072
Stage 1 - - - - 1014 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1022 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1600 - 1010 1072
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 1010 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1014 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1022 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0 8.74

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 1010 - - 1600 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.046 - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.7 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045
1: N. East Ave & Manning Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 685 105 71 878 41 22
Future Volume (vph) 685 105 71 878 41 22
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.982 0.953
Flt Protected 0.950 0.968
Satd. Flow (prot) 1829 0 1630 1863 1583 0
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.968
Satd. Flow (perm) 1829 0 1630 1863 1583 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 2176 1309 3105
Travel Time (s) 27.0 16.2 38.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 745 114 77 954 45 24
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 859 0 77 954 69 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 24 24 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2045
1: N. East Ave & Manning Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 685 105 71 878 41 22
Future Vol, veh/h 685 105 71 878 41 22
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 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 745 114 77 954 45 24
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 859 0 1910 802
Stage 1 - - - - 802 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1109 -
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 - - 782 - 75 384
Stage 1 - - - - 441 -
Stage 2 - - - - 316 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 782 - 68 384
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 68 -
Stage 1 - - - - 441 -
Stage 2 - - - - 285 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.76 107.95

HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 95 - - 782 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.722 - - 0.099 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 108 - - 10.1 -
HCM Lane LOS F - - B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 3.7 - - 0.3 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 32 564 46 371 761 32 32 34 217 22 84 53 Future Volume (vph) 32 564 46 371 761 32 32 34 217 22 84 53 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 55 0 0 115 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 0.99
Frt 0.989 0.994 0.850 0.955
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.976 0.993
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3491 0 1630 1849 0 0 1818 1458 0 1755 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.783 0.953
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 3491 0 1630 1849 0 0 1459 1458 0 1684 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 10 3 236 28
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1309 2645 1456 513
Travel Time (s) 16.2 32.8 18.0 6.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 35 613 50 403 827 35 35 37 236 24 91 58 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 35 663 0 403 862 0 0 72 236 0 173 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 2 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.6 22.0 8.6 20.6 20.0 20.0 20.0 24.5 24.5 Total Split (s) 13.0 31.0 30.0 48.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Total Split (%) 14.4% 34.4% 33.3% 53.3% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% Maximum Green (s) 8.4 26.4 25.4 43.4 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min Min
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 10.4 9.0 13.3 13.3
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 7.7 19.7 22.5 42.3 12.2 12.2 12.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.29 0.34 0.63 0.18 0.18 0.18
v/c Ratio 0.19 0.64 0.74 0.74 0.27 0.52 0.52
Control Delay (s/veh) 34.8 24.4 31.8 17.1 28.8 8.6 28.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 34.8 24.4 31.8 17.1 28.8 8.6 28.8

LOS C C C B C A C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 24.9 21.8 13.3 28.8
Approach LOS C C B C
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 67.1
Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.74
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 22.1 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary AM 2045
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 32 564 46 371 761 32 32 34 217 22 84 53 Future Volume (veh/h) 32 564 46 371 761 32 32 34 217 22 84 53 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 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 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 35 613 50 403 827 35 35 37 236 24 91 58 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 68 901 73 487 939 40 232 212 308 101 208 118 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.27 0.26 0.30 0.53 0.52 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 3318 270 1641 1779 75 632 1005 1460 123 988 560 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 35 328 335 403 0 862 72 0 236 173 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1777 1811 1641 0 1854 1638 0 1460 1671 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 9.0 9.0 12.5 0.0 22.3 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 9.0 9.0 12.5 0.0 22.3 1.7 0.0 8.3 4.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.04 0.49 1.00 0.14 0.34
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 68 483 492 487 0 978 444 0 308 428 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.68 0.68 0.83 0.00 0.88 0.16 0.00 0.77 0.40 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 271 881 898 784 0 1499 815 0 670 826 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.6 17.7 17.8 17.8 0.0 11.4 17.6 0.0 20.2 18.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.0 1.7 1.7 4.0 0.0 4.2 0.2 0.0 4.0 0.6 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 0.5 3.0 3.1 4.1 0.0 6.2 0.6 0.0 2.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 31.6 19.4 19.4 21.8 0.0 15.6 17.8 0.0 24.2 19.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 698 1265 308 173
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.0 17.6 22.7 19.5
Approach LOS C B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.5 20.2 18.8 15.5 6.2 32.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.8 25.4 26.4 24.8 8.4 43.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.3 14.5 11.0 6.7 3.1 24.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 1.1 2.2 0.5 0.0 3.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 19.1
HCM 7th LOS B
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 106 424 125 112 618 167 207 275 134 171 374 153 Future Volume (vph) 106 424 125 112 618 167 207 275 134 171 374 153 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Storage Length (ft) 250 0 200 110 130 200 80 90
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.97
Frt 0.966 0.850 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3394 0 1630 3539 1458 1630 3539 1458 1630 1863 1458 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 3394 0 1630 3539 1430 1630 3539 1409 1630 1863 1408 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 34 177 146 177
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 2645 965 1321 4072
Travel Time (s) 32.8 12.0 16.4 50.5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 2 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 115 461 136 122 672 182 225 299 146 186 407 166 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 115 597 0 122 672 182 225 299 146 186 407 166 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.5 35.7 8.5 35.7 35.7 8.5 31.3 31.3 8.5 31.3 31.3 Total Split (s) 28.0 43.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 29.0 35.0 35.0 22.0 28.0 28.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 35.8% 16.7% 29.2% 29.2% 24.2% 29.2% 29.2% 18.3% 23.3% 23.3% Maximum Green (s) 23.5 38.5 15.5 30.5 30.5 24.5 30.5 30.5 17.5 23.5 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 24.2 24.2 24.2 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 12.8 23.0 14.8 25.0 25.0 18.8 32.0 32.0 15.6 28.8 28.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.22 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.28 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.77 0.53 0.79 0.38 0.76 0.27 0.27 0.76 0.79 0.32 Control Delay (s/veh) 56.4 43.2 51.8 44.8 8.1 58.7 30.0 6.7 64.7 50.0 6.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (s/veh) 56.4 43.2 51.8 44.8 8.1 58.7 30.0 6.7 64.7 50.0 6.6

LOS E D D D A E C A E D A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 45.4 38.8 34.6 44.1
Approach LOS D D C D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 103.7
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.79
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 40.7 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary AM 2045
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 106 424 125 112 618 167 207 275 134 171 374 153 Future Volume (veh/h) 106 424 125 112 618 167 207 275 134 171 374 153 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 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 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 115 461 136 122 672 182 225 299 146 186 407 166 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 145 603 176 178 867 349 264 1191 475 220 578 437 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.34 0.34 0.13 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 2687 786 1641 3554 1431 1641 3554 1417 1641 1870 1416 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 115 303 294 122 672 182 225 299 146 186 407 166 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1777 1696 1641 1777 1431 1641 1777 1417 1641 1870 1416 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 14.5 14.8 6.5 16.0 6.9 12.1 5.6 4.8 10.1 17.5 6.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 14.5 14.8 6.5 16.0 6.9 12.1 5.6 4.8 10.1 17.5 6.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 145 398 380 178 867 349 264 1191 475 220 578 437 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.76 0.77 0.69 0.77 0.52 0.85 0.25 0.31 0.84 0.70 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 424 752 718 280 1191 480 442 1191 475 316 578 437 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 40.6 33.0 33.1 39.1 32.1 14.2 37.1 21.9 10.6 38.4 27.8 13.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.3 3.0 3.4 4.6 2.2 1.2 8.2 0.5 1.7 13.2 7.0 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 6.0 5.9 2.7 6.5 3.1 5.1 2.2 2.2 4.6 8.1 2.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 49.9 36.0 36.5 43.7 34.3 15.4 45.3 22.4 12.3 51.7 34.8 15.6 LnGrp LOS D D D D C B D C B D C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 712 976 670 759
Approach Delay, s/veh 38.5 31.9 27.9 34.7
Approach LOS D C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.7 35.0 14.4 24.9 19.1 32.6 12.6 26.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.5 30.5 15.5 38.5 24.5 23.5 23.5 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.1 7.6 8.5 16.8 14.1 19.5 8.3 18.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 1.7 0.2 2.1 0.5 0.9 0.3 3.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 33.2
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045
4: Tobu Ave & Manning Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 474 0 0 554 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 474 0 0 554 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 0 0 1863 1716 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 0 0 1863 1716 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 965 771 1109
Travel Time (s) 12.0 9.6 13.7
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 515 0 0 602 0 0
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 515 0 0 602 0 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2045
4: Tobu Ave & Manning Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 474 0 0 554 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 474 0 0 554 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 515 0 0 602 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 515 0 1117 515
Stage 1 - - - - 515 -
Stage 2 - - - - 602 -
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 - - 1050 - 229 560
Stage 1 - - - - 600 -
Stage 2 - - - - 547 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1050 - 229 560
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 229 -
Stage 1 - - - - 600 -
Stage 2 - - - - 547 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 1050 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 0 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045
5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 14 17 18 621 548 11
Future Volume (vph) 14 17 18 621 548 11
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.926 0.997
Flt Protected 0.978 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 1554 0 0 1861 1857 0
Flt Permitted 0.978 0.999
Satd. Flow (perm) 1554 0 0 1861 1857 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1588 1310 1321
Travel Time (s) 19.7 16.2 16.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 15 18 20 675 596 12
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 0 0 695 608 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2045
5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 17 18 621 548 11
Future Vol, veh/h 14 17 18 621 548 11
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 15 18 20 675 596 12
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1316 602 608 0 - 0
Stage 1 602 - - - - -
Stage 2 714 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 174 500 971 - - -
Stage 1 547 - - - - -
Stage 2 485 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 168 500 971 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 168 - - - - -
Stage 1 529 - - - - -
Stage 2 485 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v20.58 0.25 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 51 - 265 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.02 - 0.127 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.8 0 20.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.4 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045
6: Zumwalt Ave & North Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 137 365 586 107 37 187
Future Volume (vph) 137 365 586 107 37 187
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.902 0.887
Flt Protected 0.987 0.959
Satd. Flow (prot) 1527 0 0 1786 1652 0
Flt Permitted 0.987 0.959
Satd. Flow (perm) 1527 0 0 1786 1652 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1009 1972 678
Travel Time (s) 12.5 24.4 8.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 149 397 637 116 40 203
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 546 0 0 753 243 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2045
6: Zumwalt Ave & North Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 313.4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 137 365 586 107 37 187
Future Vol, veh/h 137 365 586 107 37 187
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 149 397 637 116 40 203
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1532 142 243 0 - 0
Stage 1 142 - - - - -
Stage 2 1390 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 128 906 1323 - - -
Stage 1 885 - - - - -
Stage 2 231 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 62 906 1323 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 62 - - - - -
Stage 1 429 - - - - -
Stage 2 231 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v $ 873.88 8.64 0

HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1237 - 193 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.482 - 2.827 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 10.2 0$ 873.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS B A F - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.7 - 48.3 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045
7: S Buttonwillow Ave & E Springfield Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 58 52 62 550 523 34
Future Volume (vph) 58 52 62 550 523 34
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.936 0.992
Flt Protected 0.974 0.995
Satd. Flow (prot) 1564 0 0 1853 1848 0
Flt Permitted 0.974 0.995
Satd. Flow (perm) 1564 0 0 1853 1848 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1753 2642 1310
Travel Time (s) 21.7 32.8 16.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 63 57 67 598 568 37
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 0 0 665 605 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2045
7: S Buttonwillow Ave & E Springfield Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 58 52 62 550 523 34
Future Vol, veh/h 58 52 62 550 523 34
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 63 57 67 598 568 37
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1320 587 605 0 - 0
Stage 1 587 - - - - -
Stage 2 733 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 173 510 973 - - -
Stage 1 556 - - - - -
Stage 2 476 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 155 510 973 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 155 - - - - -
Stage 1 498 - - - - -
Stage 2 476 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v36.14 0.91 0

HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 182 - 231 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.069 - 0.517 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 9 0 36.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A E - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 2.7 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045
8: S Buttonwillow Ave & Dinuba Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 99 274 84 86 369 114 144 169 82 89 245 160 Future Volume (vph) 99 274 84 86 369 114 144 169 82 89 245 160 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.975 0.973 0.972 0.956
Flt Protected 0.989 0.993 0.982 0.991
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1796 0 0 1800 0 0 1778 0 0 1765 0
Flt Permitted 0.989 0.993 0.982 0.991
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1796 0 0 1800 0 0 1778 0 0 1765 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 4282 3376 788 2642
Travel Time (s) 53.1 41.9 9.8 32.8
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 Adj. Flow (vph) 108 298 91 93 401 124 157 184 89 97 266 174 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 497 0 0 618 0 0 430 0 0 537 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Roundabout
Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th Roundabout AM 2045
8: S Buttonwillow Ave & Dinuba Ave 07/29/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 17.6
Intersection LOS C
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 497 618 430 537
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 507 630 439 547
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 465 458 513 664
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 746 494 459 424
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.2 18.4 12.3 25.1
Approach LOS B C B D
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976
A (Intercept) 1380 1380 1380 1380
B (Slope) 1.02e-3 1.02e-3 1.02e-3 1.02e-3
Entry Flow, veh/h 507 630 439 547
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 859 865 818 701
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.981 0.980 0.981
Flow Entry, veh/h 497 618 430 537
Cap Entry, veh/h 842 848 802 688
V/C Ratio 0.590 0.728 0.537 0.780
Control Delay, s/veh 13.2 18.4 12.3 25.1

LOS B C B D
95th %tile Queue, veh 4 7 3 8

Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045+Project
1: N. East Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 690 105 78 894 41 24
Future Volume (vph) 690 105 78 894 41 24
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.982 0.951
Flt Protected 0.950 0.969
Satd. Flow (prot) 1829 0 1630 1863 1581 0
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.969
Satd. Flow (perm) 1829 0 1630 1863 1581 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 2176 1309 3105
Travel Time (s) 27.0 16.2 38.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 750 114 85 972 45 26
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 864 0 85 972 71 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 24 24 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2045+Project
1: N. East Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.7
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 690 105 78 894 41 24
Future Vol, veh/h 690 105 78 894 41 24
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 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 750 114 85 972 45 26
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 864 0 1948 807
Stage 1 - - - - 807 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1141 -
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 - - 779 - 71 381
Stage 1 - - - - 439 -
Stage 2 - - - - 305 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 779 - 63 381
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 63 -
Stage 1 - - - - 439 -
Stage 2 - - - - 271 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.82 121.22

HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 91 - - 779 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.774 - - 0.109 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 121.2 - - 10.2 -
HCM Lane LOS F - - B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 4 - - 0.4 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045+Project
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 32 571 46 375 784 36 32 34 218 23 84 53 Future Volume (vph) 32 571 46 375 784 36 32 34 218 23 84 53 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 55 0 0 115 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 0.99
Frt 0.989 0.993 0.850 0.955
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.976 0.993
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3490 0 1630 1847 0 0 1818 1458 0 1753 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.728 0.951
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 3490 0 1630 1847 0 0 1356 1458 0 1679 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 9 4 237 19
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1309 2645 1456 513
Travel Time (s) 16.2 32.8 18.0 6.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 35 621 50 408 852 39 35 37 237 25 91 58 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 35 671 0 408 891 0 0 72 237 0 174 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 2 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045+Project
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.6 22.0 8.6 20.6 20.0 20.0 20.0 24.5 24.5 Total Split (s) 13.0 60.0 31.0 78.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Total Split (%) 10.8% 50.0% 25.8% 65.0% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% Maximum Green (s) 8.4 55.4 26.4 73.4 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min Min
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 10.4 9.0 13.3 13.3
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 7.9 23.3 33.3 54.2 13.9 13.9 13.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.28 0.40 0.65 0.17 0.17 0.17
v/c Ratio 0.23 0.68 0.63 0.74 0.32 0.54 0.59
Control Delay (s/veh) 46.2 31.0 27.3 16.9 38.5 10.2 39.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 46.2 31.0 27.3 16.9 38.5 10.2 39.8

LOS D C C B D B D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 31.7 20.2 16.8 39.8
Approach LOS C C B D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 83.2
Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.74
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 24.4 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary AM 2045+Project 2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 32 571 46 375 784 36 32 34 218 23 84 53 Future Volume (veh/h) 32 571 46 375 784 36 32 34 218 23 84 53 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 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 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 35 621 50 408 852 39 35 37 237 25 91 58 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 66 871 70 529 965 44 226 208 304 98 205 116
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.26 0.25 0.32 0.54 0.53 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 3322 267 1641 1772 81 641 999 1460 129 982 556 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 35 332 339 408 0 891 72 0 237 174 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1777 1812 1641 0 1853 1640 0 1460 1667 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 9.8 9.9 13.0 0.0 24.4 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 9.8 9.9 13.0 0.0 24.4 1.8 0.0 8.9 5.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.04 0.49 1.00 0.14 0.33
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 66 466 475 529 0 1009 434 0 304 418 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.71 0.71 0.77 0.00 0.88 0.17 0.00 0.78 0.42 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 255 1718 1751 765 0 2367 768 0 630 776 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.3 19.4 19.4 17.7 0.0 11.6 18.9 0.0 21.7 20.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 2.8 0.2 0.0 4.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 3.5 3.6 4.2 0.0 6.5 0.7 0.0 2.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 33.8 21.4 21.5 20.7 0.0 14.4 19.1 0.0 26.0 20.8 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C C C B B C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 706 1299 309 174
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.0 16.4 24.4 20.8
Approach LOS C B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.1 22.7 19.2 16.1 6.3 35.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.8 26.4 55.4 24.8 8.4 73.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.9 15.0 11.9 7.1 3.2 26.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 1.2 2.5 0.5 0.0 4.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 19.3
HCM 7th LOS B
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045+Project
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 106 424 134 113 618 167 244 282 135 171 375 153 Future Volume (vph) 106 424 134 113 618 167 244 282 135 171 375 153 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Storage Length (ft) 250 0 200 110 130 200 80 90
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.964 0.850 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3412 0 1630 3539 1458 1630 3539 1458 1630 1863 1458 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 3412 0 1630 3539 1458 1630 3539 1458 1630 1863 1458 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 37 128 147 136
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 2645 1322 1321 4072
Travel Time (s) 32.8 16.4 16.4 50.5
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 Adj. Flow (vph) 115 461 146 123 672 182 265 307 147 186 408 166 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 115 607 0 123 672 182 265 307 147 186 408 166 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.5 35.7 8.5 35.7 35.7 8.5 31.3 31.3 8.5 31.3 31.3 Total Split (s) 18.3 43.0 22.0 46.7 46.7 28.0 31.0 31.0 24.0 27.0 27.0 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045+Project
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Split (%) 15.3% 35.8% 18.3% 38.9% 38.9% 23.3% 25.8% 25.8% 20.0% 22.5% 22.5% Maximum Green (s) 13.8 38.5 17.5 42.2 42.2 23.5 26.5 26.5 19.5 22.5 22.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 24.2 24.2 24.2 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 11.6 22.9 14.6 25.9 25.9 20.7 27.2 27.2 20.7 27.2 27.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.22 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.26 0.26 0.20 0.26 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.78 0.54 0.76 0.40 0.82 0.33 0.30 0.57 0.84 0.34 Control Delay (s/veh) 62.5 43.4 52.5 42.4 13.7 61.3 34.4 7.7 46.7 54.9 11.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (s/veh) 62.5 43.4 52.5 42.4 13.7 61.3 34.4 7.7 46.7 54.9 11.7

LOS E D D D B E C A D D B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 46.5 38.3 38.9 43.5
Approach LOS D D D D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 103.7
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.84
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 41.5 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary AM 2045+Project 3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 106 424 134 113 618 167 244 282 135 171 375 153 Future Volume (veh/h) 106 424 134 113 618 167 244 282 135 171 375 153 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 115 461 146 123 672 182 265 307 147 186 408 166 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 144 574 180 191 867 356 307 1119 460 229 500 390 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.24 0.24 0.19 0.31 0.31 0.14 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 2661 836 1641 3554 1460 1641 3554 1460 1641 1870 1460 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 115 307 300 123 672 182 265 307 147 186 408 166 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1777 1720 1641 1777 1460 1641 1777 1460 1641 1870 1460 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.8 13.8 14.0 6.0 14.8 6.1 13.2 5.4 6.5 9.3 17.2 7.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.8 13.8 14.0 6.0 14.8 6.1 13.2 5.4 6.5 9.3 17.2 7.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.49 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 144 383 371 191 867 356 307 1119 460 229 500 390 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.65 0.77 0.51 0.86 0.27 0.32 0.81 0.82 0.43 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 269 813 787 341 1782 732 458 1119 460 380 500 390 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 37.6 31.3 31.4 35.5 29.6 12.5 33.2 21.6 22.0 35.1 28.9 25.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.7 3.9 4.3 3.6 1.5 1.1 10.8 0.6 1.8 6.9 13.7 3.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 5.7 5.6 2.4 5.8 2.8 5.7 2.1 2.2 3.8 8.7 2.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 47.3 35.2 35.6 39.1 31.2 13.6 44.0 22.2 23.8 42.0 42.5 28.8 LnGrp LOS D D D D C B D C C D D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 722 977 719 760
Approach Delay, s/veh 37.3 28.9 30.5 39.4
Approach LOS D C C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.2 31.0 14.3 22.6 20.2 27.0 11.9 25.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 26.5 17.5 38.5 23.5 22.5 13.8 42.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.3 8.5 8.0 16.0 15.2 19.2 7.8 16.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 1.7 0.2 2.2 0.6 0.8 0.1 3.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 33.7
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045+Project
4: Tobu Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 475 0 2 555 0 6
Future Volume (vph) 475 0 2 555 0 6
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.865
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 0 0 1863 1484 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 0 0 1863 1484 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1322 1305 869
Travel Time (s) 16.4 16.2 10.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 516 0 2 603 0 7
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 516 0 0 605 7 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2045+Project
4: Tobu Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 475 0 2 555 0 6
Future Vol, veh/h 475 0 2 555 0 6
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 516 0 2 603 0 7
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 516 0 1124 516
Stage 1 - - - - 516 -
Stage 2 - - - - 608 -
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 - - 1049 - 227 559
Stage 1 - - - - 599 -
Stage 2 - - - - 544 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1049 - 227 559
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 227 -
Stage 1 - - - - 599 -
Stage 2 - - - - 542 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.03 11.52

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 559 - - 6 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 - - 0.002 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 11.5 - - 8.4 0
HCM Lane LOS B - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045+Project
5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 14 0 17 14 0 24 18 645 4 9 550 11
Future Volume (vph) 14 0 17 14 0 24 18 645 4 9 550 11
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.926 0.914 0.999 0.997
Flt Protected 0.978 0.982 0.999 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1687 0 0 1672 0 0 1859 0 0 1855 0
Flt Permitted 0.978 0.982 0.999 0.999
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1687 0 0 1672 0 0 1859 0 0 1855 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1588 698 1310 1321
Travel Time (s) 19.7 8.7 16.2 16.4
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 Adj. Flow (vph) 15 0 18 15 0 26 20 701 4 10 598 12
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 33 0 0 41 0 0 725 0 0 620 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2045+Project
5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 0 17 14 0 24 18 645 4 9 550 11
Future Vol, veh/h 14 0 17 14 0 24 18 645 4 9 550 11
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 15 0 18 15 0 26 20 701 4 10 598 12
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1364 1368 604 1360 1372 703 610 0 0 705 0 0 Stage 1 623 623 - 742 742 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 740 745 - 617 629 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 125 147 498 126 146 437 969 - - 893 - - Stage 1 474 478 - 407 422 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 408 421 - 477 475 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 112 139 498 115 139 437 969 - - 893 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 112 139 - 115 139 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 466 470 - 394 408 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 371 407 - 452 467 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v27.37 25.66 0.24 0.14

HCM LOS D D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 49 - - 194 215 28 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.02 - - 0.173 0.192 0.011 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.8 0 - 27.4 25.7 9.1 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - D D A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.6 0.7 0 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045+Project
6: Zumwalt Ave & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 140 366 587 107 37 189
Future Volume (vph) 140 366 587 107 37 189
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.902 0.887
Flt Protected 0.986 0.959
Satd. Flow (prot) 1526 0 0 1786 1652 0
Flt Permitted 0.986 0.959
Satd. Flow (perm) 1526 0 0 1786 1652 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1920 1972 678
Travel Time (s) 23.8 24.4 8.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 152 398 638 116 40 205
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 550 0 0 754 245 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2045+Project
6: Zumwalt Ave & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 326.4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 140 366 587 107 37 189
Future Vol, veh/h 140 366 587 107 37 189
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 152 398 638 116 40 205
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1535 143 246 0 - 0
Stage 1 143 - - - - -
Stage 2 1392 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 128 905 1320 - - -
Stage 1 884 - - - - -
Stage 2 230 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 62 905 1320 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 62 - - - - -
Stage 1 427 - - - - -
Stage 2 230 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v $ 907.97 8.67 0

HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1235 - 190 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.483 - 2.902 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 10.2 0 $ 908 - -
HCM Lane LOS B A F - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.7 - 49.2 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045+Project
7: S Buttonwillow Ave & E Springfield Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 58 52 62 568 558 34
Future Volume (vph) 58 52 62 568 558 34
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.936 0.992
Flt Protected 0.974 0.995
Satd. Flow (prot) 1564 0 0 1853 1848 0
Flt Permitted 0.974 0.995
Satd. Flow (perm) 1564 0 0 1853 1848 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1753 2642 1310
Travel Time (s) 21.7 32.8 16.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 63 57 67 617 607 37
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 0 0 684 644 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2045+Project
7: S Buttonwillow Ave & E Springfield Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 58 52 62 568 558 34
Future Vol, veh/h 58 52 62 568 558 34
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 63 57 67 617 607 37
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1377 625 643 0 - 0
Stage 1 625 - - - - -
Stage 2 752 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 160 485 941 - - -
Stage 1 534 - - - - -
Stage 2 466 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 142 485 941 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 142 - - - - -
Stage 1 475 - - - - -
Stage 2 466 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v41.34 0.9 0

HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 177 - 214 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.072 - 0.56 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 9.1 0 41.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A E - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 3 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045+Project
8: S Buttonwillow Ave & Dinuba Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 107 274 84 86 369 115 144 175 82 89 270 179 Future Volume (vph) 107 274 84 86 369 115 144 175 82 89 270 179 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.976 0.973 0.972 0.955
Flt Protected 0.989 0.993 0.982 0.992
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1798 0 0 1800 0 0 1778 0 0 1765 0
Flt Permitted 0.989 0.993 0.982 0.992
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1798 0 0 1800 0 0 1778 0 0 1765 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 4282 3376 788 2642
Travel Time (s) 53.1 41.9 9.8 32.8
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 Adj. Flow (vph) 116 298 91 93 401 125 157 190 89 97 293 195 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 505 0 0 619 0 0 436 0 0 585 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Roundabout
Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th Roundabout AM 2045+Project
8: S Buttonwillow Ave & Dinuba Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 20.2
Intersection LOS C
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 505 619 436 585
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 515 632 445 597
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 493 472 521 664
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 768 494 487 440
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.3 19.3 12.6 32.0
Approach LOS B C B D
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976
A (Intercept) 1380 1380 1380 1380
B (Slope) 1.02e-3 1.02e-3 1.02e-3 1.02e-3
Entry Flow, veh/h 515 632 445 597
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 835 853 811 701
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 0.979 0.980 0.980
Flow Entry, veh/h 505 619 436 585
Cap Entry, veh/h 818 835 795 687
V/C Ratio 0.617 0.741 0.549 0.852
Control Delay, s/veh 14.3 19.3 12.6 32.0

LOS B C B D
95th %tile Queue, veh 4 7 3 10
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045+Project
9: Project Entrance & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 12 3 1 38 3
Future Volume (vph) 1 12 3 1 38 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.875 0.991
Flt Protected 0.964 0.955
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 0 0 1796 1763 0
Flt Permitted 0.964 0.955
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 0 0 1796 1763 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 698 1920 515
Travel Time (s) 8.7 23.8 6.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 1 13 3 1 41 3
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 14 0 0 4 44 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 0 0 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC AM 2045+Project
9: Project Entrance & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 12 3 1 38 3
Future Vol, veh/h 1 12 3 1 38 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 1 13 3 1 41 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 14 0 15 8
Stage 1 - - - - 8 -
Stage 2 - - - - 8 -
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 - - 1604 - 1003 1075
Stage 1 - - - - 1015 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1015 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1604 - 1001 1075
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 1001 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1015 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1013 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 5.44 8.74

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 1006 - - 1350 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 - - 0.002 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.7 - - 7.2 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045+Project with Mitigation� 5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 14 0 17 14 0 24 18 645 4 9 550 11
Future Volume (vph) 14 0 17 14 0 24 18 645 4 9 550 11
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.926 0.914 0.999 0.997
Flt Protected 0.978 0.982 0.999 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1687 0 0 1672 0 0 1859 0 0 1855 0
Flt Permitted 0.982 0.990
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1725 0 0 1703 0 0 1827 0 0 1839 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 18 26 1 3
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1588 698 1310 1321
Travel Time (s) 19.7 8.7 16.2 16.4
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 Adj. Flow (vph) 15 0 18 15 0 26 20 701 4 10 598 12
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 33 0 0 41 0 0 725 0 0 620 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 Total Split (%) 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 74.4% 74.4% 74.4% 74.4% Maximum Green (s) 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM 2045+Project with Mitigation� 5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 6.5 6.5 33.9 33.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.87 0.87
v/c Ratio 0.11 0.13 0.46 0.39
Control Delay (s/veh) 13.4 12.3 3.9 3.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 13.4 12.3 3.9 3.3

LOS B B A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 13.4 12.3 3.9 3.3
Approach LOS B B A A
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 39
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.46
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 4.1 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary AM 2045+Project with Mitigation� 5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 14 0 17 14 0 24 18 645 4 9 550 11 Future Volume (veh/h) 14 0 17 14 0 24 18 645 4 9 550 11 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 15 0 18 15 0 26 20 701 4 10 598 12 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 282 0 58 258 0 67 175 967 5 168 962 19
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 Sat Flow, veh/h 728 0 874 583 0 1011 19 1815 10 9 1805 36 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 0 0 41 0 0 725 0 0 620 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1603 0 0 1595 0 0 1844 0 0 1850 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.45 0.55 0.37 0.63 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 339 0 0 324 0 0 1147 0 0 1149 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1469 0 0 1471 0 0 5216 0 0 5253 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 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 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 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 10.1 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 33 41 725 620
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.1 10.2 4.6 4.1
Approach LOS B B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.4 6.0 16.4 6.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 62.5 18.5 62.5 18.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 2.4 7.2 2.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.3 0.0 2.6 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 4.6
HCM 7th LOS A
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2025
1: N. East Ave & Manning Ave 07/07/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 458 39 20 481 40 28
Future Volume (vph) 458 39 20 481 40 28
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.989 0.945
Flt Protected 0.950 0.971
Satd. Flow (prot) 1842 0 1630 1863 1574 0
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.971
Satd. Flow (perm) 1842 0 1630 1863 1574 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 2176 1309 3105
Travel Time (s) 27.0 16.2 38.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 498 42 22 523 43 30
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 540 0 22 523 73 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 24 24 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC PM 2025
1: N. East Ave & Manning Ave 07/07/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 458 39 20 481 40 28
Future Vol, veh/h 458 39 20 481 40 28
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 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 498 42 22 523 43 30
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 540 0 1085 519
Stage 1 - - - - 519 -
Stage 2 - - - - 566 -
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 - - 1028 - 240 557
Stage 1 - - - - 597 -
Stage 2 - - - - 568 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1028 - 235 557
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 235 -
Stage 1 - - - - 597 -
Stage 2 - - - - 556 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.34 20.34

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 308 - - 1028 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.24 - - 0.021 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 20.3 - - 8.6 -
HCM Lane LOS C - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 - - 0.1 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2025
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/07/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 31 426 36 191 435 14 48 55 231 15 54 28 Future Volume (vph) 31 426 36 191 435 14 48 55 231 15 54 28 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 55 0 0 115 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 0.99
Frt 0.988 0.995 0.850 0.961
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.977 0.992
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3487 0 1630 1851 0 0 1820 1458 0 1766 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.848 0.947
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 3487 0 1630 1851 0 0 1580 1458 0 1685 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 10 2 251 22
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1309 2645 1456 513
Travel Time (s) 16.2 32.8 18.0 6.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 34 463 39 208 473 15 52 60 251 16 59 30 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 502 0 208 488 0 0 112 251 0 105 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 2 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2025
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/07/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.6 22.0 8.6 20.6 20.0 20.0 20.0 24.5 24.5 Total Split (s) 13.0 31.0 30.0 48.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Total Split (%) 14.4% 34.4% 33.3% 53.3% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% Maximum Green (s) 8.4 26.4 25.4 43.4 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min Min
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 10.4 9.0 13.3 13.3
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 7.5 13.7 13.0 26.8 10.6 10.6 10.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.27 0.26 0.54 0.21 0.21 0.21
v/c Ratio 0.14 0.52 0.49 0.49 0.34 0.50 0.28
Control Delay (s/veh) 24.9 18.6 21.9 12.2 21.4 7.0 17.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 24.9 18.6 21.9 12.2 21.4 7.0 17.1

LOS C B C B C A B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 19.0 15.1 11.5 17.1
Approach LOS BBBB
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 49.9
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.52
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 15.7 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary PM 2025
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/07/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 31 426 36 191 435 14 48 55 231 15 54 28 Future Volume (veh/h) 31 426 36 191 435 14 48 55 231 15 54 28 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 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 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 34 463 39 208 473 15 52 60 251 16 59 30 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 78 824 69 300 692 22 278 267 362 139 270 119 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.25 0.23 0.18 0.38 0.37 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 3308 278 1641 1801 57 553 1076 1460 115 1089 482 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 34 248 254 208 0 488 112 0 251 105 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1777 1809 1641 0 1858 1629 0 1460 1686 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 4.6 4.6 4.5 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 4.6 4.6 4.5 0.0 8.2 1.8 0.0 5.9 1.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.03 0.46 1.00 0.15 0.29
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 78 443 451 300 0 714 545 0 362 529 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.56 0.56 0.69 0.00 0.68 0.21 0.00 0.69 0.20 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 394 1279 1302 1137 0 2179 1195 0 973 1196 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.4 12.3 12.4 14.3 0.0 9.7 11.3 0.0 12.8 11.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.7 1.1 1.1 2.9 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.0 2.4 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 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.0 1.8 0.5 0.0 1.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 21.1 13.4 13.5 17.2 0.0 10.8 11.5 0.0 15.2 11.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS CBBB BB BB
Approach Vol, veh/h 536 696 363 105
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.9 12.7 14.0 11.5
Approach LOS BBBB
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.3 10.9 13.3 13.3 5.8 18.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.8 25.4 26.4 24.8 8.4 43.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.9 6.5 6.6 3.8 2.8 10.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 0.6 1.7 0.3 0.0 1.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 13.3
HCM 7th LOS B
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2025
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/07/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 63 285 104 51 230 93 156 244 28 100 248 68 Future Volume (vph) 63 285 104 51 230 93 156 244 28 100 248 68 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Storage Length (ft) 250 0 200 110 130 200 80 90
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.96
Frt 0.960 0.850 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3369 0 1630 3539 1458 1630 3539 1458 1630 1863 1458 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 3369 0 1630 3539 1430 1630 3539 1429 1630 1863 1407 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 43 136 136 177
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 2645 661 1321 4072
Travel Time (s) 32.8 8.2 16.4 50.5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5555
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2222
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 Adj. Flow (vph) 68 310 113 55 250 101 170 265 30 109 270 74 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 423 0 55 250 101 170 265 30 109 270 74 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 11 111111111
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2025
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/07/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.5 35.7 8.5 35.7 35.7 8.5 31.3 31.3 8.5 31.3 31.3 Total Split (s) 28.0 39.0 26.0 37.0 37.0 29.0 33.0 33.0 22.0 26.0 26.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 32.5% 21.7% 30.8% 30.8% 24.2% 27.5% 27.5% 18.3% 21.7% 21.7% Maximum Green (s) 23.5 34.5 21.5 32.5 32.5 24.5 28.5 28.5 17.5 21.5 21.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 24.2 24.2 24.2 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 11.0 16.7 8.6 14.3 14.3 14.3 34.4 34.4 11.3 28.1 28.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.20 0.10 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.41 0.41 0.14 0.34 0.34 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.60 0.33 0.41 0.28 0.61 0.18 0.04 0.50 0.43 0.13 Control Delay (s/veh) 41.7 31.7 45.5 34.3 4.4 44.5 21.7 0.1 45.6 29.3 0.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (s/veh) 41.7 31.7 45.5 34.3 4.4 44.5 21.7 0.1 45.6 29.3 0.4

LOS DC DCADCADCA
Approach Delay (s/veh) 33.0 28.4 28.6 28.5
Approach LOS CCCC
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 83.6
Natural Cycle: 85
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.61
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 29.7 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary PM 2025
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/07/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 63 285 104 51 230 93 156 244 28 100 248 68 Future Volume (veh/h) 63 285 104 51 230 93 156 244 28 100 248 68 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 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 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 68 310 113 55 250 101 170 265 30 109 270 74 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 146 491 174 68 517 207 215 1482 599 140 694 526 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.42 0.42 0.09 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 2541 904 1641 3554 1423 1641 3554 1436 1641 1870 1418 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 68 214 209 55 250 101 170 265 30 109 270 74 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1777 1667 1641 1777 1423 1641 1777 1436 1641 1870 1418 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 7.6 7.9 2.3 4.4 3.3 6.9 3.2 0.9 4.4 7.3 1.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 7.6 7.9 2.3 4.4 3.3 6.9 3.2 0.9 4.4 7.3 1.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 146 343 322 68 517 207 215 1482 599 140 694 526 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.63 0.65 0.81 0.48 0.49 0.79 0.18 0.05 0.78 0.39 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 564 897 842 516 1690 677 588 1482 599 420 694 526 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 29.6 25.3 25.4 32.5 26.8 15.0 28.8 12.5 11.9 30.6 15.8 6.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 1.9 2.2 19.6 0.7 1.8 6.4 0.3 0.2 9.1 1.6 0.6 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 1.0 2.9 2.9 1.2 1.7 1.4 2.7 1.1 0.2 1.9 2.8 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 31.9 27.2 27.6 52.1 27.5 16.7 35.2 12.8 12.0 39.7 17.4 6.6 LnGrp LOS CCCDCBDBBDBA
Approach Vol, veh/h 491 406 465 453
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.0 28.2 21.0 21.0
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.3 33.0 7.3 17.7 13.4 29.9 10.6 14.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.5 28.5 21.5 34.5 24.5 21.5 23.5 32.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.4 5.2 4.3 9.9 8.9 9.3 4.7 6.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 1.1 0.1 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.1 1.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 24.5
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2025
5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/07/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 4 21 31 416 406 14
Future Volume (vph) 4 21 31 416 406 14
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.885 0.996
Flt Protected 0.993 0.997
Satd. Flow (prot) 1508 0 0 1857 1855 0
Flt Permitted 0.993 0.997
Satd. Flow (perm) 1508 0 0 1857 1855 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1588 1310 1321
Travel Time (s) 19.7 16.2 16.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 4 23 34 452 441 15
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 0 0 486 456 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC PM 2025
5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/07/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 21 31 416 406 14
Future Vol, veh/h 4 21 31 416 406 14
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 4 23 34 452 441 15
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 968 449 457 0 - 0
Stage 1 449 -----
Stage 2 520 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 281 610 1104 - - -
Stage 1 643 -----
Stage 2 597 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 270 610 1104 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 270 -----
Stage 1 617 -----
Stage 2 597 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.49 0.58 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 125 - 508 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.031 - 0.054 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4 0 12.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.2 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2025
6: Zumwalt Ave & North Ave 07/07/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 33 48 35 21 41 34
Future Volume (vph) 33 48 35 21 41 34
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.920 0.939
Flt Protected 0.980 0.970
Satd. Flow (prot) 1547 0 0 1807 1749 0
Flt Permitted 0.980 0.970
Satd. Flow (perm) 1547 0 0 1807 1749 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1009 1972 678
Travel Time (s) 12.5 24.4 8.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 36 52 38 23 45 37
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 0 0 61 82 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC PM 2025
6: Zumwalt Ave & North Ave 07/07/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 33 48 35 21 41 34
Future Vol, veh/h 33 48 35 21 41 34
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 36 52 38 23 45 37
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 162 63 82 0 - 0
Stage 1 63 -----
Stage 2 99 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 829 1002 1516 - - -
Stage 1 960 -----
Stage 2 925 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 808 1002 1516 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 808 -----
Stage 1 935 -----
Stage 2 925 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 9.37 4.65 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1125 - 912 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - 0.096 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 0 9.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.3 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2025
7: S Buttonwillow Ave & E Springfield Ave 07/07/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 38 44 40 422 382 33
Future Volume (vph) 38 44 40 422 382 33
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.927 0.989
Flt Protected 0.977 0.996
Satd. Flow (prot) 1554 0 0 1855 1842 0
Flt Permitted 0.977 0.996
Satd. Flow (perm) 1554 0 0 1855 1842 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1753 2642 1310
Travel Time (s) 21.7 32.8 16.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 41 48 43 459 415 36
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 89 0 0 502 451 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC PM 2025
7: S Buttonwillow Ave & E Springfield Ave 07/07/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 38 44 40 422 382 33
Future Vol, veh/h 38 44 40 422 382 33
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 41 48 43 459 415 36
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 979 433 451 0 - 0
Stage 1 433 -----
Stage 2 546 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 277 623 1109 - - -
Stage 1 654 -----
Stage 2 581 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 263 623 1109 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 263 -----
Stage 1 619 -----
Stage 2 581 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v17.31 0.73 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 156 - 381 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.039 - 0.234 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4 0 17.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.9 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2025
8: S Buttonwillow Ave & Dinuba Ave 07/07/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 121 298 148 63 259 116 108 229 54 76 165 85 Future Volume (vph) 121 298 148 63 259 116 108 229 54 76 165 85 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.965 0.964 0.981 0.965
Flt Protected 0.989 0.993 0.986 0.988
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1778 0 0 1783 0 0 1802 0 0 1776 0
Flt Permitted 0.989 0.993 0.986 0.988
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1778 0 0 1783 0 0 1802 0 0 1776 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 4282 3376 788 2642
Travel Time (s) 53.1 41.9 9.8 32.8
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 Adj. Flow (vph) 132 324 161 68 282 126 117 249 59 83 179 92 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 617 0 0 476 0 0 425 0 0 354 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Roundabout
Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th Roundabout PM 2025
8: S Buttonwillow Ave & Dinuba Ave 07/07/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.7
Intersection LOS B
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 617 476 425 354
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 629 486 433 362
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 337 508 550 476
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 501 475 416 518
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.5 13.7 12.9 9.6
Approach LOS BBBA
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976
A (Intercept) 1380 1380 1380 1380
B (Slope) 1.02e-3 1.02e-3 1.02e-3 1.02e-3
Entry Flow, veh/h 629 486 433 362
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 979 822 787 849
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.980 0.982 0.979
Flow Entry, veh/h 617 476 425 354
Cap Entry, veh/h 959 806 773 831
V/C Ratio 0.643 0.591 0.550 0.426
Control Delay, s/veh 13.5 13.7 12.9 9.6

LOS BBBA
95th %tile Queue, veh 5432

Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2025+Project
1: N. East Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 472 39 25 492 40 35
Future Volume (vph) 472 39 25 492 40 35
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.990 0.937
Flt Protected 0.950 0.974
Satd. Flow (prot) 1844 0 1630 1863 1566 0
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.974
Satd. Flow (perm) 1844 0 1630 1863 1566 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 2176 1309 3105
Travel Time (s) 27.0 16.2 38.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 513 42 27 535 43 38
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 555 0 27 535 81 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 24 24 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC PM 2025+Project
1: N. East Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 472 39 25 492 40 35
Future Vol, veh/h 472 39 25 492 40 35
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 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 513 42 27 535 43 38
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 555 0 1123 534
Stage 1 - - - - 534 -
Stage 2 - - - - 589 -
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 - - 1015 - 227 546
Stage 1 - - - - 588 -
Stage 2 - - - - 554 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1015 - 221 546
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 221 -
Stage 1 - - - - 588 -
Stage 2 - - - - 540 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.42 20.96

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 306 - - 1015 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.266 - - 0.027 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 21 - - 8.6 -
HCM Lane LOS C - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 - - 0.1 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2025+Project
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 31 447 36 194 451 17 48 55 236 17 54 28 Future Volume (vph) 31 447 36 194 451 17 48 55 236 17 54 28 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 55 0 0 115 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 0.99
Frt 0.989 0.995 0.850 0.962
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.977 0.992
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3491 0 1630 1851 0 0 1820 1458 0 1768 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.854 0.941
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 3491 0 1630 1851 0 0 1591 1458 0 1677 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 9 3 257 22
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1309 2645 1456 513
Travel Time (s) 16.2 32.8 18.0 6.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 34 486 39 211 490 18 52 60 257 18 59 30 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 525 0 211 508 0 0 112 257 0 107 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 2 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2025+Project
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.6 22.0 8.6 20.6 20.0 20.0 20.0 24.5 24.5 Total Split (s) 12.0 31.0 29.0 48.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 13.3% 34.4% 32.2% 53.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Maximum Green (s) 7.4 26.4 24.4 43.4 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min Min
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 10.4 9.0 13.3 13.3
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 7.5 14.3 13.2 27.9 10.6 10.6 10.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.28 0.26 0.55 0.21 0.21 0.21
v/c Ratio 0.14 0.53 0.50 0.50 0.34 0.51 0.29
Control Delay (s/veh) 26.2 18.7 22.5 11.9 22.1 7.2 17.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 26.2 18.7 22.5 11.9 22.1 7.2 17.9

LOS C B C B C A B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 19.2 15.0 11.7 17.9
Approach LOS B B B B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 50.9
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.53
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 15.8 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary PM 2025+Project 2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 31 447 36 194 451 17 48 55 236 17 54 28 Future Volume (veh/h) 31 447 36 194 451 17 48 55 236 17 54 28 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 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 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 34 486 39 211 490 18 52 60 257 18 59 30 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 78 842 67 302 699 26 277 268 366 142 270 118 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.25 0.24 0.18 0.39 0.37 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 3323 266 1641 1790 66 558 1069 1460 129 1078 470 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 34 259 266 211 0 508 112 0 257 107 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1777 1812 1641 0 1856 1627 0 1460 1677 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 4.9 5.0 4.6 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 4.9 5.0 4.6 0.0 8.8 1.8 0.0 6.2 1.9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.04 0.46 1.00 0.17 0.28
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 78 450 459 302 0 725 545 0 366 530 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.44 0.58 0.58 0.70 0.00 0.70 0.21 0.00 0.70 0.20 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 341 1246 1270 1065 0 2121 1205 0 986 1199 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.8 12.6 12.6 14.7 0.0 9.9 11.5 0.0 13.1 11.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.9 1.2 1.2 2.9 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.0 2.5 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 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.0 2.0 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 21.7 13.7 13.8 17.6 0.0 11.1 11.7 0.0 15.6 11.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C B B B B B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 559 719 369 107
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.2 13.0 14.4 11.7
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.7 11.1 13.8 13.7 5.8 19.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.8 24.4 26.4 25.8 7.4 43.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.2 6.6 7.0 3.9 2.8 10.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.3 0.6 1.7 0.3 0.0 1.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 13.6
HCM 7th LOS B
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2025+Project
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 63 285 135 53 230 93 181 249 29 100 252 68 Future Volume (vph) 63 285 135 53 230 93 181 249 29 100 252 68 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Storage Length (ft) 250 0 200 110 130 200 80 90
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.952 0.850 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3369 0 1630 3539 1458 1630 3539 1458 1630 1863 1458 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 3369 0 1630 3539 1458 1630 3539 1458 1630 1863 1458 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 64 136 95 136
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 2645 1322 1321 4072
Travel Time (s) 32.8 16.4 16.4 50.5
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 Adj. Flow (vph) 68 310 147 58 250 101 197 271 32 109 274 74 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 457 0 58 250 101 197 271 32 109 274 74 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.5 35.7 8.5 35.7 35.7 8.5 31.3 31.3 8.5 31.3 31.3 Total Split (s) 16.0 37.0 15.0 36.0 36.0 31.0 46.0 46.0 22.0 37.0 37.0 Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2025+Project
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Split (%) 13.3% 30.8% 12.5% 30.0% 30.0% 25.8% 38.3% 38.3% 18.3% 30.8% 30.8% Maximum Green (s) 11.5 32.5 10.5 31.5 31.5 26.5 41.5 41.5 17.5 32.5 32.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 24.2 24.2 24.2 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 9.1 18.2 8.6 17.6 17.6 17.0 44.6 44.6 11.8 36.1 36.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.19 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.47 0.47 0.12 0.38 0.38 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.66 0.40 0.38 0.27 0.68 0.16 0.04 0.54 0.39 0.12 Control Delay (s/veh) 54.9 36.3 54.6 37.1 4.2 51.4 19.9 0.1 53.4 28.4 0.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (s/veh) 54.9 36.3 54.6 37.1 4.2 51.4 19.9 0.1 53.4 28.4 0.4

LOS D D D D A D B A D C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 38.7 31.5 31.0 29.8
Approach LOS D C C C
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 95.6
Natural Cycle: 85
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.68
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 33.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary PM 2025+Project 3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 63 285 135 53 230 93 181 249 29 100 252 68 Future Volume (veh/h) 63 285 135 53 230 93 181 249 29 100 252 68 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 68 310 147 58 250 101 197 271 32 109 274 74 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 86 402 187 72 578 237 238 1738 714 138 801 625 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.17 0.17 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.49 0.49 0.08 0.43 0.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 2357 1093 1641 3554 1460 1641 3554 1460 1641 1870 1460 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 68 232 225 58 250 101 197 271 32 109 274 74 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1777 1674 1641 1777 1460 1641 1777 1460 1641 1870 1460 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 10.6 10.9 3.0 5.4 5.3 9.9 3.6 1.0 5.5 8.3 2.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 10.6 10.9 3.0 5.4 5.3 9.9 3.6 1.0 5.5 8.3 2.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 86 303 286 72 578 237 238 1738 714 138 801 625 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.76 0.79 0.80 0.43 0.43 0.83 0.16 0.04 0.79 0.34 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 222 681 641 203 1319 542 512 1738 714 338 801 625 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 33.6 33.7 40.2 32.0 32.0 35.2 12.0 11.3 38.1 16.3 14.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.1 4.0 4.8 18.1 0.5 1.2 7.2 0.2 0.1 9.7 1.2 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 4.5 4.4 1.5 2.2 1.8 4.1 1.2 0.3 2.4 3.3 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 54.9 37.6 38.5 58.3 32.5 33.2 42.4 12.2 11.4 47.8 17.4 15.0 LnGrp LOS D D D E C C D B B D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 525 409 500 457
Approach Delay, s/veh 40.2 36.3 24.1 24.3
Approach LOS D D C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.6 46.0 8.2 19.0 16.8 40.8 8.9 18.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.5 41.5 10.5 32.5 26.5 32.5 11.5 31.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.5 5.6 5.0 12.9 11.9 10.3 5.5 7.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 1.2 0.0 1.5 0.5 1.2 0.1 1.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 31.3
HCM 7th LOS C
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2025+Project
4: Tobu Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 414 0 7 376 0 4
Future Volume (vph) 414 0 7 376 0 4
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.865
Flt Protected 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 0 0 1861 1484 0
Flt Permitted 0.999
Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 0 0 1861 1484 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1322 1305 869
Travel Time (s) 16.4 16.2 10.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 450 0 8 409 0 4
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 450 0 0 417 4 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC PM 2025+Project
4: Tobu Ave & Manning Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 414 0 7 376 0 4
Future Vol, veh/h 414 0 7 376 0 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 450 0 8 409 0 4
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 450 0 874 450
Stage 1 - - - - 450 -
Stage 2 - - - - 424 -
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 - - 1110 - 320 609
Stage 1 - - - - 642 -
Stage 2 - - - - 660 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1110 - 317 609
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 317 -
Stage 1 - - - - 642 -
Stage 2 - - - - 654 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.15 10.95

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 609 - - 33 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - 0.007 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 11 - - 8.3 0
HCM Lane LOS B - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2025+Project
5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 4 0 21 10 0 18 31 440 11 29 414 14 Future Volume (vph) 4 0 21 10 0 18 31 440 11 29 414 14
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.885 0.913 0.997 0.996
Flt Protected 0.993 0.983 0.997 0.997
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1637 0 0 1672 0 0 1852 0 0 1850 0
Flt Permitted 0.993 0.983 0.997 0.997
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1637 0 0 1672 0 0 1852 0 0 1850 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1588 698 1310 1321
Travel Time (s) 19.7 8.7 16.2 16.4
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 Adj. Flow (vph) 4 0 23 11 0 20 34 478 12 32 450 15
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 27 0 0 31 0 0 524 0 0 497 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC PM 2025+Project
5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 0 21 10 0 18 31 440 11 29 414 14
Future Vol, veh/h 4 0 21 10 0 18 31 440 11 29 414 14
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 0 23 11 0 20 34 478 12 32 450 15
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1066 1078 458 1065 1080 484 465 0 0 490 0 0 Stage 1 521 521 - 552 552 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 546 558 - 513 528 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 200 219 603 200 218 583 1096 - - 1073 - - Stage 1 539 532 - 518 515 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 522 512 - 544 528 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 178 201 603 177 201 583 1096 - - 1073 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 178 201 - 177 201 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 517 511 - 496 493 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 483 490 - 503 507 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 13.8 17.39 0.54 0.54

HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 115 - - 436 321 113 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.031 - - 0.062 0.095 0.029 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4 0 - 13.8 17.4 8.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.2 0.3 0.1 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2025+Project
6: Zumwalt Ave & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 37 49 37 21 41 37
Future Volume (vph) 37 49 37 21 41 37
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.923 0.936
Flt Protected 0.979 0.969
Satd. Flow (prot) 1550 0 0 1805 1744 0
Flt Permitted 0.979 0.969
Satd. Flow (perm) 1550 0 0 1805 1744 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1920 1972 678
Travel Time (s) 23.8 24.4 8.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 40 53 40 23 45 40
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 93 0 0 63 85 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC PM 2025+Project
6: Zumwalt Ave & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 37 49 37 21 41 37
Future Vol, veh/h 37 49 37 21 41 37
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 40 53 40 23 45 40
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 168 65 85 0 - 0
Stage 1 65 - - - - -
Stage 2 103 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 822 999 1512 - - -
Stage 1 958 - - - - -
Stage 2 921 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 800 999 1512 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 800 - - - - -
Stage 1 932 - - - - -
Stage 2 921 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 9.45 4.75 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1148 - 903 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 - 0.104 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 0 9.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.3 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2025+Project
7: S Buttonwillow Ave & E Springfield Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 38 44 40 482 406 33
Future Volume (vph) 38 44 40 482 406 33
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.927 0.990
Flt Protected 0.977 0.996
Satd. Flow (prot) 1554 0 0 1855 1844 0
Flt Permitted 0.977 0.996
Satd. Flow (perm) 1554 0 0 1855 1844 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1753 2642 1310
Travel Time (s) 21.7 32.8 16.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 41 48 43 524 441 36
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 89 0 0 567 477 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC PM 2025+Project
7: S Buttonwillow Ave & E Springfield Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 38 44 40 482 406 33
Future Vol, veh/h 38 44 40 482 406 33
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 41 48 43 524 441 36
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1070 459 477 0 - 0
Stage 1 459 - - - - -
Stage 2 611 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 245 602 1085 - - -
Stage 1 636 - - - - -
Stage 2 542 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 231 602 1085 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 231 - - - - -
Stage 1 600 - - - - -
Stage 2 542 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v19.03 0.65 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 138 - 345 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.04 - 0.258 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.5 0 19 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 1 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2025+Project
8: S Buttonwillow Ave & Dinuba Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 149 298 148 63 259 118 108 249 54 76 182 98 Future Volume (vph) 149 298 148 63 259 118 108 249 54 76 182 98 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.966 0.964 0.982 0.963
Flt Protected 0.988 0.993 0.987 0.989
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1778 0 0 1783 0 0 1805 0 0 1774 0
Flt Permitted 0.988 0.993 0.987 0.989
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1778 0 0 1783 0 0 1805 0 0 1774 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 4282 3376 788 2642
Travel Time (s) 53.1 41.9 9.8 32.8
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 Adj. Flow (vph) 162 324 161 68 282 128 117 271 59 83 198 107 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 647 0 0 478 0 0 447 0 0 388 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Roundabout
Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th Roundabout PM 2025+Project
8: S Buttonwillow Ave & Dinuba Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 14.2
Intersection LOS B
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 647 478 447 388
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 659 488 455 396
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 356 560 580 476
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 516 475 435 572
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.2 15.4 14.6 10.4
Approach LOS C C B B
Lane Left Left Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976
A (Intercept) 1380 1380 1380 1380
B (Slope) 1.02e-3 1.02e-3 1.02e-3 1.02e-3
Entry Flow, veh/h 659 488 455 396
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 960 779 764 849
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 0.980 0.982 0.980
Flow Entry, veh/h 647 478 447 388
Cap Entry, veh/h 942 764 750 832
V/C Ratio 0.687 0.626 0.596 0.466
Control Delay, s/veh 15.2 15.4 14.6 10.4

LOS C C B B
95th %tile Queue, veh 6 4 4 3
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2025+Project
9: Project Entrance & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 44 6 1 26 3
Future Volume (vph) 2 44 6 1 26 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.870 0.987
Flt Protected 0.958 0.957
Satd. Flow (prot) 1621 0 0 1785 1759 0
Flt Permitted 0.958 0.957
Satd. Flow (perm) 1621 0 0 1785 1759 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 698 1920 515
Travel Time (s) 8.7 23.8 6.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 2 48 7 1 28 3
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 50 0 0 8 31 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 0 0 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 15.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC PM 2025+Project
9: Project Entrance & North Ave 07/30/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.7
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 44 6 1 26 3
Future Vol, veh/h 2 44 6 1 26 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 2 48 7 1 28 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 50 0 40 26
Stage 1 - - - - 26 -
Stage 2 - - - - 14 -
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 - - 1557 - 971 1050
Stage 1 - - - - 996 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1009 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1557 - 967 1050
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 967 -
Stage 1 - - - - 996 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1004 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 6.28 8.81

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 975 - - 1543 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 - - 0.004 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.8 - - 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2030
1: N. East Ave & Manning Ave 07/23/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 535 46 24 570 41 29
Future Volume (vph) 535 46 24 570 41 29
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.989 0.944
Flt Protected 0.950 0.972
Satd. Flow (prot) 1842 0 1630 1863 1574 0
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.972
Satd. Flow (perm) 1842 0 1630 1863 1574 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 2176 1309 3105
Travel Time (s) 27.0 16.2 38.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 582 50 26 620 45 32
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 632 0 26 620 77 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 24 24 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC PM 2030
1: N. East Ave & Manning Ave 07/23/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 535 46 24 570 41 29
Future Vol, veh/h 535 46 24 570 41 29
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 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 582 50 26 620 45 32
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 632 0 1278 607
Stage 1 - - - - 607 -
Stage 2 - - - - 672 -
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 - - 951 - 183 497
Stage 1 - - - - 544 -
Stage 2 - - - - 508 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 951 - 178 497
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 178 -
Stage 1 - - - - 544 -
Stage 2 - - - - 494 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.36 26.45

HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 243 - - 951 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.313 - - 0.027 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 26.4 - - 8.9 -
HCM Lane LOS D - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.3 - - 0.1 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2030
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/23/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 37 505 43 224 510 16 52 59 249 16 56 29 Future Volume (vph) 37 505 43 224 510 16 52 59 249 16 56 29 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 55 0 0 115 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 0.99
Frt 0.988 0.996 0.850 0.961
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.977 0.992
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3487 0 1630 1853 0 0 1820 1458 0 1765 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.857 0.945
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 3487 0 1630 1853 0 0 1596 1458 0 1682 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 10 2 271 23
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1309 2645 1456 513
Travel Time (s) 16.2 32.8 18.0 6.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 40 549 47 243 554 17 57 64 271 17 61 32 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 40 596 0 243 571 0 0 121 271 0 110 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 2 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2030
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/23/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.6 22.0 8.6 20.6 20.0 20.0 20.0 24.5 24.5 Total Split (s) 13.0 31.0 30.0 48.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Total Split (%) 14.4% 34.4% 33.3% 53.3% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% Maximum Green (s) 8.4 26.4 25.4 43.4 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min Min
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 10.4 9.0 13.3 13.3
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 7.8 16.0 14.9 31.1 11.1 11.1 11.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.29 0.27 0.57 0.20 0.20 0.20
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.58 0.55 0.54 0.38 0.53 0.31
Control Delay (s/veh) 28.5 20.1 24.2 12.4 25.0 7.8 19.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 28.5 20.1 24.2 12.4 25.0 7.8 19.8

LOS C C C B C A B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.6 16.0 13.1 19.8
Approach LOS C B B B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 54.8
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.58
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 17.1 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary PM 2030
2: N Columbia Ave & Manning Ave 07/23/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 37 505 43 224 510 16 52 59 249 16 56 29 Future Volume (veh/h) 37 505 43 224 510 16 52 59 249 16 56 29 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 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 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 40 549 47 243 554 17 57 64 271 17 61 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 81 871 74 336 756 23 270 260 369 126 272 123 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.26 0.25 0.20 0.42 0.41 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 3303 282 1641 1803 55 583 1029 1460 115 1077 489 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 40 295 301 243 0 571 121 0 271 110 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1777 1808 1641 0 1859 1613 0 1460 1680 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 6.3 6.3 5.9 0.0 11.1 0.1 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.0 6.3 6.3 5.9 0.0 11.1 2.2 0.0 7.3 2.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.03 0.47 1.00 0.15 0.29
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 81 469 477 336 0 779 530 0 369 521 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.63 0.63 0.72 0.00 0.73 0.23 0.00 0.74 0.21 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 343 1116 1135 992 0 1901 1039 0 849 1042 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.9 14.0 14.0 16.0 0.0 10.5 12.8 0.0 14.8 12.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.6 1.4 1.4 3.0 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.0 2.9 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 0.4 1.9 1.9 1.8 0.0 2.7 0.7 0.0 1.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 24.5 15.4 15.4 18.9 0.0 11.8 13.1 0.0 17.6 13.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C B B B B B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 636 814 392 110
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.0 13.9 16.2 13.0
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.9 12.8 15.3 14.9 6.1 22.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.8 25.4 26.4 24.8 8.4 43.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.3 7.9 8.3 4.1 3.0 13.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.3 0.7 2.0 0.3 0.0 2.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 15.0
HCM 7th LOS B
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2030
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/23/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 74 334 122 63 286 116 172 269 31 110 274 75 Future Volume (vph) 74 334 122 63 286 116 172 269 31 110 274 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 Storage Length (ft) 250 0 200 110 130 200 80 90
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96
Frt 0.960 0.850 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3369 0 1630 3539 1458 1630 3539 1458 1630 1863 1458 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 3369 0 1630 3539 1430 1630 3539 1409 1630 1863 1407 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 44 136 136 177
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 2645 965 1321 4072
Travel Time (s) 32.8 12.0 16.4 50.5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 2 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 80 363 133 68 311 126 187 292 34 120 298 82 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 80 496 0 68 311 126 187 292 34 120 298 82 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2030
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/23/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.5 35.7 8.5 35.7 35.7 8.5 31.3 31.3 8.5 31.3 31.3 Total Split (s) 28.0 39.0 26.0 37.0 37.0 29.0 33.0 33.0 22.0 26.0 26.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 32.5% 21.7% 30.8% 30.8% 24.2% 27.5% 27.5% 18.3% 21.7% 21.7% Maximum Green (s) 23.5 34.5 21.5 32.5 32.5 24.5 28.5 28.5 17.5 21.5 21.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 24.2 24.2 24.2 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 12.1 18.5 9.4 15.8 15.8 15.6 31.7 31.7 11.9 28.1 28.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.21 0.11 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.36 0.36 0.14 0.32 0.32 v/c Ratio 0.36 0.66 0.39 0.49 0.34 0.64 0.23 0.06 0.54 0.50 0.14 Control Delay (s/veh) 43.1 34.2 47.9 36.2 7.8 46.7 23.5 0.2 48.6 32.5 0.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (s/veh) 43.1 34.2 47.9 36.2 7.8 46.7 23.5 0.2 48.6 32.5 0.5

LOS D C D D A D C A D C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 35.4 30.7 30.4 31.1
Approach LOS D C C C
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 87.3
Natural Cycle: 85
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.66
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 32.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary PM 2030
3: S Buttonwillow Ave & Manning Ave 07/23/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 74 334 122 63 286 116 172 269 31 110 274 75 Future Volume (veh/h) 74 334 122 63 286 116 172 269 31 110 274 75 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 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 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 80 363 133 68 311 126 187 292 34 120 298 82 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 168 534 192 86 573 230 232 1402 560 153 647 491 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.05 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.39 0.39 0.09 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 2533 911 1641 3554 1425 1641 3554 1419 1641 1870 1417 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 80 253 243 68 311 126 187 292 34 120 298 82 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1777 1667 1641 1777 1425 1641 1777 1419 1641 1870 1417 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 9.5 9.7 3.0 5.8 4.4 8.0 3.9 1.1 5.2 9.0 1.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 9.5 9.7 3.0 5.8 4.4 8.0 3.9 1.1 5.2 9.0 1.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 168 374 351 86 573 230 232 1402 560 153 647 491 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.67 0.69 0.79 0.54 0.55 0.81 0.21 0.06 0.79 0.46 0.17 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 534 849 796 488 1599 641 556 1402 560 397 647 491 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 30.6 26.2 26.3 33.8 27.9 15.3 30.0 14.4 13.6 32.1 18.4 7.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 2.1 2.5 14.7 0.8 2.0 6.5 0.3 0.2 8.6 2.3 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 3.7 3.6 1.4 2.2 1.8 3.2 1.4 0.3 2.2 3.7 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 32.7 28.4 28.8 48.5 28.7 17.3 36.5 14.8 13.8 40.6 20.7 7.7 LnGrp LOS C C C D C B D B B D C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 576 505 513 500
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.1 28.5 22.6 23.4
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.2 33.0 8.3 19.7 14.7 29.5 11.9 16.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.5 28.5 21.5 34.5 24.5 21.5 23.5 32.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.2 5.9 5.0 11.7 10.0 11.0 5.3 7.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 1.2 0.1 1.8 0.5 1.0 0.2 1.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 26.0
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2030
4: Tobu Ave & Manning Ave 07/23/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 423 0 0 383 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 423 0 0 383 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 0 0 1863 1716 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 0 0 1863 1716 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 965 771 1109
Travel Time (s) 12.0 9.6 13.7
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 460 0 0 416 0 0
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 460 0 0 416 0 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC PM 2030
4: Tobu Ave & Manning Ave 07/23/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 423 0 0 383 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 423 0 0 383 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 460 0 0 416 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 460 0 876 460
Stage 1 - - - - 460 -
Stage 2 - - - - 416 -
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 - - 1101 - 319 601
Stage 1 - - - - 636 -
Stage 2 - - - - 666 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1101 - 319 601
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 319 -
Stage 1 - - - - 636 -
Stage 2 - - - - 666 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 1101 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 0 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2030
5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/23/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 4 21 31 459 448 14
Future Volume (vph) 4 21 31 459 448 14
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.885 0.996
Flt Protected 0.993 0.997
Satd. Flow (prot) 1508 0 0 1857 1855 0
Flt Permitted 0.993 0.997
Satd. Flow (perm) 1508 0 0 1857 1855 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1588 1310 1321
Travel Time (s) 19.7 16.2 16.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 4 23 34 499 487 15
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 0 0 533 502 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC PM 2030
5: S Buttonwillow Ave & North Ave 07/23/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 21 31 459 448 14
Future Vol, veh/h 4 21 31 459 448 14
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 4 23 34 499 487 15
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1061 495 502 0 - 0
Stage 1 495 - - - - -
Stage 2 566 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 248 575 1062 - - -
Stage 1 613 - - - - -
Stage 2 568 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 237 575 1062 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 237 - - - - -
Stage 1 586 - - - - -
Stage 2 568 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v13.16 0.54 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 114 - 468 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 - 0.058 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.5 0 13.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.2 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM 2030
6: Zumwalt Ave & North Ave 07/23/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 39 56 46 28 44 37
Future Volume (vph) 39 56 46 28 44 37
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1900 1900 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.920 0.939
Flt Protected 0.980 0.970
Satd. Flow (prot) 1547 0 0 1807 1749 0
Flt Permitted 0.980 0.970
Satd. Flow (perm) 1547 0 0 1807 1749 0
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55
Link Distance (ft) 1009 1972 678
Travel Time (s) 12.5 24.4 8.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 42 61 50 30 48 40
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 103 0 0 80 88 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC PM 2030
6: Zumwalt Ave & North Ave 07/23/2025
Scenario 1 Baseline Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 39 56 46 28 44 37
Future Vol, veh/h 39 56 46 28 44 37
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
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 42 61 50 30 48 40
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 198 68 88 0 - 0
Stage 1 68 - - - - -
Stage 2 130 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 790 995 1508 - - -
Stage 1 955 - - - - -
Stage 2 896 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 764 995 1508 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 764 - - - - -
Stage 1 923 - - - - -
Stage 2 896 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 9.6 4.64 0